Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights

[Monahorns]

The "mah rights" thing was a dig, for sure, but I think it's safe to say that a Hobbesian state of nature isn't where the human race is at. I didn't say to eliminate the 2nd amendment or any others. I think there's a path that the U.S. could take that is similar to other nations and even MIGHT have success, but we're not going to go down that route for the reasons that you could probably enumerate for me.

Hobbes was a ***** as far as I'm concerned. Very dangerous ideas only eclipsed by Rousseau.

 

[Monahorns]

Sarcasm aside, there are laws in place now that "infringe" upon individual rights contained in those amendments, including but not limited to the 2nd one.

Yes. Get rid of them they violate the supreme law of the land.

 

[Horns11]

Yes. Get rid of them they violate the supreme law of the land.

Good to know you're fine with rocket launchers and what-not.

 

[iatrogenic]

AR 15s are not rocket launchers. Neither are Pump 30 06 rifles, but that was on the last "assault rifle" list. Frankly, neither you nor the libs are fooling anyone with your plea of "let's try this". The Dems have made their position very clear, just as other dictators have done throughout the world.

 

[OUBubba]

Good to know you're fine with rocket launchers and what-not.

Exactly. Rifles so that we can "keep the US military at bay" is a ship that sailed with the nuclear sub.

 

[humahuma]

Who said we are trying to keep the US military at Bay?

 

[theiioftx]

I can guarantee you whose side the military will be on if there is a civil war. They are willing to die to keep Americans free.

 

[iatrogenic]

Exactly. Rifles so that we can "keep the US military at bay" is a ship that sailed with the nuclear sub.

Interesting Okie. Tell me more about the impending attack on Americans by Americans.

 

[Horns11]

AR 15s are not rocket launchers. Neither are Pump 30 06 rifles, but that was on the last "assault rifle" list. Frankly, neither you nor the libs are fooling anyone with your plea of "let's try this". The Dems have made their position very clear, just as other dictators have done throughout the world.

Wait, so there ARE laws that prohibit certain types of arms? I thought you said that the Constitution was what I needed to peruse to better understand limitations on gun ownership?

Don't be such a jerk. I've made my stance clear, and lumping me in with the "take away all the guns" Boogeyman is dishonest and stupid.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I can guarantee you whose side the military will be on if there is a civil war. They are willing to die to keep Americans free.

They'd be against those taking up guns against the government. Hint: those who's views were represented by the assault on the Capital building. Notice it's not progressives calling for "civil war". RIP to those who keep advocating for Civil War. Your conservative media masters enjoy your clicks and viewing/listening habits. Just remember that when in court, they always claim they exist for entertainment purposes only. That goes for Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones.

 

[iatrogenic]

Wait, so there ARE laws that prohibit certain types of arms? I thought you said that the Constitution was what I needed to peruse to better understand limitations on gun ownership?

Don't be such a jerk. I've made my stance clear, and lumping me in with the "take away all the guns" Boogeyman is dishonest and stupid.

Yes, there are laws infringing on gun ownership. Congrats on finding that info. There have been many idiotic laws passed.
Your position is not clear. How, exactly, do you want to infringe on the rights of Americans?

 

[Horns11]

1. I'm not sure why you think that prohibiting rocket launchers is idiotic. That's actually somewhat concerning.

2. I mentioned in the other post that many countries have tried lots of initiatives without straight up banning all weapons. I'm not in favor of the UK model (no self defense as a reason for license), but I think I'd be able to pass through the Japanese model in my current condition. People who think it's too arduous to re-up every 3 years are ignoring every other hoop we have to do more often than that. I also like the idea of a specific license per weapon rather than for the person.

 

[theiioftx]

They'd be against those taking up guns against the government. Hint: those who's views were represented by the assault on the Capital building. Notice it's not progressives calling for "civil war". RIP to those who keep advocating for Civil War. Your conservative media masters enjoy your clicks and viewing/listening habits. Just remember that when in court, they always claim they exist for entertainment purposes only. That goes for Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones.

What I’m talking about is not fringe nuts marching into the capitol as a protest. When the government starts showing up to homes to take weapons, it will be the darkest of times. Military and police officers are largely private gun owners too.

The reason they are leaving the fence up with the national guard surrounding it is because they are afraid of how half the country may react to their far left laws. I’m not calling for civil war, I’m fearful that it will be inevitable when they start implementing and forcing their views on freedom loving Americans.

 

[iatrogenic]

1. I'm not sure why you think that prohibiting rocket launchers is idiotic. That's actually somewhat concerning.

2. I mentioned in the other post that many countries have tried lots of initiatives without straight up banning all weapons. I'm not in favor of the UK model (no self defense as a reason for license), but I think I'd be able to pass through the Japanese model in my current condition. People who think it's too arduous to re-up every 3 years are ignoring every other hoop we have to do more often than that. I also like the idea of a specific license per weapon rather than for the person.

First, our society is nothing like Japanese society, whatever their gun rules are, and we will never be like them. That is like saying you want to be like Usain Bolt because he is tall and fast. Ain’t gonna happen. I’ll let you figure out the obvious reasons why we are different.

Re-up what every three years?

You still haven’t explained EXACTLY how you want to violate the constitution. Be specific.

 

[OUBubba]

What I’m talking about is not fringe nuts marching into the capitol as a protest. When the government starts showing up to homes to take weapons, it will be the darkest of times. Military and police officers are largely private gun owners too.

The reason they are leaving the fence up with the national guard surrounding it is because they are afraid of how half the country may react to their far left laws. I’m not calling for civil war, I’m fearful that it will be inevitable when they start implementing and forcing their views on freedom loving Americans.

Those were not fringe nuts. I mean there were some fringe nuts but many of them walk amongst us. They were people we see at football games and soccer games. They were realtors and truck drivers and welders and travel agents. They were also trying to stop the certification of a validated election that they disagreed with.

 

[theiioftx]

Those were not fringe nuts. I mean there were some fringe nuts but many of them walk amongst us. They were people we see at football games and soccer games. They were realtors and truck drivers and welders and travel agents. They were also trying to stop the certification of a validated election that they disagreed with.

You live in Oklahoma. Yes, there were regular people who support Trump at the rally. The people storming the capitol to sit in Pelosi’s chair were nuts.

 

[humahuma]

My cuz is a current lieutenant in the marines , she told me 95% of the officers who voted for Trump believe Biden did not win a fair election. I don’t think she would shoot me.

 

[iatrogenic]

They'd be against those taking up guns against the government. Hint: those who's views were represented by the assault on the Capital building. Notice it's not progressives calling for "civil war". RIP to those who keep advocating for Civil War. Your conservative media masters enjoy your clicks and viewing/listening habits. Just remember that when in court, they always claim they exist for entertainment purposes only. That goes for Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones.

How many guns were found at the Capitol protest?

 

[iatrogenic]

You live in Oklahoma. Yes, there were regular people who support Trump at the rally. The people storming the capitol to sit in Pelosi’s chair were nuts.

I might shoot Bubba in the *** with salt or rubber bullets for fun. Kind of like a carnival event at the Texas State Fair. Just need to figure out which is his *** end.

 

[OrangeShogun]

The guy who has threatened school officials and the law enforcement community and the judicial system? Yeah. He's also the guy who my mom (when she worked at the court house) said, he's just going to fly in here shooting some day.

Have any of his threats risen to the level of an actual crime? If so, and if convicted, he may in fact lose his right to own firearms. If not, then his 2A rights should remain in tact, regardless of your mommy's opinion.

 

[OUBubba]

Have any of his threats risen to the level of an actual crime? If so, and if convicted, he may in fact lose his right to own firearms. If not, then his 2A rights should remain in tact, regardless of your mommy's opinion.

He’s moved on from his anger. It was a few years ago.

 

[Horns11]

First, our society is nothing like Japanese society, whatever their gun rules are, and we will never be like them. That is like saying you want to be like Usain Bolt because he is tall and fast. Ain’t gonna happen. I’ll let you figure out the obvious reasons why we are different.

Re-up what every three years?

You still haven’t explained EXACTLY how you want to violate the constitution. Be specific.

Why would our society need to be like Japanese society in order to prove firearms competency every three years? I have to pay all sorts of taxes and prove my identity at least once a year for different reasons. Going to the range and checking a box that I'm still competent is a small hurdle.

I do think their requirement to turn in spent casings in order to purchase ammo more is kind of strict, in addition to some of what they call the "physical" requirements, like passing a weed test.

I'm also a fan of the Swiss model, as it's probably the outlier from "mainland" Europe. Sellers/buyers have to be able to produce a contract and keep it for 10 years. Ammo purchasing is databased. Although there's no chance we'd force the conscription issue, those who serve are allowed to keep the service weapon. They get a special permit and store their weapons in specific locations.

I also think we should go back to the Miller decision instead of Heller from a legal standpoint (have a "ceiling" of the types of weapons allowed at the federal level and allow states/counties/cities to further restrict if they want) as long as there's no straight-up ban on the ability to defend oneself.

 

[iatrogenic]

Why would our society need to be like Japanese society in order to prove firearms competency every three years? I have to pay all sorts of taxes and prove my identity at least once a year for different reasons. Going to the range and checking a box that I'm still competent is a small hurdle.

I do think their requirement to turn in spent casings in order to purchase ammo more is kind of strict, in addition to some of what they call the "physical" requirements, like passing a weed test.

I'm also a fan of the Swiss model, as it's probably the outlier from "mainland" Europe. Sellers/buyers have to be able to produce a contract and keep it for 10 years. Ammo purchasing is databased. Although there's no chance we'd force the conscription issue, those who serve are allowed to keep the service weapon. They get a special permit and store their weapons in specific locations.

I also think we should go back to the Miller decision instead of Heller from a legal standpoint (have a "ceiling" of the types of weapons allowed at the federal level and allow states/counties/cities to further restrict if they want) as long as there's no straight-up ban on the ability to defend oneself.

Why do you want the Japanese model? Does it work? What were results before and after? Do any of the bans work? Did the Clinton weapons ban work?

Do you support voter registration? Do you think Cuomo is a more dangerous weapon than any “assault weapon”? I’m pretty sure politicians are more dangerous than guns based on history. Maybe you should consider that when presenting useless licensing rules that are primarily designed to raise revenue. If the Dems keep moving toward socialism or communism the guns will come in very handy.

 

[bystander]

Exactly. Rifles so that we can "keep the US military at bay" is a ship that sailed with the nuclear sub.

The argument is not that the US Military could be defeated; it's that the President would know it would require US soldiers to kill US citizens. How'd that Kent State thing go? That is the deterrent. It would be a horrible situation. Unarmed, it would be so easy to round people up. I would never want to give that up and I don't even own a gun. Never have either. But I do not trust Liberals with absolute government power and the desire to disarm the populace down to a set of home protection that would fuel your statement: "You can't beat them so why fight to keep the guns?"

 

[Monahorns]

Good to know you're fine with rocket launchers and what-not.

Yes. Don't Tread On Me. Come And Take It. And all that.

 

[Monahorns]

Also, for all of you saying gun ownership is moot because of the US military's firepower, please think of several things:

• 4th generation warfare can be successful and it includes have a large difference in firepower or weapons capability
• Current gun ownership provides a way to repel initial military encroachments on citizens. Or it at least shifts the equation toward making it a more difficult and therefore less likely decision to attack citizens
• Once a war starts, the 2nd amendment is still in place. The right exists in nature anyway but use the amendments as representing the right. The citizens then have the right to bring in more powerful weapons to fight government tyranny. A rocket launcher today may be useless. But if there are tanks or helicopters attacking your neighborhood they are very appropriate to own.

I'm not calling for war. I am describing the weakness of the arguments against free gun ownership.

 

[AC]

I was at my Bitcoin ATM at Texas Gun Club yesterday, an indoor range that sells guns. They said AR's are selling out nationwide this week. They will be worth triple or quadruple present value in 6 months. They sold 28 AR's yesterday. All time record.

 

[Horns11]

Also, for all of you saying gun ownership is moot because of the US military's firepower, please think of several things:

• 4th generation warfare can be successful and it includes have a large difference in firepower or weapons capability
• Current gun ownership provides a way to repel initial military encroachments on citizens. Or it at least shifts the equation toward making it a more difficult and therefore less likely decision to attack citizens
• Once a war starts, the 2nd amendment is still in place. The right exists in nature anyway but use the amendments as representing the right. The citizens then have the right to bring in more powerful weapons to fight government tyranny. A rocket launcher today may be useless. But if there are tanks or helicopters attacking your neighborhood they are very appropriate to own.

I'm not calling for war. I am describing the weakness of the arguments against free gun ownership.

So a cabal of wealthy citizens, through free association or whatever, should be able to amass a stockpile of MQ-9 UAVs because of their right to bear arms? Or autonomous weapons? Or does that cross the imaginary line of pretended gun legislation?

If the anti- gun control types are always going to say "the line does not exist," we're WAY past that going back to the invention of guns. Which was pre-pre-pre-Enlightenment era.

Why do you want the Japanese model? Does it work? What were results before and after? Do any of the bans work? Did the Clinton weapons ban work?

Do you support voter registration? Do you think Cuomo is a more dangerous weapon than any “assault weapon”? I’m pretty sure politicians are more dangerous than guns based on history. Maybe you should consider that when presenting useless licensing rules that are primarily designed to raise revenue. If the Dems keep moving toward socialism or communism the guns will come in very handy.

You want results-based info that doesn't exist, which was kind of the point of my original post. Japan does actually have some of the oldest gun laws in the world thanks to the Meiji movement of the 19th century, but had to go through some major redos to those laws post-WW2. My original point was that we're always going to weigh the "**** happens but freedom good" lives that are lost in American gun violence against the red tape we're willing to put up with, and the "**** happens" crowd has won every time for the last 17 years. And the foreseeable future.

The only thing I saw about the AW ban of the 90s is that people who could have legally obtained them in the pre-ban days stopped using them to commit suicide at as high a rate, but that was correlated to economic prosperity too.

I don't know if any specific governor (more likely a state legislature) would be more dangerous in a ban situation, as the slippery slope of going from "no handguns" to "no guns at all" in the US pre-Heller hasn't been tested, and I wouldn't be in favor of that at either. There are not going to be bipartisan commissions on which weapons people should be able to own/use, like there are in other countries.

 

[Horn6721]

11
"The only thing I saw about the AW ban of the 90s is that people who could have legally obtained them in the pre-ban days stopped using them to commit suicide at as high a rate, "
I did not know they were used to commit suicide. Do you have a link?

Saying MQ-9 UAVs could be legally obtained by civilians is just plain silly and fear mongering.

 

[Horns11]

11
"The only thing I saw about the AW ban of the 90s is that people who could have legally obtained them in the pre-ban days stopped using them to commit suicide at as high a rate, "
I did not know they were used to commit suicide. Do you have a link?

Saying MQ-9 UAVs could be legally obtained by civilians is just plain silly and fear mongering.

I'll look for the suicide one again. It was a conservative magazine or think tank for sure, but I don't see it on a quick Google search right now.

As for the UAVs, tell that Monahorns. If rocket launchers aren't the line, then the line doesn't exist.