How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Does that include SWAT teams?

any civilian police department's weapons are designed for the defense of citizens against criminals==not military action. Thus any firearm owned, used or issued by a civilian LE agency is clearly within the proper umbrella of second amendment coverage

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

OMG, please change this to say 'non-military' instead of 'civilian'. I can't take 97 posts from haymarket about how the police aren't civilians.

Yeah we will get that nonsense but its just plain wrong. Civilian police agencies employ Civilians. If you aren't subject to the UMCMJ you are a civilian.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Even strident members of the Second Amendment support group accept a clear difference between civilians and the police and know that police are not civilians. This article from GUN RIGHTS MAGAZINE is a perfect example:

Civilians are Safer than Police | Gun Rights Magazine

So if all the dictionary writers are part of some anti-gun plot to identify police as non-civilians - I wonder who got to GUN RIGHTS MAGAZINE? :roll::lamo

colloquial nonsense. Police employed by civilian police departments are civilians. Did you ever give your US attorney a call? You know the ranking FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN YOUR DISTRICT

 

[washunut]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

*admin if this belongs in guns sorry, feel free to move it*

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm blown away by how many different interpretations I've heard of the 2nd Amendment. There are 3 words that have multiple definitions which make it more complicated than what it seems. Regulated, Militia and State. I've also heard people debate the term Arms.

The kicker is that everyone I talk to is absolutely certain their definition is the correct one and has a very long drawn out story of why. eace

My definition is that is what the state national guard is all about.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Even strident members of the Second Amendment support group accept a clear difference between civilians and the police and know that police are not civilians. This article from GUN RIGHTS MAGAZINE is a perfect example:

Civilians are Safer than Police | Gun Rights Magazine

So if all the dictionary writers are part of some anti-gun plot to identify police as non-civilians - I wonder who got to GUN RIGHTS MAGAZINE? :roll::lamo

Yes, I knew you'd go all haymarket on that. That is why I consider the following revision perfectly satisfactory:

citizens of the United States (of age, and sound mind and clean record) shall be able to own every weapon used by non-military police departments that operate within that citizen's home state or are used by non-military federal law enforcement officers

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yeah we will get that nonsense but its just plain wrong. Civilian police agencies employ Civilians. If you aren't subject to the UMCMJ you are a civilian.

Yeah, now we're in for another 257 posts about the definition of the word "is".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yes, I knew you'd go all haymarket on that. That is why I consider the following revision perfectly satisfactory:

citizens of the United States (of age, and sound mind and clean record) shall be able to own every weapon used by non-military police departments that operate within that citizen's home state or are used by non-military federal law enforcement officers

Not a problem, the gov't then defines the gun owning age at 147, the sound mind test to be producing an acceptable plan to balance the federal budget (after paying a non-refundable application fee of $100K) and a clean record as having a 4.0 GPA in the local public school.

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

any civilian police department's weapons are designed for the defense of citizens against criminals==not military action. Thus any firearm owned, used or issued by a civilian LE agency is clearly within the proper umbrella of second amendment coverage

For the record, I think the 2'nd Amendment needs to be completely changed.

Since 'arms' means any weapon, citizens should be able to own F-15's with JDAM's, Abrams MBT's and sophisticated AA weapons.

The 2'nd Amendment was written at a time when the militia WAS the military (in essence) as the standing army was small (something I believe it should be again) and the militia consisted of many of it's ranks literally bringing their primary weapons to the battlefield. Plus, it was written at a time when - outside of artillery - the gun was king on the battlefield.
Now, the gun is a minor player on a modern battlefield - especially during a major war. So, the soldier cannot bring his 'arms' to the battlefield (like F-15's).

I now interpret the 2'nd Amendment as, in essence, the public has the right to control the weapons of war so that a corrupt government cannot take that power away/ability to defend yourself by controlling a centralized stockpile of necessary weapons of war.

However, that is exactly what is happening today.

Having assault rifles with body armour is no match whatsoever for the weapons the government controls. If they know where you live, they can kill you by pressing a button and landing a cruise missile on your head while you sit in your home with your dozen guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

IMO, the purpose for the 2'nd Amendment has been rendered completely inert by the advancement of weapons technology.

You theoretically cannot allow private citizens to own the major weapons of war. Yet, without that, they are virtually powerless to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

Owning police weapons is near-useless against the 21'st century government. If they know where you are and want you dead...you are dead without them breaking a sweat.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Not a problem, the gov't then defines the gun owning age at 147, the sound mind test to be producing an acceptable plan to balance the federal budget (after paying a non-refundable application fee of $100K) and a clean record as having a 4.0 GPA in the local public school.

Cute. Very cute.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

For the record, I think the 2'nd Amendment needs to be completely changed.

Since 'arms' means any weapon, citizens should be able to own F-15's with JDAM's, Abrams MBT's and sophisticated AA weapons.

The 2'nd Amendment was written at a time when the militia WAS the military (in essence) as the standing army was small (something I believe it should be again) and the militia consisted of many of it's ranks literally bringing their primary weapons to the battlefield. Plus, it was written at a time when - outside of artillery - the gun was king on the battlefield.
Now, the gun is a minor player on a modern battlefield - especially during a major war. So, the soldier cannot bring his 'arms' to the battlefield (like F-15's).

I now interpret the 2'nd Amendment as, in essence, the public has the right to control the weapons of war so that a corrupt government cannot take that power away/ability to defend yourself by controlling a centralized stockpile of necessary weapons of war.

However, that is exactly what is happening today.

Having assault rifles with body armour is no match whatsoever for the weapons the government controls. If they know where you live, they can kill you by pressing a button and landing a cruise missile on your head while you sit in your home with your dozen guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

IMO, the purpose for the 2'nd Amendment has been rendered completely inert by the advancement of weapons technology.

You theoretically cannot allow private citizens to own the major weapons of war. Yet, without that, they are virtually powerless to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

Owning police weapons is near-useless against the 21'st century government. If they know where you are and want you dead...you are dead without them breaking a sweat.

you are incorrect. If the government becomes tyrannical-the solution is to take out those who are causing the problems. A politician that has 3 million patriots all armed with deer rifles trying to kill him won't last very long

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

you are incorrect. If the government becomes tyrannical-the solution is to take out those who are causing the problems. A politician that has 3 million patriots all armed with deer rifles trying to kill him won't last very long

You mean like in Syria...funny, I think their tyrannical leader is still alive. And the Syrian military is not nearly as sophisticated and powerful as it's U.S. counterpart.

No, if this tyrannical U.S. leader has a loyal military, those 3 million deer hunters will be wiped out before they get anywhere near him.

No rifle is a match for a JDAM equipped F-16. The latter could wipe out the hunter from 20,000 feet.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

If he has a loyal military, those 3 million deer hunters will be wiped out before they get anywhere near him.

No rifle is a match for a JDAM equipped F-16.

well if we get to that point, where members of the military are swearing an oath to a politician, instead of honoring the one they took to preserve protect and defend the constitution, then its a totalitarian state, and no one is safe.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You mean like in Syria...funny, I think their tyrannical leader is still alive. And the Syrian military is not nearly as sophisticated and powerful as it's U.S. counterpart.

No, if this tyrannical U.S. leader has a loyal military, those 3 million deer hunters will be wiped out before they get anywhere near him.

No rifle is a match for a JDAM equipped F-16. The latter could wipe out the hunter from 20,000 feet.

so the US military is going to bomb areas where military families might live

Most of the stuff we have today that is so "awesome" is designed to be used on areas our people won't be living in.

if 3 million people with 30-06 bolt guns and 10X scopes are trying to kill you, your life is going to be short and miserable

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

well if we get to that point, where members of the military are swearing an oath to a politician, instead of honoring the one they took to preserve protect and defend the constitution, then its a totalitarian state, and no one is safe.

Agreed.

But I was just dealing with the example put to me.

My point is that if the 2'nd Amendment is meant for the people to have the weapons of war at their disposal - and not let the government exclusively have that power - then normal citizens should be allowed to own F-15's and M1 main battle tanks ('right to bear arms').

And I doubt most Americans are prepared to allow that.

So - one way or the other - I think the 2'nd Amendment should be drastically altered.

How to do that - I don't know at this time.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Agreed.

But I was just dealing with the example put to me.

My point is that if the 2'nd Amendment is meant for the people to have the weapons of war at their disposal - and not let the government exclusively have that power - then normal citizens should be allowed to own F-15's and M1 main battle tanks ('right to bear arms').

And I doubt most Americans are prepared to allow that.

So - one way or the other - I think the 2'nd Amendment should be drastically altered.

How to do that - I don't know at this time.

do you disagree that citizens who currently are allowed-under federal law to own some firearms, are clearly-using the second amendment protections-"entitled" to own the same defensive weaponry that civilian police departments and civilian federal law enforcement agencies routinely issue?

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Agreed.

But I was just dealing with the example put to me.

My point is that if the 2'nd Amendment is meant for the people to have the weapons of war at their disposal - and not let the government exclusively have that power - then normal citizens should be allowed to own F-15's and M1 main battle tanks ('right to bear arms').

And I doubt most Americans are prepared to allow that.

So - one way or the other - I think the 2'nd Amendment should be drastically altered.

How to do that - I don't know at this time.

how can that be, the founders wrote (arms)...rifles, cannons, such things as you describe did not exist, and the founders had no ideas of such things.

the founders were clear enough becuase they state arms are for ones protection, from individuals, and government.

once you OPEN up, rights to be re-interpreted every group, will seek to change it to fit their agenda.......leave the constitution closed on rights.

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

so the US military is going to bomb areas where military families might live

Most of the stuff we have today that is so "awesome" is designed to be used on areas our people won't be living in.

if 3 million people with 30-06 bolt guns and 10X scopes are trying to kill you, your life is going to be short and miserable

I don't believe 3 million American snipers can defeat the United States military...even a relatively small part of it.

As for killing the Prez - he could hide anywhere. He could simply fly around in Air Force One until the military handles the 'rebellion'. Or hide in Cheyenne Mountain. Or some other secure area.

Like I stated, millions of Syrians have not been able to kill Assad - and his military is not remotely as powerful and capable as America's.

I guess you disagree.

So be it.

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

how can that be, the founders wrote (arms)...rifles, cannons, such things as you describe did not exist, and the founders had not ideas of such things.

the founders were clear enough becuase they state arms are for ones protection, from individuals, and government.

once you OPEN up, rights to be re-interpreted every group, will seek to change it to fit their agenda.......leave the constitution closed on rights.

Well, I believe the 2'nd Amendment is more to do with the militia then for one's own protection.

But even if you are right, what protection does a rifle offer you against a government armed with cruise missiles that can take you out with a push of a button?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I don't believe 3 million American snipers can defeat the United States military...even a relatively small part of it.

As for killing the Prez - he could hide anywhere. He could simply fly around in Air Force One until the military handles the 'rebellion'. Or hide in Cheyenne Mountain. Or some other secure area.

Like I stated, millions of Syrians have not been able to kill Assad - and his military is not remotely as powerful and capable as America's.

I guess you disagree.

So be it.

the issue isn't beating the military: its about ridding the nation of power hungry assholes in office

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Well, I believe the 2'nd Amendment is more to do with the militia the for one's own protection.

But even if you are right, what protection does a rifle offer you against a government armed with cruise missiles?

well if america were to move towards altering our government, and the people do have that right.

if the government moves to stop them, then if is violating the very founding principles of american, and the law....u.s code.

so all bets are off, the government then has become a dictatorship, i suspect some members of the military will obey the orders given them, and some will not, so arms in the hands of individuals [some in powerful positions] will be on both sides.

even the roman army fought against itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Well, I believe the 2'nd Amendment is more to do with the militia then for one's own protection.

But even if you are right, what protection does a rifle offer you against a government armed with cruise missiles that can take you out with a push of a button?

you kill the people pushing the buttons. You kill those who give the order to push the button. Do you think the mayor of NYC would order a cruise missile nuke to strike Manhattan?

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

if would not just be a fight of government vs the people, but one also of government vs the states and the people, ...my state does not like the federal government at all, and so do many states.

 

[DA60]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

well if america were to move towards altering our government, and the people do have that right.

if the government moves to stop them, then if is violating the very founding principles of american, and the law....u.s code.

so all bets are off, the government then has become a dictatorship, i suspect some members of the military will obey the orders given them, and some will not, so arms in the hands of individuals [some in powerful positions] will be on both sides.

even the roman army fought against itself.

I agree.

But my point is the 'right to bear arms'.

If one if the reasons for it - as you say - is to protect you against the government.

What is the point if the weapons you have offer only a tiny fraction of the firepower of what the government has?

I am not saying it is wrong or right.

I am simply asking, what is the point as it is now written?

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

colloquial nonsense. Police employed by civilian police departments are civilians. Did you ever give your US attorney a call? You know the ranking FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN YOUR DISTRICT

Even GUN RIGHTS MAGAZINE thinks you are wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I agree.

But my point is the 'right to bear arms'.

If one if the reasons for it - as you say - is to protect you against the government.

What is the point if the weapons you have offer only a tiny fraction of the firepower of what the government has?

I am not saying it is wrong or right.

I am simply asking, what is the point as it is now written?

I think the fear of assassination does keep some politicians in line. not the fear of some nutcase like Squeaky Frome or John "I wanna bed Jodie Foster" Hinckley but when upstanding citizens say enough is enough (Like the Doctor who shot to death scumbag Hughey Long) that is what the would be dictators fear.