What is actually alarming is the number of people who think that if the government decided to take away your constitutional rights that signing petitions and voting for other politicians will somehow restore those rights.If they can take away your rights or falsely reinterpret a right as a means of denying you a right then they can do the same thing with the first amendment,your right to vote and other many other rights.
I bet Kaddafi, Mubarak, Milosevic, Pinochet, Ceausescu, Duvalier, etc. all thought they had vastly superior fire power and could never be ousted. :doh
.
Perhaps the rights of THE PEOPLE extend to more than just keeping the government in check. Perhaps the founding fathers saw a need for the citizens to maintain their right to self defense against both crown and the literally hundreds of thousands of violent criminal acts perpetrated against citizens daily. Considering the right WAS enumerated in the constitution...Id say you are doing nothing more than projecting your own personal bias against guns onto the issue. Just a thought.
Stepping away from that...I believe the founding fathers would PUKE on anyone that would willingly disarm themselves and expect someone else to provide for their own security and the safety of their families.
Understanding what we do about the character and nature of our foundign fathers, I cant see them creating or allowing for a revolving door criminal justice system that puts so many violent offenders on the street, nor do I see them tolerating the "wah, poor me take care of me", entitlement system that breeds sloth and has contriubuted to the decline of our society. People tended to do everything they could do for themselves before turning to others. They worked to til lands, farm fields, build a nation, not sit on mommies couch playing Xbox and then complaining about how hard and unfair life is. It wasnt in the nature of people that stood up a great country to be dependent...on anyone or anything...to do for them what they themselves could do.Except in warfare I can't recall any accounts of any of the founding fathers carrying a musket or sidearm. Can you?
The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly what is says - specifically to maintain a militia and in a time when the government maintained essentially no military and even minimal law enforcement personnel. It says nothing about self defense from criminals.
People can debate and vote on gun rights issues. However, most claims of a constitutional right or intent of the "founding fathers" isn't accurate.
In THIS country you protect your rights with words and votes, not bullets and bombs.
People wanting AR15s, 50 cal sniper rifles and such because they may have to fight the government is a major reason both the government and many people don't want anyone having those weapons. It's bad PR for the 2nd Amendment to claim weapons are needed to protect our rights from the government.
If the government strips away your constitutional right to keep and bears then words and ballot boxes will be completely useless because the government can take those away to.
Considering one of the intents of the 2nd amendment to stop a tyrannical it is not bad PR to claim that weapons are need to protect our rights.What you are claiming amounts to saying it is bad PR to say that a car is for driving or that it is bad PR to say that oranges are orange.
The REALITY is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fully against people having arsenals of weapons for the purpose of taking on the government.
But I also stated it is nonsensical given whatever weapons you have don't equate to slingshots compared to the government's firepower. So it is really isn't that your weapons are to stop a tyranny. It is a desire to be able to become a martyr of a violent death. The government will always fulfill that wish anyone pursues. Explain how your weapons would stop tyranny of the government.
Don't misunderstand. I'm a big time gun owner.
Back in the founders' day the right to bear arms played a critical role in counterbalancing the threat to liberty that the government could potentially pose. It was like a safe catch. If all else failed to prevent the rise of some kind of totalitarian regime, if a lot of people had guns, they could put the regime down with force. At that time, it really was a serious right and a meaningful check on totalitarianism.
But that isn't the case anymore. In order for the general population to be able to serve as an effective counter to the US military the general population would need to have destructive capabilities far, far, beyond anything society could survive. Nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, spy satellites, bioweapons... Stuff we can't possibly let people have. Look at Iraq. Tons of people with years of military or even terrorist experience, equipped with military weaponry and explosives... Surface to air missles, land mines, even chemical weapons... And still they don't pose a serious threat to our military. American civilians with shotguns wouldn't be 10% of the threat that the insurgents in Iraq are. So, the right to bear arms has lost it's role as the last defender of liberty.
The real check now in that regard is that the military may choose not to comply with the orders of a totalitarian regime. But that's what would determine the outcome- how much of the military resisted and how much military hardware they were able to secure- not civilians with 22s.
So, what we're left with is just a policy analysis- do guns provide more benefit than harm. I tend to think that they provide marginally more benefit than harm. They're useful tools if you live somewhere rural. In some situations they provide more defensive benefit than the risk of accidents they carry. But that isn't like a real "rights" type issue to me. In my view it's just a policy issue at this point. Actually, I think it would probably be more appropriate for it to be handled like other policy issues by the legislature rather than a constitutional right, but I don't really care either way. So I would not join a violent revolt or whatever.
Full auto .50 cals are protected if the constitution is properly interpreted, actually so are cars and oranges under property rights. But you are right, the second amendment actually gives the gun the largest circle of protection.Full auto 50 cals aren't like cars and oranges.
Doesn't matter. We live in a democratic republic with supreme law called the constitution. Meaning if you were even right about the numbers it doesn't matter because their rights are protected as long as they don't do anything illegal(under a proper law).The REALITY is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are fully against people having arsenals of weapons for the purpose of taking on the government. They are seen are exorbitantly dangerous and history shows within those ranks are exorbitantly dangerous people.
Full auto .50 cals are protected if the constitution is properly interpreted, actually so are cars and oranges under property rights. But you are right, the second amendment actually gives the gun the largest circle of protection.
Doesn't matter. We live in a democratic republic with supreme law called the constitution. Meaning if you were even right about the numbers it doesn't matter because their rights are protected as long as they don't do anything illegal(under a proper law).
No need to emotionalize. Amendments 2-5 pretty much spell out the right to property. The second protects the property deemed as arms, the third states that no soldiers are to be quartered in a time of peace(read into it this means that your home is your domain(or property), as well many states deem your vehicle to be an extension of your property(domain)) the fourths amendment sets the table for search and seizure, if one cares to read into that it explicitly means that your property(cars, oranges, etc.) are in fact yours and ONLY through due process may they be forfeit. The fifth reasserts the due process within the 3rd and 4th. So yes it "does say what I want it to" from a logical perspective, the only way someone would not read into it is if they do not agree with the writings.The constitution doesn't say what you want it to. There is no inherent right to own anything granted in it. Quote the section that says you have a constitutional right to have oranges and cars. It's not there. There is a process the government has to go through to take away property that you already have. The government outlaws possession of stuff all the time and has for a very long period of time.
How wrong you are. Yes you must have a register on silenced weapons, "sawed off" shotguns are banned by law(state I think), and any full auto weapons after 1986 are outright banned, even with the FFLIII license they are not legal to be owned by citizens. These are infringements, some have slight merit, but would never survive a true necessary and proper test.The government - to sidestep the 2nd amendment issue - didnt' directly outlaw full autos, short barrel shotguns, silencers etc. Rather, the government imposed a HUGE tax (for the time) of $200 each PLUS a requirement for "approval" of ownership. That was such a large sum of money few did or even could pay it. The penalty for not having the license (which technically is a tax receipt) is MAJOR jail time.
The second argument is easy, one only has to point to the intent of the poll tax and relate it to a government using overpricing to disbar ownership, an unbiased court would have to throw out the requirement.So to challenge it first you would have to argue the government can't tax items - which it can - and second if you paid the tax that you were unfairly denied approval. Ever price a trip to the Supreme Court?
Laws can be very easy, you only need a few factors. 1) Necessary 2) Proper 3) Enforcement. Convoluted laws only serve one purpose, they are harder for the average person to follow which is why we have so many long ones."Law" is none so simplistic as people like to make it.
This is a non-sequitur, also a strawman. You are creating an image of people who do not want their property and rights stripped without due process as murderers, this does not follow the language presented. If the courts side with the people that is a win, if the courts side with the politicians against the very plain writing of the constitution there is less recourse. The "revolutionaries" you are describing have no intention of doing harm until it is a last resort. This is why I've been clear throughout that this is currently a hypothetical. Again, you are bringing in emotional words like "fun" to describe something I would say 99.9% of people do not want, which is violence.But here is a relevant question then. If you BELIEVE the constitution says you can have a full automatic and IF you believe protecting your gun rights worth a revolution over, why not instead convert a semi-auto to auto, go to the cop-shop with it, and then tell your court appointed lawyer you want to take the issue to the US Supreme Court for a determination? Or is it just more fun to think of gunning down members of Congress or the BATF?
What part of this are you missing? I am being serious, the whole point of the intial question is what people would do when the rights are stripped by extra constitutional methods and thus circumventing due process. At that point one doesn't have a peaceful recourse. As well, what makes you think the counter suits by second amendment activists aren't actions seeking legal recourse?Exercise your legal rights and then go to court over it - OR go to court asking for a declaratory ruling that you can own a full auto before having one. That would seem the first step and armed revolution the last.
Joko, you don't appear to be very well versed in civil law, american history or the constitution, although you definately view yourself as somewhat of an authority.The constitution doesn't say what you want it to. There is no inherent right to own anything granted in it. Quote the section that says you have a constitutional right to have oranges and cars. It's not there. There is a process the government has to go through to take away property that you already have. The government outlaws possession of stuff all the time and has for a very long period of time.
The government - to sidestep the 2nd amendment issue - didnt' directly outlaw full autos, short barrel shotguns, silencers etc. Rather, the government imposed a HUGE tax (for the time) of $200 each PLUS a requirement for "approval" of ownership. That was such a large sum of money few did or even could pay it. The penalty for not having the license (which technically is a tax receipt) is MAJOR jail time.
So to challenge it first you would have to argue the government can't tax items - which it can - and second if you paid the tax that you were unfairly denied approval. Ever price a trip to the Supreme Court?
"Law" is none so simplistic as people like to make it.
But here is a relevant question then. If you BELIEVE the constitution says you can have a full automatic and IF you believe protecting your gun rights worth a revolution over, why not instead convert a semi-auto to auto, go to the cop-shop with it, and then tell your court appointed lawyer you want to take the issue to the US Supreme Court for a determination? Or is it just more fun to think of gunning down members of Congress or the BATF?
Exercise your legal rights and then go to court over it - OR go to court asking for a declaratory ruling that you can own a full auto before having one. That would seem the first step and armed revolution the last.
As for me? I'm really easy going. I do come across guys who have converted to full auto. My response is "give me that!" and that they can come pick it back up in a couple of days after I tore it down, removing whatever made it full auto, and explaining I wouldn't give them another break - or if they don't like that instead I can just call the BATF and we'll let them decide how to proceed.
Without exception they all liked my way better. But if they'll pay for the bullets I'll let them fire one of my legally licensed full autos - or they can just buy a bumpstock which the BATF allows and it's virtually the same as full auto in rate of fire. Where most people get tagged is on short barrel shotguns not realizing the SEVERE penalties the BATF imposes - real jail time. I like the "good ole backwoods boys" and just take care of it at the time rather than making a criminal or federal case out of it (literally). I don't like angry kooks that make threats though. Big difference between guys who want to play with guns and want to arm for revolution.
No need to emotionalize. Amendments 2-5 pretty much spell out the right to property. The second protects the property deemed as arms, the third states that no soldiers are to be quartered in a time of peace(read into it this means that your home is your domain(or property), as well many states deem your vehicle to be an extension of your property(domain)) the fourths amendment sets the table for search and seizure, if one cares to read into that it explicitly means that your property(cars, oranges, etc.) are in fact yours and ONLY through due process may they be forfeit. The fifth reasserts the due process within the 3rd and 4th. So yes it "does say what I want it to" from a logical perspective, the only way someone would not read into it is if they do not agree with the writings.
How wrong you are. Yes you must have a register on silenced weapons, "sawed off" shotguns are banned by law(state I think), and any full auto weapons after 1986 are outright banned, even with the FFLIII license they are not legal to be owned by citizens. These are infringements, some have slight merit, but would never survive a true necessary and proper test.
The second argument is easy, one only has to point to the intent of the poll tax and relate it to a government using overpricing to disbar ownership, an unbiased court would have to throw out the requirement.
Laws can be very easy, you only need a few factors. 1) Necessary 2) Proper 3) Enforcement. Convoluted laws only serve one purpose, they are harder for the average person to follow which is why we have so many long ones.
This is a non-sequitur, also a strawman. You are creating an image of people who do not want their property and rights stripped without due process as murderers, this does not follow the language presented. If the courts side with the people that is a win, if the courts side with the politicians against the very plain writing of the constitution there is less recourse. The "revolutionaries" you are describing have no intention of doing harm until it is a last resort. This is why I've been clear throughout that this is currently a hypothetical. Again, you are bringing in emotional words like "fun" to describe something I would say 99.9% of people do not want, which is violence.
What part of this are you missing? I am being serious, the whole point of the intial question is what people would do when the rights are stripped by extra constitutional methods and thus circumventing due process. At that point one doesn't have a peaceful recourse. As well, what makes you think the counter suits by second amendment activists aren't actions seeking legal recourse?
Hide my gat.
Make a potato gun.
It wouldn't be a easy thing to do, but this scenario is definately possible. I would ask those who are against guns or that would merely stand by and let this happen, what if you needed guns in the future? I just got done watching "Schindler's List" the other day and I noticed when the SS Nazis came to do, take, and murder whomever or whatever they pleased none of the jews had any power to do anything because they had no weapons. If they had weapons they'd atleast go down with a fighting chance. Now I do not believe anything like that is in sight now or any time soon, but in the future who's to say? Once a right is gone it's usually gone forever.
American can't ban the 2nd Amendment, so you could you elaborate a bit more. I mean, come on!Personally if this happened I wouldn't consider it America anymore, so I'd probably go with violent revolution.
Love it! You could put your eye out kid...lol :lol:
Seriously, I bet you could knock someone on their ass with one.
Put a large steel ballbearing into a competition grade paint ball gun and you got some damage coming at close range.
Crossbows are still exceptionally lethal. Quiet too.
Also again, if they must prove you can't have it then you have a right to it. For instance, I can buy a car anytime my means allow, the difference is in operation, if I want to use public roads I must prove through licensure that I am capable of using it. Usage and ownership are two different things. I don't have to license to buy a weapon because I have a right to arms, I don't have to have a license to own a vehicle, merely to utilize it in public, and I don't have to have permission to own other property. In order for the government to take it legally they must prove I didn't have a right to it or through due process I owe something of value to someone. This is to be understood that the property is my RIGHT. You are asking for a literal word for word reading of what is in plain sight when viewed through the entirety of the document.Again, no article of the constitutions says you have a right to own apples and cars. It only describes the steps of the government to take those away if you already have them.
We are not the entire world, we are the United States of America. They have their problems I have mine. I am not willing to let my back yard get dirty by paying too much attention to theirs.I am equally being serious. All people live under some level of government oppression and denial of rights. The overwhelming vast majority of people in the world, including the "free world" are extremely restricted from gun ownership.
And under what criteria do you make this analysis? Considering plenty of snipers are now civilians who care deeply about this country. Many civilians are crack shots as well. You seem to live under the impression that only the military has sufficient tactical/weapons training and that people will just accept anything done by government. Neither is the case.Slogans don't make realities. Other than as a sniper assassin until caught/killed, a firearm has no relevancy in terms of a modern armed revolution in the USA. Nor would people support one. Its just not reality.
There are plenty of people who will not surrender rights without a fight. All you are doing here is an appeal to ridicule.In terms of reality, it has little more meaning than if a bumpersticker read "You'll take my pocket knife when you pry it from my dead cold hand." This isn't a 3rd world country where guns rule government.
Ask Ghadaffi about citizen revolt. He had plenty of soviet left overs.The only successful violent revolution in this country could be by the military and military takeovers - though my start of good motives - don't turn out good for the people in the long run.
You really need to drop the personalizing. It's not about what you or I "want something to say" it's about the VERY plain language and relevant case law regarding not only second amendment but other BOR cases. I will not entertain this "what you want it to say" argument any further.Remember the OP - armed revolution if the government repealed the 2nd amendment or declared in nullified AS YOU SEE the 2nd amendment. It already did so, decades ago, in relation to all but the least potent of weaponry. The OP is NOT if the government abolished all rights and became a mass murderous oppressive dictatorial regime ala Joseph Stalin. The OP is what would you do if the government outlawed private gun ownership.
And with SCOTUS starting to hear arguments, the states are losing much these unconstitutional laws.I was speaking of the history of federal gun laws, not state laws. For most states they are far more restrictive than federal laws.
American can't ban the 2nd Amendment, so you could you elaborate a bit more. I mean, come on!
Don't misunderstand. I'm a big time gun owner. I can likely speculation the firepower of my weapons vastly exceeds whatever you have as I have licensed Class III and Destructive Device licenses and weapons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?