Gun Control A History

[Revoltingest]

That's New York City. though, isn't it?

NYC?
You couldn't pay me enuf to live there.
I live in SE MI, near ultra-liberal Ann Arbor.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The path to today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from one (1) source:

The US Constitution.

Gun-grabbers conveniently ignore the following phrase:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Again..."...shall NOT be infringed."

I'm always fascinated that people are unable to comprehend "shall NOT."

It's pretty simple.

The Governor of Nebraska has declared Nebraska as a "2nd Amendment Sanctuary State," meaning that Washington's impending, unconstitutional edicts will be ignored. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

The Left seems intent on stripping away our Constitutional Rights to consolidate one-party rule, in perpetuity, for Democrats. They falsely assume that 50% of the populace will sit idly by while this happens.

Cold, dead fingers...

 

[Jacques de Molay]

One thing I never understood about the US is how people accept so easily that others carry guns, but if a woman shows her breast in public it's like a big scandal. I'm not condoning nudity but I'd be a lot more worried about weapons than body parts.

It's not hard to understand.

The RIGHT to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. That crucial amendment is actually the most important one, because without it, the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

There's no "Right" to public indecency.

In that regard, the increasingly libertine society we live in is akin to the frog slowly boiling in a pot of water.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Lol
Unless you guys have tanks and nuclear missiles, you guys do realise your military already outguns you now? The US military could crush the “well armed farmers” in a millisecond without even thinking about it. If the US ever tried to go against the government owned military today, it’d be a slaughter. It’s not like in the olden days when guns were roughly on the same playing field everywhere
PR keeps the government owned military in line more than the second amendment, if anything

LOL, you think that the military - most of who come from Pro-2A Red States - would simply open fire on civilians, you're deluded.

Half of them would go AWOL and join the resistance.

And that doesn't even take into account the MILLIONS of retired, experienced, and well-armed ex-military folks in Red States.

You obviously don't know much about history. We thought we'd "crush" those poor Vietnamese peasants, too...

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The whole "we can stop the government with a couple of guys with hunting rifles" argument is evidently little more than a self-serving empowerment fantasy for gun collectors. Whenever the US government came under actual threat by armed everymen, the results were as conclusive as they were brutal.

A "couple of guys"..?

LOL!

 

[Vee]

It's not hard to understand.

The RIGHT to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. That crucial amendment is actually the most important one, because without it, the Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

There's no "Right" to public indecency.

In that regard, the increasingly libertine society we live in is akin to the frog slowly boiling in a pot of water.

Isn't the constitution a legal document? Over here in France they changed it several times over the years, so I guess the constitution, like so many other things, could be changed if needed, no?
I'm not a fan a public indecency, but I've never been afraid of a person without clothes. But if someone with a few screws loose pulls up a gun and starts shooting, I'll be scared... or dead, wounded if I'm lucky.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Isn't the constitution a legal document? Over here in France they changed it several times over the years, so I guess the constitution, like so many other things, could be changed if needed, no?
I'm not a fan a public indecency, but I've never been afraid of a person without clothes. But if someone with a few screws loose pulls up a gun and starts shooting, I'll be scared... or dead, wounded if I'm lucky.

The Constitution IS a legal document, and it CAN be changed, but only through a specific, detailed process outlined in the Constitution.

Depending on the situation, I could be afraid of a person without clothes. For example, a large, naked man walking down the street in the middle of the day is obviously crazy, so it's not his nudity that makes him dangerous, but what the nudity implies...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Isn't the constitution a legal document? Over here in France they changed it several times over the years, so I guess the constitution, like so many other things, could be changed if needed, no?
I'm not a fan a public indecency, but I've never been afraid of a person without clothes. But if someone with a few screws loose pulls up a gun and starts shooting, I'll be scared... or dead, wounded if I'm lucky.

The US Constitution has been amended several times. They're never going to remove the 2nd Amendment, though. There's certainly much more important things I see as rights (like housing, healthcare and a living wage), but such is life.

 

[SomeRandom]

LOL, you think that the military - most of who come from Pro-2A Red States - would simply open fire on civilians, you're deluded.

Half of them would go AWOL and join the resistance.

And that doesn't even take into account the MILLIONS of retired, experienced, and well-armed ex-military folks in Red States.

You obviously don't know much about history. We thought we'd "crush" those poor Vietnamese peasants, too...

The Vietnamese are a different kettle of fish. They had the home ground advantage anyway
But the military will do as told. That’s what they’re trained to do. Cops kill civilians all the time. I don’t think it’s a stretch for military to do so, if they’re given a good enough reason. Maybe I’m just distrustful by nature.
I do wonder how many military personnel were at the insurrection, though

 

[Curious George]

The path to today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from one (1) source:

The US Constitution.

Gun-grabbers conveniently ignore the following phrase:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Again..."...shall NOT be infringed."

I'm always fascinated that people are unable to comprehend "shall NOT."

It's pretty simple.

The Governor of Nebraska has declared Nebraska as a "2nd Amendment Sanctuary State," meaning that Washington's impending, unconstitutional edicts will be ignored. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

The Left seems intent on stripping away our Constitutional Rights to consolidate one-party rule, in perpetuity, for Democrats. They falsely assume that 50% of the populace will sit idly by while this happens.

Cold, dead fingers...

The 1st amendment also states congress shall make no law...prohibiting free speech...

These words in the constitution do not make laws impermissible, they simply change the level of scrutiny to which those laws are subjected.

I agree that any infringement on such a fundamental right as the right to self defense should be very cautiously considered and heavily opposed, but just because the constitution says "shall not" does not mean no regulation.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The Vietnamese are a different kettle of fish. They had the home ground advantage anyway
But the military will do as told. That’s what they’re trained to do. Cops kill civilians all the time. I don’t think it’s a stretch for military to do so, if they’re given a good enough reason. Maybe I’m just distrustful by nature.
I do wonder how many military personnel were at the insurrection, though

I disagree 100%.
This isn't NAZI Germany. Our military are actually specifically TRAINED to disobey an unlawful order.
Any CO who would order his troops to fire on Americans would be summarily ignored by most of them.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

The 1st amendment also states congress shall make no law...prohibiting free speech...

These words in the constitution do not make laws impermissible, they simply change the level of scrutiny to which those laws are subjected.

I agree that any infringement on such a fundamental right as the right to self defense should be very cautiously considered and heavily opposed, but just because the constitution says "shall not" does not mean no regulation.

The Constitution provides for a specific, regimented, CONSTITUTIONAL method of making any changes to the Constitution.

No other method is...Constitutional. Or permisable. This incudes Executive Orders.

 

[oldbadger]

The Constitution provides for a specific, regimented, CONSTITUTIONAL method of making any changes to the Constitution.

No other method is...Constitutional. Or permisable. This incudes Executive Orders.

Do you agree with gun licences?

 

[oldbadger]

The RIGHT to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. .

Should a citizen have the right to possess a (shoulder fire) ground to air missile at home?

 

[oldbadger]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What can that include please?
How about hand grenades?

 

[oldbadger]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What can that include please?
How about hand grenades?

 

[SomeRandom]

I disagree 100%.
This isn't NAZI Germany. Our military are actually specifically TRAINED to disobey an unlawful order.
Any CO who would order his troops to fire on Americans would be summarily ignored by most of them.

I sincerely hope you’re right.

But I don’t recall the NAZIS obeying unlawful orders though.

Never become complacent enough to think “NAZI Germany” can’t happen to your state. That’s exactly what Germans thought pre WWII. If you follow?

(Just to be clear NAZIs are scum. )

 

[Curious George]

The Constitution provides for a specific, regimented, CONSTITUTIONAL method of making any changes to the Constitution.

No other method is...Constitutional. Or permisable. This incudes Executive Orders.

They are not considered "changes."

Look up time manner and place restrictions on free speech.

Cheers

 

[Kooky]

I disagree 100%.
This isn't NAZI Germany. Our military are actually specifically TRAINED to disobey an unlawful order.

And yet, My Lai happened, Abu Ghraib happened, alongside numerous other instances where military men could have disobeyed orders to engage in immoral conduct down to full blown war crimes, but didn't.

Looking back at the history of the US military, it almost appears to me as if the right of ordinary soldiers to disobey their orders largely exists as a convenient fiction to avoid holding superior commanders responsible for the abuse and murder of civilian populations.

 

[oldbadger]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Again..."...shall NOT be infringed."

Flame throwers?
Would they be covered by the 2nd Amendment?

And then, when 'they come for your home' etc you'd have a better chance?
Why not?
Constitutional rights!