Emergency: Politicians Call for End of 1st & 2nd Amendments

So, in light of this - what do most people think the 2nd Amendment is trying to do?

Some representatives (Brown, GA and Paul, TX and others) believe the 2nd isn't about the right to protect yourself, the right to hunt, but rather the right of the people to be able arm themselves and overthrow a tyrannical government.

Is that what the 2nd means to you?
 
The purpose of "gun rights" is to be able to defend and protect our nation and our neighbors. The gun is a symbol of indpendence, but I think the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left wants gun bans, which is not consitutional while the Right argues that the individual has a right to bear arms only for the protection of his own person. Men should be armed, not only for the protection of self only but for the protection of their family, state, and nation.

No one should have had to tackle the nut in Arizona. Someone should have shot him before he was able to kill hurt anyone else and that little girl should still be alive. It's a sad day when so many citizens were killed and no one had the means to defend themselves.
 
So, in light of this - what do most people think the 2nd Amendment is trying to do?

Some representatives (Brown, GA and Paul, TX and others) believe the 2nd isn't about the right to protect yourself, the right to hunt, but rather the right of the people to be able arm themselves and overthrow a tyrannical government.

Is that what the 2nd means to you?

Why are you framing those things like they are exclusive?
 
Why are you framing those things like they are exclusive?

I didn't mean to make it 'exclusive' - sorry - I was looking for what people here viewed as what 'rights' the 2nd amendment protects, and if some agreed with Reps Brown and Paul with regards that it allows the citizens to arm ourselves to overthrow a tyrannical government.

I.E. protecting yourself from the government.

Federali seems to draw the line - the amendment allows us to protect our nation - ourselves - our family - and our neighbors, however, to him, it appears, that it doesn't extend to protecting ourselves from our government (federal, state and local I assume - but I could be wrong).
 
The purpose of "gun rights" is to be able to defend and protect our nation and our neighbors. The gun is a symbol of indpendence, but I think the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left wants gun bans, which is not consitutional while the Right argues that the individual has a right to bear arms only for the protection of his own person. Men should be armed, not only for the protection of self only but for the protection of their family, state, and nation.

No one should have had to tackle the nut in Arizona. Someone should have shot him before he was able to kill hurt anyone else and that little girl should still be alive. It's a sad day when so many citizens were killed and no one had the means to defend themselves.

Ya right,
He got off 30 rounds before you could say boo.
That 30 bullet clip is designed so you can kill more people more quickly before reloading.
It'a a phallacy that someone with a gun will react fast enough to get the shooter before he's done.
Maybe sometimes but it's not some cure like gun lovers would like to believe.
 
No one should have had to tackle the nut in Arizona.

I agree, no one should have had to tackle the shooter.

Someone should have shot him before he was able to kill hurt anyone else and that little girl should still be alive.

Possibly be alive. Here's the big problem that legal CCW people understand: A crime has to be in progress before they can legally act. You shoot someone that's just brandishing a firearm, you go down for murder. Of course, there's always the whole "imminent threat" and what someone may perceive one to be, but unless there is other evidence of this threat that comes out later, the CCW holder is going away for murder if he/she shoots the bad guy before the first shot is fired by said bad guy.

There was a CCW holder that came out of Safeway after the firing started. Apparently, he had his hand on his handgun and he had clicked the safety off, ready to pull it. But by this time, the shooter had been disarmed and someone else was holding the Glock with the breech in the locked open position. Thankfully, he used his 8 brain cells and didn't draw/shoot the guy holding the shooter's weapon. The anti-gunners really should understand that not everyone who has a firearm is a loony hell bent on mass murder. More-so, legal CCW people. Now, don't get me started on the no license CCW that Arizona has adopted. I think it's the most idiotic thing ever.

It's a sad day when so many citizens were killed and no one had the means to defend themselves.

People always have a means to defend themselves. The problem is, most lack the experience, know-how and most importantly, the mind set. It takes a different mindset for a sane person to knowingly kill another human, even in the defense of themselves or someone else.

Religion arguments aside, we as humans have been indoctrinated since we were kids with the whole "Johnny, when you kill someone you go to hell" speech. As such, most people can't do it. Never mind what the original text actually says "Thou shalt not commit murder".


Ya right,
He got off 30 rounds before you could say boo.

So, are we to blame the firearm or the human behind it? This is what anti-gunners don't understand. It's NOT the gun, it's the person who does the killing. The gun is a tool. Be it 10 rounds (you can kill a lot of people with 10 rounds, you know) or be it 100 rounds. If a loon is hell bent on killing people, they will do it, be it with 10 rounds or 100. You take away guns, the loonies will find something else to kill with.

Does a firearm make it easier to kill large amounts of people? Of course. But then, so does a Lincoln Town car plowing into a crowd at 60mph.

That 30 bullet clip is designed so you can kill more people more quickly before reloading.

No. Sorry. That 30 rounder is designed to hold 30 bullets. It is not designed to kill more people quickly. Again, it's part of a tool.

It'a a phallacy that someone with a gun will react fast enough to get the shooter before he's done.

Wanna bet? I can draw, range, aim and send a round into a target in less than a second. Now, granted, I read a few pamphlets on the subject, but most civilians who are serious about carrying for protection do practice drawing and aiming. It's the amateurs that concern me. The ones who have a CCW and go shooting once a year and the cops who get "qualified" twice a year.

But again, unless there are extenuating circumstances, a legal CCW really has to wait until the first bullet is fired by the bad guy before he can legally shoot the bad guy. Home defense situations aside.

Maybe sometimes but it's not some cure like gun lovers would like to believe.

I guess not.
 
There was a CCW holder that came out of Safeway after the firing started. Apparently, he had his hand on his handgun and he had clicked the safety off, ready to pull it. But by this time, the shooter had been disarmed and someone else was holding the Glock with the breech in the locked open position. Thankfully, he used his 8 brain cells and didn't draw/shoot the guy holding the shooter's weapon. The anti-gunners really should understand that not everyone who has a firearm is a loony hell bent on mass murder. More-so, legal CCW people. Now, don't get me started on the no license CCW that Arizona has adopted. I think it's the most idiotic thing ever.

I heard that story too - wow - close call on having another person killed or injured.

The quote from the rep that said that he was sorry that there wasn't 'one more gun' at the scene actually got his wish... And really, he had one of the best chances of that happening in Arizona. There are a lot of guns per capita in Arizona, and as you said with the current law that states you don't have to have a CCW to carry, I would imagine the number of people carrying in Arizona is quite high compared to most of the rest of the nation.
So, are we to blame the firearm or the human behind it? This is what anti-gunners don't understand. It's NOT the gun, it's the person who does the killing. The gun is a tool. Be it 10 rounds (you can kill a lot of people with 10 rounds, you know) or be it 100 rounds. If a loon is hell bent on killing people, they will do it, be it with 10 rounds or 100. You take away guns, the loonies will find something else to kill with.

Does a firearm make it easier to kill large amounts of people? Of course. But then, so does a Lincoln Town car plowing into a crowd at 60mph.

Yep - you are right there frog - this guy seems to be unstable enough that a car as a choice of weapon certainly may have been an option for him if a gun wasn't available. And, that Lincoln plowing through the crowd probably would have taken out more people, and certainly injured more.

But, the 30 round magazine - is that necessary? The people there who disarmed the shooter did it while he was in the process of reloading. Yes, 10 bullets kill a lot of people - 30 can kill more. Do you need more than 10 bullets to defend yourself in 99.999% of situations that you would run across here in the US?

In this case 20 fewer bullets would have been fired - obviously fewer people killed or injured.

What would a reason be that here, in the US, you need more than 10 rounds to defend yourself.
 
Ask me that question after the zombies invade. :lol:

But seriously, while I see your point on a 30 round clip, where do we draw the line? do we institute another Assault Weapon ban? because we all know how well the last one worked out.

Cops operate in groups and back-up can be seconds away. Why do they need fully automatic weapons in their patrol vehicles?

Do we limit capacities to 10 rounds? 5? Where do we draw the line? One bullet? of course, I'm exagerating, but you get the idea. Had he used a 10 round clip, what would the outcry have been? "10 rounds!? Who needs 10 rounds to defend themselves!"

It's a slippery slope.
 
Ask me that question after the zombies invade. :lol:

But seriously, while I see your point on a 30 round clip, where do we draw the line? do we institute another Assault Weapon ban? because we all know how well the last one worked out.

Cops operate in groups and back-up can be seconds away. Why do they need fully automatic weapons in their patrol vehicles?

Do we limit capacities to 10 rounds? 5? Where do we draw the line? One bullet? of course, I'm exagerating, but you get the idea. Had he used a 10 round clip, what would the outcry have been? "10 rounds!? Who needs 10 rounds to defend themselves!"

It's a slippery slope.

Remember the LA shootout that changed everything.
Cops are the civilian militia.
10 rounds is plenty for a civilian gun.
The least a revolver has is 6 rounds so maybe 8 rounds.
A clip that doesn't stick out of the end could be a rule.
My cop is not too heavy :D but if I carried a gun and enjoyed
entertaining myself with it I would want the 30 rounds so I could hit a few more bottles :p
 
Thoughts regarding, among other things, nomenclature

Some thoughts---

First, 'phallicy'. Spelled that way, one would assume that you're thinking about your dick. (Not 'ph' but 'f'.)

Second, it's the intent not the mechanism. A 30 round magazine in the Glock is just unwieldy. But it's none of your business what I might want to own. And if there had been some civilian, properly trained and equipped, there might very well have been less bloodshed.

A 'bullet' is what comes out of the barrel of a firearm after a discharge. One loads a firearm with 'cartridges'.

KS
 
But seriously, while I see your point on a 30 round clip, where do we draw the line? do we institute another Assault Weapon ban? because we all know how well the last one worked out.

Gun/weapons control is a slippery slope - we have it (sort of hard to buy anti-tank weapons off-the-shelf) but, what is the cut-off point?

The Assault Weapons ban didn't work - however, if I remember - it did have magazine limits....

I sort of look at this as 'common' sense - what is really needed to protect me and mine from what I expect? 30 round magazines seem more 'offensive' than 'defensive'.

Cops operate in groups and back-up can be seconds away. Why do they need fully automatic weapons in their patrol vehicles?

Because they are 'offensive' (well, you know what I mean - smile).

Do we limit capacities to 10 rounds? 5? Where do we draw the line? One bullet? of course, I'm exagerating, but you get the idea. Had he used a 10 round clip, what would the outcry have been? "10 rounds!? Who needs 10 rounds to defend themselves!"
It is difficult to draw a line - for some reason though, 10 rounds seems 'civilian', 30 rounds seems 'military' or 'police'. Again, I draw back to 'offensive' and 'defensive'. I can see where you might feel an assault weapon would give you added protection - part of the reason I felt the assault weapon ban wasn't renewed - however, having massive numbers of rounds seems to send it over to being an assailant.
 
Some thoughts---

First, 'phallicy'. Spelled that way, one would assume that you're thinking about your dick. (Not 'ph' but 'f'.)

Second, it's the intent not the mechanism. A 30 round magazine in the Glock is just unwieldy. But it's none of your business what I might want to own. And if there had been some civilian, properly trained and equipped, there might very well have been less bloodshed.

A 'bullet' is what comes out of the barrel of a firearm after a discharge. One loads a firearm with 'cartridges'.

KS

That's right
We had to wait till Charlton Heston's hand was cold and dead before we could pry the gun from it.
Now there will be a run on 30 round clips.
It's just like the fear of Obama when he got elected causing a run on weapons even though he has done nothing to take away anyone's gun.
There will be no new gun control legislation because of this.
People love their guns like a guilty pleasure.
It makes them feel powerful.
At least you agree with me that only maybe would an armed civilian
have been capable of putting an early end to this but it was probably all over in 30 seconds or less.
 
First, 'phallicy'. Spelled that way, one would assume that you're thinking about your dick. (Not 'ph' but 'f'.)

We shouldn't question the "genius" 04 so meekly points out about himself. ;)
 
We shouldn't question the "genius" 04 so meekly points out about himself. ;)

I't's my "refudiate" :p
I never said I was a genius,
My brother's is at least 10 points higher,
I was on my second beer when I took the IQ test
I guess you're still looking for Palin's wisdom LOL!
 
I't's my "refudiate" :p
I never said I was a genius,
My brother's is at least 10 points higher,
I was on my second beer when I took the IQ test
I guess you're still looking for Palin's wisdom LOL!

Every...no, not every time, but sometimes, you say something that makes me think of somebody off to one side, saying to himself, "He, he, he, ha, ha". And you show what just may be a touch of genuine humility.
And then you come out with another shot of raw bullsh it.:rolleyes:

I guess it livens things up.;)

KS
 
Every...no, not every time, but sometimes, you say something that makes me think of somebody off to one side, saying to himself, "He, he, he, ha, ha". And you show what just may be a touch of genuine humility.
And then you come out with another shot of raw bullsh it.:rolleyes:

I guess it livens things up.;)

KS

I have been known to enjoy a joke on myself.
Perhaps I should be more self depricating :p
You guys have run off virtually all the other scoundrels and contenders except me and foxy.:D:cool:
Palin is incredibly energizing for some on both sides even if it seems unlikely she will get the nomination and I'll admit it has been a guilty pleasure running with current events like a wolf with a rabbit :eek: but it looks like we're about done.
Oh wait.
Palin is going on Hannity on monday.
Maybe she'll say something more to stirr up
the MSM.;)

All the pundits will be watching to see her expound on her blood libel
comment to see if she digs herself out some or digs herself in further.
 
I agree a lot with Frogman here and understand his points ....

I would trust someone with Frogman's skills of shooting ... But there are many who would scare me ... a few are members on this site ..... LOL .... I doubt they are mature enough to deal with the responsibility
 
I agree a lot with Frogman here and understand his points ....

I would trust someone with Frogman's skills of shooting ... But there are many who would scare me ... a few are members on this site ..... LOL .... I doubt they are mature enough to deal with the responsibility


Friendly fire kills hostage
 
Responsibility

I've popped a cap a time or two on city streets, but never had to kill anyone. God willing, I'll never have to. But part of the responsibility of making the conscious decision to have a 'little friend' with you at all times is that you can be of help when necessary.

KS
 
You have two basic points to address.
The issue of the fundamental right of self-protection, be it from a rapist or a government.

And, if it's necessary to move past that, you have the issue of what causes the greater good or the greater harm.

I've seen the jail house interviews, gun ownership, merely the threat of gun ownership, reduces crime. Criminals are more afraid of robbing a private citizen with a gun, or breaking into their home, then they are of the police. They know that citizen will shoot them, and it's a game of roulette until they hit that citizen.

The 30 round clip made it easier for the shooter to fire, but with ANY practice, you could easy slap in 3 ten round magazines in just seconds more time. It's not like he needed to recover the magazines.

And if the intention was to kill or maim, or draw attention to them self, the hand gun was a tool, but it could just as easily have been a school back pack filled with explosives and roofing nails.
 
And if the intention was to kill or maim, or draw attention to them self, the hand gun was a tool, but it could just as easily have been a school back pack filled with explosives and roofing nails.


That's just silly... I mean, really now? Explosives? Everyone knows explosives are illegal to own for most civilians. :lol:

In case anyone missed it, that was sarcasm... Cal is 100% correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Equal protection from any theats

The right to bear arms is to protect yourself, property and your freedom from anything which threatens such. It is an equalizer to an overbearing government. Travel to a third world dictatorship like Cuba and see for yourself what happens to an unarmed populous. You have no rights, no liberty, no freedom. You are at the mercy of who ever has power.
 
You have two basic points to address.
The issue of the fundamental right of self-protection, be it from a rapist or a government.

So, Cal, you believe that the 2nd amendment addresses that one of the 'reasons' we have the 'right to bear arms' is to keep a tyrannical government in check?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top