DescentBB

I don't have the quotes, but several of the founding fathers put the second amendment in because they were afraid of a central government taking over the rights of the states. The militia wasn't to protect from other country invasions, it was to protect from a federal government invasion, a-la China.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

The second amendment states:

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.

This is not mentioning that you need to protect yourself from your Gov't. It's talking about protecting yourself from being attacked by another nation.

If you are scared of the Gov't taking away your rights as americans, then you need to stop voting for the morons in power.

Fack it, it's not my country and you will never see anything but what you want to see.

That statement is just so wrong. It is not even close to what the Bill of Rights is about as a whole.

Read the entire Bill of Rights and you will see the document concerns or pertains to the people's rights and the limits the Government has over the people. The document as a whole has nothing to do with other Nations or other Governments, only our own. It is a check and balance to keep the Government in its place to prevent a Dictatorship or Monarchy from taking place.

Also CDN-Merlin, you may find this interesting:

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported \"Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states.\"[26] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

\"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to \"exonerate\" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources.\"[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

woodchip wrote:Also CDN-Merlin, you may find this interesting:

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[26] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

You can't compare 26 states with the enitre country of Canada. That's like comparing apples and oranges.

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47

Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to reflect most recent figures, January 2001)
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html

Someone provide me with a link to your bill of rights and I'll try to read it this weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Ri ... _States%29


I figure this would be the most respected link.

Israel 2.56?...and every mother and her son has an M16 or an Uzi under their bed. Weird.

Switzerland: 6.2? Oh man, the irony...

Flabby Chick wrote:Israel 2.56?...and every mother and her son has an M16 or an Uzi under their bed. Weird.

Y'know, I've never actually heard anyone say that aside from you.

Ford Prefect wrote:Here in the Socialist Hell we call Canada.

Should read, " Here in the Socialist Hell we call B.C. ".

I believe that if you need a gun to use as a tool and/or for protection, hunting, etc. that owners should first go to a gun course and pass all safety and training before being considered for obtaining a Gun License.

I also believe easy access to guns and the social and political culture in the US today leads to more gun related deaths whether due to accidents or fits of random rage. Its a huge fact that many Americans refuse to believe but is blatantly obvious to the rest of the World, and those that really know how to read the statistics.

I am all for the responsible use of guns and can recognize them as tools for protection and for responsible ownership. Heck I love shooting Guns of all sorts and I am a good shot, however it seems to me that the USA has almost gone gun crazy and refuse to look at any other alternatives to deal with the problems that face them because they are scared.

TIGERassault wrote:Y'know, I've never actually heard anyone say that aside from you.

Well, i don't have one (i guard with a guitar)but most folks i know have. I met my wife whilst she was issued with one and in four years my daughter will have one. Maybe you should ask another Israeli.

Canuck wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:Here in the Socialist Hell we call Canada.

Should read, " Here in the Socialist Hell we call B.C. ".

I believe that if you need a gun to use as a tool and/or for protection, hunting, etc. that owners should first go to a gun course and pass all safety and training before being considered for obtaining a Gun License.

I also believe easy access to guns and the social and political culture in the US today leads to more gun related deaths whether due to accidents or fits of random rage. Its a huge fact that many Americans refuse to believe but is blatantly obvious to the rest of the World, and those that really know how to read the statistics.

I am all for the responsible use of guns and can recognize them as tools for protection and for responsible ownership. Heck I love shooting Guns of all sorts and I am a good shot, however it seems to me that the USA has almost gone gun crazy and refuse to look at any other alternatives to deal with the problems that face them because they are scared.

Edit by me: You made a good post until you added the cheap shot. Why make this Canada vrs U.S., You guys are way to aggressive towards us. Just gotta get those cheap shots in. This has nothing to do with our problems. It concerns the 2nd amendment that is before the Supreme Court.

I will be the first one to agree that some sort of screening process should be done for firearm ownership.
Here in MI, hunters born after a certain date now have to go through a hunter/safety program before they can obtain a hunting license. I'm all for that.

To carry concealed you have to go through a sanctioned course on firearm laws and safe use of a pistol. You also have to have a background check for crimminal activity or mental health issues. I'm all for that also. As an aside of all the 100's of thousand of conceal carry permits issued here in MI I don't think there is more than 1 or 2 cases where a license holder acted in such a manner that their license was revoked.
So the argument that people who responsibly own and carry firearms are inherently a danger is so much claptrap fear mongering.

What I object to is people like the Brady Bunch/gun control advocates who want to put extreme controls over gun ownership. They want records of ownership to be kept permanently on file so sometime in the future when they get their way they can then run a confiscation program like our buddies up north had to go through.

I don't believe anyone here thinks any joe schmuck with serious mental issues should own firearms. Trouble is, those same liberals who want gun control, do not want mental health patients to be known to the govt. at large. Thus you have nut jobs getting firearms, walking into a school and opening up on the unarmed students. Good system eh?

CDN_Merlin wrote:What part of MILITIA do you people not understand? You have the right to bear arms in times of war when you are called upon to form a militia. It has nothing to do with protecting yourself at home and the right to have a gun.

Remember, this amendment was written hundreds of years ago with the thought of being attacked by another country. So they wanted to make sure that they could call upon normal citizens to become militia and help the regular army.

Nevertheless, it reads "the right of the people." That is extremely broad, and not limited to just a single militia. According to your argument, in the event that a militia needs to be formed, how are we supposed to obtain these militia-time arms? And where do they go afterward? Like I said, it's broad. It's obvious to me that their purpose was not merely to allow the arming of a single militia, but to empower the people because of the necessity of a local militia for the security of a free state.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to decide, "ok, we're secure enough now, we can disarm ourselves (or be disarmed, more to the point)." I think that's a sign of having become naive in complacency.

EDIT

woodchip wrote:Thus you have nut jobs getting firearms, walking into a school and opening up on the unarmed students.

I've followed a few of those happenings, and I don't think it's right to call them insane. The shooting all seem to be based on extreme emotional problems, and ultimately anger. Aside from that, I don't think you can claim that they're inherently any different from the rest of us.

Oh they are very very very different from us. I've been murderously mad, but I never ever ever entertained the idea of picking up a gun and shooting the person. Running over them in the car, perhaps... I certainly never thought of plowing through a crowd of total strangers and killing as many as I could before I killed myself because I was mad at {x}.

I absolutely agree with Testi. I've been enraged at people but I limited my actions to using my fist on them or more usually, hit something inanimate.If going in and killing people you don't even know is not insanity, then pray tell me what is?

WillyP wrote:And on the second amendment, remember the militia was a volunteer, civilian thing. Generally the members of the militia were expected to have their own firearms and know how to use them.

Thats right, just do what they did back then...

Give everyone muskets!

Seriously, 30-25 years ago my dad could go to school with a gun, and they had a gun club there where they would shoot targets in the gym. So something has changed, as before they had no school shootings.

Testiculese wrote:Oh they are very very very different from us.

I said no different inherently. All I'm saying is that I think it's a mistake--a hasty mis-diagnosis--to blame it on the hardware. I believe it's really a software issue.

But I digress.

But actually, there was more to my original thought than that. Is it really an inescapable psychological illness, or is it a result of extreme emotion combined with a warped perception of reality?

I digress for the last time (sorry, Spidey).

Don’t worry about it Thorne, let the thread go where the thread wants to go…

I would also like to reinforce the point that was made regarding “The People”, to me this seems like an all encompassing term, whether individual or collectively, it means everybody. IE: everyone has a right to own a firearm (for whatever purpose, this can be debated)

Cuda68 wrote:

Canuck wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:Here in the Socialist Hell we call Canada.

Should read, " Here in the Socialist Hell we call B.C. ".

I believe that if you need a gun to use as a tool and/or for protection, hunting, etc. that owners should first go to a gun course and pass all safety and training before being considered for obtaining a Gun License.

I also believe easy access to guns and the social and political culture in the US today leads to more gun related deaths whether due to accidents or fits of random rage. Its a huge fact that many Americans refuse to believe but is blatantly obvious to the rest of the World, and those that really know how to read the statistics.

I am all for the responsible use of guns and can recognize them as tools for protection and for responsible ownership. Heck I love shooting Guns of all sorts and I am a good shot, however it seems to me that the USA has almost gone gun crazy and refuse to look at any other alternatives to deal with the problems that face them because they are scared.

Edit by me: You made a good post until you added the cheap shot. Why make this Canada vrs U.S., You guys are way to aggressive towards us. Just gotta get those cheap shots in. This has nothing to do with our problems. It concerns the 2nd amendment that is before the Supreme Court.

No cheap shot intended, but your Gun Laws do need a revamp to reflect todays society and the Second Amendment was written how many years ago?

Flabby Chick wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Y'know, I've never actually heard anyone say that aside from you.

Well, i don't have one (i guard with a guitar)but most folks i know have. I met my wife whilst she was issued with one and in four years my daughter will have one. Maybe you should ask another Israeli.

huh?
i think i recall you saying in another thread months back that you were posting on a laptop, while on guard duty outside of your uh... israeli community (there's some local word for these settlements, i forget).

http://www.descentbb.com/viewtopic.php?p=17226#17226
Jul 28, 2006
"I can if i want now carry an M-16 to guard the gates of the kibbutz, which i do once a month (i usually take my guitar and me lap-top) but i don't. "

hmm, not quite the thead i had in mind... but i swear i remember you saying at some time "i'm posting from guard duty, with my M-16 (or some other gun you specified)"

you didn't go back and edit that thread did you? i have a memory of you packing heat - coz it really shocked me at the time.

lol. Well it was a while back 'cause my work laptop died on me, and will not be replaced. The only time i've take an M16 to guard (and i took it and shoved it under the sink) was when Hizbulla and the IDF were at each others throats, (we had to) and i wasn't strictly allowed 'cause i hadn't done my liscence. What happens is, the guy who does the rota on the Kibbutz for guard duty offers a weapon to those who don't have one (there is an Armory next to the cowshed) i 99% say no, I hate guns, and would probably blow me head off if i had to use one in aggression.

EDIT: btw, i usually state if i've edited a post.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But actually, there was more to my original thought than that. Is it really an inescapable psychological illness, or is it a result of extreme emotion combined with a warped perception of reality?

I digress for the last time (sorry, Spidey).

I believe it is both a byproduct of the diluting of the gene pool, and a warped perception of reality.

More and more mothers are taking drugs (legal and illegal) drinking caffiene, excess alcohol, smoking, etc. while pregnant, and more and more people are being born with mental defects. These problems manifest under the oppressive government that we have...the oppression starts at a very young age. School has been regarded as a circle of hell for a long time now. I could see it starting when I was in school, and has imploded on itself catastrophically. I couldn't imagine being a schoolkid nowadays, I'd snap too. Couple that with these pigs that call themselves police that don't want to do their job, they just want to bust kids for any reason they can because they are seen as revenue for the state. You get bullied without end in sight, and psychological problems to start with, and then on top of it, the parents, who don't want to be parents (Mom just wanted a baby, not a son/daughter), pump little Johnny full of drugs (The whole time telling them DRUGS ARE BAD!!!!, real slick...) and it suddenly makes sense why these teens are gunning for glory.

Canuck wrote:the Second Amendment was written how many years ago?

Unfortunately, now is the time more than ever when we NEED the 2nd amendment.

Testiculese wrote:

Canuck wrote:the Second Amendment was written how many years ago?

Unfortunately, now is the time more than ever when we NEED the 2nd amendment.

Agreed, and my reasons for agreeing are that the DFL'rs have buffaloed the American people into believing we should not resist aggression but submit to it because its safer. For example if you are about to be robbed just fork over the cash or what ever in order to be assured a safe encounter. Well whats happened is that robbery went through the roof because we all have become easy marks for them.
Bank robbers just walk into banks with no weapons whatsoever and demand money and they get it - WTF

I forget who said Americans want there guns because we are afraid, but unfortunately there is a ring a of truth to it. We have become a society of wimps to afraid to go the the distance and slug it out. Even the Muslim Extremists have said it publicly, we are wimps. We got the talk, but no follow through. All anyone has to do is threaten us a little and we buckle, fork over the cash and pat ourselves on the back for doing the safe thing.
It is time to say no more to crime and intimidation and fight back.

Edit: I have been a member of this BB since 01 and never have I posted this much

Hah..you guys are hilarious.


You do realize that you have pea-shooters when it comes to fighting the government (if it happened). They have tanks, jets, bombs, nukes, missiles, javelins, mines, everything that you do not have. They would steamroll us in a no time at all...you're a smart guy Testi...how can you honestly think you're small supply of weapons would actually do any damage? And what happens when you run out of bullets?


Unfortunately it's hard to come up with a plausible solution. This country has been flooded with so many guns that they will never go away. I think we've tied our own hands by having no restrictions on types of guns being bought or sold and the lethality of firearms have increased so much over the years.

oh woodchip, you and your scared delusions. You know, I bet you're like Earl from Tremors in real life aren't you?

Trolling again Zurdick?

woodchip wrote:Trolling again Zurdick?

HA HA - That was a fast :0

Nice dodge Earl.

The gov won't be able to get to the point of ordering a full-scale military assault on it's own poeple. The military itself would bail (GI Joe won't stand for shelling their own mom's and dad's)

Besides, I'm not worried about the military, per se, but about the ghetto. If this economy tanks the way it might, people will need food. Home invasions are the way to aquire food. People will pour from the ghettos and attack the suburbs to survive.

Doomsday, yes, but hardly inconceivable. This economy is so fragile, it only takes a straw.

Testiculese wrote:The gov won't be able to get to the point of ordering a full-scale military assault on it's own poeple. The military itself would bail (GI Joe won't stand for shelling their own mom's and dad's)

Besides, I'm not worried about the military, per se, but about the ghetto. If this economy tanks the way it might, people will need food. Home invasions are the way to aquire food. People will pour from the ghettos and attack the suburbs to survive.

Doomsday, yes, but hardly inconceivable. This economy is so fragile, it only takes a straw.

Thats so very true and a likely event to take place is the one large refinery in Sandia Arabia. It supplies the U.S. with about %30 of our oil. If anything happens to that { accident or other wise }gas will soar to $8 or $10 bucks a gallon, goods will jump in price. People in the burbs have crappy bus lines so they wont work, more foreclosures there. Like you said people gotta eat will do what they have to do to live, break ins, robberies and so forth will sky rocket. Things are so very unstable only a nudge will wreak havoc.

So what happened to the second amendment being to help the people defend themselves against an oppressive government?
Is it for self defence ( Do you really need a 50 cal sniper rifle for that?) or is it for defence against the government?(You get a 50cal sniper rifle and they get a Bradley. Good luck with that.)

Am I the only one that sees something wrong about specifically letting people use guns in case a civil war breaks out? I mean, that sounds to me like one of the worst times to let people use guns!

Although then again, the second amendment was written by people who were civil war fighters, so I can see why they put it in...

I just saw a show about the 50 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, the most powerful handgun made (so they claim). Holy crap! Why would you need that for home defense. It's like shooting a cannon at the end of your arms! Maximum overkill! It wouldn't even be practical in a war. The thing almost hits you in face during recoil.

I agree that we should have the right to bear arms in the U.S., but to what point do we raise the firepower level? To keep up with the Jones's, so to speak?

And I always thought the .44 Magnum was the most powerful handgun on earth

Nope. It's new and BIGGER than that one! Sorry Clint. EEEEEK!



He almost gets it in the face on the first shot.

Waste of time. If you want firepower, get a rifle.

isn't all a pistol really is? a REALLY small rifle?

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 continuely surprised how much is read or interpreted from 2 very simple statements. Simply read it plainly states:the right of the People(me and you) to keep(ownership) and bear(carry) arms shall not be infringed(break, encroached).

Thats a very simple statement. The rest all sounds a little like mind reading.

As far as the forming of a Milita: A well regulated(something with order and purpose) militia being necessary to the security of a free State

(A U.S. state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States, although four states use the official title \"commonwealth\". The separate state governments and the federal government share sovereignty, in that an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their state of domicile.[1] However, state citizenship is very flexible, and no government approval is required to move between states (with the exception of convicts on parole).

The United States Constitution allocates power between the two levels of government in general terms. By ratifying the Constitution, each state transfers certain sovereign powers to the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not explicitly transferred are retained by the states and the people. Historically, the tasks of public education, public health, transportation and other infrastructure have been considered primarily state responsibilities, although all have significant federal funding and regulation as well.

Over time, the Constitution has been amended, and the interpretation and application of its provisions have changed. The general tendency has been toward centralization, with the federal government playing a much larger role than it once did. There is a continuing debate over \"states' rights\", which concerns the extent and nature of the states' powers and sovereignty in relation to that of the federal government.

Seems to me the only entities that would actually ever have the power to \"infringe\" on MY right to own guns would either be The State Governmenet or the Federal Governement. This amendment seems to be preemptive protection against that happening.

flip wrote:

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 continuely surprised how much is read or interpreted from 2 very simple statements. ... The rest all sounds a little like mind reading.

They aren't 2 separate statements, and there's no mind reading necessary, it's quite clear:

Inserting the implied wording for clarity, it says:

[Because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(It's just like the structure of the sentence, "The DBB.net being a moderated forum, the users are subject to the stated rules". A bit old-school in its phrasing perhaps, but it's meaning is fairly obvious.)

You can't fully separate the rights granted in the second part from the reason stated in the first.

No, it only works that way because you changed the wording.