The 2nd amendment discussion is coming

[Telstra]

I honestly couldn't tell you how many guns I own. I do know I couldn't stuff another into the safe for trying. I collect them because I love mechanical objects. It's fun to take them apart and see how they function and hopefully put them back together so they work. A word of advice don't take a Luger apart. It isn't worth the hassle of getting it back together. And yes, I shoot everything I own.

Do we need more responsible gun ownership? Yes, I think we could use more education in that area. Licensing and testing, not so much of a good idea. Why not just teach responsible firearms ownership in the schools? They aren't teaching much else of any use. And maybe the kids might enjoy the sport. I take my nephews to the range every couple of months, they love it.

What ???
Licensing and testing is a must. It screen out the dangerous people.

 

[BostonPirate]

What ???
Licensing and testing is a must. It screen out the dangerous people.

The restrictions are especially relaxed in Arizona, which doesn't conduct background checks or require permits to purchase a handgun, shotgun or rifle.

Last year, Arizona enacted a law permitting people to carry concealed weapons in public without a permit, and in 2009, it began to allow guns in bars.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/gun-friendly-laws-arizona-shooting-brady-president/

I think Arizona specifically needs to consider some options

 

[BostonPirate]

So? Great Britain - 1798, right?

britain invaded in 1812. The battle of New Orleans. General Andrew Jackson rose to fame from his victory and went on to become president.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

so how should we educate them?

Everyone, who wants a gun, should take gun safety classes, just like driver's ed.

 

[BostonPirate]

Britain didn't invade itself in 1812, and the Battle of New Orleans was after that war ended. Your argument was that an armed populace has kept the US from being invaded since Britain did in 1812; then explain Britain's failure to be invaded since 1798, in spite of Napoleon and Hitler being REALLY close by.

the difference?

America went to normandy to free europe

Breat brittain got the blitz

 

[BostonPirate]

Everyone, who wants a gun, should take gun safety classes, just like driver's ed.

that seems to be the popular idea

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm almost certain that having the worlds two largest oceans either side of you plays much a part in your national security. The population at large being armed would serve only to alter the strategy of an invading force should one be so inclined.

And it certainly doesn't protect you from terrorism does it. Guns seem only to protect you from your neighbours. As you all have the right to carry a gun, it evens up the score, so you might feel more protected but really your equally under greater threat.

Its a nullifying thing.

I will say this

I do think that the american belief, based on our guns, that we cannot be invaded, lured us into a sense of false safety as our enemy found our weakness.

But lets not forget... as horrific as 9-11 was, an invasion would be nightmarishly worse and more fatal.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Battle of Britain took place in 1940; Pearl Harbor in 1941 and D-Day in 1944. Try again?

look It doesn't really matter to me.

what I am interested in is having a civil dialogue about what is happening NOW

How do we protect the 2nd amendment while protecting the children.

 

[BostonPirate]

More worse for America than for any other country? You don't need a general population to be armed to have adequate protection, particularly in the 21st century where your primary enemies are the mutual enemies of your allies.

Its true that an invasion would result in a devastating scale of bloodshed although at least you would have plenty of time to prepare considering your geographic location, you could arm the populace when required and not bear arms during times of peace.

It would be very costly for the invader. Americans will die defending their personal property.. and gladly, so it would be a given that americans would have massive casualaties.

think this through... Do you think Butch and Nell in northern Texas would walk off their property without a fight? Can you imagine someone trying to invade the bronx? Southie in Boston?

It would be house to house fighting for an entire continent.

That's a powerful tool for national defense.

 

[BostonPirate]

no, it's fine to have a respectful differing opinion, especially now.

ALL of us as americans are doing quite a bit of soul searching.

thanks for participating, mitch

the only thing I personally have zero tolerance for at this moment is ANY rationalization for the people that have pushed hate and rage in america for the last decade.

 

[jackoroe]

The Battle of Britain took place in 1940; Pearl Harbor in 1941 and D-Day in 1944. Try again?

He's on a roll, let him be!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[andysayshi]

One thing is for certain.

Approximately 30,000 US citizens will not see New Years Day 0f 2012. They will die this year from a gunshot wound.

 

[andysayshi]

 

[bankside]

My first recommendation is inspired by some post-election rhetoric from Obama's opponents.

Amend it back.

But perhaps that would prove difficult.

My second recommendation is to please the "strict constructionists" by interpreting the clause as it was written. Have the Government and the Supreme Court conclude that the Second Amendment protects the right to own a flintlock musket.

Who do these activist judges think they are, reading "modern weaponry" into the constitution where the founders never put it ???!!!!!1111!!!!one!!!!!

Ben Franklin and George Washington Didn't Have A Handgun, and these damned Eastern Elites and Liberal Activist Judges can't make us carry them either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BostonPirate]

we know the risks

we don't outlaw guns when our presidents are shot and we wont do it now.

It simply isn't politically feasable. The majority of americans simply do not want to outright scrap the second amendment.

I understand that this is hard for non americans to understand, but it is who we are.

 

[bankside]

we know the risks

we don't outlaw guns when our presidents are shot and we wont do it now.

It simply isn't politically feasable. The majority of americans simply do not want to outright scrap the second amendment.

I understand that this is hard for non americans to understand, but it is who we are.

Mmm. You're like the Japanese and their Fugu, in that respect: culturally insane. Perhaps as hard for Americans to understand what we think in other places? Ever wonder why we aren't begging for a 2nd Amendment of our own?

Incidentally, this is a timely thread, but surely it will be affected by current events. Here's a prior thread with the perspective that a few months of distance from this week's news can give:
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308878

 

[jackoroe]

My first recommendation is inspired by some post-election rhetoric from Obama's opponents.

Amend it back.

But perhaps that would prove difficult.

My second recommendation is to please the "strict constructionists" by interpreting the clause as it was written. Have the Government and the Supreme Court conclude that the Second Amendment protects the right to own a flintlock musket.

Who do these activist judges think they are, reading "modern weaponry" into the constitution where the founders never put it ???!!!!!1111!!!!one!!!!!

Ben Franklin and George Washington Didn't Have A Handgun, and these damned Eastern Elites and Liberal Activist Judges can't make us carry them either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Amendment as written, allowed us to have the same weaponry as the standing army of the day. A strict constructionist would argue that should still hold true.

I'm of the opinion that if you want an F-22 on your front lawn, that's your right and privilege. I'd personally like an M1 tank.

 

[BostonPirate]

haha, bankside

well I can see how you could think that.

 

[JB3]

One thing is for certain.

Approximately 30,000 US citizens will not see New Years Day 0f 2012. They will die this year from a gunshot wound.

Most of them by CRIMINALS that wouldn't abide by gun control laws anyways. Thats one critical thing that gun control advocates don't understand. The criminals don't care what the laws are, they'll find a way to get guns and commit crimes.

 

[bankside]

BostonPirate, I'm surprised to hear the core of your defence being "It's just who we are." That's not how you argued for health care. That's not how you argued DOMA. You have reasons why it's a good idea....or should...

The Amendment as written, allowed us to have the same weaponry as the standing army of the day. A strict constructionist would argue that should still hold true.

I'm of the opinion that if you want an F-22 on your front lawn, that's your right and privilege. I'd personally like an M1 tank.

Nooooo no no... that's a bunch of "Living Tree" liberal activist silliness heresy. A flintlock musket....or nothing.

That's what it means. I'm on to you guys, playing fast and loose with whatever judicial "reasoning" suits you at the time. Three words for you, and they're the only ones in Amendment Number Two.

Flint.
Lock.
Musket.