Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[JoeyB]

Late to the debate, but a few "observations".

 

 

Ok.  Correct me if I am wrong but, the 2nd amendment reads:  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.

 

Breaking it down.  The "Militia" is to protect the "State" aka The USA from "outside" threats.  Given elected majority, the Militia is NOT about overthrowing the a/current elected US Government.  That would be punishable as Treason under Article III, Section 3.  (In 1791 when the 2nd Amed was penned this could have been the British, French, etc. NOT George Washington because you didn't like his wooden teeth).   

 

Also, in 1791 the prevailing weapons technology was; Muscat, Bayonnet, and Cannon's.  That said, I say you can own as many Muscats, Bayonnets, and hell- all the 1791 era Cannon's you can store.  Restricting AK's, AR's, and high capacity magazines are NOT in conflict.

Yeah, I covered that earlier. A 'militia' is manned by civilians, not a trained and paid army. 'Security of a Free State' applies to all comers, as penned by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence:

"-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;"

 

That includes our government IF it becomes destructive of our rights.

 

Treason? that depends. The victor writes history. Certainly the Brits said we were treasonous, until they lost. 

 

The assault weapon of the day was the Musket with fixed bayonet. Our militia ran from the battle field, scattered throwing off their weapons, when the Brits fixed bayonets. The Brit Army with fixed bayonets inflicted as many casualties  as todays weapons, depending on deployment. Yet, we defeated the world's most powerful army and won our independence. Insurgencies do that often in history. Small arms take bigger arms, armies are formed and supplied from the enemy. Same as today in Libya, Egypt and Syria. 

[KB]

Joey you need to stop saying 'I covered that earlier' as if you are the go to source for information.

 

The fact is your definition is wrong.....

 

 

Definition of MILITIA

1

a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

 

b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2

: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

 

Ken

[JoeyB]

No one has mentioned yet why they would overthrow a democratically elected government instead of voting them out.

 

Unless of course we are talking about a minority who believe they the majority are wrong.

 

This is not Syria, Egypt or medieval France we are talking about here.

 

 

Ken

OK, what if? I'll go with my 'villian'. What if the Bush/Cheney Administration had decided to declare martial law, citing two wars and a near depression? What if they suspended elections, suspended and jailed congress? Jailed protesters? Confiscated all firearms? Confiscated foreign reporters shoes? If they had the Army support them it's precisely what the 2nd Amendment is there for.   

 

It is no different in a modern Nation than in Syria or Egypt or Medieval France if someone seizes power and abuses it.

And I would say that I sincerely believe that the 2nd Amendment keeps that from happening here. 

[KB]

That a hell of a lot of what if's...a hell of a lot

 

 

Ken

[jeff g]

Fcuk a bunch of guns.

If I owned one, my wife would have killed me years ago. Or visa versa.

We need guns for what? To defend ourselves. Against who? All the idiots that own guns.

Oh I get it, we need guns to kill animals. Why? Do we need to eat them for subsistence?

Thats why we have grocery stores.

Sport...hunting...ahhh..run them down and strangle them. Now that would be real sport.

Hunter...gatherers.. Vegitarians are so much healthier than carnivors.

Guns are bad. The people that think they need them are...mistaken.

If you had to kill someone while enraged, it would make you think more than once, if you had to try and kill them with your bare hands, or even a blunt object of some kind.

Guns are not good. Try using a knive, see where that gets you.

[JoeyB]

all fun conversation but still doesn't explain 1) why do we need high capacity magazines and assault rifles on the streets 2) why can't we have reasonable regulations like background checks (stopping the absurd that goes on in gun shows), safety requirements (safes, training, etc.) and registries that can help law enforcement to trace stolen guns?

Again, I addressed this earlier in this thread. I believe that citizens do NOT need assault weapons, or high capacity magazines. I believe we should have background checks, training, registering and stop the loophole of gun shows. 

 

If an insurgency were warranted, small arms would get bigger arms. 

[JoeyB]

This is why I put up that Huffington Post link, regardless of the medias political leaning It does state the NRA are opposed to the above regulations, that they in fact want nothing that would impede anyone (even ex crims) from walking into a gun shop and buying what they want....is this true or not?

 

 

Ken

That's true, but doesn't mean that is what they'll get. They likely won't get that at all, and are asking for the maximum in order to settle for what they really want. It's just bargaining. 

[JoeyB]

Joey you need to stop saying 'I covered that earlier' as if you are the go to source for information.

 

The fact is your definition is wrong.....

 

 

Definition of MILITIA

1

a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

 

b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2

: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

 

Ken

I covered this earlier as well. That definition is what I said. "citizens". As opposed to a trained, professional army. 

[JoeyB]

That a hell of a lot of what if's...a hell of a lot

 

 

Ken

 

"-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;"

Yep. It's supposed to be. 

[freddy333]

registries that can help law enforcement to trace stolen guns?

 

The problem with registries was made clear in the recent posting of names & home addresses of registered (legal) handgun owners within an active online map. What next, an online map of the names/addresses of those infected with AIDs? Or those with STDs? Or those with prescriptions for medical marijuana? Today, it is a list of people whose lifestyle you disagree with, tomorrow it may be you & your lifestyle that ends up on an interactive list.

That is why it is generally best to keep the government out of the lives of private citizens.

 

 

 

It does state the NRA are opposed to the above regulations, that they in fact want nothing that would impede anyone (even ex crims) from walking into a gun shop and buying what they want....is this true or not?

 

Not. Although I am not a member, I have been following the NRA for quite some time, both as a private citizen & as a journalist. Not only have I never heard any NRA official suggest that criminals or the insane be granted free access to firearms, but, quite the contrary, the NRA has repeately petitioned the US congress to enact laws that prohibit sales to them. Unfortunately, as I said, it is nearly impossible to pass any laws (that have teeth) that some clever lawyer is not able to find a way around. Sad, but true.

 

Frankly, as as been said for several years, the key to setting things in the right direction is (retroactive) term limits for both houses of congress. Eliminate the ruling class & you remove a whole host of political & social ills. But, that, of course, is a whole other kettle of fish.

[Ephry73]

Well said Freddy. Just last night someone broke into my inlaws neighbor 's house to steal their gun safe. The neighbors were away on a trip. I feared something like this would start happening. It is completely naive and retarded to believe that criminals will follow

Laws. I believe the national party started listing different groups and then came segregating these groups. Separation of church and state and the right of the people can only go so far if the people just don't care.

[maxman]

Um Mike you do not see the problem with that pic?

 

Ken

Ken...I see that the president deserves to be protected for obvious reasons. But don't law abiding American citizens deserve the same protection? For home Invasions and the like?

 

What do I see Is a [censored] load of hypocrisy. Many anti gun lobbyist have guns to protect themselves. But that's because there afraid of the gun nuts

.

Mike

[freddy333]

As far as that online map of registered handgun owners goes, I think, since the information is publically available, the newspaper, under the auspices of the 1st Amendment, had every right to print it. However, in my opinion, this type of information (private info on law-abiding citizens), whether it be of registered gun owners, AIDs patients, traffic speeders or other publically available data, should only ever be accessible by way of a court order. And, then, only in those cases where a crime has been committed. But, again, this is another issue altogether.

[KB]

Ken...I see that the president deserves to be protected for obvious reasons. But don't law abiding American citizens deserve the same protection? For home Invasions and the like?

 

What do I see Is a shit load of hypocrisy. Many anti gun lobbyist have guns to protect themselves. But that's because there afraid of the gun nuts

.

Mike

 

Mike you see the President of the United States of America surrounded by armed Secret Service agents, just like every head of state is protected by their own people.

The reason is obvious these guys can and do get assassinated, it is a whole different discussion from what is going on here.

 

Ken

[txcollector]

The problem with registries was made clear in the recent posting of names & home addresses of registered (legal) handgun owners within an active online map. What next, an online map of the names/addresses of those infected with AIDs? Or those with STDs? Or those with prescriptions for medical marijuana? Today, it is a list of people whose lifestyle you disagree with, tomorrow it may be you & your lifestyle that ends up on an interactive list.

That is why it is generally best to keep the government out of the lives of private citizens.

 

In all 50 states If you own a car that has to be registered with the DoT. If your car is used in a felony the law comes after you. Owning a car like owning a gun is not a lifestyle. 

 

In many states guns have to be registered like it's common sense. Equating the registry of a weapon that can be used for all kinds of felonies to STDs is the type of reductio ad absurdum arguments that make discussions around sensible gun control measures pointless. 

 

PS: many states have disclosure laws for things like HIV since an infected person can cause lethal harm to others. 

[maxman]

Mike you see the President of the United States of America surrounded by armed Secret Service agents, just like every head of state is protected by their own people.

The reason is obvious these guys can and do get assassinated, it is a whole different discussion from what is going on here.

 

Ken

I have to respectfully disagree Ken. Is the Presidents life more valuable to you than your daughter...son...wife...or anyone else you love and care about?

 

It would be a lot easier for the bad guys to get you and your family than the president or any other head of state.

 

Here's one of the most powerful anti gun lobbyist and powerful senators against guns. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Mike on a bike]

Of course the ruling class gets guns just want to disarm the rest of us, yes it's for the children they could care less.

[lloyd]

Ken...I see that the president deserves to be protected for obvious reasons. But don't law abiding American citizens deserve the same protection? For home Invasions and the like?

 

What do I see Is a [censored] load of hypocrisy. Many anti gun lobbyist have guns to protect themselves. But that's because there afraid of the gun nuts

.

Mike

In fact the 14th amendment says we are entitled to egual protection under the law.

Obama just signed a bill to give presidents and ther wives secret service protection for life.

Edited January 15, 2013 by lloyd

[cjjoyce1]

ohfercryinoutloud!!  for the first and only time in this, I'm getting emotional.  Sorry.  But I get so upset by the assertions that the framers of the past couldn't possibly have envisioned the weapons of today and thus the right to bear arms referred to muskets, muzzleloading rifles, etc.  Nobody could have ever dreamed of these things.

 

HORSEHOCKEY!

 

Leonardo daVinci was designing flying machines, parachutes, multiple firing weapons and tanks in the late 1400's

 

Jules Verne wrote 20 Thousand Leagues Under The Sea and Journey to the Center of the Earth in the mid 1800's.

 

In the late 40's early 50's science fiction was popular and kids were playing with "ray guns"  today, we actually have laser weapons.

 

For as long as humankind has had conscious thought, I will postulate that he had considered the "what if. . "

 

As long as man has been waging war and killing each other, we have thought about, conceived, contrived, invented, what-have-you new different and superior ways to do so.  Entire industries revolve around it. 

 

So don't be so ignorant, foolish and arrogant  to think that just because hindsight is 20/20 you are smarter, wiser, more clairvoyant into the future than those who came before.

 

Ok.  off the soapbox. . .sorry for the rant.  This has really been a great discussion and I've enjoyed participating.  Sorry if this ruined it for anybody.  Flame away

[lloyd]

In all 50 states If you own a car that has to be registered with the DoT. If your car is used in a felony the law comes after you. Owning a car like owning a gun is not a lifestyle. 

 

In many states guns have to be registered like it's common sense. Equating the registry of a weapon that can be used for all kinds of felonies to STDs is the type of reductio ad absurdum arguments that make discussions around sensible gun control measures pointless. 

 

PS: many states have disclosure laws for things like HIV since an infected person can cause lethal harm to others. 

 And that protects you from crime how? They can trace ownership through form 4473 as it is.

[lloyd]

ohfercryinoutloud!!  for the first and only time in this, I'm getting emotional.  Sorry.  But I get so upset by the assertions that the framers of the past couldn't possibly have envisioned the weapons of today and thus the right to bear arms referred to muskets, muzzleloading rifles, etc.  Nobody could have ever dreamed of these things.

Amen. That would be like saying they internet, TV, radio, and automated publishing of papers and magizines is not protected under free speech. After all, the framers of the constitution could not have imagined those medias.

[ldegeneve]

Again, I addressed this earlier in this thread. I believe that citizens do NOT need assault weapons, or high capacity magazines. I believe we should have background checks, training, registering and stop the loophole of gun shows. 

 

Amen brother.

 

But then you have people saying registration leads to confiscation. And then tyranny and socialism and what have you.

 

The thing I've learned in this debate is that you can't reason a man to a position that reason has not brought him to. Doesn't mean we should stop talking though.

[cjjoyce1]

http://www.assaultweapon.info/ 

 

This highlights the only reason I am against banning "assault weapons".  Cosmetics = confusion.  There is a significant difference between assault rifles and assault weapons, yet many people see them as "a rose by any other name". 

[KB]

This thread is just getting looney..Everyone deserves the same protection as the head of state...no they don't that comes with the job just as the head of your bank makes 10 X your wage.

 

The Bad thing involving Senator Feinstein (if you go back a few pages) is the gun lobbyist who want to hang her for reintroducing a bill that expired in 2004, despite the fact that Half of all mass shootings in the history of the USA has happened since it expired.

 

To believe the founding fathers would have invisualised machine guns, grenade launchers etc etc when when the drew up the 2nd amendment is just so far out there it doesn't deserve comment.

 

Come guys if you want a debate then debate with facts.

 

Ken

[JoeyB]

To believe the founding fathers would have invisualised machine guns, grenade launchers etc etc when when the drew up the 2nd amendment is just so far out there it doesn't deserve comment.

 

Come guys if you want a debate then debate with facts.

 

Ken

Most of this debate is about speculation. Why would we believe our Founders who were so forward thinking to make the Nation we now have would not have envisioned weapons of mass destruction? Of course they has imaginations, just as we do today. (phasers on stun...)