Weaponry; Discussion of Rights and Responsibilities

[midnitro]

Obama knew he couldn't outlaw guns or stop gun manufacturing. So he did 2 things - make ammo hard to get by having govt agencies buy it up instead, and he was putting things in place so victims could sue the gun maker of the gun used in a crime. This is how Slick Willy 'balanced' the budget in the 90s, he raped the tobacco companies and used that money. That was Obama's plan, use the gun makers to pay the bills. Did you know the USPS bought millions and millions of 22LR? WTF would a postman need with 22LR? and yet it happened...

[knobby109]

A perspective to those who quote the Founding Fathers.
We forget that many of them-like George Washington-had sworn an Oath of Allegiance to the King.The War of Independence was a close run thing , tipped with French help into success for the settlers. But after the French left there was a real risk of a British return and knowing how treason was dealt with was a cause for concern. The answer , in the absence of a standing army was an armed militia.Therefore the Second Amendment , read the original form and the context becomes clear.
But it was a measure for the time. It was common in all countries for people to carry arms for self defence.They never offered any protection against tyrannical government and neither did they protect freedom.How could they?
Other countries such as the UK which has no written constitution could make changes over time; a standing army protected the State and a police force protected the individual. So civilised countries saw little need to have an armed population.But America was locked in by the Amendment , perpetuated by those who lost sight (or never knew) of the reason it existed.

[Rogerbh]

Originally Posted by knobby109

A perspective to those who quote the Founding Fathers.
We forget that many of them-like George Washington-had sworn an Oath of Allegiance to the King.The War of Independence was a close run thing , tipped with French help into success for the settlers. But after the French left there was a real risk of a British return and knowing how treason was dealt with was a cause for concern. The answer , in the absence of a standing army was an armed militia.Therefore the Second Amendment , read the original form and the context becomes clear.
But it was a measure for the time. It was common in all countries for people to carry arms for self defence.They never offered any protection against tyrannical government and neither did they protect freedom.How could they?
Other countries such as the UK which has no written constitution could make changes over time; a standing army protected the State and a police force protected the individual. So civilised countries saw little need to have an armed population.But America was locked in by the Amendment , perpetuated by those who lost sight (or never knew) of the reason it existed.

I beg to differ. I think many Americans know the reasons why the 2nd Amendment exists and this Senate report - which I have many times linked to in this forum - supports this belief. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

I feel that many on this board do not read the Senate Report because it differs from your personal viewpoint. It is a well researched paper, more so than most opinions that are briefly stated on internet forums.

The anti-gunners have their opinions. The pro-gunners have their opinions, the Senate Report and the Supreme Court's decision in Heller.

Since neither side will budge, I guess we will continue to yammer and yammer ad infinitum.

Certainly with Trump's election, no major attempts at change are expected.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by profvolup

DHS says anyone stockpiling more than 7 days of food should be on the Federal Terrorist Watch list, which is way, way bigger than the No Fly List.

It's all federal lists that the US gov't uses, not just the No Fly List. This is why a lot of people are fucked right now, including one of my neighbors.

The FBI literally cannot keep up with the massive expansion of these lists since the current President came in. They are 10x bigger now than when W. left office, and are becoming a 'turn in your neighbor' list.

As someone said it best ...

"During the Clinton administration, IRS Audit List was the 'turn in your neighbor' list. Under the Obama adminsitration, the Terrorist Watch List is now the 'turn in your neighbor' list."

You posted the above as a response to my post #41, Quoting post #41.
While I do agree with the what you wrote about the federal govt use of lists I am not sure why you used that as a response to my post #41?

The use of lists as you describe neither contradicts nor supports the post (#41) you cited. The issue of federal "watch" lists would be better used as an example of governmental tyranny in support of Madison's belief that an armed citizenry would be less likely to allow for a tyrannical government.

I just re-read the above paragraph and I am in no way suggesting that people take up arms because of the use of these lists. I believe that what you describe as well as actual use of agencies like the IRS and the use of regulatory agencies to thwart the will of congress (the people) are a form of soft tyranny. If leaders like Obama are willing use this level of tyranny against an armed citizenry what lengths would he have gone to against an unarmed citizenry.

We all benefit from an "armed citizenry" whether you are pro or anti 2nd. It not only serves to keep government in check on a national level but it also serves to keep criminals in check on a personal level. While we will never be able to prove that it keeps government in check ( I doubt Obama will include a chapter in his memoir about how if it weren't for that pesky 2nd Amendment how he would still be POTUS) we know from interviewing prison inmates that they were more likely to commit crimes were gun control laws are the strongest. We also know that areas that allow personal carry, either open or concealed, have lower crime rates.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

We all benefit from an "armed citizenry" whether you are pro or anti 2nd. It not only serves to keep government in check on a national level but it also serves to keep criminals in check on a personal level. While we will never be able to prove that it keeps government in check ( I doubt Obama will include a chapter in his memoir about how if it weren't for that pesky 2nd Amendment how he would still be POTUS) we know from interviewing prison inmates that they were more likely to commit crimes were gun control laws are the strongest. We also know that areas that allow personal carry, either open or concealed, have lower crime rates.

I'm torn here. I do believe that we are better off in having an armed citizenry. However, I know many in African-American neighborhoods who are being terrorized by an armed thuggery.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I'm torn here. I do believe that we are better off in having an armed citizenry. However, I know many in African-American neighborhoods who are being terrorized by an armed thuggery.

Amend my statement to read as follows "An armed law abiding citizenry"
Happy Brian? Mutters under his breath "knit picking lefty."

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

You posted the above as a response to my post #41, Quoting post #41.
While I do agree with the what you wrote about the federal govt use of lists I am not sure why you used that as a response to my post #41?

My apologies, but I must have quoted the wrong post.

Originally Posted by Faceman675

I just re-read the above paragraph and I am in no way suggesting that people take up arms because of the use of these lists. I believe that what you describe as well as actual use of agencies like the IRS and the use of regulatory agencies to thwart the will of congress (the people) are a form of soft tyranny. If leaders like Obama are willing use this level of tyranny against an armed citizenry what lengths would he have gone to against an unarmed citizenry.

My point is that stockpiling 7 days of food (among countless other things) this puts you on the Terrorist Watch List, which is 10x bigger than the No Fly List. And both lists have grown almost 10x bigger than when W. left office, making them very difficult and a huge burden for the FBI.

The President and most of the 'Gun Safety' lobby argue it's the No Fly List to deny rights, but every proposal includes all major federal watch lists, including the Terrorist Watch List. In other words, several million people, including hundreds of thousands in the US, and at least a hundred thousand US citizens and legal residents.

But only US citizens and, depending on their status, some legal residents can purchase guns in the first place. Which means it's just political non-sense and grandstanding. Even the Huffington Post commended the NRA on how they are trying to bring light to this, even if they disagree with the 2nd Amendment and what the NRA stands for.

Huffington Post: "The NRA Has Actually Got Something Right On Gun Control"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b071ec19eebbdf

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I'm torn here. I do believe that we are better off in having an armed citizenry. However, I know many in African-American neighborhoods who are being terrorized by an armed thuggery.

This is the same argument that people use in a disaster area, and politicians order police to seize all weapons. Even some politically motivated and elected police chiefs find it very popular to do so.

But the 'armed thuggery' aren't the ones who are in 'local militias.' In fact, it's the 'local militias' that are the ones that deter those 'armed thugs' from coming near them. It's sad, but the ultimate 'babe magnet' in a disaster area is an armed man.

No, that's not a joke. And I've met too many of my share of raped women in disaster areas. Although I only half-joke that if we want to pass an Amendment that only women can bear arms and belong to militias, I'm all for it. Cue the Penn Jillette ...

[Rogerbh]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-gu...220224695.html This seemingly will be a legal battle in the future. The right of a state to legislate firearms and accessories - in this case silencers - within its own borders. The Feds use to use the Commerce Clause to legislate on areas not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause That was curtailed in 1995 as discussed in the article. Pre 1995, I was taught that no Federal law using the Commerce Clause argument for validity had been deemed "unconstitutional".

I am guessing this issue and Marijuana laws will appear in the Supreme Court in the near future as States battle the Feds for control.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-gu...220224695.html This seemingly will be a legal battle in the future. The right of a state to legislate firearms and accessories - in this case silencers - within its own borders. The Feds use to use the Commerce Clause to legislate on areas not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause That was curtailed in 1995 as discussed in the article. Pre 1995, I was taught that no Federal law using the Commerce Clause argument for validity had been deemed "unconstitutional".

I am guessing this issue and Marijuana laws will appear in the Supreme Court in the near future as States battle the Feds for control.

Personally, I think the feds only duty is to uphold the 2A. I do think a state can legalize pot, or coke, or whatever, without the feds getting involved.
A state cannot, however, violate the 2A, IMHO.