They are taking our guns away !

all potential terrorists are on the watch list ? I think you overestimate how good fatherland security is. It is not a handgun, why a background check ?
 
Cypress said:

The likelihood of them passing the background investigation seems slim...

You're a gun guy right? Surely you've heard that republicans have fought tooth and nail, to protect the gun show loopehole, where background checks are waived.

All a terrorist has to do is go to one of those public gun shows.
Click to expand...
Right. You must have never been to a gun show. The likelihood of them getting an unchecked weapon would be even slimmer there.

Plus, I don't know where you are at but Gun Shows have been closed to that kind of shenanigan for along time round these parts.

And once again, the likelihood of a terrorist buying one of these for his exploits is slim. They prefer a much more efficient method of killing that makes a far greater impact than these.
 
Damocles said:
Right. You must have never been to a gun show. The likelihood of them getting an unchecked weapon would be even slimmer there.

Plus, I don't know where you are at but Gun Shows have been closed to that kind of shenanigan for along time round these parts.

And once again, the likelihood of a terrorist buying one of these for his exploits is slim. They prefer a much more efficient method of killing that makes a far greater impact than these.
Click to expand...

Well, then the media's been lying to me. I was under the impression that criminal background checks were waived at gun shows.

When did they institute criminal background checks at gun shows? I must have missed that.
 
Cypress said:
Well, then the media's been lying to me. I was under the impression that criminal background checks were waived at gun shows.

When did they institute criminal background checks at gun shows? I must have missed that.
Click to expand...
They made it so the smaller sellers have to use the access of the larger sellers at gun shows. There is no such thing as a "private sale" at a gun show either. Even person-to-person direct sales are covered under that law.

The only place left to purchase one without a background check is at a person's house. And I know very few who would own of these who'd be willing to sell at all, let alone to somebody who might "look" like a terrorist.

I think this is fearmongering. "Terrorists will get their hands on these!"

Shoot, I have only even seen one at a gun show at all.
 
Damocles said:
They made it so the smaller sellers have to use the access of the larger sellers at gun shows. There is no such thing as a "private sale" at a gun show either. Even person-to-person direct sales are covered under that law.

The only place left to purchase one without a background check is at a person's house. And I know very few who would own of these who'd be willing to sell at all, let alone to somebody who might "look" like a terrorist.

I think this is fearmongering. "Terrorists will get their hands on these!"

Shoot, I have only even seen one at a gun show at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that your argument that we need 50 cal ammunition inthe potential case that we need to rebel against the governement, outweighs the potential threat of legal armour piercing ammunition in the hands of terrorists or criminals.

50 cal is a battlefield weapon. I don't see any concievable need or right for a cititzen to own it.

What's your upper limit on weaponry, that a private citizen should legally have?
 
Cypress said:
I'm not convinced that your argument that we need 50 cal ammunition inthe potential case that we need to rebel against the governement, outweighs the potential threat of legal armour piercing ammunition in the hands of terrorists or criminals.

50 cal is a battlefield weapon. I don't see any concievable need or right for a cititzen to own it.

What's your upper limit on weaponry, that a private citizen should legally have?
Click to expand...
I think that those who would trade their freedoms for security will, in the end, wind up with neither.

And this is pretty much my "upper-end".

Shoot, insurgents have already shown that even if you don't have these you can "arm" yourself and tear away at even the strongest armies.
 
Damocles said:
I think that those who would trade their freedoms for security will, in the end, wind up with neither.

And this is pretty much my "upper-end".

Shoot, insurgents have already shown that even if you don't have these you can "arm" yourself and tear away at even the strongest armies.
Click to expand...


Should private citizens be able to legally own rocket propelled grenade lauchers?
 

Fair enough. So you DO believe there are limitations on the second amendment. So do I.

Yes but the only limitations that are applicable are ones that take away other consitutional rights by their mere usage. There is never a justified way to ever use any of those kind of weapons. Where you draw the line might differ.

I don't see any reason that a private citizen, who is not part of a state well-regulated militia, should have a right, or a need for armor piercing ammunition.

Cypress at the time of the writing of TSA the militia generally referred to the armed public at large not an official government sanctioned body. The founders wanted to be able to preserve the situation that allowed them to beat the British should history ever repeat itself (and it did we just didn't do anything).
 
I'm not convinced that your argument that we need 50 cal ammunition inthe potential case that we need to rebel against the governement, outweighs the potential threat of legal armour piercing ammunition in the hands of terrorists or criminals.

With the Bush administration I think we should be rebelling right now. The founders stood for far less.
 
IHateGovernment said:

Fair enough. So you DO believe there are limitations on the second amendment. So do I.

Yes but the only limitations that are applicable are ones that take away other consitutional rights by their mere usage. There is never a justified way to ever use any of those kind of weapons. Where you draw the line might differ.

I don't see any reason that a private citizen, who is not part of a state well-regulated militia, should have a right, or a need for armor piercing ammunition.

Cypress at the time of the writing of TSA the militia generally referred to the armed public at large not an official government sanctioned body. The founders wanted to be able to preserve the situation that allowed them to beat the British should history ever repeat itself (and it did we just didn't do anything).
Click to expand...

The whole concept of a "well regulated militia" in the second amendment, is that we would have a "well regulated" body of citizen soldiers to defend the country. Because the constitution and the founders did not envision, nor did they trust, large professional standing armies. This was the main reason for the second amendment. Jefferson wrote quite eloquently about the need for universal service, in the context of citizen soliders and militias. It wasn't primarily, to provide citiznes the ability to rebel against the United States government should it get out of hand.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, Okay, thanks.

So, you, IHG, and I are in agreement, that there are some pretty significant limitations on the second amendments "right to bear arms".
Click to expand...
I believe that arming yourself with knowledge is far better than RPGs.
 
Cypress said:
The whole concept of a "well regulated militia" in the second amendment, is that we would have a "well regulated" body of citizen soldiers to defend the country. Because the constitution and the founders did not envision, nor did they trust, large professional standing armies. This was the main reason for the second amendment. Jefferson wrote quite eloquently about the need for universal service, in the context of citizen soliders and militias. It wasn't primarily, to provide citiznes the ability to rebel against the United States government should it get out of hand.
Click to expand...
It was also clearly in their writing that the citizens should be armed for just such an ocassion as armed rebellion. Shoot, they believed it was a duty if the government became too overbearing. They included the amendment so that the government could not take the arms from the people through laws as many of the Monarchies did to their citizenry making them easier to pound into submission.
 
Cypress much of what was written in the Constitution as well as the BOR was to plant the seed of what would allow the resurgence of a revolution should the need arise.

The founders were not also big fans of Democracy and much of their writings stressed liberty was more important. The reason for that is that the revolution was not popular among the everyday folk and if they voted on whether or not to rebel they would have lost.
 
Damocles said:
It was also clearly in their writing that the citizens should be armed for just such an ocassion as armed rebellion. Shoot, they believed it was a duty if the government became too overbearing. They included the amendment so that the government could not take the arms from the people through laws as many of the Monarchies did to their citizenry making them easier to pound into submission.
Click to expand...


Like I said, Jefferson and the founders considered "well regulated militias", in the context of the 2nd amendment, to be primarily a vehicle for universal service and the defense of the nation by citizen soldiers. They didn't want large professional armies, like europe had. That was the primary reason. The NRA likes to invent the myth that the primary reason, was to provide the means to rebel against the government of the United States.
 
Yet, the thread runs throughout all their writing of the importance of the people's ability to defend against the government. It is more than significant in their writing, it is propounded upon constantly. To say that because of this "primary" reason that the other holds little significance and therefore we should take much of the arms away from citizens is simply disregarding their clear intent and what many still believe today.

Arming the citizenry was certainly a goal of the Founders.
 
Beyond that if you look at the wording of the amendment and its sentence structure the first part is but a supporting clause not a requirement for the right to bear arms.

For example if the first amendment read as. The speech being a vital instrument in the dissemination of truth to the people, the right to free speech shall not be infringed.

You could not say that any exercise of free speech not pertinent to the supporting clause could be infringed upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top