Is the right to bear arms outdated?

[Soccerdad1995]

We should make it illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime.

If criminals follow all gun laws, this will solve the whole problem. If criminals do follow all gun laws, then no new law will make any difference at all. Either way, this is the only gun law that we need on the books.

[Lynyrd]

I don't know if our local number is near 24% but it is more than 10%, based on the social media activities. Call them Communists, Socialists or whatever, they are firm believers that government has the answer to all problems and the rest of us should be subjugated to government rule. The idea that government represents us is a foreign concept, just like rational conversation.

All tyrannical governments have first disarmed their citizens. Once that happens, becoming subjugated to their whim and fancy gets much easier.

[Acronym Esq]

Yikes, so far 24% say they literally want the second amendment removed from the constitution. I can understand people wanting to review the restrictions put on it or not put on it, but removing it completely?

OK, I'll take a stab. If I can't argue against myself, I don't have a very good grip on the argument. Here we go.
...
The Constitution formed a more realistic and powerful federal government, but since it followed war and failure, it was still crippled and pennyless. ... The 2nd Amendment wasn't an idealistic constitutional escape clause. The 2nd Amendment put "the people" on notice that "the people" are expected to serve in the Militia.
200+ years. Our country is a success. We figured out how to fund, train, and maintain the most powerful standing military on the planet. Our enemies are no longer inside our borders. Our paid, trained, and equipped fighting men can deploy anywhere quickly. We don't need teenage rednecks who trained on their farm hunting rabits to bring their 10/22 to the courthouse and stop the marauding Indians. Civilian equipment and training lags 75 years behind our military capability and needs. If you want to prepare for military service, learn to code, not field strip your semi-automatic rifle.
The question at hand has nothing to do with hunting or protecting your family. It asks if civilian firearm ownership still supports the country's needs of a well regulated militia. The US doesn't need a pop-up army of farmers any more, therefore the 2nd amendment is outdated.

acronym 10/12/2017 12:39 PM

...
So your saying the opposing forces you mentioned are the only forces we have to fear that would keep a state from being "free"? No other government or country has ever disarmed its people and then pushed its agenda onto them?

We have no reason to fear our government. Ultimately, it asserts it's agenda and power through the will of the majority. Our civilized political debate is a check on the government. Media looking for scandal is a check on the government. Prosecutors making a name is a check on the government. Politicians who desire to be elected is a check on the government. If there is true injustice, we must exercise these methods and protect ourselves. The only reason we would need guns to defend ourselves from the government is if we are an oppressed minority. There are plenty of words for oppressed minorities rising up: terrorist, radical, traitor. I personally don't want an armed minority rising up and imposing it's will on all of us.

To argue that guns are needed to keep the government successful is folly. I can choose almost any other successful country in the world - none of them allow their citizens to be armed. North Korea? Nuclear state. China? Global manufacturing power house. UK? Australia? France? Spain? I don't know what they are good at, but they don't have an armed population either.

What about the part that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? When does it stop being our right? What about all the Antifa people spreading hate? Should they lose their freedom of speech? Where exactly do we draw this line of what is and isn't outdated?

Oooo, I'm not arguing against the first amendment. Or the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th. They are all important parts of our democracy. It is only the need to have an armed population that has been usurped by media, twitface, police, swat, national guard, and the Navy (best of all branches).

We are currently watching the consequences of bearing arms while exercising our right to speech: violence. I should also remind us all that St. Ronald Regan participated in broad gun control in California as organized speakers armed themselves.

I do not see how anyone could honestly say they believe the 2nd amendment is outdated without saying all our amendments are outdated.

Quite the contrary. The remaining rights in the constitution and it's amendments are critical to establishing the reason the 2nd is out dated. Without them, we would need to negotiate at gunpoint.

Just because we don't have the same threats as you mentioned doesn't mean we don't have a government that would love to make us its slaves. Just look at how around Houston as well as many other cities/states conservative Pastors were/are being censored.

I haven't heard about censoring pastors unless you are referring to Houston's request for transcripts and notes in the context of discovery in a civil case. If I recall, the public outcry caused the city to revise it's discovery requests. No constitutional crisis. No guns. Just citizens applying pressure to their elected officials.

acronym 10/14/2017 10:43 AM

[TexasJohnBoy]

I don't need to justify the 2nd amendment. If anyone wants it changed, there's a process for that laid out in the constitution.

[rotor]

We have no reason to fear our government.
acronym 10/14/2017 10:43 AM

Japanese Americans said that before being put in concentration camps in this country. Jews in Germany said the same thing. People in Venezuela said the same thing. Government has always been the biggest killer of it's citizens. History tells us that. Perhaps a little trip to Cuba would help.

[Abraham]

"We have no reason to fear our government"

I love sarcasm...

Remind of what Ronald Reagan said, oh yeah: "The most terrifying words in the English language are - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Let's see, how many citizens did Mao, Amin and/or Stalin kill?

Not mention pol pot and on and on and on...

Right, the government is all good, all powerful and all knowing, now move along comrade or there will be consequences.

[jason812]

"We have no reason to fear our government"

I love sarcasm...

Remind of what Ronald Reagan said, oh yeah: "The most terrifying words in the English language are - "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Let's see, how many citizens did Mao, Amin and/or Stalin kill?

Not mention pol pot and on and on and on...

Right, the government is all good, all powerful and all knowing, now move along comrade or there will be consequences.

What about the successful North Korean regime? I'm sure Kim Jung whatever has never killed anybody and he makes sure his people are as fat as he is.

[The Annoyed Man]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to try and come take them. I’m old enough that I don’t care about what they want to do about my guns any longer. They’ll have to send someone to come take them; and I’m not giving them up......PERIOD. Most of the people in law enforcement (there’s always a few traitors who will “follow orders”) will decline to enforce the order when told to kick down doors and take privately owned guns. Most of the military (there’s always a few traitors) when told to kick down door and take privately owned guns would decline to enforce the order. Why? Because they took an oath to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Most of them took that oath seriously. And very few of them want to risk not going home that night in one piece because they obeyed an illegal order.

That leaves one group to try and kick down our doors and take our guns - the leftist version of whatever passes for their version of a volunteer “Mahdi Army”. I actually welcome the attempt. I’m tired of their crap, and I’m tired of their threats. I invite any one of them - with happy anticipation - to be the first one in the stack coming through my door. All over the country, they’ll be getting racked and stacked high and deep so quickly that they’ll lose enthusiasm for the task pretty fast.........at which point we can do what we should have done 30 years ago - try them for sedition, and deport them to North Korea. The Norks are their kind of people, so I’m sure they’ll like it better there anyway.

I’m tired of their crap, and I no longer fear the possibility of a confrontation. If it happens, it happens.....and we win.

[Tylerscott20]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to come take them.

The logistics required to do that would make any government's head spin. Can you imagine being sent to disarm a populace that has more weapons than you? Yup, me neither.

The slow erosion of the second amendment by the media's spin of what the "public's" opinion on guns are is the real threat. But even that is backfiring for the left.

[rotor]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to come take them.

The logistics required to do that would make any government's head spin. Can you imagine being sent to disarm a populace that has more weapons than you? Yup, me neither.

The slow erosion of the second amendment by the media's spin of what the "public's" opinion on guns are is the real threat. But even that is backfiring for the left.

The problem of course would be that it would be American boys wearing the uniform who are essentially good kids that would be on the front line of this assault and they would either not follow those orders or would follow them and would be shooting fellow Americans. Killing Americans was not a problem for the government in Waco. Men, women and children. Very scary thoughts.

[The Annoyed Man]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to come take them.

The logistics required to do that would make any government's head spin. Can you imagine being sent to disarm a populace that has more weapons than you? Yup, me neither.

The slow erosion of the second amendment by the media's spin of what the "public's" opinion on guns are is the real threat. But even that is backfiring for the left.

The problem of course would be that it would be American boys wearing the uniform who are essentially good kids that would be on the front line of this assault and they would either not follow those orders or would follow them and would be shooting fellow Americans. Killing Americans was not a problem for the government in Waco. Men, women and children. Very scary thoughts.

I don’t want to shoot good American kids anymore than most of them want to shoot me. But for the ones that find it easier to shoot me than to question the legality of their orders, I will shoot them back, and I won’t feel bad about it, because at that point they are no longer just good American kids.....they are thoughtless people who use the “I was just following orders” excuse. Nuremberg didn’t deal kindly with that type of person, and I won’t either. You shoot at me for the purpose of invading my home to violate my 2nd Amendment rights, when I have committed no other crime, and I won’t care if you’re 18 or 38, I will shoot back, deliberately, with aimed fire. If someone goes down, that’s on them, not on me. All they had to do to stay alive was leave me the heck alone and respect my rights. That should not be a hard decision to make. If someone has a hard time making that decision, then I would question what other major areas of their life are devoid of moral content.

[ScottDLS]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to come take them.

The logistics required to do that would make any government's head spin. Can you imagine being sent to disarm a populace that has more weapons than you? Yup, me neither.

The slow erosion of the second amendment by the media's spin of what the "public's" opinion on guns are is the real threat. But even that is backfiring for the left.

The problem of course would be that it would be American boys wearing the uniform who are essentially good kids that would be on the front line of this assault and they would either not follow those orders or would follow them and would be shooting fellow Americans. Killing Americans was not a problem for the government in Waco. Men, women and children. Very scary thoughts.

This is all the reason for the "slow roll" gun control. Just a few "common sense" gun control measures, mind you. Connecticut and New York have already started. In CT you have to register your "assault weapons" and "big clips". In NY with the SAFE Act, you had to get rid of them or destroy them. Oh...lots of people didn't, but they are now felons in waiting, like you guys who drive through school zones with an OOS license.

And don't forget, the privileged few with NY handgun licenses...first are you going to risk yours by having >10 mags lying around? Or illegal rifles (i.e. pistol grip and detachable magazines. So when it comes time to "come and take them" you're on the list. What if they mail you a "turn in order" ? Oh you're a MD in NY, like my BIL from Texas...well unless you're going to go the local, police academy like him, and also get sworn in as a Fed, you better turn 'em in. Otherwise, good luck practicing medicine? CDL's, you're next.

You think the "Constitutional Carry" people are nuts? Well good thing they have your prints on file and your address...

Who "needs" a bump stock anyway? How about >10rd mags aka massive murdering death clips, c'mon you don't need them. They were already illegal to make from 1994-2004. Banning full auto's they snuck into the Firearm Owners PROTECTION Act 30 years ago.

The answer to EVERY "common sense" measure is NO. NO Federal involvement NONE. No compromise, no reasonable review of regulations on rubber bands and paper clips. No NRA giving "a little" for the sake of public opinion. Regardless of trying to sound reasonable, NRA will always be demonized by the left, so don't waste effort.

No more Elmer Fudd Cornyns and Gentleman Hunter Paul Ryans! Forget those RINOs!

NO!!!

[spectre]

According to Congress, it has been outdated since 1986. Maybe 1934.

[rotor]

In the end, they can pass all the laws they want, banning all the guns they want, and then eventually they have to come take them.

The logistics required to do that would make any government's head spin. Can you imagine being sent to disarm a populace that has more weapons than you? Yup, me neither.

The slow erosion of the second amendment by the media's spin of what the "public's" opinion on guns are is the real threat. But even that is backfiring for the left.

The problem of course would be that it would be American boys wearing the uniform who are essentially good kids that would be on the front line of this assault and they would either not follow those orders or would follow them and would be shooting fellow Americans. Killing Americans was not a problem for the government in Waco. Men, women and children. Very scary thoughts.

This is all the reason for the "slow roll" gun control. Just a few "common sense" gun control measures, mind you. Connecticut and New York have already started. In CT you have to register your "assault weapons" and "big clips". In NY with the SAFE Act, you had to get rid of them or destroy them. Oh...lots of people didn't, but they are now felons in waiting, like you guys who drive through school zones with an OOS license.

And don't forget, the privileged few with NY handgun licenses...first are you going to risk yours by having >10 mags lying around? Or illegal rifles (i.e. pistol grip and detachable magazines. So when it comes time to "come and take them" you're on the list. What if they mail you a "turn in order" ? Oh you're a MD in NY, like my BIL from Texas...well unless you're going to go the local, police academy like him, and also get sworn in as a Fed, you better turn 'em in. Otherwise, good luck practicing medicine? CDL's, you're next.

You think the "Constitutional Carry" people are nuts? Well good thing they have your prints on file and your address...

Who "needs" a bump stock anyway? How about >10rd mags aka massive murdering death clips, c'mon you don't need them. They were already illegal to make from 1994-2004. Banning full auto's they snuck into the Firearm Owners PROTECTION Act 30 years ago.

The answer to EVERY "common sense" measure is NO. NO Federal involvement NONE. No compromise, no reasonable review of regulations on rubber bands and paper clips. No NRA giving "a little" for the sake of public opinion. Regardless of trying to sound reasonable, NRA will always be demonized by the left, so don't waste effort.

No more Elmer Fudd Cornyns and Gentleman Hunter Paul Ryans! Forget those RINOs!

NO!!!

Glad you got it off your chest and I agree 100%.

[chasfm11]

Perhaps I'm wrong but the standoff in CT is one of the indicators that the politicians are not winning this battle. If you believe the stories of 100K+ people in CT with banned firearms who didn't comply and acknowledge that the CT authorities, after much bluster on the part of some police officers about kicking down doors, have suspended enforcement attempts, you have to conclude that bans have not accomplished their purpose. I did read a story where a citizen in NY was prosecuted for a SAFE act violation but even there, action against those with now illegal firearms appears to be lacking

I agree that enforcement on job situations could result against citizens who defy firearms laws but expect that there would be actions to identify those who have those firearms first. In CT, I suspect that many have their "illegal guns" in alternate locations from their homes so finding those guns would take some extraordinary effort. Given the ease and speed of social media, any concerted effort to find those guns would become news without Main Stream Media participation. I don't think that the situation would be different in any other State. While some might comply as some did in CT, many will not. If I remember correctly, the Australian "buy back" was deemed to be lacking in success by a third.

We all saw the news (and felt the effects in empty store shelves) of the buying sprees on guns and ammo under the 44th President. I cannot imagine too many of those who felt compelled to buy guns under those circumstances willingly turning and around and complying with new gun bans. I see it as unfortunate that those who voted with their pocketbooks were unwilling to do the same at the ballot box.