Details on the proposed gun ban Jan 3rd

[#1Townie]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We've lost most actual rights during the previous 8 years because people were pissing in their boots about evil terrorists than is even worth mentioning.

First off you are only reading the first part that. The second statement about the peoples rights to bear arms clearly states to the people. Not a militia. You think the founding fathers made the people statement as a mistake? Also a militia is nothing more than people willing to rise up to protect their states. Not the military. So get off the militia part to that. It clearly states to the people. It was even upheld in court. So done.

Next im not sure what last eight years you are referring to but ndaa and a few others have by far blown the patriot act out of the water.

You just got done asking me if i was scared and yet here you are trying to give up civil liberties out of the idea of fear. Before you agree with the news tonight do yourself a favor and go look up actual gun statics. These mass shootings make up like one percent of gun crime. Crime with rifles alone only makes up 30% as a whole. You wont find that info in any major media.

So before you start giving up anymore rights out of protection you sgould do some homework. Maybe you should start with what the current administration has added to the formers so called illegal laws. In short terms see what obama added to the patriot act.

[The Black Knight]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

We've lost most actual rights during the previous 8 years because people were pissing in their boots about evil terrorists than is even worth mentioning.

You've got some back ass backwards way of thinking and processing a sentence. Where do you get that only a well regulated militia only has the right? If the founding fathers(you know those old white guys) wanted to assure that only the militia had the right, then they would have worded the 2nd Amendment to read as such: a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But they didn't write it that way. They said, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. It's the people who make up a militia, hence them needing the right to keep and bear arms.

[Wrider]

It's not an unalienable right, it's at best a opinion of a few old white men that it's a right. The militia does have a right to bear arms though.



I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

Found at findlaw.com. Specifically in reference to District of Columbia v Heller.

[Jmetz]

I'm gonna leave this here. It's a good watch if you have some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGzj...e_gdata_player

[Ghosty]

But they didn't write it that way. They said, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. It's the people who make up a militia, hence them needing the right to keep and bear arms.

Wore my AR15News.com shirt to work yesterday. Complete with George Mason quote on the back, nizzzzzze...

[dirkterrell]

I doubt most gun owners are in a well regulated militia, in fact I know they aren't.

Read Federalist 46 to see what the Founders meant by "militia".

[asp_125]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[97]

So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls.

[The Black Knight]

Wore my AR15News.com shirt to work yesterday. Complete with George Mason quote on the back, nizzzzzze...

Yeah buddy!!!

My dad and I both have shirts and hats that feature the Spartan and the Molon Labe inscription.

[Hoot]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:



So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls.

An uniform militia. Not THE militia. They created a more structured army, they didn't take away the right to form militia. Which... Any able bodied person willing to do so, may create or join.

[Ezzzzy1]

Then lets form a fucking Militia right NOW!


.

[Hoot]

Then lets for a fucking Militia right NOW!

[Boom]

I’ve been silently reading this one for a while, and just have to speak up. All this talk of militia, gun control/banning, assault weapons vs ‘other’ weapons, amendments,… let’s back up a second and put it all together.

The state (any governing body, federal or otherwise) has a pattern of growth, corruption, and ultimately turning on its people for control. (I’ll be using the word corruption very loosely; just remember there are thousands of books written about this topic, do the research.) The intentions are always good at first, we all know we need protection from ourselves, right? I think the founding parents (See how PC I am?) saw the empowerment of Militias as a way to add balance to this force. It is not exactly that we’re waiting for the state to rise up, so that our militia can step up and fight them off,… not if we can help it. And we certainly don’t want a ‘Standing’ militia, because it would be susceptible to the same corruption as the state. So how do we keep things in this delicate balance of peace, with a state that continues to respect its duties? What we want is a well-armed public. Knowing that a militia is likely to form is a deterrent for the state to start down any road against its people, lest they forget who they serve.

Do you think the armed forces of this country are going to be deterred by pea-shooters? No, this is why assault weapons are a healthy part of the original plan, and should stay so.

Part of the problem is that few people are willing to look at the issue and history of our laws in a holistic manner. I hear things like, “Gun shoot guy, gun bad” and, “There is no rational need for Assault Weapons in today’s society”, and it is easy to believe these if you lose site of the big picture.

-- Matt

[#1Townie]

Hey welcome to the chat bro. We have gone over tyranny in the last weeks but the op seems to think tyranny is no longer a threat in the 21st century. I have asked how that is but no responses.

[#1Townie]

Then lets form a fucking Militia right NOW!


.

You should.

[The Black Knight]

You should.

I'm forming my own empire, with me as Emperor of course

[Boom]

We have gone over tyranny in the last weeks but the op seems to think tyranny is no longer a threat in the 21st century.

Tyranny may not have its head out in the open, but it is alive and well as a threat. It is part of the human condition. It comes out when it’s allowed to, and just because it hasn’t yet in this country doesn’t mean it can’t. Two hundred years isn’t very long on the scale we should be talking about. Take the Stanford Prison Experiment (You know, the one where prison guards turned evil just because they were not accountable for their actions and given a general ‘control’ of the inmates.), which “…demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support”. (Yes, I’m equating a “...legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support” to State.)

So what’s to stop this from happening? It isn’t just fear, term limits, or plain ‘good will’, but accountability. And who is to hold the state accountable? Certainly not the state itself, that has never worked at any scale. The originators of these ideas believed it is the people’s responsibility. And how are they to do so?
If you don’t think it is the people… if at this point your answer is politics, politicians, social mores, the police, the military, or really anything outside of a potential, reactionary force risen up from the population then I invite you to explain how it all works. Please be sure to include some clear examples of how and when it has happened in history or science (also, please remember scale).

[Ezzzzy1]

Its really not a matter of if, its a matter of when. Sooner or later the cup will tip and things will start to unravel. Its nice to hear someone talk about scale and scope.

The who, what, why, when... Its all a crap shoot. It could be one of a thousand things that just pushes everything the exact right way to sway the scale enough for someone to pull the trigger first.

I used to think that our own troops wouldnt fight the citizens of this country but the more I think about it the more I start to realize that it could very easily happen. The troops would just have to be convinced that they were doing the right thing and they would do it.

And the more people (the citizens) become a threat the faster our government would be to react. There are civilian groups that have tanks and airplanes. They do it for two reasons: 1 because they can and 2 to have a fighting chance if shit hits the fan.

My point is that if one of these groups got antsy this whole process could get going pretty quick especially because of how information is communicated now days. All people would have to hear is that the Government is attacking citizens and people would jump at the opportunity to join in. Maybe not you and I at first but sooner or later we would have to make a decision as to what fight we would fight... Theirs, the Governments or our own.

[Wrider]

Well if you're going to pick apart the second amendment, militia refers to:



So anyone not a white male between 18 & 45, please hand over your muskets, your powder, and your balls.

Again, check out the reference to findlaw I posted before you posted this...

[vort3xr6]

Tyranny may not have its head out in the open, but it is alive and well as a threat. It is part of the human condition. It comes out when it’s allowed to, and just because it hasn’t yet in this country doesn’t mean it can’t. Two hundred years isn’t very long on the scale we should be talking about. Take the Stanford Prison Experiment (You know, the one where prison guards turned evil just because they were not accountable for their actions and given a general ‘control’ of the inmates.), which “…demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support”. (Yes, I’m equating a “...legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support” to State.)

So what’s to stop this from happening? It isn’t just fear, term limits, or plain ‘good will’, but accountability. And who is to hold the state accountable? Certainly not the state itself, that has never worked at any scale. The originators of these ideas believed it is the people’s responsibility. And how are they to do so?
If you don’t think it is the people… if at this point your answer is politics, politicians, social mores, the police, the military, or really anything outside of a potential, reactionary force risen up from the population then I invite you to explain how it all works. Please be sure to include some clear examples of how and when it has happened in history or science (also, please remember scale).

Welcome. And great post.

Just out of curiosity, do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

[The Black Knight]

Welcome. And great post.

Just out of curiosity, do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

Even if they did, there wouldn't be jack shit they could do about it or to help. Two oceans on either side is a lot of distance to travel. Yeah we're on our own...

[Boom]

...do you think other countries would support a USA civilian revolt?

This is a great question. I haven’t really thought about it, but my gut says no. At least, they wouldn't come to help us. Here are some random thoughts followed by a half-assed answer.

Other than the US (and maybe the Ernesto Guevara types, which are a dying breed) I can’t think of entities that are quick to jump in to help the civil revolts of other countries. (look at Syria today) This is especially true for the uninvited manner that the US does it.

While the US has many allegiances with other countries they are allegiances between governments, not our peoples.

Other than a worthless reverence for our pop-culture, most of the world’s population hates the US. I can’t begin to guess what sympathies might exist from outside during a revolt. So would we see sympathy for the people, or the ‘cashing in’ of favors to the state?

I guess my short answer is no, I don’t think anybody would come to help us. But I do think that somebody (or somebodies, plural) would indeed jump into the fight. If the empire that has been keeping you down has a week moment, isn't that the exact moment to strike?

Taking a step back, I have to say that I don’t think we’re close to any such revolt. We just jumped to this subject from the original idea that we were to keep our own government in check via the empowerment of potential militia.

We have it so good in this country, better than anywhere else in so many ways. We do so in large part due to the exploitation of other nations. I’m finding it sad that we’re spending energy considering who might come help us when we know damn well that things COULD be a ton better in other places. And I’m not even talking about us going to help, just us being less imperialistic. How about instead we take responsibility and stop some of the exploitative behavior we have as a nation?

Down with Consumerism, it is the evil driving it all. Be a part of the solution, be a Producer.

[bluedogok]

Most wouldn't be open to it unless the bribes, I mean aid payments from the current regime (regardless of party in control) stop.