To those who believe 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee...

[_krose]

A well-regulated militia is an outgrowth of armed private citizens according to the Constitution.

What part? Please explain.

[_krose]

However, the no-brainer conclusion is that should a well regulated militia become necessary, that same militia surely can not rely on the government to provide arms. Thus the people should maintain their own armory so that they could come together and be organized as necessary.

Why do you think that? You do realize that Article 1 of the US Constitution says Congress is responsible "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia," right?

George Washington knocking on the door of King George to ask for weapons to use in the Revolution would have likely resulted in a different outcome for the colonists.

Does this odd comparison mean you anticipate that any need for a "regulated militia" would be in the form of an armed revolution, against which Congress and the president are constitutionally sworn to defend? (Yes, that's the same constitution that includes the 2nd amendment.)

[_krose]

One more question, this one for ldsfaqs regarding the reason for starting this thread.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is threatening to take away an individual's right to be armed?


Okay, I can't resist another one:

Where did you get the idea that "every single American had a gun" in the 1940s? Is the frightened Japanese Army story what the home schools are teaching in 'history class' these days?

[_Tarski]

Do you believe in Freedom or not?

Freedom doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want. I think guns should be regulated in that there should be limits and those limits should be based ion a wide variety of considerations.

Do you believe in freedom? Should marijuana be legal? Should I be free to burn the US flag? Should I be allowed to have sex with my sister in law? Should Donald Trump's mother be allowed to have sex with an orangutan?
Should I be allowed to have a well equipped chemical lab in my basement with all the chemicals I need to make ecstacy or LSD (supposing I don't make it)?
Should I be free to make a small reactor in my basement?
Should I be free to poison the ground water for future generations as long as I am dumping the chemicals in my backyard?

Freedom of speech has limits and so should the right to bear arms.
Gun nuts just aren't reasonable about it. They act like nothing has changed since the revolutionary war and fail to acknowledge the challenges and conditions of modern society.

If you want to be able to overthrow the supposedly tyranical US government by force you would need those personal nukes wouldn't you?

How about this? You can have some muskets and bayonets just like the framers of the constitution envisioned.

[_subgenius]

Do you believe in Freedom or not?

Freedom doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want.

actually that is what the word means.

I think guns should be regulated in that there should be limits and those limits should be based ion a wide variety of considerations.

like what? whatever considerations the government deems appropriate?
are you that blissfully unaware of what our founding fathers lived through?

Do you believe in freedom? Should marijuana be legal? Should I be free to burn the US flag? Should I be allowed to have sex with my sister in law? Should Donald Trump's mother be allowed to have sex with an orangutan?

huh? i thought you were talking about guns

Should I be allowed to have a well equipped chemical lab in my basement with all the chemicals I need to make ecstacy or LSD (supposing I don't make it)?

yes, because we believe, in this country, that actions are crimes. Owning bullets or gunpowder should not make you a criminal.

Should I be free to make a small reactor in my basement?

yes, if you can do so without infringing on the liberty of others.

Should I be free to poison the ground water for future generations as long as I am dumping the chemicals in my backyard?

no...poisoning people is an action that infringes upon the idea of liberty....and killing people is a crime. Besides, you are not keeping them in your backyard...by your own admission you are dumping them in the groundwater.

Freedom of speech has limits and so should the right to bear arms.

false dichotomy. One right is not the same as the other.

Gun nuts just aren't reasonable about it. They act like nothing has changed since the revolutionary war and fail to acknowledge the challenges and conditions of modern society.

lame. The intent of the 2nd amend is clear...the logical conclusion, and obvious intent, from the founding fathers is that our government should remain as "ours"...with its freedom dictated by us...with its power 2nd only to ours.

If you want to be able to overthrow the supposedly tyranical US government by force you would need those personal nukes wouldn't you?

absolutely

How about this? You can have some muskets and bayonets just like the framers of the constitution envisioned.

CFR.
If you believe that the "framers" thought weapon development would never progress past "muskets and bayonets" then you need to get an adult to explain things to you.

[_ldsfaqs]

However, the no-brainer conclusion is that should a well regulated militia become necessary, that same militia surely can not rely on the government to provide arms. Thus the people should maintain their own armory so that they could come together and be organized as necessary.

Why do you think that? You do realize that Article 1 of the US Constitution says Congress is responsible "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia," right?

Citizens cannot provide "all" possible "arming" of themselves when brought together as a "Militia", a.k.a. Army.
Thus, it's perfectly reasonable that when the government creates an Army, which is all a Militia is, that it helps arm it. That's certainly not saying that the citizens don't bring their own weapons when possible if need be, and especially that they aren't to have them, that only the Militia is. That flies in the face of the entire history of the creating of that article of the constitution.

George Washington knocking on the door of King George to ask for weapons to use in the Revolution would have likely resulted in a different outcome for the colonists.

Does this odd comparison mean you anticipate that any need for a "regulated militia" would be in the form of an armed revolution, against which Congress and the president are constitutionally sworn to defend? (Yes, that's the same constitution that includes the 2nd amendment.)[/quote]

What is so "odd" about the comparison? It entirely invalids the gun control argument.
Do you remember Obama calling the Constitution a document of "Negative Rights"? Meaning he wished it was more pro-government and didn't more so "restrict" government.

The founders put the 2nd Amendment in there to "try" and help prevent Government from crossing the line. The right of the "people" to bear arms, not the Militia, not the Government, shall not be infringed. It's clear the English, it's clear the history, it's clear the intent.

The "peoples" right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[_ldsfaqs]

One more question, this one for ldsfaqs regarding the reason for starting this thread.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is threatening to take away an individual's right to be armed?

That is the well known goal of the Left, by their own words when they are not trying to deceive the public. It's already occurred in several other countries, and the left here is trying to do the same. It's like with everything else, they start with what they get away with, and then slowly they erode things to get what they ultimately want. Do you really think ObamaCare was designed to "fix" the actual problems of health care? Nope, their intent is to erode the system so ultimately they can create a single payer system like other socialized systems.

It's their own words and views, absent the propaganda.

Further, if you take away what I feel I might want or need in a "particular" situation or period, you are taking away my right to be armed.

Oh, and another clear proof against your claim is that it's already occurred, DC, New York, Chicago, etc. They HAVE taken away our rights to be armed. Wake up!

Okay, I can't resist another one:

Where did you get the idea that "every single American had a gun" in the 1940s? Is the frightened Japanese Army story what the home schools are teaching in 'history class' these days?

Speaking figuratively..... We were and are still well armed.
The point of the story was that it was "a" key reason why Japan didn't invade. Sure, it wasn't the only or even the biggest, but the fact is, a person armed keeps evil away and more importantly stops it if it does come. I would recommend you watch videos on Youtube related to gun control, use of guns to stop attackers, etc.

Oh, same thing occurred with Hitler and Sweden..... Don't fool yourself thinking that simply "bad terrain" kept Hitler out. If the people hadn't had a machine gun or gun in every house, Hitler would have went there also. Why is it okay for Swedes to have Machine Guns, but it's 'evil' for us to?

[_ldsfaqs]

Do you believe in Freedom or not?

Freedom doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want. I think guns should be regulated in that there should be limits and those limits should be based ion a wide variety of considerations.

Did you even read the first line in my post? The line in which I said I was a "conservative", not a libertarian, a.k.a. anarchist???

Again, "limits" should be there, but highly "limited".

Do you believe in freedom? Should marijuana be legal? Should I be free to burn the US flag? Should I be allowed to have sex with my sister in law? Should Donald Trump's mother be allowed to have sex with an orangutan?

Why do people who don't have an argument always create "straw-men" of things and extremes that are not being said?

From a legal stand point everything you said here should be legal, with limits obviously for the obvious reasons. Drugs for example are drugs, good for healing, not good for health. From a moral standpoint, obviously most of what you mention wouldn't be moral, but depending on the issue, they don't hurt anyone else (save the drugs in certain respects and of course the sex with an animal thing, obviously should be illegal).

Should I be allowed to have a well equipped chemical lab in my basement with all the chemicals I need to make ecstacy or LSD (supposing I don't make it)?

I have bomb making materials and have made bombs before simply because it's a useful skill if ever needed, and when first interested I was pursuing Law Enforcement, so I wanted to be educated in that sense also. If I hadn't had experience with guns, and other kinds of things, people etc., that Freedom allowed me to become a good cop if I had continued down that path.

As to your question, sure, if you're not selling it, using it etc. since it's dangerous to ones health and others, sure, have it. Who knows, maybe at some point it could be a cure, or kill the aliens if they invade? :) Or what about it becoming a newly discovered "Polluting free gasoline"??? Freedom "creates"..... Watch the two "Atlas Shrugged" movies so far released. When you stifle freedom to far, you dismantle progress.

Should I be free to make a small reactor in my basement?

Sure with reasonable regulation since it sounds very dangerous to others.

Should I be free to poison the ground water for future generations as long as I am dumping the chemicals in my backyard?

Really? Please now....

Freedom of speech has limits and so should the right to bear arms.

That's right..... But guess what, they aren't limiting what you say, how you say it, etc. They only limit speech that would effect others, such as blocking traffic, crying fire, etc. They don't actually limit speech in any other way. In contrast, arms should only be limited in like manner for violent criminals and the mentally insane from having them. That's like for like.

What you are doing with guns is trying to say such as with speech that you can't call someone a "d" word, you can't gather groups of people together to protest, you can't be loud (within reason), etc.

Plus, let's get real.... The actual agenda of the left is to get rid of all guns. If you deny that, then you have your head in the sand. Again, they've done it already in other countries, and they've already done it in certain states and cities of the U.S. Note, not actually solving the problem in question, but simply disarming the law abiding, and getting more innocent killed because a person can't defend themselves.

Gun nuts just aren't reasonable about it. They act like nothing has changed since the revolutionary war and fail to acknowledge the challenges and conditions of modern society.

Not reasonable? What special challenges exist today that didn't exist a 100 years ago?
The only thing that is different is the public is disarmed more and so they don't stop mass killings as much, and morality is a little less than before, oh, and we let bad guys out so they can keep committing more crimes and killing more people.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/18 ... n-20121218

http://news.discovery.com/history/mass- ... 121220.htm

If you want to be able to overthrow the supposedly tyranical US government by force you would need those personal nukes wouldn't you?

No, because the Government would not use "nukes" on their OWN turf. And if they did, well, we are all dead, and the few that might survive would do so because they were armed and otherwise prepared. Ever watch the TV Series "Jericho"?

How about this? You can have some muskets and bayonets just like the framers of the constitution envisioned.

haa haa..... Man liberals really can't think beyond the obvious. The framers were well aware that technology changed. They were well educated men of history. If you really think the framers thought we should just have muskets and bayonets, (hey, why not just swords only), then you need a serious brain transplant.

American's having weapons, their own weapons primarily are what allowed them to free themselves from Britain when Britain oh hey, tried to BAN ball and powder from being sold to the colonies. If it hadn't been for America citizen owning weapons, we would not be the land of the Free.

[_beastie]

I have bomb making materials and have made bombs before simply because it's a useful skill if ever needed, and when first interested I was pursuing Law Enforcement, so I wanted to be educated in that sense also. If I hadn't had experience with guns, and other kinds of things, people etc., that Freedom allowed me to become a good cop if I had continued down that path.

Is anyone else seriously, and I mean seriously, disturbed by this?

[_MeDotOrg]

I have bomb making materials and have made bombs before simply because it's a useful skill if ever needed, and when first interested I was pursuing Law Enforcement, so I wanted to be educated in that sense also. If I hadn't had experience with guns, and other kinds of things, people etc., that Freedom allowed me to become a good cop if I had continued down that path.

Is anyone else seriously, and I mean seriously, disturbed by this?

Nah, that is totally normal. Bomb building is an intrinsic part of law enforcement. It's just like students in medical school who make their own drugs at home. You're okay with that, aren't you?