Long Branch Louie Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I was reading an article yesterday at the doctor's office (can't for the life of me remember the magazine) discussing the recent madman rampage in Arizona. The author stated among a barrage of statistics that it was time that Congress stood up to the NRA, and that according to the Violence Policy Center (a great unbiased source), 70% of Americans favored re-instating the assault weapons ban and limiting magazine capacity. But the statement that REALLY got my attention was: "The 2nd Amendment is outdated, our Founding Fathers never envisioned "assault weapons" and high capacity "automatics", they were referring to muskets and smooth-bore pistols." So NOW the gungrabbers are saying the original intent WAS to guarantee the right to keep and bears arms, just not modern ones? I think that pesky 1st Amendment probably is outdated as well, after all, our Founding Fathers only had printed paper and a town crier, not web based news and TV. "Don't tread on me!" kinda gets a whole new meaning.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Any brain challenged idiot can write stupid things - this is just another example of another gun hating liberal not comprehending 'why' we have the second Amendment....to keep the government of the people, for the people. GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 When confronted with this assertion I have always asked who has anything to gain from the repeal of the Second Amendment. I always come up with the same answers: The government. Those who wish to take control, or believe they are in control. Criminals. I never come up with "the people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdgun Quail, SASS #63663 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I agree with the person that the 2nd Amendment is outdated. We don't have militias anymore, therefore, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," should be removed and have it read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Removes confusion for those poor souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadeye Doug Dalton SASS#65449L Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I am a firm believer in Gun control. Everyone who owns a gun should learn to control it, soas to hit their intendedd target. I pray to God that I will never have to use my gun to defend my life or the life of another. I thank God that, should that day ever come, I will be able to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I was reading an article yesterday at the doctor's office (can't for the life of me remember the magazine) discussing the recent madman rampage in Arizona. The author stated among a barrage of statistics that it was time that Congress stood up to the NRA, and that according to the Violence Policy Center (a great unbiased source), 70% of Americans favored re-instating the assault weapons ban and limiting magazine capacity. But the statement that REALLY got my attention was: "The 2nd Amendment is outdated, our Founding Fathers never envisioned "assault weapons" and high capacity "automatics", they were referring to muskets and smooth-bore pistols." So NOW the gungrabbers are saying the original intent WAS to guarantee the right to keep and bears arms, just not modern ones? I think that pesky 1st Amendment probably is outdated as well, after all, our Founding Fathers only had printed paper and a town crier, not web based news and TV. "Don't tread on me!" kinda gets a whole new meaning.... Some where along the line while we were not watching disliking guns became popular. People raised in the city maybe didn't hunt so the need for a gun died out? Anyhow, a lot of people I talk to don't know what a semi auto or fully auto is. They think if you drop a loaded gun in all cases it will go off... And too many trust our government to protect them without giving thought to how impossible that task is, or how dangerous it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pulp, SASS#28319 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 If'n you curious about the average firearm intelligence in the US, visit this website and look at poster's questions. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9741919888 I figger that most of the folks come from large cities, and their experience with firearms is TV, movies and video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 If'n you curious about the average firearm intelligence in the US, visit this website and look at poster's questions. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9741919888 I figger that most of the folks come from large cities, and their experience with firearms is TV, movies and video games. thanks.. I knew I had read something some where about it too.. but it is interesting talking to people about our sport and seeing the looks, and the questions they ask are funny. Like have you ever shot yourself? lol... ah.. no.. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tell Sackett SASS 18436 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 DV- I'd tell 'em I shoot myself in the foot every now and then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 DV- I'd tell 'em I shoot myself in the foot every now and then! Lol.. well most would believe in the head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Draw Granpaw #48525 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 At the time this happened we lived in Ft. Worth Texas, not that far from our home. I did not know SuZanna Gratia at that time, but I totally agree with what she stands for. I have always felt the same as she felt about protecting your loved ones. The carnage at Luby's was front page news for the longest time, It's often brought up at CCW classes and it was the driving force behind Texas starting CCW for Citzens of Texas. I think she's one tuff Lady who has to live with her dicision not to carry! I would never want to be in her shoe's at Luby's on that day! We all must think about being in her shoe's! We must never allow the Goverment to take away our right to self protection... Just my thoughts on the difficult subject. Happy trails QDG 48525 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 When confronted with this assertion I have always asked who has anything to gain from the repeal of the Second Amendment. I always come up with the same answers: The government. Those who wish to take control, or believe they are in control. Criminals. I never come up with "the people." Doc that was very well said, I just may borrow that! Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 At the time this happened we lived in Ft. Worth Texas, not that far from our home. I did not know SuZanna Gratia at that time, but I totally agree with what she stands for. I have always felt the same as she felt about protecting your loved ones. The carnage at Luby's was front page news for the longest time, It's often brought up at CCW classes and it was the driving force behind Texas starting CCW for Citzens of Texas. I think she's one tuff Lady who has to live with her dicision not to carry! I would never want to be in her shoe's at Luby's on that day! We all must think about being in her shoe's! We must never allow the Goverment to take away our right to self protection... Just my thoughts on the difficult subject. Happy trails QDG 48525 Exactly... we need the right to protect ourselves, no one can do that for us as well as we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 When confronted with this assertion I have always asked who has anything to gain from the repeal of the Second Amendment. I always come up with the same answers: The government. Those who wish to take control, or believe they are in control. Criminals. I never come up with "the people." First off let me say I do believe in law and order, and I believe in America and our government.. we are the very best as a nation. Still I believe that our forefathers had the insight to see that in Merry Ole England there was a bit of a problem.. In a Kingdom few have money or rights. They did not want our country to ever become a country where hard work did not mean something.. So they armed us to protect our shores, hunt, and yep, keep our govenment honest. JMHO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tell Sackett SASS 18436 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 DV-what is that lol thing you always use? I don't know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 First off let me say I do believe in law and order, and I believe in America and our government.. we are the very best as a nation. Still I believe that our forefathers had the insight to see that in Merry Ole England there was a bit of a problem.. In a Kingdom few have money or rights. They did not want our country to ever become a country where hard work did not mean something.. So they armed us to protect our shores, hunt, and yep, keep our govenment honest. JMHO.. As a lawyer, and more importantly to me, an assistant prosecutor, I am a strong believer in law and order. I also agree that our form of government is head and shoulder's above others. And I agree that the Second Amendment was put into place, among other reasons, to allow the citizenry to have the ability to carry out the duty Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." I think the two of us are of similar minds on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabby the frog 21716 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 the founding fathers had remedy to remove unwanted parts of constitution its called constitutional amendments tha gun grabbers are unwilling to go that route gabby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johny two horse Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don;t think we need to change anything about the 2nd Amendment, the militia refers to the whole of the people. As far as modern weapons goes: in the 1700's the flintlock was a modern assault weapon , in WW1 the springfield was a modern assault weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 DV-what is that lol thing you always use? I don't know what that means. lol... I use it a lot. Can't help myself. I laugh when I talk a lot, so I include it in my text conversation. I know I drive people a bit crazy, but that is my job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As a lawyer, and more importantly to me, an assistant prosecutor, I am a strong believer in law and order. I also agree that our form of government is head and shoulder's above others. And I agree that the Second Amendment was put into place, among other reasons, to allow the citizenry to have the ability to carry out the duty Jefferson mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." I think the two of us are of similar minds on this subject. I am not the sort of person who would ever recomend fighting against law and order in America. I do believe that the right to bear arms does keep us free. Just the knowledge that we do have arms, and can use them keeps a government in check. Our republic is about checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I don;t think we need to change anything about the 2nd Amendment, the militia refers to the whole of the people. As far as modern weapons goes: in the 1700's the flintlock was a modern assault weapon , in WW1 the springfield was a modern assault weapon. I do agree the argument of "modern" arms makes little sense. What was modern in 1315 or the 1700 or 1776 is drastically different than what is modern today. The right to bear arms must keep up with what is available today. Fighting to preserve our freedoms with percussions would make little sense if you think about it. Oh, yeah,.. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deja Vous Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 the founding fathers had remedy to remove unwanted parts of constitution its called constitutional amendments tha gun grabbers are unwilling to go that route gabby Gabbys, the good news is that we can repeal one with another. For example the 18th was repealed with the 21st. The most common way is a 2/3 vote from congress to makes changes. The hard part would be on any given day to have 2/3 of congress agree on much? But then what do I know, I am just a girl. I would say the framers of our constitution knew exactly what they were doing. The last change we made was in 1992, so this is not an easy task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Doc that was very well said, I just may borrow that! Rye Missed this earlier. Feel free Rye! As for what constitutes a "modern" arm, I would point out that our right to bear arms can pretty well be traced back to the English duty for the yeomanry to maintain a longbow and be proficient in its usage. Perhaps the left wants us to all return to the bow? What am I thinking? I shouldn't be giving them ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Masked Man Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I've heard the "Second Amendment is outdated" argument hundreds of times, it is almost always predicated on the notion that "the Founders never anticipated the deadly effectiveness of the firearms we have today", with the speaker pointing at guns like the AK-47 and the TEC-9. Note that the speaker is almost always a person who is totally ignorant of guns and has never handled or fired one in their life. The argument has no legs, however, when one observes the rate of death and serious injury (i.e. maiming) that was once associated with weapons of the Founders' time. The Blunderbuss is a great example of a weapon, the wounds from which are extremely hard to treat surgically, akin to a buckshot wound or multiple hits from a (semi-)automatic. Now, the guns were not as efficient as what we have today -- but neither were the medical/surgical techniques. Infection in particular was almost a certainty and killed a lot of folks who might otherwise have survived their wounds. You are more likely to survive being sprayed with an Uzi today than if you had been shot with a blunderbuss in pre-Revolutionary times - it's not the weapons technology, its the overall survivability of the wounds that is germane to this argument...and from that perspective, nothing has changed that would render the 2nd Amendment "outdated". Surgical techniques, emergency transportation, and medical technology have advanced at an even more rapid pace than firearms design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Masked Man Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 the founding fathers had remedy to remove unwanted parts of constitution its called constitutional amendments tha gun grabbers are unwilling to go that route gabby Not just unwilling, they are unABLE to go that route because they don't have "the votes" to get it passed. They are all for "democracy" until the people's wisdom contradicts what they want to accomplish! I would argue that in a Republic that is created to preserve the rights of the people, even a democratic majority that wants to deprive the people of their rights cannot and should not prevail. If it comes to that, we will have to decide pretty quickly where we stand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 lol... I use it a lot. Can't help myself. I laugh when I talk a lot, so I include it in my text conversation. I know I drive people a bit crazy, but that is my job. Texas.... Deja was so busy "LOL-ing" that she missed answering your question...it's on-line shorthand for "Laughing Out Loud".... LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.