Time to protect your 2nd amendment rights! - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #61 11-09-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselClack

...The NRA has no reason to lie...

That's the funniest thing I've heard today.

Quote:

...He voted 3 TIMES for a law that would forcibly prosecute someone for using a gun for self defense of themselves and family in their own homes even if the intent of the intruder was to commit a homicide! Just how real does it have to get for you?????...

At a minimum, it needs to get real enough to have an actual law that I can read. Do you have any links to this alleged law that he voted for?

Quote:

A College Student was recently sleeping a little after midnight right here in Arizona when 2 burglars broke in through the front door. They woke the student and were armed with baseball bats and told him they were taking his computer (laptop) jewelry and any other valuables they could find and if he resisted, he would be killed. Well he happened to grab his Ruger M.40 before heading into the living room and shot both of them to death after hearing that!

It so happened that his computer was on and he had a video surveillance system on it that caught the whole thing on disc! it took the police 1 hour to establish this as a justifiable killing because he was trying to protect himself and his property! Obama would have had that man charged with murder and thrown in jail!

Until you provide a link to an actual proposed law supported by Obama, I will assume that this is a bunch of baloney.

Quote:

What makes you think that criminals are going to lawfully buy guns and go through a background check??

I don't know why you assume that I think that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the opposite is true.

Quote:

...Where do you rewrite the Constitution of the United States?...

WTF are you talking about?

Quote:

What do you not get about "and these rights shall not be infringed"?

As I already said in response to Howitzer, I think I understand that language quite well. It is absolute. The 2nd Amendment absolutely and completely forbids the infringement of the right to bear arms.

Quote:

...The supreme Court ruled in favour of gun owners in Washington DC to keep and bear arms in their own homes just a couple of months ago...

I agree with that ruling. So does Obama.

Quote:

...
And for those of you who don't like certain weapons like automatic rifles, here's this: A gun ban has NEVER been successful at eliminating those types of weapons, in fact just the opposite happens! When these guns are licensed, you know who and where the owners are! When they are illegal, only the criminals have them and their numbers explode! We can't even find all the illegal aliens living here. what makes you think that our government, the same one who couldn't find their a$$es with both hands can find all these weapons you want to ban? Only law abiding citizens have ever given up their right to keep and bear arms!

Now you are talking about public policy, not the 2nd Amendment. You might be right about this part, although I think there are at least two sides to that argument.

Honus · #62 11-09-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Why not? Times change. It's a living document it should change, too.

I'm guessing that you are kidding, although it is hard to tell sometimes.

The United States is a concept. That concept is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, especially the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, IMHO. If the people chose to eliminate the Bill of Rights, well I guess that's democracy. The resulting country would not be the United States, except in name.

Medmech · #63 11-09-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

[I]

The Declaration of Independence is an eloquent guide regarding the slope.

If you are the King of England it's a guide, other than that its a well worded ***** list.

Medmech · #64 11-09-2008, 02:19 PM

And if you want the will of the people check out these statistics, I once saw an actual poll where more than 90% of women want to end Womens Suffrage, based on that I'm glad we have checks and balances.

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/83569/results

LUVMBDiesels · #65 11-09-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

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.

The Declaration of Independence is an eloquent guide regarding the slope.

I agree, but the Declaration is not the foundation of the government. If we start messing with the bill of rights, we can slide downwards pretty quickly.

I mean if you have nothing to hide-- why fear search and seizure? If you have done nothing wrong -- why do you need protection against self incrimination?
If your nation needs your home -- what's wrong with housing some troops?
If you are not a radical -- who needs free speech?
If you are civilized you certainly do not need any weapons -- the police are there to protect you

etc

GOVERNMENT exists for one reason to run your life and to accrue power. What we are living with now would have been intolerable to the founding fathers. There is a constant struggle between the people and the government. If we are not careful the government will naturally try to strip us of all of our rights.

Botnst · #66 11-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm guessing that you are kidding, although it is hard to tell sometimes.

The United States is a concept. That concept is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, especially the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, IMHO. If the people chose to eliminate the Bill of Rights, well I guess that's democracy. The resulting country would not be the United States, except in name.

Of course I'm joking.

In all of human history, governments always evolve to rule by oppression. No matter the promises, no matter the idealism. In fact, probably the worst governments in history have been run by idealists.

As long as we hold certain truths to be self-evident, as long as the citizens who assert those rights are willing and able to defend them, we will have them.

When we equivocate and compromise them for whatever reason, we cannot get them back. Governments are murderously jealous of power. Once they get it, they do not easily give them back.

B

Brian Carlton · #67 11-09-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It depends, doesn't it? One wouldn't think that the death of a common man would not be be so uncommon as to undo a government. But the history of mankind has lots of cases in which a tyranny's downfall began with some singular event. Perhaps the loss of a life.

So for example, when the government over-reached and murdered all those wackoes in Waco and that family of racists in Montana or Idaho, it motivated a hell of a lot of people around the country to question WTF the government was up to. Those events still have their echoes in law enforcement and in the consciousness of a lot of citizens.

So yeah, taking your gun against the seemingly impossible odds of a nearly omnipotent, tyrannical government may appear to be a waste of time and a life. But in the long run, who knows.

However, armed resistance isn't usually necessary and isn't usually the best course. But sometimes it is. Nice to have the tools that allow a free citizen to make an individual choice on that matter. Like Patrick Henry said. Many people still believe those old fashioned notions of liberty.

B

A thoughtful response and probably accurate.

Unfortunately, the downside to allowing every man to own a 50 caliber machine gun offsets the "nice to have the tools........." part of the above.

In the current society, it's simply impossible to outgun the government........might as well admit that fact and move on.

Your alternative is to allow the citizens to match weapons with the government. We're so far from that point........even today.......that the discussion is really moot.

aklim · #68 11-09-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

And, I agree with your right to own as many handguns and rifles and shotguns as you have the funds to purchase. Anything else is overkill.

Ah, but you see, what you are saying is one thing. The aim of the limiting of assault rifles and AP rounds is quite another. The anti-gun lobby is NOT going to be content with just stopping this or that item. Their aim is to stop each and every gun. However, the pesky 2nd amendment is in the way. Now what? Well, their way is to limit gun sales till you have nothing left. You keep talking about assault rifles, AP rounds, etc, etc. What seperates your assault rifle from my hunting rifle? Now if you are talking about an assault rifle in terms of a fully automatic rifle, that is one thing. Why don't you tell me what the difference is between your AK-47 (single shot semi auto) vs my semi-auto Remmington 750? Both are semi auto. The only difference I see is that the AK is good at throwing lead at a target while you can shoot dimes with the other. Now, if you tell me that the drive by stabbings are getting out of hand and we have to limit guns with the bayonet on it, I suppose.

Brian Carlton · #69 11-09-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

The anti-gun lobby is NOT going to be content with just stopping this or that item. Their aim is to stop each and every gun. .

I'm really not interested in the whims of the "anti-gun lobby". And, truthfully, you have not one whit of an idea of the desires of the "anti-gun lobby". Naturally, at it's fringe, there will be people who will stop at nothing until a ban of every type of gun possible is imposed. There are also people in that lobby that simply want weapons such as assault rifles and armor piercing rounds banned.

So, it runs the gamut. The aim of most of those folks is not to stop each and every gun, despite what you wish to believe.

Like I said, I'm going to enjoy you all twist in the wind when they take your assault rifles away.

"Oh, Obama gonna take my gun..........Obama gonna take my gun.........."

.............

Botnst · #70 11-09-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

A thoughtful response and probably accurate.

Unfortunately, the downside to allowing every man to own a 50 caliber machine gun offsets the "nice to have the tools........." part of the above.

In the current society, it's simply impossible to outgun the government........might as well admit that fact and move on.

Your alternative is to allow the citizens to match weapons with the government. We're so far from that point........even today.......that the discussion is really moot.

I'm not the advocate of arming the citizens equal to the army, though I understand it and believe it is a valid point even it doesn't carry the argument. I agree with MTI's contention that no rights are absolute. Only an absolutist thinks in those terms and I have no special use for absolutists of any sort. They too easily make useful idiots for cynical leaders.

It isn't necessary to outgun the government. I doubt that any revolution was begun by people who outgunned the government they sought to overthrow, though I could be wrong.

What's necessary is that good men do something. There's no a guarantee of success. Most revolutions fail. At least the first time.

We know the results if good men do nothing.

B

aklim · #71 11-09-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

There are also people in that lobby that simply want weapons such as assault rifles and armor piercing rounds banned.

So, it runs the gamut. The aim of most of those folks is not to stop each and every gun, despite what you wish to believe.

Like I said, I'm going to enjoy you all twist in the wind when they take your assault rifles away.

"Oh, Obama gonna take my gun..........Obama gonna take my gun.........."

.............

So tell me the difference between an assault rifle and the hunting rifle that I mentioned.

Yes and Republicans also run the gamut. Not every republican wants to ban abortion totally. When Bush was elected in 00, would you have believed that he might be one of those that wouldn't mind abortion?

Someday, when it is your turn, I'm sure I will enjoy it too. But you are not going to be able to see them take my assault rifle (not that I think you really have a concept of it) away. Be kinda hard since I don't own them anymore or want them really.

aklim · #72 11-09-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

In the current society, it's simply impossible to outgun the government

As an individual or as a collective group? No matter what I own, I can't win against the govt going toe to toe. OTOH, if a great many citizens are armed, it makes the govt think about it if they want to do something "exotic".

Brian Carlton · #73 11-09-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm not the advocate of arming the citizens equal to the army, though I understand it and believe it is a valid point even it doesn't carry the argument. I agree with MTI's contention that no rights are absolute. Only an absolutist thinks in those terms and I have no special use for absolutists of any sort. They too easily make useful idiots for cynical leaders.

It isn't necessary to outgun the government. I doubt that any revolution was begun by people who outgunned the government they sought to overthrow, though I could be wrong.

What's necessary is that good men do something. There's no a guarantee of success. Most revolutions fail. At least the first time.

We know the results if good men do nothing.

B

So, the question that begs an answer is where do you draw the line? If it's not necessary to outgun the government, and in consideration of the current "civilized" society, what weapons are permissible and what are not permissible?

My personal opinion is that weapons needed for self-defense or for sport should be permissible.......weapons utilized for outgunning a typical police force are not.

Brian Carlton · #74 11-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So tell me the difference between an assault rifle and the hunting rifle that I mentioned.

I'm not qualified to speak on weapons. I'll leave that to all you "experts".

However, if you have a weapon that can defeat a small police force in a residential neighborhood, it's got to go.

What were the two guys who robbed that bank and held off the entire local police force using.........there's an example for you.

Brian Carlton · #75 11-09-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

As an individual or as a collective group? No matter what I own, I can't win against the govt going toe to toe. OTOH, if a great many citizens are armed, it makes the govt think about it if they want to do something "exotic".

A great many citizens are armed. The question is with what? Do you really thing the government is going to do something "exotic"?

I don't.

And, if you do.........why don't you have a Federal License for a machine gun........and enough ammo to take out a small city?

I hear a lot of BS.........who's really got the firepower to back up their "second amendment" rights?