Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Your Hi-Point Carbine, Banned.


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#91 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:58 AM

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.



To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.


Excellent. Thank you for pointing this out. I will consider it further. I'm interested in this beneficent purposes statement. It appears to me to give significant wiggle room in the logical interpretation that I hadn't considered.

#92 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:39 AM

Your assuming you have that right. It hasn't been determined, and in fact based on the fact we had a prior "assault weapons" ban, your likely going to be incorrect.

I don't agree with the proposed ban, but i am tired of people deciding what they think their constituional rights are. It's kind of simple, challenge it in court, if you lose appeal, and then the SCOTUS will tell you if it is constutional or not, and if they rule against you, it isn't a right.

It's great you have an opinion and all, but that doesn't change the law

Thats why the 2nd admendment is supposed to be protected by habeas corpus. To insure my right to bear arms in defense and protection of foreign domestic and tyrannical threats.

#93 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:40 AM

did you know that a right in fact does not unequivocally mean you can do whatever you want because it's defined by societal parameters?

exactly, thats why I said you don"t have the right to attack someone.

#94 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:23 AM

I am happy to live in a country that allows me the right to arm myself for protection as I decide is nessessary. If in the future, politicians dictate that right null and void, I will thank God for the God given free will to continue to arm myself as i decide.

#95 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:00 AM

Government officials exempt from ban

http://www.weeklysta...als_697732.html

#96 Hawk

Hawk

    Huddler of the Decade

  • Moderators
  • 14,979 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

#97 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

I wonder how many gun control advocates believe that they will ever actually get some significant control of guns.

#98 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:44 AM

With advancements in technology there can be no further regulation. Within 10 years you will be able to personally manufacture weapons in your very own living room. Sorry bleeding hearts but american innovation wins again!!!!!!

#99 Hawk

Hawk

    Huddler of the Decade

  • Moderators
  • 14,979 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:53 AM

I wonder how many gun control advocates believe that they will ever actually get some significant control of guns.



yup, big time. As I have mentioned before, I don't care either way...I just like reading the comments and following the arguments.

for me, it's education, not legislation.

#100 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

When read alone, it does seem so. However, when you read the entire Bill of Rights, including the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it becomes a little more clear.



To me, this says the Amendments are there to prevent the government (or states) from abusing it's power. Since an armed militia is necessary to keep the country sovereign, the people should be armed in order to prevent being abused by the militia. For more support, the third Amendment says the militia can't take over your house. The second gives the third teeth.



It appears to actually say that some States feared too much federal control and desired that the ability to arm themselves against what they might consider an overreaching Federal government. This seems to be why the Second Amendment is written as it is, so the Federal government could not disarm the citizens of a State to expressly forfeit it's ability to militarily control their own destiny.

This need was largely nullified when it was apparent that a stronger Federal approach was needed to keep the US together, and settled for good in the Civil War. Add to this the fact that states now have full time Guards to protect their own interests and it's pretty clear that all these ideas are from a long gone era of government experimentation.

#101 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 12:08 PM

at the time of the amendment's writing, everyday citizens had just defeated the world's most advanced military.

While I agree that a citizens vs. Military battle is stuff of fantasy, keep in mind the forces that have regularly handled our military with ease. Iraq tried to fight us in a traditional military manner in the early 1990s. Their ground forces were defeated in 96 hours.

But Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq part II, etc, weren't fought by military. They were fought by guys who work the crops and do oil changes in their spare time. Asymmetrical warfare isn't our strongsuit.

But I don't want to get too far off topic. Would you say the second, third and fourth Amendments are related? Or is that a connection that I'm imagining?


If we needed to, we could destroy the entire region of any of these places in about 20 minutes with a few buttons pushed. These places do not constitute a direct threat to us, rather, they are in bed with political issues we want to get favorable outcomes to. The reason we are not any good at these things is more related to the desperation of the other side vs. our publics support of these kinds of adventures. Our military abilities have little to do with them.

#102 Chimera

Chimera

    Membrane

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,201 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:41 PM

i'm aware that we're p bad at fighting unconventional forces relatively speaking but the common link between iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, et al is home field advantage (this would be in the military's advantage in a hypothetical war within the states i'd imagine) and insurgency (probably won't see too many mexicans or canadians sneaking into america to fight alongside americans). and even with the advantages that insurgents have, body count doesn't seem to favor them. anyway i guess i can't say there's a 0 percent chance that civilians would prevail in an uprising but it's gotta be close

as for the amendments i mean there's a connection; if the army decided that they were going to take wilmington and stay in my house my only recourse would be the court system and then i guess an armed rebellion that is likely destined for failure. i'm not anti-revolution (couldn't imagine being an anti-revolution leftist) or anti-gun ownership; i'm just seeing this as "we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, we're much better off attempting to elect the right people and not having a gun in every pot." guns or no guns, we don't live in an era where civilians keep the government in check in any way beyond voting.

anyway more on topic, there is precedent for restricting rights (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't keep a stock of explosives just in case the government decides to enslave everyone or whatever), and the question in every gun control debate shouldn't be whether or not regulation is constitutional (it is), but rather "how much can we regulate until we reach and cross the line of unconstitutionality?" if we agree that citizens shouldn't have access to military ordnance, then we agree that citizens should be placed at a significant disadvantage in any type of armed conflict with the government (to the point that victory is not very likely at all). and if we agree that, say, felons and toddlers can't own guns, then we again agree that the government can (and should) place limitations on the right to bear arms. if the government can regulate types of speech and access to weaponry, i would think that regulating types of firearms falls within the purview of the government.


Many good points that I can't reply to since I'm using a phone.
I'm not sure any sane person is arguing that citizens need access to anything other than small arms - the same as no sane person is arguing for an all out ban on firearms.

I believe the Constitution was formed specifically to control the government's power over citizens, especially concerning the military. The commander in chief, secretary of defense, and secretaries of each service are civilians. Congress is supposed to have the say so in approving any military action.

I know we've gotten pretty far from how it's supposed to work. Still there is a great deal of control by civilians over the military - civilians basically control movement, healthcare, access to ordnance, etc.

Anyway, we've seen military uprisings in other countries. They've overthrown civilian governments and installed their own. Im not saying the paper the Constitution is written on stops that from happening here, but it did seek to limit how the military is used. I believe it also intended for citizens to be able to protect themselves in case of military uprisings.

You're right in hinting that it's not entirely relevant today. We generally worry nothing about military coups, foreign invasions or armed insurrections. It is definitely a good thing that we have such a stable environment. But I do have to ask - would our country exist as we know it today without an armed citizenry throughout it's history? I agree the protections are partly irrelevant today, but I think I could argue otherwise about the past or possibly in the future. I don't want to sound too much like our conspiracy theorists, but with so much division and hatred in our country, how much longer will it last?

#103 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:14 AM

The only time in history we faced a well armed and disciplied military force invading our country after the Second Amendment was created was in 1812, when the arms the citizens carried were about equal to the arms the average soldier carried.

How did all that work out for our citizen militia?

#104 tight lines

tight lines

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

People can say that you're born with "rights", but you're not. Rights are something that are granted to you by somebody else. Hence why we need a constitution that specifically outlines which rights we ARE granted.


The constitution does not grant rights it protects them.
Incidentally so does the right to keep and bear arms

#105 tight lines

tight lines

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:12 PM

gun control is always going to be a touchy subject but it's fun to read some of the responses all the same!!!!

I'm curious how many pro gun people actually believe there will be a state uprising and all those firearms you have stockpiled is going to save you and your family one day?

Im pretty sure that most people that feel the right to keep and bear arms is to protect the populous from a tyrannical government feel that as long as the right is available and the people exercise it, there will most likely not be a state uprising. Its a theory not unlike the mutually assured destruction theory


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com