Author Topic: The Second Amendment  (Read 4243 times)

storch

  • Guest
The Second Amendment
« Reply #120 on: March 26, 2007, 04:43:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Won't work if the "one" is not intellectually efficient enough to estimate what will happen to him in the future (let say the next 2 minutes :)).

Criminals are more than often dumb and obtuse.
my dear straffo, it has been amply proven here in my beloved florida that being armed does indeed work.  we have even managed to make blue staters polite.  two or so years ago the state enacted legislation allowing anyone who felt threatened to apply deadly force to end said threat.  

Immediately car jackings and home invasion became a fond memory for the criminal element.  a collateral benefit is that rudeness in traffic all but disappeared. people would actually use their turn indicators and ask for permission to be allowed to access congested lanes.  

what didn't occur was the "dodge city" the handwringing limpwristed under huevo'd blue stater transplants and the equally homosexually tendant mainstream media predicted south florida would come to be.

Mr. Heinlein nailed it.  we are a polite society here, you don't know who you will annoy or frighten enough to cap your ass.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The Second Amendment
« Reply #121 on: March 26, 2007, 04:43:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by moot

He was taking it in the perspective of the change to freely marketed guns from a gunless society such as his own.  


there is no such thing as a "gunless society ", there are societies where people have guns and there are societies where guns are restricted or baned, but there is no "gunless society".

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
The Second Amendment
« Reply #122 on: March 26, 2007, 04:53:53 PM »
I hear ya Bodhi. I love the anti gun crowds aurgument when they ping on the whole "militia" thing.

Well your not in a militia so you don't need a gun, blah blah bah.

They pass a law outlawing guns, overnight there will be a citizens militia created that the government will not be able to handle. That's when the second American Revolution will take place.

As a military man for over 17 years, I've sworn to uphold and defend the constitution 4 times. I take the oath of service seriously. As such if I was ordered to go and collect firearms from private citizens I would NOT do it as I believe it would be an illegal order. I would however take up arms against the very people giving those orders because they have made themselves a domestic enemy against the consitution.

I don't care if you want to own a gun or not. None of my buisness, but I do have an obligation to preserve, protect, and defend your right too.

For those that think I'm full of crap, I'll say this. I've dicussed this very issue many times with many other members of the military and 9 out of 10 people I've talked to belive the same thing.

The citizens of this country will never allow their right to keep and bear arms to be taken away. If the government ever tries they will find that millions of citizens will fight and the governments strongest tool to use to get those weapons (the military) will become combat ineffective overnight as those members that belive as I do turn against the very people giving those unlawfull orders.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
The Second Amendment
« Reply #123 on: March 26, 2007, 05:02:21 PM »
Quote
The citizens of this country will never allow their right to keep and bear arms to be taken away. If the government ever tries they will find that millions of citizens will fight and the governments strongest tool to use to get those weapons (the military) will become combat ineffective overnight as those members that belive as I do turn against the very people giving those unlawfull orders.


Frankly, I think that hints at the core strength of the 2nd. Even if the military actually supported illegal confiscation, an armed population would require an armed response -- not traditional civilian "non lethal" riot control. Regardless of how strongly the tyrants managed to spin the issue and make it seem like the logical and beneficial thing to do, that would cross a line most would have trouble crossing.

However, we have to remember that our fellow citizens could, though the entirely legal legislative process, ammend the Constitution and modify or eliminate that right. And that would be that.

Charon

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
The Second Amendment
« Reply #124 on: March 26, 2007, 05:12:26 PM »
The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.


The anit gun crowd would never have a chance:aok
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
The Second Amendment
« Reply #125 on: March 26, 2007, 05:29:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
However, we have to remember that our fellow citizens could, though the entirely legal legislative process, ammend the Constitution and modify or eliminate that right. And that would be that.

Charon


Again, Charon, the government would still have to confiscate guns, and I am willing to bet, more of those with guns will simply refuse and openly defend their right to keep them.

I know I will.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline sgt203

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 516
The Second Amendment
« Reply #126 on: March 26, 2007, 11:34:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ravells

What I find interesting is this (and I have no experience in gun combat, so tell me if I'm wrong). If everybody did carry guns, then wouldn't the element of surprise become an overwhelming advantage to the attacker? So if a criminal wants you car, rather than say, bonking you on the head or threatening you with a knife, if he believes you are carrying a firearm and are prepared to use it, is he not more likely to just shoot you in back rather than make demands with menaces (OK you lose the car but at least you're alive)? And if you were with your family, how would you handle the situation then? What I'm asking is whether you think that the universal ownership of guns would actually make crime more violent. In the example I've seen quoted here earlier, it seems that the criminals were not expecting their victim to be armed and that gave the law abiding victim the drop on the criminal.

Ravs


First I would say that no one has said or is saying everyone should own a gun, only that by our constitution it is your right to own a gun if you so choose..

Now looking at this as a hypothetical question I would have to say basically I feel that it makes little to no difference.

If the "attacker" is already predisposed to take your life to gain control of your property you are in a very precarious situation from the onset. Hence it makes no difference. But in such a situation I would have to say YES the advantage at the onset belongs to the attacker.

However with no means of self protection you have a ZERO chance to survive such an encounter.

The fact that some attacker has a gun does not equate to them being proficient in the use of the firearm. I unfortunately do have first hand experience in "street level" combat as opposed to military action ( which I view as distinctly different animals).

The fact that I was proficient in the use of the weapon I had, allowed me to reach a successful conclusion to this unfortunate encounter. I went home and gave a kiss to my wife and son, he took a ride in an ambulance to the nearest hospital. I am still at home with my family and he is serving what amounts to a life sentence for his actions (25-50 years eligible for parole when he is 77 years old).

No I do not think the universal right to keep and bear arms would make crime more violent. Unless you consider the fact that those committing the crimes may themselves be thwarted by the lawful use of force.

I look at my right to employ deadly force in self defense as almost a "last resort". If im alone or with my family and someone wants to steal my car... He can have it... to me its not worth dying over.. Same guy trys to take my car with my family still in it, he has already made the decision my car was worth HIM dying for and I will oblige him without hestitation.

:aok

Offline Trey1975

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
WTG Sarg...
« Reply #127 on: March 26, 2007, 11:56:37 PM »
:aok


Couldnt have said it better my self! This coming from 2 men who must carry guns to make it home safe every day!

 The average non felon citizen has the same rights we do! Nobody will ever take all the guns from the people of the US. Anybody really think thats going to help or happen??

 I would really like to see what would happen if they tried that in TX,FL and all the other States except for the East Coast States or Peoples Republic of California of course.They have all bent over and handed over their rights already....Can you say War!!!

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
The Second Amendment
« Reply #128 on: March 27, 2007, 09:44:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
my dear straffo, it has been amply proven here in my beloved florida that being armed does indeed work.  we have even managed to make blue staters polite.  two or so years ago the state enacted legislation allowing anyone who felt threatened to apply deadly force to end said threat.  

Immediately car jackings and home invasion became a fond memory for the criminal element.  a collateral benefit is that rudeness in traffic all but disappeared. people would actually use their turn indicators and ask for permission to be allowed to access congested lanes.  

what didn't occur was the "dodge city" the handwringing limpwristed under huevo'd blue stater transplants and the equally homosexually tendant mainstream media predicted south florida would come to be.

Mr. Heinlein nailed it.  we are a polite society here, you don't know who you will annoy or frighten enough to cap your ass.


If it works, I've nothing against.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Second Amendment
« Reply #129 on: March 27, 2007, 03:35:54 PM »
moot... you have gotten some very good answers here.

If I might add...   the person who feared that self defence could not be proven without witnesses...

The simple answer is that you do not need a gun to murder someone.   You can claim self defence when there is none no matter what weapon is used.  The gun... the weapon used.. is of no consequence and not germain to the arguement.

Someone also asked if the criminal having the gun would just make him the one with the advantage.. the advantage of surprise.

Possibly.. but only in very few cases..  "How can this be?" you might ask.

Well.. it is only his advantage if he is planning to shoot you.   This is a rare thing.. he doesn't want to shoot you for the most part but only make you do as he says...  You on the other hand.. will most certainly want to shoot him.   You have the advantage.

Also... As I have stated... the solution is to arm the citizen and disarm the criminal... As penalties go up for using a gun in a crime.. they criminal use of guns goes down.   It is more and more common for criminals to use toy guns or weapons that are not firearms and then run into a citizen who does have a gun...  all to the good.

Sooo... severe penalties for using a firearm in a serious crime and more firearms availability to citizens.   Best of both worlds.

lazs

Offline StuB

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 60
The Second Amendment
« Reply #130 on: March 27, 2007, 04:01:31 PM »
My state is a "shall issue" state for concealed handgum permits.  

In my 7 years as a cop I have yet to come across a firearms related crime that was committed by someone who was legally entitled to posess a firearm in the first place.

Despite the "protect and serve" motto that most departments throw on the side of their cars, it is IMPOSSIBLE for law enforcement to protect everyone 24/7.  Police work, by it's nature, is REACTIVE.  If you are extremely lucky, a cop will be at your door within 1 minute of your 911 call.

Unfortunately this is well beyond the amount of time it takes to be injured or killed.

Personally, I encourage every eligible law abiding citizen to consider obtaining a firearm and a concealed handgun permit.

It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
"Facing up to 200 Russians eager to have a nibble at you, or even Spitfires, can be quite enjoyable...but curve in against 70 Boeing Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."

Major Hans "Fips" Philipp
Geschwaderkommodore, JG 1
206 Victories. KIA 8 October, 1943

storch

  • Guest
The Second Amendment
« Reply #131 on: March 27, 2007, 05:16:12 PM »
the other side of that equation is indeed strong penalties for committing a felony and using a firearm.  here in my beloved florida we have that as well.  I believe it's 5 years if you possess a firearm during the commissiomn of a felony. 15 years if you brandish the weapon and 25 years if you discharge it.  the problem is that the prosecutors won't apply the law in every instance.  the sentencing is mandatory IIRC but the prosecution is soft.

 the combination of a responsible armed citizenry coupled with aggressive prosecution and mandatory stiff sentences would indeed curb criminals far better.  the benefit to the society is that the thug really doesn't know who may be armed and who is not.  the bad guy is taking his chances, he knows it too.

Offline Helrazr1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 196
The Second Amendment
« Reply #132 on: March 27, 2007, 05:56:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by sgt203
I look at my right to employ deadly force in self defense as almost a "last resort". If im alone or with my family and someone wants to steal my car... He can have it... to me its not worth dying over.. Same guy trys to take my car with my family still in it, he has already made the decision my car was worth HIM dying for and I will oblige him without hestitation.

:aok


I think that this paragrapgh says it all, and pretty much encompasses the feelings of a majority of gun owners.  Well said!

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
The Second Amendment
« Reply #133 on: March 28, 2007, 08:34:30 AM »
I accept all of your apologies and thank you for admitting that I was right.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Second Amendment
« Reply #134 on: March 28, 2007, 08:53:20 AM »
mt.. that was a really weird surrender on your part..  You are not a very gracious loser... but then.. so few liberals are.

Stub.. I know a lot of cops... not political chiefs of police hacks but the on patrol officers for highway patrol and sherrif and local police and they all believe as you do that citizens need to protect themselves..

They all trust law abiding citizens with firearms...  as do I.   I have no fear of my neighbor having a gun of any type.

MT is strange in his thinking.. he feels he has the right to own a gun that he wants but also has the right to tell others what they can own...

This is based on.... on what?  his firearms expertise?  His distrust of his fellows?  Why is he moral enough to own a high powered rifle but his neighbor not to carry a handgun for instance?

lazs