It wasn't empty for the civilians around 1776. If those guys hadn't had military weapons we'd all be taking a tea break in the afternoon. More of a coffee guy myself. Fighter jets, tanks - whatever. I can't fly a plane but neither can everyone in the armed forces. I'd be happy if a few like minded citizens that could fly had them or ex-military that hasn't fallen in to sheeple mold. And yes, I want access to everything someone else has that has the power to hold me under their thumb. Thomas Jefferson said, "A well armed society is a polite society." Thank God some of those potential murders were thwarted by some arbitrary law that is in place. How many more have died because some thug had free reign in an area that hamstrung the law abiding man from taking him out? People have a fantasy about the "wild west" based on hollywood. Think about the timing - the Lincoln Co war was 1878! Some of us have grandparents that lived thru that! In 1879 the "wild west" wasn't magically over with. We still had the same gun laws for many years afterwards. Would you consider the first 50 years of the 1900s a bloodbath? You had Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde and other bad elements but you'll have them no matter what law is passed. Chicago, DC and NY have some of the strictest laws on guns. How's that worked out for them?
What about the Germans who sympathized with the Jews. After all guns were confiscated, it didn't fair well for them either. If you don't like the German example, lookup Uganda. They were all fellow countrymen. They established gun control in 1970 and almost immediately killed 300,000 Christians and about 3 million to date. Soviet Union 1929 Germany 1938 Guatemala 1964 Cambodia 1956 China 1935 Anyone notice a little trend with the timing of gun control and communism, fascism or ruthless dictatorship? But but but but ... it's not confiscation if they let me keep my 5 round .38 special. I can still protect myself. IF they let you keep that you wouldn't last long when they come to get it with 30 round mags of semi-auto/full auto. They'll let you keep that .38 and you'll feel like you "won" and they'll just ban .38 ammo. I hope I don't come off like I don't trust our government or 50% of the voting population and I'm some doom n gloom type of guy! I was hoping to hide that fact a bit better.
Never said it was impossible for people to turn on each other, in fact I said that as long as there are people to propagate lies, then there will be those who follow them. And the constitution doesn't say, "you have a right to protect yourself" it says " "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Edit: Honestly, I am a little tired of the debate, It has real no impact on anything except getting me frustrated. I believe banning bump stocks would not have solved a thing, and I haven't seen anyone propose real legislation that would have stopped this. So I am bowing out
Exactly! I can bear arms without it being infringed upon and keep the State free. I'm free to protect me and mine, free to hunt, free to shoot target for sport and fight back against any government that rises against me including my own. Here's my deal - I want guns around me for not the what if but for the when it does. Here's the difference between me and I think every Lib I've ever met. I want guns and you don't. I don't try to force my belief on to you and make you own guns. A Lib tries to take mine. The Libs (I'll give them credit for this) made an awesome power play when they took ownership of the word tolerance and made it one of their hot button words. After all, WHO can argue with tolerance. Diversity is another one they got. Who would argue against either of those two noble words of dignity and humanity? Of course tolerance to them means, "you'll tolerate my ideas and beliefs and if you don't agree, you're a racist or bigot and we'll pass legislation so you can't have a different idea." Diversity is their way to let Uncle Creepy go to the same restroom as my 7 yr old daughter. If Libs would've been around back in the 1770s, all the colony dwellers here that weren't English military sent here to keep us at bay that owned a cannon would've been chastised. You don't need a cannon to shoot a deer! You can't haul that cannon to Cornbucks to get yer corn liquor and protect yourself! We've got the King's army to protect us against Injuns! Wait a second!!! He's taxing our tea?! Bubba get yer cannon there's about to be a feud!
Because the weapons and tactics at the Governments disposal are so similar to 1776. Right? I guess I stand corrected. Our government could cripple our country in a matter of days without ever firing a round. And there would not be a single thing you could do about it. But, it will never happen. So keep stock piling those AR's and ammo. They bring a nice comfy feeling of security and look lots more manly than a baby blankie.
Truth be told, if there was ever a civil war or an invasion of a foreign country. I wouldn't want most of the ARs in their .223. I'll stick with my .308 and 30-06's. what everybody also seem to forget is that the 1st amendment doesn't GRANT us the right to free speech and the 2nd doesn't GRANT us the right to keep arms. they protect us from having our natural born rights taken away. Period. All the talk about the founders didn't see there being automatic weapons or RPG's They wanted us to have the weapons we would need in case we have to fight.
I understand that citizens will never be able to over throw the government, however if there was ever a conflict what would it look like? 325 million Americans. (vs) 1.5 million active service. I don't think we will ever see it, but I think the conflict would be long and bloody. Maybe not, just an uneducated opinion.
2 things. 1. If the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are old and antiquated why don't we just scrap it then? Sure, they where written by guys who are long dead, but we still operate under the same document. It's best we interpret it for face value than to interpret it as we see fit to our agenda or according to the changes of time. The founders wrote it with intention, they wrote it to protect the people from government, not the other way around. What would the point to restrict the people but give leeway to the government when "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", Thomas Paine said that last part. Very important. The only thing I think that's up for interpretation is the definition of tyranny or corruption which is what warrants overthrow of government. 2. You assume the military would side with the government. They swear to protect the Constitution first. If our government was stupid enough to go to war against their own people, it would be because we the people initiated it. If we were to initiate it, we better damn well have a good reason so that the military would not side with government. A lot of good old dudes died standing up for their beliefs against all odds when fighting tyranny back when our founding documents were written, regardless if I knew I was outmatched against a government or God forbid a military I'd like to think I'd do the same. Your mocking with the "baby blankie" nonsense proves you just don't have a pair and you're willing to bend the knee. Typical "man" of our time.
So I have the right to produce WMD's or make Sarin gas. If not, why? You taking it to a personal level makes you look like a child that would feel better with a closet full of guns. My point was obvious to most. The weapons will serve you similarly to the blankie. Neither will save you in the end, but both make you feel warm and fuzzy. I would die fighting. You make poor assumptions, on many levels. Nobody is taking away all of our guns.
You clearly haven't read or ignore what you read if you don't like it. I've clearly said, we have to ask what the purpose of a law is, and whether the proposed laws do what they were created for. Example is speeding. The laws were not created to stop people from speeding, they were created to punish those who do and that is what they do. Murder was made illegal not because they thought the law would stop murder, only because the knew people would commit the crime and they wanted to be able to punish them when the do and are caught. Now what is the purpose for a ban on bump stocks or rate increasing devices? and would the proposed law accomplish what is written to do?
I'm not in a position to answer your first question. As in District of Columbia vs. Heller, your individual case is up to the Judicial system. Purpose, intent, and usage of said "arms" are up to them. It gets kind of fuzzy here because there is not a law that prohibits the possession of WMDs but possessing the materials to manufacture, fuel, blast as well as transporting or selling, etc.,. IS regulated and illegal. But, for the sake of argument I think we both know that you wouldn't be allowed to possess or produce them. In the event of government overthrow, there is no government or system to overrule so it's a moot point. You took it to a personal level...with the mocking of stock piling guns and ammo and calling it a "baby blankie". I didn't take it to a personal level, I simply pointed out the fact that you are advocating for a weak and defenseless people, yet later said you would die fighting too. Your opinion and what you would do seem to conflict, but fine, I take back that you don't have a pair. I am only observing what you say and then what you would do, you recanted so I can too. This topic is clearly split down the middle so not sure what you see as "obvious to most". The assumptions I made are very clear and what "saves me in the end" are very reliant on those potential situations or assumptions if you will. How will "neither" save me in the end? I clearly outlined a possibility where the military doesn't side with government. Now that we're going down a ridiculous rabbit hole about interpreting our founding documents, let's get back on track, so go ahead and tell us how any of this will prevent murder? And there lies my case, nothing can prevent murder. Murder is already illegal. Any action to prohibit any such object used to kill is moot because murder trumps the method or object used to kill.
No, criminals don't follow laws, so regardless of the purpose we don't need any. I read your "purpose" argument, I just find I comical.
Wait a second, no one said that we don't need laws. Criminals need punished for their crime, and having them surely would scare some from doing it if they know the punishment. But let's get something straight, laws are for punishment not prevention. Prevention is impossible without being omniscient.
No, I find it comical using "purpose", instead of just stating I want to buy the gun I want, period,and leave me the hell alone. We will never have a real gun debate in this country, never. I have accepted this as the norm, I have accepted we will all sit back and watch kids die and just accepted it as the norm. It's where we are as a society and we have done it already. Gun debate is not just about guns, it should be about Guns, Education, family, fathers, mothers and community. That debate won't happen, we only take our collective heads out of our asses when we have a tragedy or a black man takes a knee at a football game. Just think what we could get done on MANY issues if we could get the masses to support any of them, like those boycotting NFL because of kneeling. We could really do great things again, it's just not going to happen.
