Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Assault Weapons – the very name is indicative of intent!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 23, 2012 at 5:16 pm #604093
Myr-myrParticipantSomeone, anyone, please explain to the rest of us why this country continues to allow the sale of “assault” weapons.
July 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm #764622
JVMemberWiki answer to your question:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
July 23, 2012 at 5:40 pm #764623
schwaggyParticipantMyr-myr – any weapon can be classified as an assault weapon if used to assault somebody.
July 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm #764624
Myr-myrParticipant“To keep and bear arms” presumably for defense, or perhaps to repel, not to use to murder innocents. Many would argue that the wording of the Second Amendment is the well-intentioned, but limited thinking of drafters, coming as it did at a time when such “weapons of mass destruction” were not yet available.
July 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm #764625
JVMemberI agree, they did not want people to murder innocents. Nothing can stop crazy people from doing that, whether it’s with a rifle, a car, or anything else.
He probably could have killed more people by driving his car onto a busy sidewalk, or chaining the doors and setting the theater on fire. Would a car or a gas can be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
I hope I don’t sound like I’m being rude, and I know your heart is in the right place, but responsibility rests squarely on the crazy person, not the guns. Nothing can stop crazy/evil people from doing crazy/evil stuff.
July 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm #764626
Myr-myrParticipantWe need cars. Yes. We need gasoline cans. Yes. But why does anyone anywhere in this country need an assault weapon? Leaving the responsibility squarely to the crazy person? WE would be crazy to do that!
July 23, 2012 at 7:28 pm #764627
dbseaMemberAgree absolutely. Why does average citizen need an assault rifle? And while the 2nd Am. has been upheld that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be altered or interpreted differently. Sure, lots of other things can and are used as weapons. But what sense is there in making such things as an assault rifle readily available?
July 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm #764628
TanDLParticipantMy question is: Why do people purchase assault weapons? Do any of you out there own them? If so, why do you have them?
What made you walk into a store and purchase one – or more? I can only think of one reason to own assault weapons and that’s to kill people, but if there are other reasons, please enlighten me.
July 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm #764629
kootchmanMemberThe man had murderous intent, pure evil. It was a rifle, a pump shotgun, that he used. His apartment was rigged with IED’s. Others have used jet planes, ammonium fertilizer mixed with diesel fuel, automobiles. It has some pallative effect on the psyche I suppose to feel we are more protected if we regulate an absolute constitutional right, but evil finds a way. If he had rigged a van with barrels of diesel fuel and fertilizer.. banning vans, diesel fuel, would have the same effect. Myr-myr.. it was the intent of the founders to keep us armed sufficiently to protect ourselves from armed governments, our own in particular. It was not for self defense. It’s hard for me to object to assault weapons when every federal, state, county, and local organ of government routinely arms itself in such a a manner. Those same weapons regularly are deployed every day across this country.
I am perfectly willing to regulate firearms, to the same degree that state sponsored forces are restricted. when the SPD doesn’t carry M-16 assault rifles, or sheriffs, or local cops and have to go to a civil court and have their tactical deployment approved by special warrant with compelling evidence that they are needed…maybe.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
— Thomas Jefferson
Re: Fred Hampton Murder by FBI and Chicago tactical units.
“We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black niggers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.”
—FBI Special Agent Gregg York [6]
J Edgar Hoover on receiving field agent reports that the SF chapter of the BPP was essentially providing breakfast to children and their was no evidence of other subversive action…
Hoover was willing to use false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: “Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge.”[33] His written response?
July 23, 2012 at 8:12 pm #764630
DBPMemberThe Bill of Rights is just that: a declaration of individual rights. The Constitution, by contrast, is the framework within which those rights are balanced with the rights of other individuals and with the basic purposes of government.
Thus, my 1st Amendment right to speak my mind about you must be balanced against your right not to be unfairly damaged by that speech.
And your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun must be balanced against my right to be secure in my person.
So . . . if it comes to the point where my so-called right to free speech unduly harms you then I do not, in fact, have any such right to speak.
And if it comes to the point where your right to own a firearm destroys my right to be secure in my person then you do not, in fact, have any such right to own a firearm.
Oh, sure, you can fool yourself into believing that you have an absolute right to do this, that, or the other thing. But in the end, experience will always prove you wrong. And if the NRA crowd keeps pushing this “The Constitution says we can have assault weapons” thing, they’ll find out soon enough that they didn’t understand the Constitution as well as they thought.
All rights under the law are relative. The authors of the Constitution didn’t discover this truth; they were obviously aware of it, though. And that has been the document’s crowning glory.
July 23, 2012 at 8:19 pm #764631
kootchmanMemberAh the age of relativism is now upon us. The broadest, overreaching purpose of the constitution was to preserve the liberties of the individual from the power of the state. The right to resist the tyranny of an armed state is not “misunderstood” the founders were deliberate in the intent. A flintlock and black powder weapon was sufficient, when that was the extent of the states’ armament. The founders were specific and absolute the right to bear arms is a counterweight to the powers of government. It was not for pheasant hunting.
July 23, 2012 at 8:20 pm #764632
DBPMemberYou obviously do not understand the document, either in the spirit OR the letter.
July 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm #764633
elikapekaParticipantWhy is the part of the Second Amendment that mentions a well-regulated militia always ignored in this conversation?
July 23, 2012 at 8:33 pm #764634
kootchmanMemberWhen you read the federalist papers, the extensive communiques between Madison, Jefferson, Washington…et al. You will see that a “well regulated: militia means the ability of the people to self organize against armies raised by the governments.
The constitution is a boundry document. It sets the parameters of government. I understand that document well. It’s fine to take a look at the second amendment.. the full context is in ALL the correspondence between the anti-federalists and the federalists.
There is evil out there. Profound evil. You can’t legislate it out of existence.
July 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm #764635
JVMemberWhat a stupid old document they wrote! Buncha rich old white men with stupid wigs and wooden teeth!
Man! If ONLY the Founders were as smart as the average West Seattle-ite in 2012! We know better!
[end sarcasm font]
July 23, 2012 at 8:49 pm #764636
kootchmanMemberSee my Fred Hampton reference messr DPB… Yes, I have seen the government tolerance to free speech. Tell, me in a curious way, the more the constitution “evolves” the more “relevant” it becomes, the greater the surge in gun ownership. There are over 400,000,000 guns out there…. the people have voted, conducted a plebiscite of their own. Call it the will of the people made manifest. The more the document gets “shredded” the less, not more secure, people feel protected and their rights enshrined. There is a reason we prefer strict interpretive judges… the “squishier” the document becomes the less empowered the people feel. Might I point to the obvious.. it was tampering with that document… that brought automatic weapons into the public realm at all…. the temperance movement and the upscaling of criminal enterprises.. the venerable Thompson hit the streets of Chicago… unintended consequences.
July 23, 2012 at 9:10 pm #764637
kootchmanMemberDPB… the documents and writings are so profuse… so many, .. so heavily weighted in the founders deep misgivings about the government and its excesses … the call to successive generations, their fears and their worry that individual rights would be made subservient to the state. I cannot see a rational “other” interpretation.
July 23, 2012 at 10:10 pm #764638
WorldCitizenParticipantHonest question here:
Can an individual effectively arm himself against the government of the United States of America and it’s military?
July 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm #764639
odrokuParticipantThe argument the second amendment was written as an individual mandate to allow possession of firearms for self-defense is at the very least flawed enough that one shouldn’t necessarily be condescending to others who would argue for stricter gun control when it would otherwise seem the depth of one’s argument is “SECOND AMENDMENT!”
Which would mean sarcasm is maybe even a worse choice.
But maybe the authors of that amendment wrote some of you notes you’re not sharing with the rest of the class, which would clarify why you would so boldly extrapolate extra meaning from the words on the page.
July 23, 2012 at 10:30 pm #764640
WorldCitizenParticipantTo effectively arm yourself against the “Oppressive United States Government”:
350-500 Shoulder FIred, Laser-Guided rockets
300 Tanks
2-4 Nuclear powered assault subs
AT LEAST 2 fully manned aircraft Carriers with loads of warplanes
Automated drone strike force with long range capabilities
Stealth air caft technology.
A massive, state-of-the-art underground lair with satellite link-ups and full earth covert communications capabilities.
I could go on, but let’s just say a couple of M-16s and some pistols ‘aint gonna do you a lick of good against the mightiest fighting force the Earth has ever known. So don’t give me that line of BS that the second amendment has anything to do with modern America. It was the inability of our founding fathers to be able to see where technology would take humanity. Not their fault, but a mistake none-the-less.
July 23, 2012 at 10:38 pm #764641
schwaggyParticipantDo you know how odd it sounds to be throwing the words “assault weapons” around…? I mean seriously, a fist is an assault weapon when used in an assault. So is a car, or a shopping cart. The term is misleading, especially when it comes to rifles. Some of you are assuming that any old “regular” rifle or handgun or shotgun or… can’t be used in an assault. Sure, maybe some differences in magazine capacity but there’s no difference in what a bullet does after it leaves the muzzle. I’m not advocating one side of the gun control argument here, nor taking away from this senseless tragedy, but please educate yourselves a bit so you can speak to the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons
July 23, 2012 at 10:42 pm #764642
JVMemberFrom a historical perspective, let’s apply the wisdom of the second amendment to say, Europe in the 1930s.
If the Jews in Europe had been armed at least to some extent they would have been able to put up some fight against the Nazis.
No they didn’t need 200 subs, an aircraft carrier, 200 tanks, etc. etc. They wouldn’t have defeated the Nazis, but they would have been able to stand up for their families.
I’d prefer to stand up for my family to whatever extent possible than to be marched into a gas chaimber.
July 23, 2012 at 10:44 pm #764643
odrokuParticipantDefinitely a Junior-Varsity effort.
July 23, 2012 at 11:21 pm #764644
kootchmanMemberJuly 23, 2012 at 11:28 pm #764645
kootchmanMemberAhhh.. World Citizen… you are watching the world aren’t you? watch Syria’s central government collapse. You need enough to make it too costly or self destructive to even try. See the gun lobby.. is the American citizens that own that collection of 400M guns. The majority of American do not want you to infringe on their second amendment rights. Obama will not do a thing. The majority of Americans want their gun rights. It’s not even a close call.
Call it what it was.. the act of a madman. A deeply evil disturbed freak. The blame rests on him. Gun laws didn’t do a thing to stop the Murrah bombing in Oklahoma bombing. An assault rental truck did that. Another evil bastard… but.. it was retaliation, however misguided for the FBI and ATF use of tanks and automatic weapons on a self governing Waco community… let’s put that in perspective too… 76 dead, including 20 children. The same ATF that let thousands of ILLEGALLY purchased assault weapons walk … into the hands of international drug cartels.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.