Plax in prison

[MightyGiants]

Here is the thing, the founding fathers who wrote our Constitution were intelligent, well-educated men.  They argued and reviewed every point and detail.  If they didn't want any sort of government regulation on firearms, the 2nd amendment would have read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is not what was written. 

As for arguments about guns keeping the government in check, this is just me, but I trust our military and law enforcement more than I do the people buying guns with the objective of keeping my government in check.  The last two armed people who decided to "keep our government in check" with firearms have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy and face 20 years in prison.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-oath-keepers-member-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-keepers-verdict-seditious-conspiracy-trial-rcna58415

[Slugsy-Narrows]

I wasn't referring to the police. I was specifically talking about the military. Not sure if you served in the military but when we raise our right hand, we take the oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I mentioned, the 2A was necessary then because we did not have a dedicated military force. Today we do so our primary defense is the military and not individual citizens who do not wear the uniform.

Everyday citizens have the power of the vote to keep the government in check. Weapons are not necessary to do that. The checks and balances of power within the government prevent any one branch from taking over.

Yet the military cannot just go into cities and town and bring law and order if they could Chicago would be perfect to do it on.

The power of the vote is not enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T200]

Yet the military cannot just go into cities and town and bring law and order if they could Chicago would be perfect to do it on.

The power of the vote is not enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

[Slugsy-Narrows]

It's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

And when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TONKA56]

And when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The discussion about the intent of the founding fathers and the Bill Of Rights has become secondary. The gun debate as of today is a cultural war between urban and rural dwellers. It is a conflict between those who grew up around firearms, were exposed to them at a young age, and see them as integral to their culture and their heritage - a symbol of tradition and self reliance and those that presumably grew up in urban areas where there were no weapons in the house. The latter wants no part of gun ownership and believes no one else should posses them either...except for the state. They have confidence in state authority and in the police to protect them.

It is a debate between those that favor independence from the state and those that advocate greater state dependence.
 
Obviously there are outliers to these assumptions but I believe this to be generally true. 

[T200]

And when the Government refuses to do the right thing and protect it's citizens (like in Chicago) the citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The founding fathers didn't just give us the Right to overthrow a tyrannical government which back then may have been able to happen more then today, (although some would say no term limits and the state of our current government could be considered as such), it was also to protect themselves and their property.

With the invasion going on at the southern boarder and what these poor people are going through in these boarder towns, the lawlessness in major cities with no bail and people just released or not even arrested, etc. who is to protect the avg man?

People have the right in this country to protect themselves again the Supreme Court has rules it's not the job of the police, the government has shown they aren't able to keep people safe and refuse to crack down on the criminals (who have guns and don't acquire them legally and never well), so then who?

It's up to the average citizen THAT CHOOSES TO either arm themselves or not!

If you don't choose to that is your civil right.  I shouldn't be denied though because someone else feels it's not needed.  My rights shouldn't stop where someone's beliefs start.  Doing so violated my rights.

Just how I feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The government is not some untouchable nebulous entity. They are people ELECTED by other people. If they aren't doing the job they were elected to, VOTE... THEM... OUT.

You and I talked before about public service term limits. As a nation, I think we need to start there. If the highest office in the land is limited to 2 terms, no one else should be able to serve more than that.

I'm on the fence about guns, in all honesty. Personally, let people have all the guns they want... limit the amount of ammunition they can have.

I feel the 2A was needed for a specific time period for a specific situation. That time has passed and the situation no longer exists.

[MightyGiants]

The discussion about the intent of the founding fathers and the Bill Of Rights has become secondary. The gun debate as of today is a cultural war between urban and rural dwellers. It is a conflict between those who grew up around firearms, were exposed to them at a young age, and see them as integral to their culture and their heritage - a symbol of tradition and self reliance and those that presumably grew up in urban areas where there were no weapons in the house. The latter wants no part of gun ownership and believes no one else should posses them either...except for the state. They have confidence in state authority and in the police to protect them.

It is a debate between those that favor independence from the state and those that advocate greater state dependence.
 
Obviously there are outliers to these assumptions but I believe this to be generally true. 

Those urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends. 

[TONKA56]

Those urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends. 

Unfortunately tragedies are politically weaponized to lead to a dichotomy of conclusions/solutions where there can be no compromise.

[MightyGiants]

It's about roles and responsibilities.

The national guard is under the direct control of the governor of each state. The military and reserves are under the control of the executive branch of the federal government.

If the people don't like what the federal government is doing for them, the action to take is to vote them out of office, not take guns and attempt to overthrow the government.

In a situation like Chicago or any other city that is experiencing civil unrest that is out of the control of the local police departments, the mayor can ask the governor to declare a state of emergency. In that situation, the national guard can be deployed. If the national guard cannot handle it, then the governor can request federal military forces to come in (reserves and/or active duty).

There are different levels and procedures in place to handle different situations. None of them, as far as I know, include normal civilians arming themselves to overthrow any level of government.

As you said, it's about accountability.  The government is accountable to the people.  A man with a gun or a group of people with guns is accountable to no one.  I don't see how you can live in a free democracy AND have who has the biggest and most guns making the rules. 

[Slugsy-Narrows]

The government is not some untouchable nebulous entity. They are people ELECTED by other people. If they aren't doing the job they were elected to, VOTE... THEM... OUT.

You and I talked before about public service term limits. As a nation, I think we need to start there. If the highest office in the land is limited to 2 terms, no one else should be able to serve more than that.

I'm on the fence about guns, in all honesty. Personally, let people have all the guns they want... limit the amount of ammunition they can have.

I feel the 2A was needed for a specific time period for a specific situation. That time has passed and the situation no longer exists.

T

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

Those urban dwellers grew up with guns; only they saw those guns killing their family and friends.

And the majority bought illegally by criminals that couldn't get them legally!  So again the legal law abiding citizen who are in the majority lose their rights because of those in the minority who are the problem?

How is that right and fair?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slugsy-Narrows]

As you said, it's about accountability.  The government is accountable to the people.  A man with a gun or a group of people with guns is accountable to no one.  I don't see how you can live in a free democracy AND have who has the biggest and most guns making the rules.

The government has the biggest and most are you saying they shouldn't be making the rules?

If so then we are onto something here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T200]

T

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For people like Pelosi, and Thurmond, and Supreme Court justices, etc... TERM LIMITS! So, yes, we as the voters still have a say!

The first amendment was not to satisfy an imminent need as the second amendment was. I already stated what the threats were that necessitated the second amendment. Our military is much more capable and ready to handle any threat to our nation than any armed militia.

To think that a group of citizens and vigilantes are going to overthrow our government and our military is really a slap in the face to those of us who have served. Many have given their lives to protect our way of life, to include how we govern and are governed. The core of that is our voice and our ability to vote. It's more powerful than any weapon. 

[y_so_blu]

I don't give a xxxx about my Constitutional right to own firearms. The other rights I still care about very much, but the government can have that one back any time. I'll manage.

[LennG]

T

It's easy to say vote then out.  But not as easy to do.

Take Pelosi for example.  Her district has gone down the tubes.  Yet she get re-elected over and over, wields a lot of power, is a HUGE MONEY GENERATOR for her party and runs against nothing and no one's.  She pretty much goes unopposed.   So politicians like that you aren't voting out.  It's not happening.  They bring in the money and control the purse strings of the party.  So voters have no true options.

I am with you! And yes we have talked term limits are KEY FOR TURNING THIS COUNTRY AROUND!  No one should sit in political office for a lifetime!

As for limiting ammo nope totally disagree.  If you are a law abiding citizen none of your rights should be limited or infringed on. 

I believe in background checks - I believe that we need to keep guns out of criminals and mentally I'll peoples hands.  We also need to actually prosecute the laws we have on the books and charge people for crimes when committed!  For a while there they were pleading down charges and the gun charge was the first things prosecutors were throwing out to lessen sentences.

Yet the government wants to add more laws to make someone like me a criminal for being a roll model citizen and wanting to or owning a specific fire arm or magazine.

If you say the 2A was only made for a certain time period you are opening every right then to the same judgement. 

Freedom of speech - is that now only to the verbal word and what's written on paper?  Does it exclude the internet or other modern means as they  weren't  around then?  You could say well that is extreme, is it?  Look how they try and erode the 2A, why not then look for cracks to erode the 1st?

When you let one Liberty and Right be watered down it opens them all up to be done to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For every Pelosi, there are the same hacks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who sway as the wind blows.

AND, I certainly agree about Term limits. I was going to start a thread about that but thought it would be too controversial, but I am in full agreement. NO ONE, from the President to any Supreme Court Justice to the town dogcatcher should be allowed to have a position for life. No matter how good people may think they are doing, you need change for the good, or bad.