Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....

[RetroGrow]

What I wrote wasn't my opinion but fact actually as in FROM the document itself. The term militia didn't ever mean "military forces" ever, you are just making stuff up now.

No, I'm not making "stuff" up.
The amendment reads:
"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."
You are forgetting about the first part of the amendment, "well regulated militia".
There is plenty of disagreement over what those words exactly mean.
This is from "About Com":

"Origins:
Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country.
Controversy:
The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."
Interpretations of the Second Amendment:
There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:

The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.
The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.
The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.

Where the Supreme Court Stands:
The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia."

So it's not just me "making stuff up".
This is a real issue that has been debated for centuries and probably will continue to be.
Your interpretation is not the only one.
I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I also believe that the founding fathers could not envision a future where one crazy person with an automatic weapon could mow down dozens or even hundreds of people. And they couldn't have conceived of gang bangers, "drive by shootings", and the massacres that occur all over this country in our cities.
Again: I support the second amendment
I also support the fourth amendment, but no one seems to give a damn about that one anymore.
And I support free speech, so you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[medmaker420]

If we lived in a day and age where everyone could be carrying those gang bangers you seem so scared of would have to think twice before mugging you.

Live in a GUN FREE ZONE and taste some real freedom... ( lack there of rather lol )

 

[RetroGrow]

the constitution is to protect the minority against being ruled by the majority... we all have basic freedoms and liberties that cannot be infringed upon regardless of congressional acts, majority opinion or any form of authoritarian hierarchy.

That's funny!
You sound like the brainwashed one.
Have you not noticed that our "basic freedoms and liberties that cannot be infringed on" have been and are being infringed upon on a continuing basis? And this from someone on a weed site, where we are being unjustly persecuted?
Have you not noticed that our right to privacy (4th amendment) has been infringed upon?
Our right to free speech has been and is being infringed upon. Every passing day, our "rights" are diminishing. The Patriot act, read by not a single member of congress, was passed in the blink of an eye, restricting our freedoms. And not one of the people who passed it even read it!
By the way, the minority IS ruled by the majority.
That's democracy!
Once again, I support the 2nd amendment, but our founding fathers could not see the scenario that exists today, with weekend shooting sprees in every inner city, and individuals with automatic weapons who can take out a whole city block or a crowded movie theater.

 

[Infinitesimal]

I have already stated that most people (like yourself) don't understand the constitution, which has lead to its erosion... hence your quote.

By the way, the minority IS ruled by the majority.
That's democracy!

NO... its yours and millions of others institutionalized minds, that think this way that has lead to all of the unconstitutional laws Like the controlled substances act of 1970 (the one that makes drugs illegal), it was MAJORITY RULE and 100% unconstitutional.

In a FREE land no man is ruled by ANY other!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the federal government was supposed to have been majority rule (like parliament, which they fought to escape)... then there would be no need for the constitution at all; the government would be able to make anything law (which it can now, but for it to be done lawfully it must be made a constitutional amendment)... the constitution was designed to limit the powers of government to certain areas, separate the responsibilities among 3 branches of the federal government and assign check & balance authority to each on the other.

so the war on drugs (prohibition) or any ban on any weapons is against the constitution without an amendment... which is F'n hard to do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>edited to keep things civilized<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[medmaker420]

That's funny!
By the way, the minority IS ruled by the majority.
That's democracy!
Once again, I support the 2nd amendment, but our founding fathers could not see the scenario that exists today, with weekend shooting sprees in every inner city, and individuals with automatic weapons who can take out a whole city block or a crowded movie theater.

Yes they could see it but in THEIR WORLD we ALL would be carrying and be more than CAPABLE of protecting those that choose not to carry. Do you really believe that law abiding citizens would shoot innocent people just because we have a gun.. even if a shootout happened?

I actually believe that us NORMAL law abiding citizens would shoot more accurately than the cops who btw are TERRIBLE shots which has been proven time and time again, look at the latest empire state building shooting btw. If there was a ccw there it would have been STOPPED versus more people getting shot.

This whole automatic weapon killing all or some one taking out a movie theatre bs is laughable especially for someone who claims they are for the 2nd amendment. That movie theater shooting was IN a NO GUN ZONE btw... think about what that actually means which is only CRIMINALS have guns just like the INNER CITIES you keep preaching about. Get rid of the gun free zones and CRIME WILL SLOW DOWN shocker....

Trust me when it comes down to it IF a gun ever gets pointed at you, I am sure you would rather WANT the ability to defend yourself with LIKE FORCE if not MORE FORCE versus call 911. I have been put in that situation before and while it scared the shit out of me without a GUN I wouldn't be here and no I do not live in an inner city nor consider myself a gang banger but rather an American who would rather shoot NOW versus get shot if the need arises whereas those such as yourself would prefer laying in a fetal position hoping that help MIGHT arrive.

 

[SOURDIESEL1]

speaking about guns did any one read how the social security office bought alot of ammo
heres part of it

(CNN) -- Praise the Internet and pass the ammunition: the blogosphere is roiling with conspiracy theories over a Social Security Administration shopping list for 174,000 hollow-point bullets.

Depending on whom you believe, police who protect Social Security Administration officers are either preparing for impending financial doom by purchasing lethal ammo to put down rioting citizens, or they're just making a standard purchase of ammunition for a federal police agency.

It all began last month when the agency, which is primarily responsible for distributing benefits to the disabled and retired people, posted an announcement seeking bids for 174,000 hollow-point bullets.

Why? cried some bloggers.

Infowars, a website operated by right-wing talk show host Alex Jones, wanted to know if the agency was preparing for "civil unrest

 

[paladin420]

anyone see the big headlines about the 4 people shot and killed in France? How about the deadly shooting in Quebec??

prob gun crazy American tourists..rude fat fukkers

 

[gaiusmarius]

interesting point actually, lots of people think the US is a democracy, but in actual fact you have a democratic republic. that's quite different. while many things can be decided by the majority, in a republic you have limits. ie the God given, or so called natural rights can not be legislated away. but it's true, the US has become a defacto democracy, the majority is used to decide which minority to rob. wasn't it Jefferson who said a democracy is nothing more then 2 wolf and a sheep sitting down to vote on whats for dinner. maybe it was Franklin. but the point is very valid. without the constitution democracy leads to the majority robbing the minority.

 

[Jim Rockford]

All I heard was people screaming Obama was going to take my guns. But since he took office there are now less gun laws. You people are nuts. No one is taking your guns, the poeple have more guns than the government and the government knows it would be all out civil war to try and take most people's guns. Too many guns are already out there, nobody is taking anything without massive bloodshed, find some other more legit thing to bash Obama on.

 

[gaiusmarius]

if thats all you heard you didnt read very well imo. this is about government in general slowly but surely moving things in that direction. Obama is just the latest sock puppet for the financial elites and the military industrial complex.

 

[turbolaser4528]

if thats all you heard you didnt read very well imo. this is about government in general slowly but surely moving things in that direction. Obama is just the latest sock puppet for the financial elites and the military industrial complex.[/QUOTE

They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers....

I ain't scurred, look at all the muslim countries, the people will have their victory, bloodshed or no bloodshed. Just a matter of time he he he

 

[RetroGrow]

Yes they could see it but in THEIR WORLD we ALL would be carrying and be more than CAPABLE of protecting those that choose not to carry. Do you really believe that law abiding citizens would shoot innocent people just because we have a gun.. even if a shootout happened?

I actually believe that us NORMAL law abiding citizens would shoot more accurately than the cops who btw are TERRIBLE shots which has been proven time and time again, look at the latest empire state building shooting btw. If there was a ccw there it would have been STOPPED versus more people getting shot.

This whole automatic weapon killing all or some one taking out a movie theatre bs is laughable especially for someone who claims they are for the 2nd amendment. That movie theater shooting was IN a NO GUN ZONE btw... think about what that actually means which is only CRIMINALS have guns just like the INNER CITIES you keep preaching about. Get rid of the gun free zones and CRIME WILL SLOW DOWN shocker....

Trust me when it comes down to it IF a gun ever gets pointed at you, I am sure you would rather WANT the ability to defend yourself with LIKE FORCE if not MORE FORCE versus call 911. I have been put in that situation before and while it scared the shit out of me without a GUN I wouldn't be here and no I do not live in an inner city nor consider myself a gang banger but rather an American who would rather shoot NOW versus get shot if the need arises whereas those such as yourself would prefer laying in a fetal position hoping that help MIGHT arrive.

First I would like to say that there are plentiful "accidental" shootings, so yes, law abiding citizens on occasion do shoot other people, albeit by accident.
Secondly, I don't know what's funny about the mass killings or the movie theater killings by a mad man, and I don't think it matters one bit what "zone" the shooter is in. It could happen anywhere. Remember, the shooter is insane. He is not thinking about the fine points of the issue. He just wants to kill. I have already posted a list of countries where guns are hard to get, and guess what? They have the lowest gun death rates.
As far as having a gun pointed at me, I have had a 45 pressed against my temple with the hammer cocked by a policeman after a slow speed chase. It was slow because my clutch burned out during the pursuit. I said to the officer:"Are you going to murder me now?" Obviously he holstered his weapon or I wouldn't be typing this.
By the way, I am not allowed to own a gun, due to a 30 year old conviction, but the last time I laid in the fetal position was when I had kidney stones.

 

[GetUpStandUp]

6mm, and yeah talk bout feel like being shot!

 

[RetroGrow]

NO... its yours and millions of others institutionalized minds, that think this way that has lead to all of the unconstitutional laws Like the controlled substances act of 1970 (the one that makes drugs illegal), it was MAJORITY RULE and 100% unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>edited to keep things civilized<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

That's a bizarre statement on many levels. My "institutionalized" mind led to "all of the unconstitutional laws Like the controlled substances act of 1970 (the one that makes drugs illegal)".. Please bro, get a grip. I can assure you I was not for the controlled substances act and had nothing to do with the passage of all the "unconstitutional" laws you speak about. I am not part of the law making process. I can't even vote. This is a discussion, so let's not make it personal.
Majority rule exists whether you like it or not. The person who gets the majority of votes is the winner. When the Supreme Court rules, the laws are made by the majority. Same thing locally. When the people in med states vote on whether or not to allow dispensaries, the majority rules.
That whole statement is just too funny!
Me and all the other "institutionalized minds" are just asleep at the wheel. Please, give me a break.
You are just spewing rhetoric now. You disagree with me, so I must be institutionalized. That's just wrong.

 

[gaiusmarius]

the only bit that seems a bit mainstream media influenced is your quoted interpretation of the second. if you look at the historical context and use of language there is no doubt that they meant every man to have the right to bear any arms. this was so that locals could form up into "well equipped" "well regulated" militias to defend their land at the drop of a hat. militia in this context means every man of arms bearing age and sound mind.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

interesting point actually, lots of people think the US is a democracy, but in actual fact you have a democratic republic. that's quite different. while many things can be decided by the majority, in a republic you have limits. ie the God given, or so called natural rights can not be legislated away. but it's true, the US has become a defacto democracy, the majority is used to decide which minority to rob. wasn't it Jefferson who said a democracy is nothing more then 2 wolf and a sheep sitting down to vote on whats for dinner. maybe it was Franklin. but the point is very valid. without the constitution democracy leads to the majority robbing the minority.

That's an interesting definition of republic and I'm not sure "natural rights" is a defense in civil or criminal court.

When it comes to the US, republic means no royalty. England was a royal monarchy and didn't have free elections. America established a republic and with it, free elections.

 

[gaiusmarius]

do you prefer the term constitutional rights? to me they are my natural rights, i just have them, they are not bestowed and can't be taken away in a just system. self defense, free speech, privacy etc, once those are taken away the system is no longer a just system.

you are right about the royalty aspect. i think the US system has things that stem back to the Roman republic. having no king was a huge part of that. what a shame that today's presidents can act like kings and start wars without congressional approval or the majority of the people being in favor. be it the war on drugs or the many wars on various peoples all over the world.

 

[RetroGrow]

the only bit that seems a bit mainstream media influenced is your quoted interpretation of the second. if you look at the historical context and use of language there is no doubt that they meant every man to have the right to bear any arms. this was so that locals could form up into "well equipped" "well regulated" militias to defend their land at the drop of a hat. militia in this context means every man of arms bearing age and sound mind.

Agreed, except the "any arms" part. They could not have conceived of the weapons that exist today. Were they cognizant of weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. Also, the "regulated" part implies a military type militia, not the clusterfuck of random killings we have by and against our own citizens in our inner cities today, at least here in the U.S. The violence is totally out of hand when it's more dangerous in Chicago than in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

All I heard was people screaming Obama was going to take my guns. But since he took office there are now less gun laws

Yes... and you now have SIGNIFICANTLY fewer rights, just not in the gun dept.

Guns are next... just part of the program.

The definition of a tool is someone who does another's work for them, usually with good intentions.. while not having a clue as to the idea of the original program.

A shovel doesn't have any personal input in the process of digging a hole. A political tool doesn't bring any original personal input to a political discussion.

Too many people just repeat what they've read and heard... while never putting any original thought into the content or their role in it.

Stay Safe!

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Anyone else having their threads held in 'limbo' before they show up... or don't?

Just started this thread a few minutes ago in the den... where is it?
Do a search for "icmag.com Be careful who your kids" on google and it's the first link.

Stay Safe!