Gun discussion. So piper6069 can let the other thread be.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

So you are good with the people in charge deciding what "rights" you are allowed to have.

Lets put the blame exactly where it belongs, the criminals and mentally defective people that use them to harm people. Guns are a tool, just like a hammer, or a car, or even a cell phone. Used for the intended purpose everything is good, but bad people wanting to hurt or kill others will use them for other than their intended purpose. Atleast with a gun I have the ability to defend myself and family.

People in charge DO decide what rights you have, they're called Judges and Lawmakers.
The constitution gives us certain "inalienable rights". But since it can often be rather vague and taken out of context, we have judges who are the final arbiters.
And by the way, our Constitution was written by people in charge.

The good news is that we can still decide who we put in charge.

Actual and complete Second Amendment:
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.

I love how people tend to leave out the "well regulated" part.

Yes, guns are tools, just like cars. But you need training and pass an aptitude test, a license, insurance and registration before you can drive a car. And there are countless safety regulations that play a part in the design of a car. Imagine if we treated cars like guns: People of all ages would be driving around, without having to pass any sort of aptitude test, no insurance if someone hit you. And seat belts, air bags, and crash tests? pffft! Those are for wimps! And BTW, you're not allowed to keep records to analyze the data of any crash that happened. Yeah, that would be fun! So maybe you may want to rethink your analogy between guns and cars. In all seriousness though, having liability insurance for owning a gun may not be a bad idea.

And I agree with you that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. That's why I find it very disturbing that Rump made it harder for agencies to flag those people:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/


.

[maytag]

Originally Posted by piper6909

Actual and complete Second Amendment:
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.

I love how people tend to leave out the "well regulated" part.


.

And I love how others simply ignore what the rest of it meant to the founding fathers when it was written and ratified.

I suppose YOU'RE one of those who thinks that is referring to what we now call the National Guard?
Check your history to understand the context of "...being necessary to the security of a free State...". The National Guard doesn't fill the need they intended. Not even close. In fact, the National Guard would indeed represent the danger they wanted us to be able to defend ourselves FROM.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

And I love how others simply ignore what the rest of it meant to the founding fathers when it was written and ratified.

I suppose YOU'RE one of those who thinks that is referring to what we now call the National Guard?
Check your history to understand the context of "...being necessary to the security of a free State...". The National Guard doesn't fill the need they intended. Not even close. In fact, the National Guard would indeed represent the danger they wanted us to be able to defend ourselves FROM.

You'd suppose wrong. First of all, there's an estimated 20,000 to 60,000 militia groups in the USA. We don't know the exact number because why? They're NOT regulated. That was my point. They love to harp on the 'right to bear arms' part, but conveniently forget the 'well regulated' part.

I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!

I'm a gun owner. But I want nothing to do whit the NRA and some whacked-out, anarchist militia groups. I suppose some militia groups are good, but most seem to me like wannabe army rejects. The NRA was good up until around the 80's or 90s, when they just went off the deep end, in my opinion.

[maytag]

Originally Posted by piper6909

You'd suppose wrong. First of all, there's an estimated 20,000 to 60,000 militia groups in the USA. We don't know the exact number because why? They're NOT regulated. That was my point. They love to harp on the 'right to bear arms' part, but conveniently forget the 'well regulated' part.



I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!



I'm a gun owner. But I want nothing to do whit the NRA and some whacked-out, anarchist militia groups. I suppose some militia groups are good, but most seem to me like wannabe army rejects. The NRA was good up until around the 80's or 90s, when they just went off the deep end, in my opinion.

And, once again piper, you and I find ourselves in more agreement than either of us is likely comfortable admitting. Haha

I think I agree with ALL of that.

Here's what I'd add, though:

The purpose that the writers intended was that there would remain in place our ability, as citizens, to resist oppression from our own government. At the time this was militia. Those Patriots had little in common with today's militia groups, as you've accurately portrayed them.

And you're right that the average citizens have little chance against the military might of the United states. However: it's not only a question of "could they win". It's the idea that there IS, and WILL BE, resistance to oppression. A government bent on an agenda will think twice before taking up arms against its armed-citizens. But if those citizens aren't armed, then there's no need to hesitate.

Again: I'm not one who thinks it'll come to that. At least not in my lifetime. But if we all hand over our guns, what's to stop a guy like trump from exercising his role as commander in chief and "taking over"? Or Bernie? Or AOC? Or any of the many other individuals who think their cause is worthy of ignoring the will of the people as demonstrated at the polls?
The 2nd amendment provides a very important supportive role to the REST of the constitution.

IMHO


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by maytag

And, once again piper, you and I find ourselves in more agreement than either of us is likely comfortable admitting. Haha



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

HAHA! I'm going to take a bath in Iodine now!

Actually, and I think we may have discussed it before, there's more that we actually agree on, than disagree. And I'll never be uncomfortable to admit that.

[SMK Shoe]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I actually think it's an outdated concept, anyway. A group of butt-scratching, beer-bellied yahoos with machine guns against the best equipped and best trained forces in the history of the world? HAHA! I'll take that bet!

Well, you would probably loose that bet, 1. A large majority of the military are patriot's and would not follow a illegal order to engage the US population. 2. A very large number of those patriots already wore the uniform. Larger number of us older and little slower patriots than in Uniform. 3. US Military does not have the stomach to fill body bags with soldiers and patriots over illegal gun seizures. 4. You seem to believe that the military members are mindless drones. Far from the case. Most believe in God and Country more than Government politicians. 5. I won't comment on the best equipped and trained in the history of the world, I am way to "in the know" and that statement is far off the mark.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

1. A large majority of the military are patriot's and would not follow a illegal order to engage the US population.

I agree. That's another reason why I think the 2nd amendment is an outdated concept when it regards a tyrannical government.

I believe in our men and women in uniform and I believe they will defy illegal orders to attack us. Because they are us. Our friends, Our relatives. Cheers to them and cheers to us!

I also believe in government of, by and for the people. The government is us, and there are enough good people and enough checks and balances to stop a wannabe tyrant.

[Qingdao]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I believe in our men and women in uniform and I believe they will defy illegal orders to attack us. Because they are us. Our friends, Our relatives. Cheers to them and cheers to us!

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

[maytag]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

? ? ?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by Qingdao

They did fire on relatives and friends before they'll do it again. (in this very country no less)

When a group is hell bent on breaking up the USA, going to war with them doesn't really constitute an illegal order to attack. It doesn't matter whether it's blue states or red states. If they break away from the USA, by default they forfeit their citizenship.

[SMK Shoe]

Originally Posted by piper6909

Yes, guns are tools, just like cars. But you need training and pass an aptitude test, a license, insurance and registration before you can drive a car. And there are countless safety regulations that play a part in the design of a car. Imagine if we treated cars like guns: People of all ages would be driving around, without having to pass any sort of aptitude test, no insurance if someone hit you. And seat belts, air bags, and crash tests?
In all seriousness though, having liability insurance for owning a gun may not be a bad idea.


.

So there are no idiots driving cars, drinking, texting, doing drugs, not paying attention hurting/killing people.
You just can't let it go about people of all ages. NO ONE here wants a three year old with a machine gun. you have to be 18 years old to buy a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun. Yes, you can allow someone under that age to use them but must be supervised.
I agree about liability insurance. You have insurance for your car/home/medical and other things important to you. why not for weapons. BUT, lets call it a TAX and make everyone in the US pay for it like O'Dumbo Care. Sounds fair? I have no problem at all letting you pay for my gun insurance with your tax.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by SMK Shoe

So there are no idiots driving cars, drinking, texting, doing drugs, not paying attention hurting/killing people.
You just can't let it go about people of all ages. NO ONE here wants a three year old with a machine gun. you have to be 18 years old to buy a long gun and 21 to purchase a handgun. Yes, you can allow someone under that age to use them but must be supervised.
I agree about liability insurance. You have insurance for your car/home/medical and other things important to you. why not for weapons. BUT, lets call it a TAX and make everyone in the US pay for it like O'Dumbo Care. Sounds fair? I have no problem at all letting you pay for my gun insurance with your tax.

There are people who may CHOOSE to never own a gun, but EVERYONE will eventually need health care. It's a matter of time. It's not exactly a choice. THAT'S why we should keep the individual mandate. When an uninsured person goes into the ER and can't pay, we ALL pay for him/her in the form of higher premiums. Is that fair? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Weren't Repubes supposed to be all for that?

You don't like Obamacare? I hope you, or anyone in your family don't have a pre-existing condition. But if you do, because of Obamacare, you can still get insurance when you need it. Before Obamacare you would have been denied. Thanks, Obama!