To Every American Citizen.

[georges]

so, if i understand your argument, it goes like this:

"i uphold all the amendments, every single one. but with regards to the second amendment, you damn-well better believe what i believe, or you are out of here, you pinko commie bastard. screw the idea that the other amendments make it entirely legitimate and understandable that you would be in opposition to this amendment (religion, for example), you get in line with what i believe, or get out."

does that sum up what you're saying? because that seems a teeny bit problematic.

but, to repeat another post here:

When one likes his country he will never go against the consititution of his country, he will defend it beak and claws. The second amendment is a vital thing in the American society, just because some butthurt liberals can't see someone shooting big guns, they think they can take measure that please them even banning some weapons that responsible shooters want to buy???
Clinton established a assault gun ban as well as a high capacity gun ban which thankfully expired. Has criminality or gang violence been reduced with this gun ban? No, absolutely not. Also in California, the use and the sales of 50bmg rifles have been forbidden to law enforcement because it was too inhuman weapon. A 50 BMG or a 408 Cheytac sniping rifle are an insurance to get rid of targets quick and fast without having your men injured, not having one is risky.
We had one iranian member ( F o x e l i p s u s ) that got his american citizenship despite his hate for the second amendment as absurd as it may sound. I hope someone will give him a lesson about respecting the American constitution.
At last but not least, what should I do when law enforcement or can't intervene, must I be weaponless and die because of some scumbag?? No, I would rather shoot the robber with a 44mag or with 12 gauge sabot slugs than being robbed or stabbed.

 

[Member2019]

My wife and I argue intensly me being Italian and her being German, and we have 4 guns in the house and we have NEVER though well I could just shot him/her and get it over with. Use you damn brain man. Would a kid or college student that has access to legal gus still be in poession of an ILLEGAL gun, sice the gun in question is not in their name. Like I have access to the BMW across the street, but if I drive it it's a stolen car.

I love how people use narrow-focused arguments to deny individual rights of others. "Oh, home gun ownership kills more people than it protects." This happened 250+ years ago as well.

More ironically, teaching adults how to respect firearms actually solves the problem. You don't hear of kids who grew up respecting firearms popping off their parents but rarely, but plenty of kids never taught to use and respect them shooting their parents when they are mad.

Not teaching children and adults how to respect violence and how to never use it in anger is the problem, not guns. Guns are just an instrument, as are the countless assaults in the US with knives and other weapons. I love how people ignore those facts.

"Oh, but I wasn't talking about jasonk282, he seems responsible" -- oh, so he's the "exception" and "not the rule"? Basic statistics here, millions upon millions of Americans own guns in the US and they are far more likely to be a victim of a crime in their lifetime than they will ever have an accidental discharge where someone gets hurt with their own weapon.

Truth.

 

[Evil]

Majority rules and nobody cares about your guns or outdated amendment.

 

[Member2019]

Majority rules?

Majority rules and nobody cares about your guns or outdated amendment.

First off, are you sure the majority of Americans want the 2nd Amendment gone? Last time I checked, this wasn't the case. I'm sorry popular assumption in the media suggest otherwise. I realize many non-Americans had to deal with the same reality after the US Presidential Election of 2004 as well.

But it's often the "wake up call" to non-Americans that the Big 3 US media does not represent the US population uniformly. It's not just a bunch of unintelligent hicks either. Simple exit polls show who does and does not vote for parties and candidates, and people still refuse to believe those -- even when they are taken during Democrat Executives and Legislators.

Secondly, majority does not rule when it comes to Supreme US Law. But the way to change that is via supermajority. If a supermajority of Americans agree, no matter what existing Supreme or Common Law exists, no matter what Legislation or other Executive actions have been utilized, it can be changed.

So if the American people want to overrule the 2nd Amendment, they can. There is no law forbidding repealing any of the First Ten Amendments, only a process that requires it. It only takes a supermajority. It's that simple. Until it happens, the Supreme Law continues.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Re: Majority rules?

First off, are you sure the majority of Americans want the 2nd Amendment gone? Last time I checked, this wasn't the case. I'm sorry popular assumption in the media suggest otherwise. I realize many non-Americans had to deal with the same reality after the US Presidential Election of 2004 as well.

But it's often the "wake up call" to non-Americans that the Big 3 US media does not represent the US population uniformly. It's not just a bunch of unintelligent hicks either. Simple exit polls show who does and does not vote for parties and candidates, and people still refuse to believe those -- even when they are taken during Democrat Executives and Legislators.

Secondly, majority does not rule when it comes to Supreme US Law. But the way to change that is via supermajority. If a supermajority of Americans agree, no matter what existing Supreme or Common Law exists, no matter what Legislation or other Executive actions have been utilized, it can be changed.

So if the American people want to overrule the 2nd Amendment, they can. There is no law forbidding repealing any of the First Ten Amendments, only a process that requires it. It only takes a supermajority. It's that simple. Until it happens, the Supreme Law continues.

I don't even think that would work at this point.The American people are fed up, and they have had enough. I would find it hard to believe that the gun owners of this country would comply with disarming. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the final straw that pushes the law abiding, into the corner, and leaves them no choice. The people have clearly spoken, in regards to their right to own, and carry, that's pretty much indisputable. Question is, what type of anarchy would ensue, if the Government said, we weren't allowed to own, even certain types of firearms at this point, let alone any.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Majority rules?

I don't even think that would work at this point.

Is the rules of how the Supreme Laws of the United States of America can be changed in an absolute way. It is an option for anyone who can find enough people who agree with them. It's the "back door clause" that allows citizens and states to override all Supreme Laws and make a new one. I know the concept and levels involved are foreign to most non-Americans, but its staple civics in the US (even if many Americans don't understand it).

The American people are fed up, and they have had enough.

The American people are always fed up and have always had enough with anything and everything. The question is, with what, what are they going to do about it and what will that do?

It's been going on for 400 years now, only organized into a single, federal for the last 220 or so. But the UK did let states incorporate and were very much responsible for the design of American civics at many levels, both complementary and, later, confrontationally.

I would find it hard to believe that the gun owners of this country would comply with disarming.

A previous poll of mine suggested:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=170361

That 65% believed that the First Ten Amendments should never be repealed. However, believing they should not and fighting if they were are two different things.

Personally, if the supermajority of citizens and states repealed the 2nd Amendment, then I would no longer refer to the 2nd Amendment, because it would be repealed. Regardless of my individual beliefs, I believe very strongly in the civics of the United States.

And that includes respecting the supermajority vote, just like the vote that put the Bill of Rights in by the people and states in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the final straw that pushes the law abiding, into the corner, and leaves them no choice.

If a supermajority of the people and states repealed the 2nd Amendment, there would be some of the issues of Prohibition, sure.

But the violent crime rates in the US would not go down, just like fully automatic weapon discharges did not during the years of their ban either. They will still exist and they will still be utilized by illegal owners and often for illegal acts.

So I see a 2-fold problem -- no reduction in crime rates, and then a small, partisan group of militias ignoring the order. After awhile, I think you might see the American people realize it didn't make any difference, and they just gave up a right that some want.

Just like Prohibition.

The people have clearly spoken, in regards to their right to own, and carry, that's pretty much indisputable.

Which means the 2nd Amendment would never be repealed because it requires a supermajority of people and states. So what's the point here?

Question is, what type of anarchy would ensue, if the Government said, we weren't allowed to own, even certain types of firearms at this point, let alone any.

Again, there's a difference between an administration and/or branch of government doing this and a supermajority of people and states doing such. The former is not absolute. The latter is.

Americans who take their responsibility with freedom seriously understand the difference.

 

[Galactic]

Majority rules and nobody cares about your guns or outdated amendment.

People do care.....a lot......I am, however, more concerned with the erosion of the 1st and 4th amendments........that is what has me worried deeply about the direction we are heading.

 

[glock27]

It saddens me that for all of the posturing and pontificating on these political threads, not a one of you has proposed a solution that both protects the 2nd Amendment AND institutes effective gun control reform.

You all are some backwards-ass bastards. You people need balance.

And for the record (before you all start making assumptions about my political leanings), I am a social liberal, a fiscal moderate, and a proud gun owner. I support the rights of every citizen to be able to arm and protect themselves, and I decry the power wielded by large corporations, monied special interests an political lobbyists.

 

[Evil]

Nevermind I don't care, and nothing is going to happen anyway. This is just fear of obama.

 

[Member2019]

I'm concerned with 1-10 ...

People do care.....a lot......I am, however, more concerned with the erosion of the 1st and 4th amendments........that is what has me worried deeply about the direction we are heading.

I'm concerned with 1-10. I've always been concerned with 1-10.

How some people can be concerned about 2 but not 1 and 1 but not 2 bewilders me. Gun control was debated 100, 250 and even 400 years ago. Freedom of assembly was debated 100, 250 and even 400 years ago.

Same arguments, different times.

 

[Member2019]

Nevermind I don't care, and nothing is going to happen anyway. This is just fear of obama.

Actually, based on the leaked DHS report, it is clear that the Obama administration does have a fear of citizens using their 2nd Amendment rights to protect what they perceived to be 10th Amendment enforcement. That's is undeniable.

The question is how "radical" are they and at what point does it reach a "flashpoint"? And how might states get involved? Or not?

And what is a "militia"? Ironically it's definition today isn't much different than 250 years ago.

I know most people don't realize that, but despite common assumption, the use of the term "militia" and "partisan" doesn't mean something that is state-sponsored.

The DHS report disturbed me deeply because it took an authoritative approach to dealing with the problem absolutely, instead of looking at it as citizens who are wrong if they are instigating violence. Citizens who are assembling on their own property or according to the laws that govern public assembly are not.

It's not about who you disagree with, but whether they are causing a public safety issue. This has been an on-going issue since Ruby to Wako, and the government has been fucking up pretty badly.

All we need is some DHS implementation to be fucked up and the President will set in motion a clusterfuck of great proportions, regardless of what the President actually intended. That's the problem. The funny thing is that the Big 3 media knows it better than him.

And they'll be there if they can help it.

 

[glock27]

Galactic22, I wouldn't worry so much about the 1st and 4th. Freedom of speech can never be taken away, so long as one has breath in his lungs, a mouth to speak, and the fortitude to sacrifice everything for what he believes.

The 1st is something we all carry inside us.

As for the 4th, well, the so-called "Patriot" Act has done more to erode this amendment than anything else in recent years. We should use our 1st amendment powers to make it clear to our government that this Act needs to be repealed.

Voices and votes.

That is the true power we all wield in a constitutional democracy.

 

[Member2019]

As for the 4th, well, the so-called "Patriot" Act has done more to erode this amendment than anything else in recent years.

Agreed. Prior Executive Orders were bad enough, but the Congressional passing of the Patriot Act that turned many into law, and then subsequent passings making some permanent are continued, major issues.

The government keeps dancing around the issues, taking different approaches that can be considered valid. E.g., tapping calls that are made from/to international numbers.

We should use our 1st amendment powers to make it clear to our government that this Act needs to be repealed.
Voices and votes.
That is the true power we all wield in a constitutional democracy

There's an easier way. A Constitutional Amendment is absolute.