I am still amazed that during the Rodney King riots in LA when the rioters
turned into the Korean neighborhood three armed citizens with pistols turned the
entire mob away! Just three! Point taken, if you aren't blind.
I have followed the right to keep and bear arms for decades. Almost all those
who are against firearms in the hands of citizens use false logic which is based
on the lack of knowleged about accidental death. The fact remains is that the
2nd Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms, it does not give
it. The right for the citizenry to keep and bear arms dates back to the Roman
era. It is also mentioned in the Magna Carta. Regardless of usefullness the
right to keep and bear, which means not only having firearms but the ability to
use, arms it is necessary for the protection of freedom. Every
single totalitarian state starts out with taking firearms from the people. The
USSR, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan in the 1930's and the list goes on.
While we complain that roughly 40,000 people die from firearms each year (most
are suicides and those are only 1/3 of total suicides) the rest are criminal in
nature. It is a well documented fact that crimminals use guns in areas that have
gun bans. More guns in the hands of citizens, less crime. Fact.
Re: freedomingood provo, Utah"This is why I can't be republican
people."So are you suggesting that the Springville man who shot
an armed intruder in his bedroom is a Republican because he was unwilling to
accept the roll of a victim? Those who complain most bitterly about the 2nd
Amendment are the first ones to panic when the 911 operator puts them on hold
while an armed intruder is kicking their back door in.
The NRA and republicans just like to scare you into buying more guns. Now where
is the logic in that anyway? You are convinced the government is
going to come take away your guns - so you buy more of them.This is
why I can't be republican people.
To keep the government at bay we would need more than muzzle loaders. I would need that fully loaded F-16. Or to compare to the AK facination I
guess I should be getting a Mig-29. Many of my neighbors will need them as well
though.Personally I think NRA, outspoken gun lovers are looking for
something to make them feel more powerfull than they really feel. Some may just
love the history of guns but I find that those people are quieter about it.After all, scared women will buy one gun to protect themselves but never
really talk about it. Gun lovers buy scary looking assault rifles that shoot the
same bullets as a deer rifle and show them off to friends and family. I think
they like the intimidation factor.
@atl134How many times in those cases was the existence of the
government of the United States directly threatened? If it was do you think
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would be habitable by human life anymore? They would either be glowing or would be sealed off with bio hazard posters
ringing the border.
@UT BritYeah it's not the 1700s but we know that ragtags hiding
behind rocks and trees are still effective since that's what the Vietcong,
Al Qaida, and the Iraqi insurgents used and one might recall we got bogged down
in all three cases.
Limiting ammo purchases to something below 6,000 bullets, limiting
clips/magazines to 10 rounds instead of 30 plus, and closing the gun show
loophole, none of that does anything to stop an everyday citizen from legally
purchasing a gun and acquiring ammunition so that should they need to use a gun
in self-defense they'll have almost a dozen bullets to use. If you need
more than a dozen bullets to protect yourself... A: you probably should have
better aim than that, and B: you probably shouldn't have gotten involved in
a drug cartel because seriously who else would be in that kind of position?
@RiflemanHate to tell you rifleman, this aint the 1700's.
Please explain how you plan on not breathing for an extended period of time?
Todays biological weapons can target people of certain genomes. I want to know
how an assault rifle is going to help you when you breathe in microscopic spores
that causes you to cough your lungs out in pieces. Thats what you would be
Rifleman, you are correct. However, the supreme court ruling notwithstanding, we
are obsessed with making sure the second amendment is absolute and part of our
heritage. So, back to the opening caveat of the amendment, we've got the
bear arms thing down pat. So where is the militia?
Re: UT Brit London, England"I am confident that the US government
would need nothing more than a few crop dusters if an armed insurrection sprang
up."All it took was a few rag tag American colonists with muzzle
loaders to run the British Army back to where they came from. That was probably
still on their minds when the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment. The
British Army walked in long straight lines and the Americans, with our inferior
numbers, hid behind rocks and tress and sent them packing.
Re: Hutterite American Fork, UT"It seems to indicate that the right to
bear arms is conditional ...."Apparently not. On June 26, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers the right to
individual American citizens to keep and bear arms, and that it did not apply to
states or their militias. On June 29, 2010 they again ruled that "The
Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot
be violated by state and local governments".
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state..."I've always wondered about this conditional statement in
the second amendment. It seems to indicate that the right to bear arms is
conditional on the need for a well regulated militia to protect the state,
militia being composed of the arms bearing citizens. My questions include what
if the militia is no longer necessary, as is the case today? People argue that
we do need the militia today to protect us from the government but if
that's the case then where is it? Citizens armed to the teeth do not a well
regulated militia make. I do not know exactly the people who wrote the
amendment had in mind, but I like to think they would have written it
differently had they known what it turned into today.
Re: There You Go Again Saint George, UT"I'm partial to RPG's
and flame throwers as a way to "protect" my fundamental personal
freedoms."Neither of your weapons of choice fall under the
category of firearms permitted by the 2nd Amendment. Just as there are those
now trying to attack the 1st Amendment there will always be those who don't
agree with the 2nd.Fortunately for us the US Supreme Court issued
two important rulings recently protecting the 2nd Amendment as it was crafted by
the Founding Fathers.
@procuradorfiscalI am confident that the US government would need
nothing more than a few crop dusters if an armed insurrection sprang up.
Biological and chemical weapons would nullify any problem areas. If your sole
purpose for owning assault weapons is to defend yourself against the US
government, I imagine your life expectancy would be measured in hours instead
days were it to happen.
In Iraq and Afganistan the rebels fight most effectivly with our own explosives
that we didn't secure.One of the first things Bush did in Iraq
was announce a gun ban in Bagdad. Houses were stormed and guns collected. Anyone
with assault style weapons were assumed to be terrorist rebels. I
use the word rebel because I KNOW for a fact that if a foreign army invaded the
US, relieved Obama as president but then refused to leave, even the most ardent
Obama haters would not sit by idlely as a foreign army and government controlled
our oil and natural resources. And you know it too.So keep your
guns. I really don't care. But I do care that the NRA insists on making it
easy for ANYONE to get assault weapons without reponsibility.
I'm partial to RPG's and flame throwers as a way to "protect"
my fundamental personal freedoms.
Re: "That 'protect against unlawful government' argument is a bill
of goods sold to you by the NRA . . . ."Spoken like a true
liberal -- we're already dead, so we might as well lie down.Except most Americans understand that even an asymmetric threat is a genuine
threat -- as bad guys in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, and many other places across
the world prove every day.Without a credible threat of resistance,
government becomes truly unlimited. And that has proven to be REAL bad, EVERY
time it's been tried.
Like most, the author misconstrues the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That point
aside, why does the 2nd Amendment trump the 1st, the right of free assembly? The
thought that you are going to fend off a tyrannical army with assault weapons is
laughable. If you really want to return to the days of the Revoltution then we
should disband the standing military and require all to arm themselves to ward
off those evil invaders, such as the Brits seeking revenge for 1812.
If the police raid your home, about the last thing that will preserve your life
and liberty is a gun in your hand. I know there is this common
conservative fantasy about fighting off the commies and taking down a burglar
but it doesn't make much sense. Nor do most liberals want you to throw away
your guns.I personally don't mind if you want to have guns as
long as no bullets accidently come ripping through my walls. A few feet from me
is my own shotgun. I just want people to be responsible with guns and in order
for that to be inforced there need to be some basic laws to hold the
irresponsible accountable.I would like a fully loaded F-16. But I
need to show my pilot certificate, LOA, medical exam, insurance and an act of
congress to allow it. It's not going to happen and I'm sure my
neighbors appreciate it.
Reality dictates otherwise. And the thing about gun lovers is that they
don't want society to mandate responsibility or to put rational limits on
what they do. Guns have essentially become a super right. It defies rationality.
But why do neo nazis and radicals need military assault weapons?
Based on your letter, Alan, you already seem to have given up reason and logic
of your own free will so the melodramatic "give up all freedoms" claim
rings pretty hollow.The flaw in your argument is that buildings,
cars, bridges, et al... have legitimate purposes outside the scope of causing
death. Firearms, however, are designed specifically to end life. So, when a
car hits a light post and the driver dies, that is an accident, b/c the result
(death) deviated from the car's engineered purpose (to get the individual
from A to B). Guns, on the other hand, were created to kill. So, there are no
"accidental" shooting deaths b/c the gun is effectively carrying out its
purpose. To be sure, it may have killed the wrong person, but it is a misnomer
to label it an accident. Further, until you have the right to
privately own surface-to-air missiles, nukes, and Bradley tanks, you have
absolutely zero chance of defending yourself against our government. That
"protect against unlawful government" argument is a bill of goods sold
to you by the NRA and gun shops to pump up sales.