Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Again, as I've quoted repeatedly... the founders feared a strong American federal military more than anything. State militias and an armed populace were meant to be a check on it, not a cog in it.

And yet we spend absurd amounts on the military.

Cutting their budget would be a better solution than arming every idiot/wacko/gangster/militia/terrorist etc. We would all be safer.

If the Founders could see how we've created such a monolithic military industrial complex, they'd wondered wtf we were doing. Corruption and influence peddling on behalf of the military wasn't what they had in mind.

Eisenhower warned the nation when he finally left office, but instead of paying attention, we kept feeding it.

Now the argument is more guns to counterbalance the domestic military threat??

Insane!!

[W*GS]

Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms.

[cutthemdown]

No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military. The Constitution and the founders knew the reasons for owning guns could change over time that is why they made the clause the right to bear arms period with no conditions on it. It's your right for whatever you feel it is needed for. If you own guns just because you like to collect them you are protected. If you own guns for sport you are protected. If you own guns because you fear an oppresive govt you are protected and on and on and on.

[cutthemdown]

China and Russia aren't forthcoming on how much they spend. China spending a whole hell of a lot more then 120 billion a yr. Most likely they aren't counting money spemt on research and development. They are trying to build submarines and advanced jets so you know they are spending more then they say. Go ahead though liberals bury your heads in the sand, you are great at that.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military. The Constitution and the founders knew the reasons for owning guns could change over time that is why they made the clause the right to bear arms period with no conditions on it. It's your right for whatever you feel it is needed for. If you own guns just because you like to collect them you are protected. If you own guns for sport you are protected. If you own guns because you fear an oppresive govt you are protected and on and on and on.

And yet, when the Framers wrote the 2nd Amendment they had that purpose in mind.

From the Lectric Law Review:

Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

And.....

Thomas Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it! So one reason the citizens wanted to be armed was not just for defense against external enemies. They wanted protection from their own government!

Noah Webster

Noah Webster believed that having an armed public would prevent the government from becoming corrupted because the people would have more power than the government itself. He wrote:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-bey...amendment.html

[ant1999e]

John f. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

[cutthemdown]

The right to bear arms wasn't written with a specific threat in mind IMO. Sure they had ideas of what the threats would be but they wrote it to protect gun rights for us for a reason. The world is a dangerous place sometimes and a man has a right to protect himself from other people, other govts, wild animals. Also a gun is a tool for hunting and I'm sure that was also on their minds. So they wrote it into the Constitution because they felt it would be a right eventually govt would try to infringe on. Looks like they were pretty smart.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Liberals thinking that their ownership of guns gives them some right to then infringe of other gun rights is pretty funny to me. Just because you own a gun does not give you an inside track on whether or not its right to ban assault weapons. It's against the constitution whether you own a firearm or not.

Good thing no one claimed that. Idiot.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

As I've said before, I enjoy my 2nd amendment rights more than 99.9% of the chicken hawks on this board. I probably own more fireams, do my own reloading, have a concealed carry permit, am hunter, etc.

I'm just not idiotic enough to think my rights are unlimited (or that they should be unlimited) or that there is any legit purpose, whatsoever, for me to posses firearms which have primarily an offensive purpose (i.e. assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc.)

As i was saying just because you think you know everything a gun is supposed to be owned for doesn't make it so. No one is saying anything should be unlimited. We have tons of gun laws already is what we are saying. Trying to make a rifle illegal because they design the stock to look military and put a piston grip on it is a joke. How does that make anyone safer? I'm stuck in CA with a 10 clip limit. If a state wants to make that law fine but this isn't for the feds to decide. What people in Alaska need and what people in CA need might not be the same. Why can't people understand the value of states rights in situations like this?

Also your whole statement is a joke. Weapons are defensive and offensive based on how they are used. Even anti aircraft guns are sometimes turned not at the sky but at people or troops. What was designed as a defensive weapon now is offensive. Then you say there isn't a legitmate purpose to assault rifles? BS the purpose is whatever the user decides within law he wants to use it for. Even just outright recreation and target shooting is completely legitmate.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The right to bear arms wasn't written with a specific threat in mind IMO. Sure they had ideas of what the threats would be but they wrote it to protect gun rights for us for a reason. The world is a dangerous place sometimes and a man has a right to protect himself from other people, other govts, wild animals. Also a gun is a tool for hunting and I'm sure that was also on their minds. So they wrote it into the Constitution because they felt it would be a right eventually govt would try to infringe on. Looks like they were pretty smart.

I was responding to your comment:

No DenverBrit the sane argument has nothing to do with fighting a war againt our own military.

Which was incorrect. The US military was very much in mind when the second amendment was drafted.

Several States also drafted language in 1776 and clarified it further.

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776)

The Founders saw standing armies in time of peace as 'dangerous to Liberty.'

We have not only allowed 'standing armies' in peace time, but built a military industrial complex that has become monolithic.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

How would an armed populace be anything more than a minor irritation to the US military?

Have you paid any attention to how the last few American wars have gone? You don't have to stand out in the road and shoot at tanks to be a thorn in the military's side.

Don't assume that every proud NRA member and/or gun owner would fight on the side of the rebels. A tyrant is likely to be dressed in a suit, wrapped in the flag, wearing a Christian cross and bearing messages of patriotism.

Don't assume every member of the US military and national guard is going to be down with rolling thunder through residential neighborhoods on US soil. Especially since gun rights states tend to be heavily overrepresented among the ranks.

[W*GS]

Given that the NRA is all for armed guards patrolling all schools, they can create and fund such a program themselves - with 4+ million members, that ought not to be a problem. They'll have to take out liability insurance as well.

I'd be interested to see how the NRA vets applicants.

[Meck77]

As difficult as it was for our forefathers to predict a couple hundred years into the future it's not easy for us to predict what our future looks like 10, 20, 50 years from now.

If the current couple thousand year trend continues the holy war will continue. Americas entanglement will continue to worsen and who knows. Perhaps the holy war does spread onto our soil. Not in a conventional war but more than likely an internal threat. Maybe just maybe we will need our high capacity clips and assault rifles.

Hell for that matter property/our country is already under assault along the borders. Our Federal government is so concerned about making things safe yet criminals are walking right through every damn day virtually unchallenged. It's a disgrace that our federal government is turning a blind eye.

I've mentioned my friend a who works under Obama a lot lately but it is some true inside perspective. I asked him about Obamas policy regarding the border. He responded "He's a city guy, we don't even visit the border, and it's frustrating." Obama doesn't even have the balls to visit AZ, Texas. His concern the last few years was votes and we all know where he spent his time.

Forget the future. I need high capacity clips right now to protect my land from prairie dogs! As soon as your burn through a dozen or so rounds they get gun shy. Better to get a few dozen shots off quickly!

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I was responding to your comment:



Which was incorrect. The US military was very much in mind when the second amendment was drafted.

Several States also drafted language in 1776 and clarified it further.



The Founders saw standing armies in time of peace as 'dangerous to Liberty.'

We have not only allowed 'standing armies' in peace time, but built a military industrial complex that has become monolithic.

Sorry I was only trying to say by specific threat they didn't know exactly who might be the threat. Our own military, another country, or just for hunting and protection etc. I agree that our founders did not trust big govt with big armies.

My point was also more that know, in todays age, just because our guns would be useless against our modern military doesn't mean we no longer have a right to them, or a need. The founders wrote the constitution to be able to fit more then one scenario.

Good points though brit but im not saying i know what founders were thinking but I bet your right and they did feel maybe our own govt could become oppressive. Still most likely they felt the citizens my be needed to fight the British or French etc and they will need to be armed.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Have you paid any attention to how the last few American wars have gone?

Yep - opponents far more heavily armed and with good leadership and excellent tactics, none of which apply to your average American gun owner.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You don't have to stand out in the road and shoot at tanks to be a thorn in the military's side.

That would be stupid - but typical of what a gun owner would do.

It would take quite some time and a hell of a lot of work to get a gun owner up to Taliban level. They've had decades to figure it out.

If the gun owners really want to be a citizen militia to be able to serve as an effective counterweight to the US military, they're going to have to take that responsibility a hell of a lot more seriously. That doesn't mean lots of rounds down at the range, either.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Don't assume every member of the US military and national guard is going to be down with rolling thunder through residential neighborhoods on US soil. Especially since gun rights states tend to be heavily overrepresented among the ranks.

Don't assume that the gun owners will be fighting on the rebels' side, either.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Given that the NRA is all for armed guards patrolling all schools, they can create and fund such a program themselves - with 4+ million members, that ought not to be a problem. They'll have to take out liability insurance as well.

I'd be interested to see how the NRA vets applicants.

Great realistic idea. Then also we can say since its liberals who want to cool the earth they can pay all the extra for solar subsides. Then since conservatives like defense they can pay more tax for the military industrial complex. Uh oh though liberals wanted the healthcare plan you have to pay for all the poor people who need help buying coverage. Oooops and the food stamp welfare babies as well.

Oh and they dont vet applicants because there is no reason. What threat can giving a person an NRA card be? Thats like saying I wonder if save the whales vets people who join up to make sure they are worthy.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Great realistic idea.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Then also we can say since its liberals who want to cool the earth they can pay all the extra for solar subsides. Then since conservatives like defense they can pay more tax for the military industrial complex. Uh oh though liberals wanted the healthcare plan you have to pay for all the poor people who need help buying coverage. Oooops and the food stamp welfare babies as well.

Now, now, let's not get carried away. The NRA thinks armed guards in schools will fix the problem. Let's have them show their civic responsibility and take on the task themselves.

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Oh and they dont vet applicants because there is no reason. What threat can giving a person an NRA card be? Thats like saying I wonder if save the whales vets people who join up to make sure they are worthy.

When you're talking folks with firearms patrolling schools, yeah, you better check 'em out. I don't doubt there's a few NRA members and/or gun owners who are forbidden being around children. The NRA wouldn't want those folks in schools.

[W*GS]

5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows

Uh-oh.

[cutthemdown]

Why is the comparison unreasonable? It's unreasonable because your proposal was unreasonable. You could easily say that green energy is a liberal ideal. They should pay for all of its subsidies from their own paychecks.

[cutthemdown]

Oh and since liberals are the ones who like welfare you can pay for that also ok.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows

Uh-oh.

Innocent school children were gunned down by a mad man in ... a federal gun-free zone.

Uh-oh.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Innocent school children were gunned down by a mad man in ... a federal gun-free zone.

Uh-oh.

Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. 20 kids paid the price for her irresponsibility.

Uh-oh.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms.

Which group? Those with guns legally or those that obtained them illegally? I know when the assualt rifle ban talk in the 1990s cam about and it was reported that less than .05% of legal assualt rifles were used in a crime. There are millions of guns and people protect themselves with them everyday. How do you calculate the few retards as "Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms".

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Which group? Those with guns legally or those that obtained them illegally? I know when the assualt rifle ban talk in the 1990s cam about and it was reported that less than .05% of legal assualt rifles were used in a crime. There are millions of guns and people protect themselves with them everyday. How do you calculate the few retards as "Americans are just too irresponsible with firearms".

These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

What about the "few retards" who injured a total of five people at three gun shows (!) over the weekend?

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by W*GS

These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

What about the "few retards" who injured a total of five people at three gun shows (!) over the weekend?

Without rehashing this whole thread, what is your solution? I am totally in favor of gun safety before someone buys their first gun. You add 100k injuries and deaths. Are these accidental injuries and deaths or does your statistic include injuries and death that were because of self defense? Also, how many of those that were accidental injuries or deaths were from illegal obtained guns? Please provide link.