The Second Amendment

[nyther]

DID I FUCKING STUTTER?!

HEY HEY! Inside voices. I was on topic with my last sentence.

 

[Kakumei]

I was going to make a comment on something. But the big dogs are out with their big posts and long-winded quoting piles.

Firearms are ingrained in US society. The people that respect guns understand them. People that fear them more often than not have no idea how a bullet even works. All speaking from personal experience.

@Grumpy But Rick does stutter a lot.

Are you talking about things like Self-Defense rounds and such? Because if that is the case- yes. Lol.

 

[Decimate]

I actually have this huge post waiting in notepad for Brovo and Jorick for when the damned Internet people leave so I can get my laptop back. In the meantime, I am enjoying the debate even if I don't agree with a lot of you.

 

[Windsong]

Are you talking about things like Self-Defense rounds and such? Because if that is the case- yes. Lol.

Not sure I follow. Self defense rounds? Can you elaborate on that, please?

 

[Kakumei]

Not sure I follow. Self defense rounds? Can you elaborate on that, please?

Self-defense rounds are kind of a "go-to" name for bullets that are designed more for stopping power and not killing.

Hollow-point bullets are an example of that. They are designed to break apart when they hit a solid object and cause force that "stops" an target from advancing on you, as opposed to bullets designed with a Full-Metal Jacket that is designed to smash through and shatter bones and pierce right through organs.

 

[Windsong]

Self-defense rounds are kind of a "go-to" name for bullets that are designed more for stopping power and not killing.

Hollow-point bullets are an example of that. They are designed to break apart when they hit a solid object and cause force that "stops" an target from advancing on you, as opposed to bullets designed with a Full-Metal Jacket that is designed to smash through and shatter bones and pierce right through organs.

Ah, you mean bullet construction to my 'they don't understand how bullets work'.

Should've elaborated but I'm not in the best of states to drag things out. I've met people that hold a bullet (casing and all) and tell me it kills. They've no idea what a firing pin is, they think gunpowder makes a bullet explode inside someone ("which is why they all die so fast"-the woman after seeing pictures of a dead person with a head wound), and they believe bullets disintegrate after said detonation.

These people are voters.

 

[Kakumei]

Ah, you mean bullet construction to my 'they don't understand how bullets work'.

Should've elaborated but I'm not in the best of states to drag things out. I've met people that hold a bullet (casing and all) and tell me it kills. They've no idea what a firing pin is, they think gunpowder makes a bullet explode inside someone ("which is why they all die so fast"-the woman after seeing pictures of a dead person with a head wound), and they believe bullets disintegrate after said detonation.

These people are voters.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. I posted a video a little ways up I think you would enjoy. Its about the absurdity of people who are anti-gun thinking that guns do things on their own.

EDIT: Specifically this one

 

[Decimate]

@Brovo The quote refers to things designated as rights and liberties. The police do not have the ability to infringe on your rights unless you are convicted under the due process of law and even then you still have rights. Driving your car as fast as you want, jaywalking, and dealing meth are not rights. Being allowed a fair and speedy trial, refusal to self-incriminate, so on and so forth are rights. Giving up something willingly that is designated as a right is a lot more serious than say you cannot cross the street wherever you want. In this case, it would be giving up the right to bear arms in order to prevent gun homicide/suicide deaths. It's the very illustration of what Mr. Franklin was saying. I think we're mostly in agreement that hard bans will never work and that individuals will find some new trendy way of killing folks even if guns went down. As much as people try to argue otherwise, you cannot prevent humanity from waging war on itself - part of the reason why the right to bear arms is so damn important to begin with.

That's not even getting into the fact that it's our implied duty to prevent the federal government from not serving the needs of it's citizens and acting as a ruling body rather than a service institution that we benefit from.

*I put the star in there as I have always assumed that the "right to bear arms" included all forms of weaponry, not just firearms. I fully agree with the premise that the founders did not foresee the invention of tanks and WMDs, but the right to arm oneself with a weapon if they so desire is still a fundamental right. This is where it gets murky in regards to gun ownership and what not. I'd make a case for gun ownership being that the police/military are not going to part with theirs and they're already so prolific to begin with.

=============================================================================================

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

@Jorick Yes, they can change it if they follow the rules outlined in the preamble to the BOR, but is it intended to be changed? No. It specifically states in the preamble that the BOR exists to prevent the central government from overextending and abusing it's power by declaring what it can and cannot do. The BOR does not grant rights to private citizens; they're assumed to already exist and are not something gifted by federal authority. In fact, nullifying the second amendment does not strip the right to bear arms from anyone. It is simply there to put restraint on the federal government concerning the right of the people to bear arms (as well as the right of the states to maintain their own authority by possessing a militia as the federal government was meant to serve, not rule). Also many of the provisions in the acts you stated were declared unconstitutional when challenged in the supreme court. The law makers can pass whatever they want so long as they get the necessary votes. It's the supreme court's job to decide if it's right or not and declare it unlawful.

But I don't see the federal government gaining enough ground in the states to legally change it for a long, long, long time.

It's more likely that more regulations for them will go through than changing the second amendment ... or any other part of the BOR.

 

[Durandal]

I'm comparing an unsustainable fear-induced retarded Medieval chauvanist paradigm that glorifies violence and Darwinism to the detriment of social progress with... burning witches and owning slaves.

My equivalence is flawless.

Shoot at me Bro.

Isn't trolling in this section considered against the rules?

Or at least in your case, trolling with intent to make people angry, because that's all I'm seeing out of you

Also @Windsong Rick doesn't so much stutter as *belches* do that profusely

 

[Brovo]

As much as people try to argue otherwise, you cannot prevent humanity from waging war on itself - part of the reason why the right to bear arms is so damn important to begin with.

Yeah. I think we're pretty much on the same page, so I'll concede. All I ask for is precautions, not hard bans, and that some dangerous toys should be harder to get than others, but not impossible to acquire in the first place. Because encouraging the black market to grow benefits nobody, and because in states with criminal record checks in place for gun owners, less than 1% trigger it, so I'd imagine most gun owners are not deranged baby-eating lunatics. Mainly because if tens of millions were, there wouldn't be much of a functioning country left behind in their wake.

If you want to amuse yourself with some truly stupid weapon control laws though, Canadian knife laws are probably some of the most absurd. Here, enjoy.

 

[Asmodeus]

Your perception is quite correct.

It was my intention to speed this thread's inevitable decay into personal insults and pedantry.


That way, less impressionable youngsters will adopt the quasi-Nietzschean macho murder-porn that is being peddled by the alphas in here.


Seriously - people in here are saying that they will "take up arms against the government" if the 2nd Amendment is repealed. Yep - they're actually gonna start shooting at policemen, soldiers and civil servants trying to enact legislation.


That's who we're dealing with.



But fine - carry on quoting me and trying to pretend that you have the rational high ground. I'll just carry on flailing with my unearned sense of superiority.





You all suck cox and dix.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

Asmo, get the fuck out the thread already.

 

[Asmodeus]

I'm trying. But everyone keeps shooting quoting at me. #equivalence

:(

 

[Hecatoncheires]

EVERYONE STOP QUOTING ASMO, YOUR HURTING HIS PRECIOUS EX-PAT FEELINGS OR SOMETHING.

 

[Kakumei]

I fully agree with the premise that the founders did not foresee the invention of tanks and WMDs, but the right to arm oneself with a weapon if they so desire is still a fundamental right.

I think that it was written to include all forms of technologically advanced weaponry. Sure, WMD's are an example of extremes, but I don't really feel like they are real weapons so much as they are political weapons (like Nuclear weapons are often referred to.)

They were aware and even fans of guns that were considered much more impressive than muskets.

Puckel Guns were made 60 years before the Revolutionary war and were the ancestors to Gatling Guns.

Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pepper box guns were guns made for civilians that could fire many rounds at once and pretty cool.

Pepper-box - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were even flintlock rifles made by Smith and Wesson (if Im not mistaken) that could fire 20 rounds in 30 seconds. Since I don't remember the exact name I can't link it here.

As for artillery, James Madison wrote and signed a letter to a civilian ship responding to their own letter, saying that under the 2nd Amendment, they were of course fully authorized to have cannons on their ship to protect themselves while they were at sea from possible British ships and from the Barbary Pirates.

Note:

I mostly agree with you on a lot of what you said. I just wanted to point out that the more you look into the history with the Founders and the Second Amendment, you really do get to see that it was meant to encompass all weapons and that they certainly did mean weapons of a far technologically advanced nature.

 

[Decimate]

I think that it was written to include all forms of technologically advanced weaponry. Sure, WMD's are an example of extremes, but I don't really feel like they are real weapons so much as they are political weapons (like Nuclear weapons are often referred to.)

They were aware and even fans of guns that were considered much more impressive than muskets.

Puckel Guns were made 60 years before the Revolutionary war and were the ancestors to Gatling Guns.

Puckle gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pepper box guns were guns made for civilians that could fire many rounds at once and pretty cool.

Pepper-box - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were even flintlock rifles made by Smith and Wesson (if Im not mistaken) that could fire 20 rounds in 30 seconds. Since I don't remember the exact name I can't link it here.

As for artillery, James Madison wrote and signed a letter to a civilian ship responding to their own letter, saying that under the 2nd Amendment, they were of course fully authorized to have cannons on their ship to protect themselves while they were at sea from possible British ships and from the Barbary Pirates.

Note:

I mostly agree with you on a lot of what you said. I just wanted to point out that the more you look into the history with the Founders and the Second Amendment, you really do get to see that it was meant to encompass all weapons and that they certainly did mean weapons of a far technologically advanced nature.

I fully believe it as I think it extends to all weapons as well. However, there comes a time where the nation has to look after itself on a security level first. Protecting oneself and rallying against the government is all well and good. But WMDS in the hands of private citizens? No. Just no. That could wipe out half the country and there won't even be much of a nation left to defend if all of us could get readily accessible nukes.

As for the other stuff, I think you can obtain a license to get jets and tanks with the weapon features gutted some if you have proper licensing? And a boat load of cash.

 

[Kakumei]

I fully believe it as I think it extends to all weapons as well. However, there comes a time where the nation has to look after itself on a security level first. Protecting oneself and rallying against the government is all well and good. But WMDS in the hands of private citizens? No. Just no. That could wipe out half the country and there won't even be much of a nation left to defend if all of us could get readily accessible nukes.

As for the other stuff, I think you can obtain a license to get jets and tanks with the weapon features gutted some if you have proper licensing? And a boat load of cash.

Part of the point I was trying to make was that WMD's are a political weapon. They don't really fall into the same classification of weapons that I think citizens should generally have access to.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Founders believed that weapons that we identify as WMD's should be in the hands of something like a "well regulated Militia".

 

[Shadon Xarian]

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Founders believed that weapons that we identify as WMD's should be in the hands of something like a "well regulated Militia".

This is gonna be awkward to word >.<

I think it goes more with the citizens duty to determine that. How many citizens are wanting nukes to be in public hands? The second amendment says we CAN, but it is something we truly want?

Regardless, it's still something we will have to fight for. No good citizen wants a nuclear bomb, and not many people are fighting for it (If any) so they'll stay illegal because nobody will be pushing for their legality. But if we do start pushing for nukes to be legal, I think the second amendment makes that a over riding possibility if enough people wants them.

I forgot which founding father said it, but they said that america will only fall internally. If we push to put nukes in our hands, then so be it. It's an unwise decision, but the people have spoken. The constitution isn't necessarily designed to keep us safe, keep us alive, keep us happy. It's meant to keep us free. And that also means the negative side of freedom. Sadly, something that people want to sacrifice. (Which I swear one of the founding fathers, or at least someone famous from that era wrote a speech about America sacrificing freedom for safety)

 

[Decimate]

@Pharaoh Shadon The founding fathers you're searching for are Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, John Adams.

The first one wrote about trading liberty for security; the others wrote about potential american divisions internally beneath the two party system among other possible factors.

*You can throw Abe Lincoln in there even though he isn't an FF.

 

[Dervish]

Self-defense rounds are kind of a "go-to" name for bullets that are designed more for stopping power and not killing.

Hollow-point bullets are an example of that. They are designed to break apart when they hit a solid object and cause force that "stops" an target from advancing on you, as opposed to bullets designed with a Full-Metal Jacket that is designed to smash through and shatter bones and pierce right through organs.

Not quite, you got the general idea right but the lethality backwards.

Things like full metal jackets are used in the military because they're extremely basic (and cheap) and are the least likely to leave complicated trauma since they leave comparatively simple holes with minimal tumbling, which is one of the points of the Geneva Convention is that you can't have mushrooming rounds. I was told when I was in the army that even doing something like carving an x on the top of my bullets would be a one way trip to the court martial.

It's mushrooming and fragmenting rounds that are the most lethal, and it's what hunters and police use most of the time. More or less, there's still a lot of momentum behind a round when it's entering a body, so this expanding round is actually causing a larger cavity and if it fragments, it's creating even more trauma that's hard for a doctor to deal with. The idea is to internalize all the force of the round, because if a round passes through your target, it's wasting energy, and in cases like law enforcement, you don't want to over penetrate in case you hit a bystander. Imagine, if you will, if a hollowpoint were to puncture an organ verses a normal bullet; the hole would be massive and there would be a lot more complications.

I'd link some YouTube videos showing ballistics gel comparisons, but I have an appointment I need to run off to. It's pretty awesome stuff to watch, and really surprising.

But yeah, when people are usually talking self-defense rounds, they want something that isn't going to over-penetrate their target and do as much stopping power as possible with as few shots as possible. Ultimately, the desired result is the attacker is dead before he or she can harm you or your family, not just maim them so they flee.