Gun Control Legality
Watching this video should help you tolerate my thread because the natural "boredness" that is packaged with walls of text.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_profilepage
Note: Keep in mind I wrote the contents of this thread, for a YouTube video script, which I will be posting up soon, I just wanted to see what some people on some gun forums think.
Weapons Bans, and the government saying what kind of gun I can own, what my gun can look like, and where I can carry it.
So when I started writing the script for this gun control video last night, my cat surprised me by opening my door! He jumped on my lap, and proceeded onto my mouse area to roll around and get some attention, and of course he got it, so as I'm petting, and looking at my cat, I'm thinking to myself, Oh wow my cat has some evil features, just look at those claws, the demonic-like tail, the fangs, and the bat-like ears. Should my cat be banned based on his "evil looks"? Should assault weapons be banned based on their "evil looks" Should Dick Cheney's picture be banned because he has evil features as well? Is America a young child? Do we really need a parental block on evil looking things? Perhaps we should look at some
Should any gun have restrictions, such as an "assault weapon," or even a full auto weapon on it? If you say yes to this question, you want a tyrannical government. Lets see why:
The 2nd 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."
Definitions of words used in the 2nd amendment, which were used to decipher it into more "Laymans terms."
('Militia', means 'arms to the standard of light infantry', which today
would include full auto arms, any semi-automatic arm, bolt action, shotgun, pistol, revolver, whatever)
Militia: a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
'Regulated', well turned out, well equipped, well trained.
"A well regulated militia" Has NOTHING to do with the government...and EVERYTHING to do with skill at arms and military matters.
Deciphered meanings:
A well equipped, and trained civilian military being necessary to the security of a non-tyrannical government, the right of the people, to keep and own weapons shall not be violated.
Gun control, full auto manufacture ban circa 1986, $200 full auto tax circa 1930, California gun laws, Chicago handgun gun bans, the assault weapons ban circa 1994, and others not listed is moronic, and Un-constitutional, and infringes according to the US constitutions 2nd amendment.
What makes gun control even more moronic is:
The statistics, show that gun bans are generally followed by spikes in crime rates. Not to mention that our civil rights should be sacred. This is a very dangerous threat.
In Australia, the government banned weapons in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent, and manslaughter by 29 percent. This was reported on the Web site of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January, 2000. Why? Because criminals are afraid of an armed law-abiding citizen. It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals, because who reports a crime that doesn't happen. Often just showing your gun will make criminals run/stop.
Lets go back to deciphering the 2nd amendment for a moment.
"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."
QUOTE OBAMA: Let�s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
The 2nd amendment says "security to a free state" which means we have the right to have guns that have the sole purpose to kill people...That is what security is right?
Politicians, and media have already started to warp the 2nd amendment into it being for sporting purposes only. I don't think security of a free state has anything to do with sporting...
So lets think: the right to bear arms was written when everyone had basically the same type of gun, a "musket" type. Both the military/militia and civilians. It is OUR right to be able to possess the same arm as our military. And why should I not be able to use a military style rifle for sporting purposes?
Here's something to think about:
In 1791, when the US Constitution, along with the 2nd amendment were written, everyone, military, militia, and civilians had the same type of gun, a musket-type.
So today, if we want to protect ourselves from a/our government going tyrannical, the current government is denying us the right to own the same type of gun they have...Hmm, doesn't that sound a bit unconstitutional, and tyrannical?
Just think: If everyone were carrying guns no one would want to try to bleen anyone elses couch up. I would really like to see an America where all types of guns are openly carried. Infact I think a person could pull off walking down the street with a loaded illegal post 1986 full auto ak-47, sure they'll get arrested, and they would most definitely be putting themselves in harms way, but putting your self in harms way is natural thing that comes with freedom... Once that person has been taken to court, I believe they could take it to the supreme court, even under the current laws, and win, abolishing some if not all gun control laws.
QUOTE: Abraham Licoln: " The Price of Freedom is sometimes Paid for in True Patriots Blood, Gun Smoke & Bullets in order to Maintain or Restore ones Freedoms, Rights, and Liberty's."
Quote: FlyGuy - Yahoo Answers "In the early 1920's, 30's and 40's could you go into any store and purchase a full-auto Thompson. It shouldn't matter. My grandfather bought one and remembers going to the beach emptying mags and no one said a word. He said the police stopped by and he let them try it!"
GUN CONTROL IS ILLEGAL!
GUN CONTROL INFRINGES UPON THE 2nd AMENDMENT!
GUN CONTROL INCREASES CRIME, AND SH!@S ALL OVER THE US CONSTITUTION
Is America a child? Or is America 17 years old and ready to dig into the real effing world?
Sources:
My High School Education
http://www.dictionary.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_profilepage
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#8
http://www.tiny.cc/yEzC6
I'll probably wind up editing this later because I'll find something through another read through that I would like to add or forgot to add.
Edited ONLY to shorten link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_profilepageNote: Keep in mind I wrote the contents of this thread, for a YouTube video script, which I will be posting up soon, I just wanted to see what some people on some gun forums think.
Weapons Bans, and the government saying what kind of gun I can own, what my gun can look like, and where I can carry it.
So when I started writing the script for this gun control video last night, my cat surprised me by opening my door! He jumped on my lap, and proceeded onto my mouse area to roll around and get some attention, and of course he got it, so as I'm petting, and looking at my cat, I'm thinking to myself, Oh wow my cat has some evil features, just look at those claws, the demonic-like tail, the fangs, and the bat-like ears. Should my cat be banned based on his "evil looks"? Should assault weapons be banned based on their "evil looks" Should Dick Cheney's picture be banned because he has evil features as well? Is America a young child? Do we really need a parental block on evil looking things? Perhaps we should look at some
Should any gun have restrictions, such as an "assault weapon," or even a full auto weapon on it? If you say yes to this question, you want a tyrannical government. Lets see why:
The 2nd 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."
Definitions of words used in the 2nd amendment, which were used to decipher it into more "Laymans terms."
('Militia', means 'arms to the standard of light infantry', which today
would include full auto arms, any semi-automatic arm, bolt action, shotgun, pistol, revolver, whatever)
Militia: a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
'Regulated', well turned out, well equipped, well trained.
"A well regulated militia" Has NOTHING to do with the government...and EVERYTHING to do with skill at arms and military matters.
Deciphered meanings:
A well equipped, and trained civilian military being necessary to the security of a non-tyrannical government, the right of the people, to keep and own weapons shall not be violated.
Gun control, full auto manufacture ban circa 1986, $200 full auto tax circa 1930, California gun laws, Chicago handgun gun bans, the assault weapons ban circa 1994, and others not listed is moronic, and Un-constitutional, and infringes according to the US constitutions 2nd amendment.
What makes gun control even more moronic is:
The statistics, show that gun bans are generally followed by spikes in crime rates. Not to mention that our civil rights should be sacred. This is a very dangerous threat.
In Australia, the government banned weapons in 1996, after a publicized shooting. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent, and manslaughter by 29 percent. This was reported on the Web site of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January, 2000. Why? Because criminals are afraid of an armed law-abiding citizen. It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals, because who reports a crime that doesn't happen. Often just showing your gun will make criminals run/stop.
Lets go back to deciphering the 2nd amendment for a moment.
"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."
QUOTE OBAMA: Let�s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
The 2nd amendment says "security to a free state" which means we have the right to have guns that have the sole purpose to kill people...That is what security is right?
Politicians, and media have already started to warp the 2nd amendment into it being for sporting purposes only. I don't think security of a free state has anything to do with sporting...
So lets think: the right to bear arms was written when everyone had basically the same type of gun, a "musket" type. Both the military/militia and civilians. It is OUR right to be able to possess the same arm as our military. And why should I not be able to use a military style rifle for sporting purposes?
Here's something to think about:
In 1791, when the US Constitution, along with the 2nd amendment were written, everyone, military, militia, and civilians had the same type of gun, a musket-type.
So today, if we want to protect ourselves from a/our government going tyrannical, the current government is denying us the right to own the same type of gun they have...Hmm, doesn't that sound a bit unconstitutional, and tyrannical?
Just think: If everyone were carrying guns no one would want to try to bleen anyone elses couch up. I would really like to see an America where all types of guns are openly carried. Infact I think a person could pull off walking down the street with a loaded illegal post 1986 full auto ak-47, sure they'll get arrested, and they would most definitely be putting themselves in harms way, but putting your self in harms way is natural thing that comes with freedom... Once that person has been taken to court, I believe they could take it to the supreme court, even under the current laws, and win, abolishing some if not all gun control laws.
QUOTE: Abraham Licoln: " The Price of Freedom is sometimes Paid for in True Patriots Blood, Gun Smoke & Bullets in order to Maintain or Restore ones Freedoms, Rights, and Liberty's."
Quote: FlyGuy - Yahoo Answers "In the early 1920's, 30's and 40's could you go into any store and purchase a full-auto Thompson. It shouldn't matter. My grandfather bought one and remembers going to the beach emptying mags and no one said a word. He said the police stopped by and he let them try it!"
GUN CONTROL IS ILLEGAL!
GUN CONTROL INFRINGES UPON THE 2nd AMENDMENT!
GUN CONTROL INCREASES CRIME, AND SH!@S ALL OVER THE US CONSTITUTION
Is America a child? Or is America 17 years old and ready to dig into the real effing world?
Sources:
My High School Education
http://www.dictionary.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_profilepagehttp://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#8
http://www.tiny.cc/yEzC6
I'll probably wind up editing this later because I'll find something through another read through that I would like to add or forgot to add.
Edited ONLY to shorten link.
0
-
quote:Infact I think a person could pull off walking down the street with a loaded illegal post 1986 full auto ak-47, sure they'll get arrested, and they would most definitely be putting themselves in harms way, but putting your self in harms way is natural thing that comes with freedom... Once that person has been taken to court, I believe they could take it to the supreme court, even under the current laws, and win, abolishing some if not all gun control laws.
Wrong. There are more then a few men in prison today that felt just this way. They TOO took it to Court. You misjudge the extent of the inroads tyranny has made here in America.
Perhaps the video makes things clearer...but the written text is a bit disjointed. Just my opinion, you understand.
For instance ;
quote:Regulated: to put in good order (aka background checks, mental health issues etc, this word is the most controversial in the 2nd amendment.)
Is it your considered opinion that these checks are Constitutional ?
quote:A background checked armed civilian being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and own weapons shall not be violated.
Is this reinforcement of the first statement ?
If the answer is 'yes'...you need to study the Second Amendment a LOT more before you merely put forth NRA-type propaganda, which Is government propaganda..which is ANTI-GUN AND ANTI-AMERICAN.0 -
I've stated that "regulated" in the 2nd amendment, is very controversial. Yes, both those statements are opinionated, it's just my own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I and many others don't believe in criminals, or the mentally ill having firearms, and sure it's government/NRA propaganda, but it does have connection to regulated.
What is does regulated mean to you in the 2nd amendment?
I'm here to gain knowledge, and spread it.
Thanks,
Gun Control is Illegal.0 -
"A well regulated militia" Has NOTHING to do with the government...and EVERYTHING to do with skill at arms and military matters.
Do you truly believe that the Founders, after killing the Kings Men for attempting to steal weapons, powder, and shot...intended to EVER again give an overbearing central authority the power to restrict weapons to the people ?
The Founders intended the people to ALWAYS have the power to dismantle a government that spins out of control...0 -
As for your position that ; quote:"I and many others don't believe in criminals, or the mentally ill having firearms, and sure it's government/NRA propaganda, but it does have connection to regulated.
Certainly, many gun people are closet anti-gunners. The NRA appeals to those folks.
However, where do you get off at, depriving ME of MY rights because a few people are mental defectives or chose to act anti-socially ?
What about punishing the PERPETRATORS of the 'bad acts'...instead of punishing ME...and hundreds of millions more like me ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by GunControlIsIllegal
I'm here to gain knowledge, and spread it.
This is a good place to learn.
The question is.......are you really open to.....learning?0 -
GunControlIsIllegal ;
I would urge you to not put that video out in the public domain until you read a bit here on this forum. Educate yourself a bit..then carry the REAL message of the Second Amendment to other people.....not the false, twisted NRA/government version that is popular today.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GunControlIsIllegal
I've stated that "regulated" in the 2nd amendment, is very controversial.
Only because some want to use a skewed 'interpretation' of Amendment II to allow wiggle-room for gun-control.
'Regulated', well turned out, well equipped, well trained.
As Highball stated, this is simple, when viewed contextually with what we had just fought a revolution over.
Yes, both those statements are opinionated, it's just my own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I and many others don't believe in criminals, or the mentally ill having firearms, and sure it's government/NRA propaganda, but it does have connection to regulated.
When such issues are viewed in the context of 'collectivism vs. individualism', one need merely focus on the specific commission of a 'bad-act' rather than on a control, restriction or prohibition of an object to a group, class, or category of citizens.
That 'collectivist' approach to governing is in diametric opposition to our founding principles.
When a man has served his sentence, in full, that man must have his civil rights restored, in full.
What constitutes 'mentally ill' and to whom does that categorization fall to?
I would fall back to the specific commission of a 'bad-act' and meting out swift, consistent sanction for a specific violation of a 'bad-act'.
One must realize that there is a price to be paid to live in a truly free-society and in a Republic.
What is does regulated mean to you in the 2nd amendment?
See above.
I'm here to gain knowledge, and spread it.
That remains to be seen and is important only in the 'what' of the knowledge you seek to gain and the 'who' you intend to disseminate it to.
Thanks,
Gun Control is Illegal.
Gun-control is not constitutional.0 -
What lt496 said, I do believe in; it is ideal. However I feel I am taking the necessary "baby steps" to wean the "2nd amendment under-educated" folk into the ideal 2nd amendment we all want.
"You can't eat all your potato chips at once, but eventually you'll polish off the bag."
I will re-word regulated as to not be opinionated.
Thank you.0 -
quote:"You can't eat all your potato chips at once, but eventually you'll polish off the bag."
There is a big hole in the bottom of the bag..you are only getting one or two chips as the rest fall out the bottom.
quote:However I feel I am taking the necessary "baby steps" to wean the "2nd amendment under-educated" folk into the ideal 2nd amendment we all want.
If we that preach about the Second Amendment put forth a weakened, government version of it..those we 'educate' have NOTHING save a weakened, twisted government view of it. Each generation further weakens the Amendment...
Witness the compromises of the nra.
No...we MUST hold true to ORIGINAL MEANING.
We MUST continue to insist that government is FORBIDDEN interfering with the free flow of weapons among citizens.
NO federal laws...NONE. The states also.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GunControlIsIllegal
What lt496 said, I do believe in; it is ideal. However I feel I am taking the necessary "baby steps" to wean the "2nd amendment under-educated" folk into the ideal 2nd amendment we all want.
'Wean the 2nd Am. under-educated folks'?
'The ideal 2nd Amendment'?
How about this; How about we bluntly tell folks the true purpose for the RTKBA, instead of trying to 'lure' them in by sugar-coating it or watering it down, which serves only to undermine the true purpose of the Amendment.
We're not trying to test different flavors of baby food to see which ones are palatable to them, rather, the intention is to clearly define who believes 'shall not be infringed' and who is opposed to it. Period. And yeah, it's that simple.0 -
GunControlIsIllegal :
From Heller:
Held:
1a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that is connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
1b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The `militia comprised all male physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Basically, the courts states that the second could read:
Because summer days are warmer than winter days, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
and its meaning would be unchanged. The prefatory clause, like the preamble to the Constitution states only the purpose. The law of the land is found in the operative clause.
It is extremely interesting to note however, that in Section 2b above the Court chose the word 'abridge' instead of 'infringe'. In doing so, coupled with the statements regarding the existence of governmental powers to license, register and regulate, the true effect of Heller was to ensure that the 'right' no longer exists. Many on this board have correctly pointed out that Heller codified more governmental powers than it reduced, and is thus a strategic victory for the Brady's the NRA, and other gun control advocates.
The court's interpretation of the influence of the prefatory clause on the operative clause, however, is properly done. In effect, no one should really cares what a 'militia' was or is, because it simply does not matter.0 -
quote: I and many others don't believe in criminals, or the mentally ill having firearms, and sure it's government/NRA propaganda, but it does have connection to regulated.
no, it doesn't have connection to "regulated".
regulated, imho, means well trained and equipped.
as for keeping arms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, that's what prisons, electric chairs, and loonie bins are for.
murderers should not be getting 25 year sentences (out in much less for good behavior). rapists, pedophiles, and the like should not be let out, period. someone who is mentally ill should be in treatment until they are rehabilitated. criminals need to be kept in until they can be paroled, and after completing parole should have full rights restored.....debt to society paid in full, eligible for full rights of an american citizen.
i know ex felons that i'd trust more with firearms than some with spotless records.
it's a case by case basis, and needs to be dealt with by the correctional department, not another firearms restriction.
the way to keep firearms out of the hands of the idiots is to regulate the idiots, not the weapons.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments