Jump to content

Retired Marine's Comments on Guns


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

So the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear cutting edge weaponry used by modern militaries?  

The argument is that the standard issue weaponry should be available. Musket for a musket, AR15 for AR15. 
 

Where it reaches the discriminatory point. Why does it matter if someone can own something? 
 

There is an f16 for sale in Florida 

You can own a plane or a helicopter. 

You can pay $150 and purchase fully automatic weapons. 

You can own a RPG 

You can buy alcohol 

You can own a vehicle

You can buy marijuana 

You can buy a thousand different kinds of extremely toxic chemicals 

There is no shortage of dangerous “weapons” you can own legally with and without any red tape. 

The way you’re proposing to make laws is just dumb. You don’t make legislation based on potential outcomes. You give people freedom and if they break the values outlined in our constitution they are punished accordingly through due process. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

A "well regulated militia" is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

That means regulations.  Lots of them.

 

Wrong. 
 

“well regulated” means in fighting shape. It implied NO restrictions or regulations by the State. This has been discussed at nausea. 
 

2nd Amendment secures individual rights as well as the militia. 
 

F- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Castanza said:

You give people freedom and if they break the values outlined in our constitution they are punished accordingly through due process. 

Punishment doesn't bring back the dead.  And they are crazy people remember?  Punishments deter rational people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ERICOPOLY said:

And full auto for full auto?

There are literally hundreds of thousands of fully automatic weapons in circulation in the US today. They were grandfathered in pre-ban. 
 

Why does it matter? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ERICOPOLY said:

Punishment doesn't bring back the dead.  And they are crazy people remember?  Punishments deter rational people.

So how does making it illegal to own a gun deter irrational people? You’re arguing against yourself now. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Wrong. 
 

“well regulated” means in fighting shape. It implied NO restrictions or regulations by the State. This has been discussed at nausea. 
 

2nd Amendment secures individual rights as well as the militia. 
 

F- 

You crack me up:

 

Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-09-22/the-problem-with-militias-and-the-constitution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all for getting rid of guns IF you can guarantee that 100% of guns will be taken and it will be impossible to create new ones and ammunition. 
 

Show me how that utopia is possible and I will get behind it. 
 

Fact is that isn’t reality and humans are savages. Bad people exist and bad people do bad things. Bad people don’t follow laws. Laws that affect good people more than bad people are terrible laws. The right to protect yourself is not a right granted by the government. How I choose to protect myself and my family is nobodies business but my own. Police are 20min away where I live and I have no intentions on making it a fair fight or some type of challenge for myself if someone enters my home wishing to do me harm.
 

Police are also often completely incompetent. Fact: More “unregulated and. Untrained” citizens with guns have stopped mass shootings than police. 
 

Sorry we can’t see eye to eye. We can agree to disagree 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

You crack me up:

 

Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-09-22/the-problem-with-militias-and-the-constitution

Yeah? And we also aren’t supposed to have a standing army spread across the globe. The government often fails to follow its own framework. Please tell me this isn’t news to you. 

And it’s still an irrelevant point because as stated it secures Individual rights. Plus the language of when it was written is well defined and understood Nobody but crackpot lawyers and shitty reporters argue otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern example is Russian Citizens. 
Nobody there wants this war except their crazed lunatic leader. What can the citizens do when they are not armed? 
 

They get arrested and beaten like dogs for pretending to hold signs outside the Kremlin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an experiment for you. 
 

If you have any guns, get rid of them. Then go put two signs in your yard. One that says “We do not own any guns, this is a gun free zone” and a second that says “My only home defense is a deer antler” 

Maybe go stick some fliers up around town just to really get the word out there. 
 

Let me know how that works out for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Yeah? And we also aren’t supposed to have a standing army spread across the globe. The government often fails to follow its own framework. Please tell me this isn’t news to you. 

And it’s still an irrelevant point because as stated it secures Individual rights. Plus the language of when it was written is well defined and understood Nobody but crackpot lawyers and shitty reporters argue otherwise. 

It doesn't secure individual rights to the weapons carried by modern militaries as you argue.  It is your interpretation.  To stand up against modern militaries you need surface to air missiles.  You need rocket launchers.  You need mines. Artillery.  Tanks. Helicopters.  All kinds of heavy military arms.  You need the kind of stuff that Ukraine is asking the US to give them.

 

 

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Castanza said:

If you ban guns…at the end of the day who still has them? The rich, well connected, criminals, politicians and their errand boys. 
 

nah, no thanks 

Competition target shooters and farmers are still allowed to own firearms in Australia. 

Prior to the Port Arthur Massacre assault weapons were allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Since then, not a single massacre has occurred with an assault weapon in Australia.

Do you know why?  

hahaha

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

It doesn't secure individual rights to the weapons carried by modern militaries as you argue.  It is your interpretation.  To stand up against modern militaries you need surface to air missiles.  You need rocket launchers.  You need mines. Artillery.  Tanks. Helicopters.  All kinds of heavy military arms.  You need the kind of stuff that Ukraine is asking the US to give them.

 

 

Yes it does, already been ruled on and regulation exists for weapon systems that cannot be used in a discriminant manner. 


  •  

- The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008)

- The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 2016)

- The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 2010)

- An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886)

- Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803)

- It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

- It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

- It is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

- It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

- It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

- If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 1963)

9 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Competition target shooters and farmers are still allowed to own firearms in Australia. 

Prior to the Port Arthur Massacre assault weapons were allowed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Since then, not a single massacre has occurred with an assault weapon in Australia.

Do you know why?  

hahaha

I was hoping you would bring this up. 

- Australian government only "bought back" 25% of all registered firearms in the country. This including full automatic and Armalite style rifles. Retroactive gun control does not work. So despite there being 75% of pre-ban firearms in Australia there has been no additional mass shootings. 

- Every modern country saw similar trend in reduced homicide with firearms over the same period of time once Australia implemented their ban. Meaning, the laws did not have any significant effect. Their suicide rates also showed no change over time. 

- Prior to the ban they had roughly 2-3 "mass shooting" every decade or so. Australia re-defined their criteria for a mass shooting after the Port Arthur incident. If you go by the previous definition (3 or more) Australia has seen no reduction in mass shootings. 

- You ignore geographical demographics and geographic differences that play a huge role in this. The US shares a border with Mexico...which in turn borders SA...US has massive gang presence 

- 2019 Darwin Mass shooting happened with a weapon that was supposed to be banned for 20 years. Police in Australia regularly find gang members with banned firearms including automatic weapons. 

- Gun Violence studies are inherently flawed and provide almost zero reliable data. Politicians often cherry pick data and use unreliable reports. For someone like yourself who is seemingly intelligent why don't you actually dig into the numbers more (below)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiQ-LmJGMY

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/05/debunking-every-major-mass-shooting-myth/

Again I think gun control or policy needs to be done on a country by country level If it is approached. By blatantly stating "this country did this and it works" you ignore all of the variables that play into outcomes.  Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, China, Spain, France, Russia, UK can be used to say this does or doesn't work. But the fact remains ALL studies are flawed and do not meet rigorous statistical analysis standards. If you're going to address gun policy here in the states then it needs to be be done in a US centric manner. The jury is out that there is a mental health crisis. If you can't see that well maybe you should re-evaluate your own opinions. 

RAND found that out for 27900 Gun Violence studies only 123 were rigorous enough to provide meaningful results. Of those 123 it was still almost impossible to determine if they reduced Gun Violence due to a lack of data points. And on top of that, not one of these 123 "most credible" reports was used by politicians. They chose to use other flawed studies. 
 

Banning guns is the most white privilege idea ever. Rich liberals scoffing at the idea that someone might need to defend themselves. It's the personal safety equivalent of "just have the maid do it". There has never been a time in history where letting the government/rich have all the power has worked out. Not one single time. 

1.) How does me owning an AR-15 affect you? IT DOESNT.  

2.) Turn in your guns and put the sign in your yard. 

3.) Criminals don't follow laws 

4.) Police cannot protect you (proven over and over and over)

5.) Government is the most violent institution 

6.) We are citizens not subjects

7.) Shall not be infringed 

I carry every single day. There is ZERO chance that I indiscriminately open fire on random individuals. There is a NON-ZERO chance I have to use it to defend myself or others. 

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." 

Frankly Eric, you're not worth engaging with anymore. You're not honest about numbers, outcomes of policy, variables in policy, reality of the world, reality of life for individuals, context of the constitution, reliability of police, etc. You simply want to push your headline deep analysis. You offer ridiculous anecdotes without any form of common sense. You don't even know the laws that exist already while advocating for more laws of a similar fashion. You don't bother to look up if current laws are being enforced and you're research in general is shoddy at best. Your reasoning and logic is ass-backwards and flawed especially when compared to other "legal procurements" in the world and their affect on humanity. It's elitism at it's finest. 

Scandinavian approach to addressing mental health IS what's needed. I would gladly pay more in taxes to address this issue. Anything else is like treating cancer with a band-aid. 

Come down from your ivory tower and put your money where your mouth is 🙂 

COMS.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 2:17 AM, Castanza said:

Modern example is Russian Citizens. 
Nobody there wants this war except their crazed lunatic leader. What can the citizens do when they are not armed?

They get arrested and beaten like dogs for pretending to hold signs outside the Kremlin. 

There are those that believe that the U.S. had a crazed lunatic leader even though the citizens were very well armed.

Are you suggesting that Russian citizens should rise up and shoot Putin but can’t because  they are not armed?

Just FYI ...  “Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities, as well as for collection purposes. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes.”

On 7/1/2022 at 2:38 AM, Castanza said:

Here is an experiment for you.

If you have any guns, get rid of them. Then go put two signs in your yard. One that says “We do not own any guns, this is a gun free zone” and a second that says “My only home defense is a deer antler” 

Maybe go stick some fliers up around town just to really get the word out there.

Let me know how that works out for you. 

Not a problem! I would do that without fear any day of the week. I sold my previous home a few years ago. When the real estate agent asked for a key, I that to admit that the keys were long gone as we hadn’t locked our house in 20 years. But then again we have realistic gun laws here.

It is hard to understand why anyone would insist that a rule made over 200 years ago should never be updated to reflect modern times. After all, should we still burn witches at the stake? We used to have a law that required automobiles traveling the roads be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn oncoming horses. Should that law still stand?

The 2nd Amendment is an AMENDMENT, right? Why should there not be a third amendment to reflect modern times? Does anyone really believe that it makes sense that every 18 year old has a right to buy an AR, carry it around in public along with seven 30 round mags? Might something bad happen?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, cwericb said:

There are those that believe that the U.S. had a crazed lunatic leader even though the citizens were very well armed.

Are you suggesting that Russian citizens should rise up and shoot Putin but can’t because  they are not armed?

Just FYI ...  “Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities, as well as for collection purposes. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes.”

Not a problem! I would do that without fear any day of the week. I sold my previous home a few years ago. When the real estate agent asked for a key, I that to admit that the keys were long gone as we hadn’t locked our house in 20 years. But then again we have realistic gun laws here.

It is hard to understand why anyone would insist that a rule made over 200 years ago should never be updated to reflect modern times. After all, should we still burn witches at the stake? We used to have a law that required automobiles traveling the roads be preceded by a man waving a red flag to warn oncoming horses. Should that law still stand?

The 2nd Amendment is an AMENDMENT, right? Why should there not be a third amendment to reflect modern times? Does anyone really believe that it makes sense that every 18 year old has a right to buy an AR, carry it around in public along with seven 30 round mags? Might something bad happen?

 

Good Lord you are extremely uneducated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2022 at 8:17 AM, Castanza said:

Yes it does, already been ruled on and regulation exists for weapon systems that cannot be used in a discriminant manner. 

Your response misses my point:  the right to bear arms is not realistically providing the means to stand up to a modern military..  The weapons I listed off that modern militaries carry cannot be obtained.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not to fight a modern military, then the right to bear arms is principally to defend against one another.

The language is not in the Constitution, you have cited court interpretations.  Roe v Wade is another court interpretation of the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And if the Constitution intended the citizenry to possess the arms to fight a modern military, the model doesn't really work because of the technological advances in military weaponry since the 1700s.

Wars ARE fought with indiscriminate weaponry.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/04/1109648170/akron-police-use-of-force

Many officers today are armed with semiautomatic weapons that are able to discharge an entire magazine — usually about 15 or 17 rounds — within seconds, said Obayashi, who also works as a use-of-force consultant to law enforcement agencies.

That means an unwarranted number of bullets may be fired in quick succession by the time an officer realizes it's time to stop firing, he said.

"It's going to take another period of time for your vision to then transmit a signal to the brain saying, 'Oh, OK, the threat is over. I'm going to stop firing.'"

Study Finds Disproportionate Use Of Force Among Black, White People In Fairfax County

The physiological response cannot be understated, said Maria "Maki" Haberfeld, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"Unfortunately, the adrenaline, the stress, they take over and it cannot be just clinically explained in terms of what's right and what's wrong," she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Your response misses my point:  the right to bear arms is not realistically providing the means to stand up to a modern military..  The weapons I listed off that modern militaries carry cannot be obtained.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, US 1776.  the list goes on and on. 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/how-the-second-amendment-prevents-tyranny/

23 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

If not to fight a modern military, then the right to bear arms is principally to defend against one another.

The language is not in the Constitution, you have cited court interpretations.  Roe v Wade is another court interpretation of the Constitution.

 

23 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

And if the Constitution intended the citizenry to possess the arms to fight a modern military, the model doesn't really work because of the technological advances in military weaponry since the 1700s.

Wars ARE fought with indiscriminate weaponry.

The right to bear arms is specifically to fight Tyranny. This has been discussed at nausea and there are NO credible Constitutional scholars who would say otherwise. Guerilla warfare is extremely successful against any military. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. You don't need to have modern equipment to devastate modern militaries or hold them off. Your view on war and how it actually goes down is so damn wrong. Modern equipment is an aid but boots on the ground and soldiers kicking in doors is how wars are ultimately won. This is the last time I'll address this topic but you can continue to argue from a false premise is you want. 

23 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/04/1109648170/akron-police-use-of-force

Many officers today are armed with semiautomatic weapons that are able to discharge an entire magazine — usually about 15 or 17 rounds — within seconds, said Obayashi, who also works as a use-of-force consultant to law enforcement agencies.

That means an unwarranted number of bullets may be fired in quick succession by the time an officer realizes it's time to stop firing, he said.

"It's going to take another period of time for your vision to then transmit a signal to the brain saying, 'Oh, OK, the threat is over. I'm going to stop firing.'"

Study Finds Disproportionate Use Of Force Among Black, White People In Fairfax County

The physiological response cannot be understated, said Maria "Maki" Haberfeld, a professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"Unfortunately, the adrenaline, the stress, they take over and it cannot be just clinically explained in terms of what's right and what's wrong," she said.

15-17 rounds is a semi-automatic pistol. Likely a Glock 19 or 17. What's your point? I think being a police officer is likely the most difficult job out there. They do not receive nearly enough training and I have no problem with more funding. I think getting rid of the pension and union protection would also help to weed out the bad eggs. 

I have a few friends who are Special Forces Green Berets. They have had a lot of training and think the primary issue with poor policing is poor training. 

16 hours ago, cwericb said:

Care to elaborate?

You can't own semi-automatic weapons in Russia. The regulations behind owning simple firearms for hunting are also extremely tight. You have to own a smooth bore firearm for 5 years before you can then apply to own a rifle. You cannot own a handgun but can obtain a license. Then it has to be stored at the gun club for use. You cannot own an AK or other semi automatic firearms and if you are even found with a single round of that caliber you will likely face serious charges and imprisonment. Point being if citizens cannot own similar firearms to that of the standard infantry then there is no chance of fighting back as shown. That is the point of the 2A in America and always has been the primary purpose of it. I mean are you really arguing that a complete "police like" state like Russia is a good model to follow? 

To your second point 

The 2A is not a right granted to the people of the United States. It is a proclamation that the government may not infringe upon this God given right. "The right of the people shall not be infringed". You think the government should be able to make laws saying you no longer have the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" 

I'd suggest reading through the below rulings and interpretations of the 2A. An examination of English Common law also verifies the intended purpose of the 2A which is ownership independent of the government both Federal and State level. 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/

Burning Witches at the Stake happened in 1692 which predates the United States and the Constitution... If you want to extrapolate on that for whatever reason and apply it against BoR/The Constitution you would clearly see how it's a violation of individual rights and the right to a proper trial/ judicial process. 

To your point about not locking your doors. Comes across very entitled tbh. Not everyone lives in a good area and has that luxury. There is a reason the head of the Detroit PD told people to buy a gun a few years ago. Police won't save you. Brazil crime rates has dropped significantly now that they made it easier for law abiding citizens to own guns. Homicide and crime rates dropped by significant percentages. Limiting gun ownership only benefits the rich who can pay for protection, politicians and criminals. There has never been a point in history that this has not been true. It's a check on power. 

I'm not against enhanced background checks. Look at this Chicago shooter. The guy is a loony who shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm. But who failed at making sure he was unable to buy one? THE POLICE.  They did not flag him in 2019 as he should have been. Almost every single mass shooter has been on anti- depressant meds and have all had mental issues which were documented. Current background checks do check for that but if individuals fail to report or document that information no amount of background checks will help. So don't be so quick to put your faith in institutions to protect you. They fail often.  Police have also been present at every mass shooting location yet failed to stop them. Government is also responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else. 

https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-201910313-04Handout.pdf

Abortion in general never should have been ruled on at the Federal level to begin with. And personally I don't think the States should really have a say in it either. Should be between a doc and the family and if there is some dispute then take it to the courts. I think there is some argument to be made against the morality of abortion in a lot of cases that exists outside of any religious framework. But that's for another discussion. Same thing surrounding marriage....why does government even need to be involved? Too many things in the US have bloated to the federal level that never were to be.  The Federal government is really only supposed to have the power to do the following according to the Constitution "the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office." The rest of the stuff should be handled at the state level. 

Anyways, I've wasted enough time on this topic and need to spend more time elsewhere. I can't lay it out any better for you guys so if you choose to see it differently that's fine. Good luck and stay safe out there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well first off, thank you for your comments, although I am not sure how they relate to my level of education.

I also don’t disagree with some of your points. However, I can assure you that I do not live in any sort of an entitled neighbourhood, Rather, I live on the main street leading into a small city. However, I am in Canada and if you think we are entitled I can assure most of us are far from it. If I remember correctly you have friends/relatives up here.

I would ask you this though. Given that American individuals are among the most well armed population on earth while Canada has strict gun laws how do you explain the difference in violent crime rates between Canada & the US?

Overall, Canada’s murder rate is a half to a third of that of the US. For instance, Toronto is the fourth largest city north of Mexico. Toronto’s murder rate runs around 2-3 deaths per 100,000 population while Chicago is around 30, Detroit is 40, Baltimore 57 and these cities are all within 3-400 miles of Toronto. How does that compute to the idea that being better armed makes the country safer?

Do you not think there may be a correlation between gun violence and the number of guns in the hands of the citizens? If so, why would one not be in favour of making guns and ammunition harder to obtain? It is all well and good to say, but the criminals already have guns. Perhaps so. But where are getting them if not through stealing them from gun owners or simply obtaining them at gun shops and shows?

Edited by cwericb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Castanza said:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, US 1776.  the list goes on and on. 

https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/how-the-second-amendment-prevents-tyranny/

 

The right to bear arms is specifically to fight Tyranny. This has been discussed at nausea and there are NO credible Constitutional scholars who would say otherwise. Guerilla warfare is extremely successful against any military. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. You don't need to have modern equipment to devastate modern militaries or hold them off. Your view on war and how it actually goes down is so damn wrong. Modern equipment is an aid but boots on the ground and soldiers kicking in doors is how wars are ultimately won. This is the last time I'll address this topic but you can continue to argue from a false premise is you want. 

15-17 rounds is a semi-automatic pistol. Likely a Glock 19 or 17. What's your point? I think being a police officer is likely the most difficult job out there. They do not receive nearly enough training and I have no problem with more funding. I think getting rid of the pension and union protection would also help to weed out the bad eggs. 

I have a few friends who are Special Forces Green Berets. They have had a lot of training and think the primary issue with poor policing is poor training. 

You can't own semi-automatic weapons in Russia. The regulations behind owning simple firearms for hunting are also extremely tight. You have to own a smooth bore firearm for 5 years before you can then apply to own a rifle. You cannot own a handgun but can obtain a license. Then it has to be stored at the gun club for use. You cannot own an AK or other semi automatic firearms and if you are even found with a single round of that caliber you will likely face serious charges and imprisonment. Point being if citizens cannot own similar firearms to that of the standard infantry then there is no chance of fighting back as shown. That is the point of the 2A in America and always has been the primary purpose of it. I mean are you really arguing that a complete "police like" state like Russia is a good model to follow? 

To your second point 

The 2A is not a right granted to the people of the United States. It is a proclamation that the government may not infringe upon this God given right. "The right of the people shall not be infringed". You think the government should be able to make laws saying you no longer have the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" 

I'd suggest reading through the below rulings and interpretations of the 2A. An examination of English Common law also verifies the intended purpose of the 2A which is ownership independent of the government both Federal and State level. 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-1/ALDE_00000408/

Burning Witches at the Stake happened in 1692 which predates the United States and the Constitution... If you want to extrapolate on that for whatever reason and apply it against BoR/The Constitution you would clearly see how it's a violation of individual rights and the right to a proper trial/ judicial process. 

To your point about not locking your doors. Comes across very entitled tbh. Not everyone lives in a good area and has that luxury. There is a reason the head of the Detroit PD told people to buy a gun a few years ago. Police won't save you. Brazil crime rates has dropped significantly now that they made it easier for law abiding citizens to own guns. Homicide and crime rates dropped by significant percentages. Limiting gun ownership only benefits the rich who can pay for protection, politicians and criminals. There has never been a point in history that this has not been true. It's a check on power. 

I'm not against enhanced background checks. Look at this Chicago shooter. The guy is a loony who shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm. But who failed at making sure he was unable to buy one? THE POLICE.  They did not flag him in 2019 as he should have been. Almost every single mass shooter has been on anti- depressant meds and have all had mental issues which were documented. Current background checks do check for that but if individuals fail to report or document that information no amount of background checks will help. So don't be so quick to put your faith in institutions to protect you. They fail often.  Police have also been present at every mass shooting location yet failed to stop them. Government is also responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else. 

https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-201910313-04Handout.pdf

Abortion in general never should have been ruled on at the Federal level to begin with. And personally I don't think the States should really have a say in it either. Should be between a doc and the family and if there is some dispute then take it to the courts. I think there is some argument to be made against the morality of abortion in a lot of cases that exists outside of any religious framework. But that's for another discussion. Same thing surrounding marriage....why does government even need to be involved? Too many things in the US have bloated to the federal level that never were to be.  The Federal government is really only supposed to have the power to do the following according to the Constitution "the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office." The rest of the stuff should be handled at the state level. 

Anyways, I've wasted enough time on this topic and need to spend more time elsewhere. I can't lay it out any better for you guys so if you choose to see it differently that's fine. Good luck and stay safe out there. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...