Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

[Packy]

Very good points Tangoblue! I might have to steal the line about the ATFDEW!:bowdown:

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I am a 6-12 grade history teacher with a BA in history, and have won awards for my research papers. My paper on how the AK-47 changed the world was published. Founding Mothers is standard now in history circles, it is not PC trash, John Adams' wife was key in helping her husband, just because they didn't sign does not make them any less important to the process of creating an Republic that has lasted 235 year. The women that would be married to the FF were smart, educated women that could hold their own in topics of the day, because they were trained to by the higher education system of the day for women.

The American Revolution was a fight over economics, the lack of rights of the colonies in the British Gov't, and the personal liberties of colonists, not firearms. As I've said, rifles were an not issue in the colonies, they were used as tools of sport, food gathering, and defense, I would wonder what the FFs and FMs would have thought about the AK-47...if my TARDIS was out of the shop, I would ask them.
I still think my point is valid, the small-arms of the average civilian and the average soldier were very similar if not the same gun. During the Revoutuion and Civil War, the personal weapon of some of the soldiers, was their "hunting rifle", which is one of the reasons the South lost the war, another subject of one of my history papers.
Yes, the FFs and FMs wanted the ability for the citzens to overthrow a oppressive gov't, but that doesn't translate to the right to have M-60s in every home and back of your Tacos. The FFs and FMs were hoping that if it was a given law to the public to overthrow their gov't than it would encourge the political system to listen and adapt to the needs/wants of the citizens... and that could be used instead of the gun. The FFs and FMs tried the political process with the British Gov't before taking up arms. As my wife says: "guns make a bad situation worse."

I personally like guns, grew up with them and owned a few and write on them on my blog and history papers, but I still don't believe that the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to bear RPGs, Galting guns, or .50 cal sniper weapons. There is no reason why those should be in the hands of the common people, even if you can afford it or the past the background check, or get a Class-III, somethings simply should not be in the hands of the civilian.

So is your wife also the one writing these statements. NO, you are! For you to make up stupid stuff like founding mothers, well that just makes anything else you say invalid!

 

[kmacafee]

Why oh Why

does every forum on the internet always include threads about guns. This is a forum about over landing and exploring the world.

There have to be a million gun forums out there. Take the comments there.

The arguments about guns, regardless of what side you are on, always deteriorate into name calling.

 

[cnynrat]

does every forum on the internet always include threads about guns. This is a forum about over landing and exploring the world.

There have to be a million gun forums out there. Take the comments there.

The arguments about guns, regardless of what side you are on, always deteriorate into name calling.

It's worth noting that this thread resides in a sub-forum named: "Sportman's Forum: Fishing , Hunting and Guns." If no discussions about guns were wanted I suspect this sub-forum would not exist. Many of us find that guns, whether for hunting, target practice, or self defense, are a natural and compatible extension of overlanding.

The discussion has been ongoing for some 7 pages over the past couple months and I think it's remained civil to date. Hopefully it remains that way.

 

[Corey]

does every forum on the internet always include threads about guns. This is a forum about over landing and exploring the world.

There have to be a million gun forums out there. Take the comments there.

The arguments about guns, regardless of what side you are on, always deteriorate into name calling.

See the post above mine
Many overlanders/campers carry guns with them.
It is our constitutional right to defend ourselves whether in the city, at home, or when on the road doing the overlanding/camping thing.

Bad people carry guns, I feel safer having one with me.

 

[TangoBlue]

Many overlanders/campers carry guns with them.

That's just crazy talk!

 

[kmacafee]

I wasn't taking a position

one way or the other. But this discussion wasn't about hardware -- it was another debate about second amendment rights. There are two sides to that argument and people are passionate regardless of what side they take.

And if you don't think the thread was disintegrating into name calling, you should reread the posts.

 

[skunkriver]

THE ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION IS YES ! YES ! YES !

Yes ! The 2nd amendment insures the individuals right to own and carry arms , and those arms are to be equal to what a soldier of the day would bear, and the 2nd amendment has absolutly nothing to due with hunting guns .
If a politician is asked a gun rights question and responds with an answer that relates the 2nd to hunting LOOK OUT he is trying to sidestep the issue and should not be trusted to protect and defend the constitution !!!

 

[Corey]

That's just crazy talk!

He he, just about everyone I know who I have camped with and take trips are always packing.
Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

I am a 6-12 grade history teacher with a BA in history, and have won awards for my research papers. My paper on how the AK-47 changed the world was published. Founding Mothers is standard now in history circles, it is not PC trash, John Adams' wife was key in helping her husband, just because they didn't sign does not make them any less important to the process of creating an Republic that has lasted 235 year. The women that would be married to the FF were smart, educated women that could hold their own in topics of the day, because they were trained to by the higher education system of the day for women.

The American Revolution was a fight over economics, the lack of rights of the colonies in the British Gov't, and the personal liberties of colonists, not firearms. As I've said, rifles were an not issue in the colonies, they were used as tools of sport, food gathering, and defense, I would wonder what the FFs and FMs would have thought about the AK-47...if my TARDIS was out of the shop, I would ask them.
I still think my point is valid, the small-arms of the average civilian and the average soldier were very similar if not the same gun. During the Revoutuion and Civil War, the personal weapon of some of the soldiers, was their "hunting rifle", which is one of the reasons the South lost the war, another subject of one of my history papers.
Yes, the FFs and FMs wanted the ability for the citzens to overthrow a oppressive gov't, but that doesn't translate to the right to have M-60s in every home and back of your Tacos. The FFs and FMs were hoping that if it was a given law to the public to overthrow their gov't than it would encourge the political system to listen and adapt to the needs/wants of the citizens... and that could be used instead of the gun. The FFs and FMs tried the political process with the British Gov't before taking up arms. As my wife says: "guns make a bad situation worse."

I personally like guns, grew up with them and owned a few and write on them on my blog and history papers, but I still don't believe that the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to bear RPGs, Galting guns, or .50 cal sniper weapons. There is no reason why those should be in the hands of the common people, even if you can afford it or the past the background check, or get a Class-III, somethings simply should not be in the hands of the civilian.

I'm a Class-III licensee because people like you don't know the difference in-between a movie and reality. Ignorance like yours caused me to have to pay $200 dollars and wait 4 months to buy a device that should be considered hearing protection, for my Precision Rifle. There is no such thing as a "Sniper Rifle" the man behind the optic determines that.
You are luke warm on your ideas of Liberty. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said about those who would give up essential Liberty for as little safety? You should if you really are a history teacher. Who do you think owned the canons of the day back then? The Founding Fathers may not have foreseen the complexity of modern day weapons, but they obviously understood that if the Citizenry was out gunned then the Government would no longer be a Republic that feared the people. Instead it would collapse to a Democracy or as I like to refer to it as Mob Rule. Which one do you think we're closer to? Which one will get rid of the Bill of Rights because they were wrote 200 years ago and they couldn't have known the dangers those freedoms would be entrusting to the common man?
What side do you want to wind up on? The side that enslaves our children and tells them fairy tales about freedom, or the side that stands firm upon the Corner Stone of this Country, "The Constitution of The United States of America". There is no middle ground when it comes to The Bill of Rights. The sad part is that there are people who would trade their or more likely someone else's Freedoms because they don't agree with them.

How far do you think it would go if the Government decided that to use the Internet you had to have a background check with a full on investigation of your past, pay a non refundable $200 deposit, and wait 3-6 months for a license to get on here and talk to people? The internet is a dangerous place that is used by terrorist everyday. Now tell me why you think its ok for me to have to go through that to get a firearm that is no more deadly than one you can buy at Wal-Mart, but you wouldn't support that to check your email. Is one Freedom more important than another, or should we have kept them as equals? Perhaps they should make you pass a background check before giving you a right to a fair trail, or picking a new Church.
So please do this Great Nation a Favor and think of that before you go teaching our Children that restricting rights is necessary. If our teachers don't do this then our children's future won't involve The United States as a sovereign Nation, but rather as a part of China or perhaps under the U.N.
I'm sorry if I came off like an a**hole but this was the best I could manage at trying to stay polite. Compassion isn't a strong suit of mine so I just deleted most of the stuff I thought my wife would say is inappropriate.
Also I am not one those guys calling for another Revolution. I truly believe that this Country is fully capable of turning around without any violence. It starts with Parents but the Teachers are the Second line of defense.

 

[Packy]

This topic has been interesting and I've enjoyed reading everyone's responses to this topic and the ideas behind the 2nd Amendment, and your low opinion of my teaching skills. Your children and grandchildren would be extremely lucky to have me for their history teacher, I teach my childrens to be thinkers, not drones, and future voters. It's no wonder schools and teachers are under fire.
Look, the truth is that normal guns in the wrong or angry hands leads to filled hospitals and od enough damage, I've seen too many GSWs in my other job at a Trauma ICU, and the last thing that most or all people is access to military grade firepower, sound suppressors, full-auto, and grenades. These are not part of the right to bear arms. Bottom line. The truth is, I don't trust people enough to allow them free access, and I'm glad that the gov't is here for the common security and protection of all of us, and that it is difficult to have class III.

We should have the right to bear arms, but not all arms, no matter your eduction or income level. That just better for the common good. It seems that the only right, that most people are interested in talking about is the right to bear arms, and it some sort of acid test for groups of people, its not the most important, Amendment six, one, 13, and 19 rate more highly than the second, in my own opinion, of course.

BTW-I happen to know about snipers and their tools of the trade, and there are sniper rifles, it is not solely based on the scope or caliber. For true "snipering" the weapon has to be purpose built, like a racing engine or track shoe, while some can be modded up to lesser DMR status. Mounting a scope on an AK or M16 makes it not a sniper rifle. I do know the frakking difference between the movies and reality and no one needs a 12.7mm barrett for home defense or a fully auto Thompson .45.

I'm done talking about this thread, and will allow it to go back to its original purpose, I've got kids to teach and books to write.

 

[matthewp]

Look, the truth is that normal guns in the wrong or angry hands leads to filled hospitals and od enough damage, I've seen too many GSWs in my other job at a Trauma ICU, and the last thing that most or all people is access to military grade firepower, sound suppressors, full-auto, and grenades. These are not part of the right to bear arms. Bottom line. The truth is, I don't trust people enough to allow them free access, and I'm glad that the gov't is here for the common security and protection of all of us, and that it is difficult to have class III.

So... The weapons were ALL legally owned by the person using them (who I'm sure were ALL legally allowed to possess the weapons that caused the injuries?

BTW-I happen to know about snipers and their tools of the trade, and there are sniper rifles, it is not solely based on the scope or caliber. For true "snipering" the weapon has to be purpose built, like a racing engine or track shoe, while some can be modded up to lesser DMR status. Mounting a scope on an AK or M16 makes it not a sniper rifle. I do know the frakking difference between the movies and reality and no one needs a 12.7mm barrett for home defense or a fully auto Thompson .45.

Have you seen a US Army/USMC M-40? Have you seen a Remington M-700? You "might" see a similarity. I did when I went to sniper school.

As with MANY (In other words, MOST) gun-control advocates, you tragically failed to account for the single common denominator... The unlawful humans operating the machinery. How many weapons crimes were committed with "assault" or militaristic weapons, or possessed by the legal owner?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The problem with your theories is you are trying to determine what people should or should not use weapons for. If they want the Barrett for shooting at the range, hunting big game, or to use as a paper weight then that is well within their rights. Interesting how you said some amendments are greater than the second. I guess you were there at the founding and that was the consensus? Do any of your history lessons talk about evil men that took away the rights of individual gun owners before they slaughtered their own people?

 

[TangoBlue]

I'm done talking about this thread, and will allow it to go back to its original purpose, I've got kids to teach and books to write.

After that, perhaps you can find some time to review basic grammar and spelling, Teach? Respectfully, your posts are not consistent with your claimed profession or qualifications; we expect more.

 

[Packy]

I have a learning disability you motherfrakkers...thanks for making me feel better about! Everyone as problems and issues, my daughter has autism, would you like to pick on her next?! I do have the freedom to bad speech written or otherwise. I passed all of my teacher certifications with nearly prefect numbers, and my kids have offen call me the best teach they ever had.
Thanks a whole frakking lot.
I expect more out you and your community, especially a hobby where you relay on one another one the trail for help.