Russian Article: Americans never give up your guns

[flips333]

So either I'm sueing him or killing the local law enforcement that is magically at my door to take my unregistered M16.

And somehow guns should be banned because there would be a resistive movement if they tried to ban guns, even though that was a prime reason the second amendment was established.

You don't make very much sense now do you.

As long as that resistive movement doesn't involve shooting people with your gun (legal or illegal), fine.

I don't make much sense because I don't know which gun you have illegally, or because I think that it's stupid to think that the vast array of guns that are legal, are legal primarily for protecting yourself against someone taking some of your other guns?

[valade16]

It's all completely clear what everything in the constitution means. Those brilliant founding fathers even had time machines to see how their words would be interpreted with new inventions like nuclear power, eugenics and infrared cameras. We don't even really need 9 justices on the Supreme Court because you know, they all completely agree about what the constitution means and how it should be applied.

I am not being intellectually dishonest. Do you know what is...? Acting like the founding fathers weren't just a bunch of guys. Well-educated rich guys who in many ways were just looking out for themselves.

"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."

That's all it says. NOTHING MORE. So tell me how the use of well regulated militia is clear? Do the citizens need to be in a well regulated millita.... Is the regulation of such arms an infringement on the right to have arms. Which arms? Cause my friend at the time arms were muskets. At the time could I outfit my ranch house with cannons? Now does stopping someone from having a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round clip infringing upon the right to keep and bear arm when that person could have a hand gun, a shot gun and a hunting rifle? If you think that one sentence clearly answers all these questions then you have magic eyes and can read words that I can't see. I suggest you ride your unicorn to Washington DC and straighten out all them fools who are arguing about this.

My bad, apparently you were ignorant as to what the Founding Fathers said and not dishonest.

If there is any ambiguity on your part as to what they could've meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, don't you think the best way to figure out what it is would be to see what those that wrote it had to say on the subject?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton


Like I said before, you can argue that we need to limit the 2nd Amendment for a number of reasons. That it was made 200 years ago and thus is antiquated. That it is now a public safety issue. That there needs to be restrictions on what arms they were talking about.

What you CANNOT dispute is that the Founding Fathers meant for the people, not only militias, to be armed. It is said unequivically by those who wrote it and any attempts to claim they meant something else is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and hide the truth.

If you wish to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, do so. But don't argue the merits of the truth, for it is infallible in this case...

[flips333]

My bad, apparently you were ignorant as to what the Founding Fathers said and not dishonest.

If there is any ambiguity on your part as to what they could've meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, don't you think the best way to figure out what it is would be to see what those that wrote it had to say on the subject?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton


Like I said before, you can argue that we need to limit the 2nd Amendment for a number of reasons. That it was made 200 years ago and thus is antiquated. That it is now a public safety issue. That there needs to be restrictions on what arms they were talking about.

What you CANNOT dispute is that the Founding Fathers meant for the people, not only militias, to be armed. It is said unequivically by those who wrote it and any attempts to claim they meant something else is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and hide the truth.

If you wish to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, do so. But don't argue the merits of the truth, for it is infallible in this case...

So they wrote something vague... Then later said no this is what it meant... Great foresight. Are any of those quotes in the constitution? Did everyone ratify these quotes? If that is what they meant perhaps, perhaps they should have had the good sense to PUT IT IN THE ****ING DOCUMENT!

I notice the last one there says properly armed... Is proper semi automatic weapons with 100 bullets in a clip, or is a hand gun, a shot gun and a hunting rifle properly armed?

[valade16]

So they wrote something vague... Then later said no this is what it meant... Great foresight. Are any of those quotes in the constitution? Did everyone ratify these quotes? If that is what they meant perhaps, perhaps they should have had the good sense to PUT IT IN THE ****ING DOCUMENT!

I notice the last one there says properly armed... Is proper semi automatic weapons with 100 bullets in a clip, or is a hand gun, a shot gun and a hunting rifle properly armed?

Vague? It is only vague to the most obtuse of minds. And in case you're wondering, they DID put it in the ****ing document:

"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."

Real vague

As for the properly armed, that is a completely different argument than what you're trying to say. You're trying to say the founding fathers didn't intend for the people to have the right to bear arms. They did. You've heard it from the constitution, and you've heard it from the founding fathers themselves. To deny such a basic fact is to distort the issue based on personal feeling.

Personally, I feel there needs to be a complete overhaul in our weapons restrictions and laws. And we need to greatly reduce the number of weapons in the country, since it's to the point of excess. But I will never try to claim the 2nd Amendment means something that it does not.

[natepro]

I'm so buying a tank.

[valade16]

I'm so buying a tank.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7450661_bu...tary-tank.html

Do show me pictures when you do...

[flips333]

Nate is awesome!


Nate please use that as your sig.

[Patsfan56]

Didn't Dukakis already try that? Worked well for him.

[steelcityroller]

I'm so buying a tank.

I know right. People seem to forget that when they wrote the constitution things were VERY different than today.

(1) Single shot weapons. How much damage could one person possibly do back in that age when rifles only fired one shot at a time and took 20-30 seconds to reload for a skilled individual. Now any person can get a high capacity assault rifle and go out and kill 20-30 people in a crowded area.

(2) Civilization. Back then you had numerous areas that were so far from other populated areas that it would take days for help to arrive to protect them against criminals and indians etc. How many areas are really so secluded that you absolutely cannot get help in a reasonable amount of time. And even if so....

(3) Technology. Back then it would take days for help to arrive on horseback or foot at times. If you needed help there might be situations where you have to tough it out if you were trapped in your home. These days you can just pick up a cell phone and call for help.

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago so clearly there are gonna be things that applied then that no longer apply to us today. Think about all of the changes that were in writing that have been changed over the history of our country.

Slavery?

Womens Rights?

Alcohol?