Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

On another note, speaking of war on foreign soil, I find it VERY hard to beleive that any foreign government or small groups of religious nuts would ever consider envading our country outright due to the massive amount of resistance the armed american people would provide mostly due to how well armed they are. Yes bombs can still be smuggled in and this is an issue, but I do think that if it was not for our heavily armed population we would be much more at risk for a war on our own soil.

I would wager that the overall size of the U.S. and its distance from everything else makes it a lot safer from risk of invasion than the ownership of firearms by the general population. Should an invading force wish to launch an assault on the U.S., they'd be well detected and prepared for long before their aircraft hit American airspace. A straight up ground war would inconceivable. In the States, one can drive for hours without seeing a major settlement. In the majority of other countries, that same length drive would take you across three borders.

To measure the probability of a Red Dawn-type resistance to any foreign invaders- or even the probability of a citizen revolt against a particulalry evil government of their own, I think the apathy seen at the polls on election day should be considered. Leading up to the '04 presidential elections, we all heard that high voter turnout is expected, that the country has never been so polarised, and that there were people who couldn't stand another minute of the status quo. In the end, 56% of the population bothered to cast a ballot. If a person can't even go down the street to fill in a piece of paper (or punch a screen) in defense of their ideals, how likely are they to take up arms against a better armed, better trained military force?

As an aside, from a gun-ownership perspective, if a licensing sytem were implemented for firearms, granting permission for X type and caliber based on a series of tests and condiitons, if I were the guy at the license bureau, I'd be more likely to have no problem granting a license to the hobbyist who just enjoys shooting on weekends than to the guy who tells me he wants to go full auto for when the bottom drops out of organised society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe people like Josh and Bill enjoy their guns, are responsible with them, have their heads firmly planted in reality and spend a lot more time shooting for the pleasure of it than training for an imagined war. Even the pro-firearm camp here can no doubt agree that it's too easy for ill-intentioned, or just irresponsible, people to get guns. And if they don't agree, I'm sure I'm about to find out....

With all due respect, Joe, I think that you will find that the Justice Department, among others, disagrees with you: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm (wherein the USDOJ discusses why the Second Amendment is an individual right).

While I don't find their arguments about how settled the law is to be completely convincing, the Supreme Court has not yet decided the matter, and there is at least some degree of circuit split. I think it is unfair to say that Bill's view is erroneous when it is, in fact, the one that the Attorney General officially seems to share.

Originally Posted by Kees

The interesting thing is we see the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. An invisible enemy, lead by an oil millionaire in a cave somewhere in the mountains.

That's unfortunately not the case. Most of the fighters in Iraq are not Al Qaeda, but Iraqi insurrgents. Even if we caught Bin Ladin and every Al Qaeda fighter, it would only take care of one western province. The Iraqi awahari was the actual Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, and you saw what killing him accomplised- nothing.

I've read that Al Qeada is now more of a cause than an actual organization. THe problem is that the different terror group are now splintered and operating without direct orders from Al Qaeda. That makes it much more difficult to spy on them and keep track of what they're doing or even to know who they are. hat was the case with the terorists caught in the UK.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

With all due respect, Joe, I think that you will find that the Justice Department, among others, disagrees with you: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm (wherein the USDOJ discusses why the Second Amendment is an individual right).

This is interesting, Jerseylawyer, and would seem to buttress what Joe said about the centrality of the militia clause being far from settled law.

I would underscore, however, that the Office of Legal Council who wrote this (and the Attorney General for whom it was written) are political appointees answerable to the executive branch. My understanding is that they function more or less as high-powered lawyers retained by the president, and that these memoranda are solicited in order to lay the legal groundwork for administration policies. Accordingly, these advisory opinions can often be transparently politically skewed, as in 2002 when Jay Bybee (the OLC at the time) penned his infamous "torture memo," which argued that "physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

As soon as the text of that memo was made public, you'll recall, it sparked outrage and the administration immediately disowned it. But it had guided administration policy for well over a year, from the time of his writing til the time of its disclosure. The point being that these OLC memoranda should be understood as political documents as well as legal ones.

Originally Posted by rtaylor61

Regardless of what is happening today, and based on what has happened in the past...in a war like this, the only answer is "total eradication".

So who do you eradicate, all the Moslems? It's easy to say extremists, but we can't tell one from the other, and not all kids or families sending kids to radical schools turn out to be terrorists.

If we declare our own jihad, we're acting as badly as them, and they've beaten us in a way terrorism never could. With the mass anihilations that would take place, we become racists of the worst kind.

Also, that will be a greater rallying point than Iraq and is sure to radicalize huge groups of Moslems. There are already plenty of them in our country and huge numbers throughout the world. That would just create a much bigger problem for us especially at home. If we deal with Moslem jihadism with Christian jihads we have a modern day crusade.

We don't seem to learn the lessons of history. Armies are instruments of war, but we don't have a war here. We have an underground insurrection. I don't know how far you can go back, but I'm willing to go back to our own revolution, and you'll see that in modern times an army has never won an underground insurrection. Despite it's might, that's not what it's meant to do. It's not a police force.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

With all due respect, Joe, I think that you will find that the Justice Department, among others, disagrees with you: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm (wherein the USDOJ discusses why the Second Amendment is an individual right).

Isn't this the same justice department who has rubber stamped just about anything the administration wants and who has basically said that torture is not torutre? Not to mention the fac that the current Supremes disagreed with their opinion on the constitutionality of the original tribunals.

I'm pretty familiar with the law, and I do intend to read what they have to say. I think in coming days this justice department will have to respond to serious investigations and scrutiny. Has the justice department opinion been agreed with by any court of standing?

I said it wasn't settled, and I think the position you say they promote will now be a hard sell. Nevertheless, I don't think it changes the fact that weapon ownership is a constitutional right. I believe that, and I don't think it requires decision of this issue.

I never said Bill's view is erroneous. It can't be if there's no definitive law. I said it's not consistent with the trend of the law.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

I find it VERY hard to beleive that any foreign government or small groups of religious nuts would ever consider envading our country outright due to the massive amount of resistance the armed american people would provide mostly due to how well armed they are.

I agree, but I think it's mostly because of our location, and if anyone dared send a missile or bomb, they are assured of anihilation.

But 9/11 taught us that that's not where the danger lies. That's not the kind of attack we will face. More likely we will face scattered terrorist attacks. One succesful one at something like a sporting event could kill ten times the number of people as 911. Arming ourselves will not prevent that.

In the end, 56% of the population bothered to cast a ballot. If a person can't even go down the street to fill in a piece of paper (or punch a screen) in defense of their ideals, how likely are they to take up arms against a better armed, better trained military force?

Wow, 56%... I think that is higher than normal. Although I cannot find fault in the statement, it doesn't account for the multitude of people who just hate the government BS and feel politicians are all alike anyway. I have a tendency to agree with that. But, if anyone made it to our soil, I would bet they will get involved. The ones who won't get involved are the ones without guns. I know many gun owners. The few times that I have inquired about their participation in an election, they pretty much respond the same way. "Vote? What for? They are all assh***s." So, I Think the premise made about non-involvement is not accurate.

Even the pro-firearm camp here can no doubt agree that it's too easy for ill-intentioned, or just irresponsible, people to get guns. And if they don't agree, I'm sure I'm about to find out....

I can't disagree, but, to me, it just doesn't matter. These same people have access to banks and schoolyards, too. You will have bank robberies. You don't close down the bank because of it. They can harm children practically at will. We don't close down the schools. And, these worthless life-forms don't need a gun to cause harm at either place. Many of the inmates I have talked to said they would have nothing to do with a gun here in California because of the 3-strike/gun enhancement laws. That tells me that a clear message needs to be sent to the bad guys. "Use a Gun / You're Done!"... period. Life in prison without parole for rape and robbery convictions when a gun is used. I'd actually just kill them, but didn't want to get on the death penalty thing, so I just say prison for now.

So, to me, the answer is control. The best control, in my opinion, does not involve those who don't break the law. It does no good to penalize them. Additionally, we have enough laws already to deal with the criminals regarding guns. BUT! Too often, there is no teeth in the punishment for first and second offenses, in my view. Crimes are reduced in severity at the courts to ease prison crowding. Once they are in prison, they get time off for good behavior. Poppycock! (I always wanted to use that word) I say give them additional time if they are not good. Take away the weights,(actually, they already have in CA.) the TV's and matrimonial visits. Make prison a truly ugly experience so they don't want to come back. At the same time, offer a job skill to them for good behavior only if they have 10 years or less prison time to do. Don't want to be good? Fine. Rot in your cell.

Did you know that these guys are allowed to get married in jail and in prison? I know you can't possibly think it is because they love each other. Here is the reason why they do it. If an inmate is married, his wife immediately becomes elegible for welfare. (Insert light bulb turning on.)

The arrangement is that she gets welfare money for nothing. All she has to do is put a certain amount of it on his "books" at the prison every month. Then she can show up to bump uglies to produce offspring to get more benefits from welfare. That's not a way to live for me, but hey, there are people out there who actually like it. And if that is a right afforded by the Constitution, it shouldn't be.

I believe people like Josh and Bill enjoy their guns, are responsible with them, have their heads firmly planted in reality and spend a lot more time shooting for the pleasure of it than training for an imagined war.

You are right about me... don't know about that Josh guy... . I have an arsenal. I could probably supply the neigborhood with guns should we be invaded. I do keep most of them in a safe. I have some I have never shot and never will. Some new, some old. Some cheap, some expensive. My wife's shotgun was $3,000.oo. Mine was more. I don't even know, off the top of my head, how many I have. Probably wouldn't tell anybody, anyway. Most of my gun activity is spent shooting trap. I do not hunt... I developed an overwhelming distaste for killing things in Vietnam. I would not be a danger to anyone because of my PTSD or my temper. I have never considered shooting anyone because they pissed me off, and I never will. But if a person stuck his head through my bedroom window, I'd put one between his eyes without hesitation. And although it is not something I focus on, the comfort of owning firearms in case of a national threat is a very important footnote for my reasons in having them. So, actually, it would be one of the reasons I would give to authorities to own a gun.

Like I said, regardless of possibly having a free pass granted by the Constitution or not, I wouldn't mind being licensed to own firearms. (Right. I already am... good thing I don't mind) But, there should be no record of the guns that are owned. Once it has been determined that it's ok for a person to own them, records should end there. If a gun is stolen, then a serial number should have to be provided. Keep track of serial numbers all the way up to the point of sale and stop it there. I don't want a government gone bad to know how many I have. I know that won't happen, but that is what I would like.

What I would like changed is the BS that lawmakers have passed involving certain firearms. Especially the "assault rifle" tag these ill-informed people have placed on the semi AK-47. Unless it fires fully automatic, it is not an assault rifle. If a congressman handed me a semi auto anything and said that it was my new assault rifle, I'd hit them over the head with it. The operating system for the AK is no different than any other gas operated semi auto. One pull... one bullet. End of story. It became an asaault rifle because congress and the media kept calling it that until it stuck. Repeat a lie long enough and, sooner or later, people will believe it.

[quote=urleebird;69192]

it doesn't account for the multitude of people who just hate the government BS and feel politicians are all alike anyway. I have a tendency to agree with that.

Me too, but I keep hoping each change will make a difference. Maybe I'm old enough to know better, but I keep hoping as long as we stick to our ideals.

I would not be a danger to anyone because of my PTSD or my temper. I have never considered shooting anyone because they pissed me off, and I never will.

Whew! That's good to know.

I wouldn't mind being licensed to own firearms. (Right. I already am... good thing I don't mind) But, there should be no record of the guns that are owned. Once it has been determined that it's ok for a person to own them, records should end there.

That's the best idea, but I still think you need to have testing, and keeping a government record of the guns would be dangerous. But maybe you need to be required to keep a running personal record and provide a copy to a trustee that would not be available to anyone (and who would not be identified to the government. I'm thinkink it should be there for personal protection. In case your gun ever ended up in the wrong hands, or if some other issue arose, you would want to be able to protect yourself.

What I would like changed is the BS that lawmakers have passed involving certain firearms.

I don't know enough about it, but it seems to me that certain types of weapons should be controlled. For example, I have trouble justifying ownership of an RPG and launcher, although it comes directly under the constitutional right.

Carrying a gun is an interesting thing. Normally I know males especially, have an inflated ego and a tough guy ideal about them, no matter how out of shape or aged they may be, I practiced over time not portraying myself this way, but I'll let that take the backseat for a moment in order to explain the gun concept. I know most guys think to themselves I can protect myself against this or that, or I could take him if I wanted. Let me tell you, I have spent most of my life practicing and competing in practical and tactical fighting. Thats when you take the art out of martial arts and concentrate on the fighting of it all, and testing yourself under full contact simulated conditions, and working on the incapacitation and deadly forms of those arts for survival and mental awareness. I have also had to put these skills to use (not the deadly part) quite a few times in some of the jobs I have had which require some physical contact to perform. So when I say I could injure or kill someone, give me the benefit of the doubt since I have trained for it for the better part of my life.

That said, there is a whole other feeling in thinking to yourself in a car when someone cuts you off "I could kill him" when you would have to follow him, get him out of his car and attack him, than when you know all it would take is the will and the squeeze of a trigger. It puts the world in perspective, you no longer think to yourself or daydream about injuring the jerk in traffic or the guy that curses you out on the sidewalk for no apparent reason. Having the means to easily end someones life with a gun changes you, and when for most, when a gun is carried, those thoughts simply stop and are replaced by thoughts of peace and calm. People often ask me, how do you keep from wanting to shoot someone, and I can see in their eyes that the innocence of not understanding the inherent responsibility that becomes part of who you are when you have the training and means to cause the death of not one buy many.

As I mentioned training, although many people dont realize it, many of the armed individuals train very seriously some for fun, some for work, and some for self defense. I have trained religiously with my weapons until they are an extension of self, and I have made the decision to move it up a notch by continuing my training for the next few years at a school regularly attended by special forces and taught by elite teams such as retired SEALs and high level special operations groups. I also know many LEO and FLEO, and why it doesnt worry you that more often than not LEO's only train a few times a year, with some only shooting when required to requalify for their department.

So, while you think that many of us may not understand how those who dont own guns feel, we have a much more healthy fear and respect for weapons then those who dont want to touch them, and understand their capacity for dispatching life more than most will ever know. It upsets me that many people curse guns who have never made them part of their lives, and feel a false sense of security about their lives without them, or had the chance to feel how precious the life is of the person on the street next to you with the understanding how easily it could be taken away.