Thread: Potential Ban/Brady Bill part deux?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So, my question is...what if the second amendment didn't exist? Do you really think things would be any different? I say no. It's a tool to be well used by anyone afraid someone might take their guns away. There is just a mania and paranoia about guns in this country and if the second amendment didn't exist there would have been passed some law giving pretty much the same rights. The politics would be the same and it would be near impossible to change such law.

So my point is instead of always parading out the second amendment like beating a dead horse why not be honest and just say "I love guns and everything about guns". Now everyone go to your window and open it and yell it as loud as you can. Others will join you and you will feel much better.

If there were no Second Article to the Constitution we probably would have lost that liberty a long time ago, governments down through history have a tendency to entrench their power. Reminds me of the time during WWII when Stalin made a deal with the convicts, freedom for those who would fight. After the war they went back to the gulag.

If there were never a 2nd Article to the Constitution and this was the time to settle the issue I think I would do everything I could to insure it became an amendment to the Constitution.


BTW I dont think the 2nd Article is a dead horse, she seems to be trotting along just fine.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

If there were no Second Article to the Constitution we probably would have lost that liberty a long time ago, governments down through history have a tendency to entrench their power. Reminds me of the time during WWII when Stalin made a deal with the convicts, freedom for those who would fight. After the war they went back to the gulag.

If there were never a 2nd Article to the Constitution and this was the time to settle the issue I think I would do everything I could to insure it became an amendment to the Constitution.


BTW I dont think the 2nd Article is a dead horse, she seems to be trotting along just fine.

I agree and ONLY the Po-LEESE and the military would have guns.

Appears to me that SOME ex-police types think that should be the natural order of things. I disagree.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

The answer to your question is yes, it is all about the public being able to defend their liberty. What you have to remember is that these people at one time were loyal BRITISH serving the crown, until they could no longer tolerate the demands of the crown. Our Founding Fathers wrote this into the Constitution in the event we should need it again.

BTW The 2nd Amendment is not an amendment at all, as amendments are amendable, what we carelessly call the first 10 Amendments( The Bill of Rights) are actually the first Articles of the Constitution and are not amendable.....in theory.

I think you might perhaps rethink that statement. The original Constitution has 7 articles, most of which speak to how the country is to be formed. The 2nd admendment( Bill of Rights) came 2 years later.

In a different vein, I think I may hold the honor of buying my son, on the day of this tragedy. A lever action 357 at its normal price, about $400 and change, and while doing so. The radio was on and we were learning what was happening. And as this went on the store started to crowd up more and more by the minute, until I went back the next day and most of the walls were bare. As for magazines they were selling like hot cakes while I was there, and only a few details of what it happened had come out, they were selling so fast that the owner put a restriction of two mags max per customer. Within 15 min. of my arrival.

I think it's great that you are raising your son knowing about firearms Griz. I have purchased my grandson a .22 Cricket for Christmas. I still believe that properly educating the youth is the answer to accidents with firearms.

In regards to the school tragedy, if someone has the INTENT they will find a way. At least they are only using firearms, those can be combated somewhat. Remember the rash of bombs? Bomb related things have been quiet, that's the stuff that scares me. I remember when I was in high school we would fill used CO2 containers with gunpowder, they were impressive, we called them "crater-makers". I can't imagine the kind of stuff like McVeigh used in the Oklahoma CIty tragedy.

The most dangerous weapon in the world is the mind...what's next, restrictions on mental capacity? I guess I would be safe...

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

If there were no Second Article to the Constitution we probably would have lost that liberty a long time ago, governments down through history have a tendency to entrench their power. Reminds me of the time during WWII when Stalin made a deal with the convicts, freedom for those who would fight. After the war they went back to the gulag.

If there were never a 2nd Article to the Constitution and this was the time to settle the issue I think I would do everything I could to insure it became an amendment to the Constitution.

You only have to look to most Western European countries to see that this is just not true.
We don't have a lot of gun ownership, and we are still very much in control over our governments.
Besides, if the government was corrupt and did have control over the army, then your private gun ownership would be as effective as a kamikaze flea hitting a steamroller. They'll see your AR-15 and raise you an apache helicopter.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

BTW I dont think the 2nd Article is a dead horse, she seems to be trotting along just fine.

Regardless of what you think of gun ownership, the 2nd amendment is ill phrased, and a lot of debate and ambiguousnoess could have been prevented if it had been phrased more appropriately. For example, it is mum about the purpose of said weapons, and where and to what it applies. Because it is rather silly that you can be allowed to carry a 44 magnum but not a switchblade

Originally Posted by Bruno

You only have to look to most Western European countries to see that this is just not true.
We don't have a lot of gun ownership, and we are still very much in control over our governments.
Besides, if the government was corrupt and did have control over the army, then your private gun ownership would be as effective as a kamikaze flea hitting a steamroller. They'll see your AR-15 and raise you an apache helicopter.



Regardless of what you think of gun ownership, the 2nd amendment is ill phrased, and a lot of debate and ambiguousnoess could have been prevented if it had been phrased more appropriately. For example, it is mum about the purpose of said weapons, and where and to what it applies. Because it is rather silly that you can be allowed to carry a 44 magnum but not a switchblade

Maybe since the ETO of WWII was fought primarily in Europe, the Europeans have a different outlook. Either way, I don't hear a large hue and cry from the US side of the Atlantic for Europe to adopt our style of constitution. I can't say the reverse is true.

As for raising an AR-16 with an Apache? I will submit that poorly armed ( for the most part ) yet VERY determined individuals broke the resolve of the Russians and have just about broken the resolve of the US/NATO's will to keep squashing the fleas. It has been expensive for them, but that doesn't seem to be breaking their resolve.

Furthermore, I submit to you sir, that no matter how much you disagree with the way things are run over here, it is still "over here" and none of our .44 Magnums will shoot across the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Bruno

You only have to look to most Western European countries to see that this is just not true.
We don't have a lot of gun ownership, and we are still very much in control over our governments.
Besides, if the government was corrupt and did have control over the army, then your private gun ownership would be as effective as a kamikaze flea hitting a steamroller. They'll see your AR-15 and raise you an apache helicopter.



Regardless of what you think of gun ownership, the 2nd amendment is ill phrased, and a lot of debate and ambiguousnoess could have been prevented if it had been phrased more appropriately. For example, it is mum about the purpose of said weapons, and where and to what it applies. Because it is rather silly that you can be allowed to carry a 44 magnum but not a switchblade

As for control of the Army...I don"t think they will open fire on their relitieves,and they swore an oth to uphold the constitution,NOT obey the goverment......Just sayin....

A well regulated(disciplined) militia(army of the people), being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The purpose is clearly defined, in order for the people to live freely they must be armed. It is neither mum nor ambiguous.

Originally Posted by shooter74743

I think it's great that you are raising your son knowing about firearms Griz. I have purchased my grandson a .22 Cricket for Christmas. I still believe that properly educating the youth is the answer to accidents with firearms.

Gave him his Christmas present today and we went shooting. That little fellow is still wearing a permanent grin. The final shot was him shooting at a can of Pepsi, I shook it up. Boy was he tickled, as was I. Talk about a great day...only thing killed was plastic water bottles and pop cans.