Sell me on the 2nd ammendment!

[FolkTheory]

The concept of "God" in terms of the constitution is quite different than the one in Church.

God is not mentioned in the constitution. Your rights don't come from god, they are inherent in you as a human being.

[Mtripp]

This is a bullshit cop out. Saying that these rights come from nature can be easily done, even in that era of English, without invoking the name of God (note the capitalization) or stating that existence began due to the actions of a Creator (again, note the capitalization) who had any sort of cognizance.

No sir, it is in the Federalist Papers. I am sorry your leftist leanings just can't handle the term in context. But the only bullshit here is what you are trying to spread.

[Mtripp]

God is not mentioned in the constitution. Your rights don't come from god, they are inherent in you as a human being.

Federalist Papers, read them sometime.

Are you saying the word "Creator" is NOT in the Constitution?

[Mtripp]

Wow... good luck guys. It is simply beyond comment how you want this political garbage to spin into every corner of Bullshido.

Good luck with it; November is going to be fun, for some of us......

[Kintanon]

Hi all,

I hope it is legit to ask about this here.

I am facing an exam about US constitutional history. (Still somewhat in the future, but I gotta prepare anyway.)

I'd be interested in your opinions on the 2nd ammendment,
which I suppose are mostly positive on a military forum,
and how you experience weapon-related culture in the US.

My personal opinion on this is that I really don't have one, except the common European "ZOMG they haz a pistol". I am, however, interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,

Rafe

If you trust a man to be responsible enough to vote, then you should also trust him to be responsible enough to carry a firearm around if he so chooses.

That being said it is every persons right to defend themselves.

I grew up in a house full of firearms. Loaded weapons were all over the place. During my time in highschool almost every truck in the parking lot had a rifle on the gunrack because a lot of the kids went hunting in the morning before school. I shoot semi-regularly just because I like to, and I own two firearms.

I own the firearms simply in order to exercise my right to do so. I don't have time to hunt, and I don't fear a home invasion. For me there has never been a weapons related culture. People owned firearms because they needed them for various reasons, or they enjoyed target shooting, or just because they could.
I've never really understood the anti-gun movement, nor the european paranoia about guns owned by citizens. I really don't understand why people would have a problem with gun ownership.

[Phrost]

Bullshit! If the Second Amendment was truly the guarantor of the First, all those violations of the First Amendment that took place during the Bush administration wouldn't have happened.

It just happened that a.) society has been successfully segmented into a false dichotomy, thus preventing any collective outrage by way of keeping idiots focused on "us vs. them"; and b.) the people who actually have the guns were on Bush's "side".

I know this is Sociocide material, so I'll leave the details out of this post, but one thing the last decade has certainly proved is the truth of something George Carlin said in his last HBO special (paraphrased here): "You don't have any rights, no matter what's written on a piece of paper. All you have is a set of temporary privileges. They are temporary; they can be taken away at any time. No piece of paper in a glass case 1,000 miles away is going to stop a cop from cracking your skull or the phone company from tapping your phone calls."

Hence the need for an armed population and the ever-present threat of the guillotine running through the heads of the bureaucrats, keeping them honest. Which is one of the reasons, I suspect, why France's government still sort-of works, despite being massively overpowered.

[pauli]

It isn't religion. Therein comes much confusion.

The concept of "God" in terms of the constitution is quite different than the one in Church.

In the context of the constitution, it means our "rights" come from something bigger and beyond us and our Government. If our rights come from the State, then the State can take them away as they see fit. If they come from "God" then they are beyond the hands of the State, and our rights can not be denied.

Hense the use of the term "God" and "Creator" in the Constitution.

i was actually refering to the freedom of religion.

[FolkTheory]

Are you saying the word "Creator" is NOT in the Constitution?

Neither the words "god" nor "creator" are mentioned in the constitution. check for yourself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Robstafarian]

Mark, just so you know, I'm keeping this as short as possible because this thread isn't about me. If you want to discuss this further, we can start a thread on Sociocide. Please note that there's no anger or vitriol in my writing...not yet, anyway :psyduck:

What might those violations be? I seem to recall our current President signing off on the same ones you are speaking of....

****, I started to address this and realized it violates what I wrote at the top of this post. I am working very hard to avoid catastrophically derailing this thread.

I would suggest that for every Cop cracking a skull, there are hundreds of gang bangers killing each other. For all the concern about "racist cops," I notice black on black crime is killing WAY more young black men. As to tapping the phone; goes back to Hoffa, and who was the president when that happened?

How the **** did gang bangers and racism enter into this? Why do you think they belong in a retort to the quotation of George Carlin?

Could you please name the case law that says the first amendment does NOT apply to TV or Radio or Internet? I must have missed it.

Your question gets to the core of the problem with the FCC; to wit: what gives the FCC the right to declare that the First Amendment doesn't apply to television and radio? That's right, nothing!

This was the heart of George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine.

[DarkPhoenix]

Fully automatic weapons are more useful for squad tactics than they are for individuals anyway.

And to further enlighten you, the average deer rifle round packs more power than the M-16/M-4 or AK-47. Some states won't even let you hunt deer with them because they're too underpowered to kill cleanly.

For squad tactics maybe, but average citizen knows anything about squad tactics? There would be no call for an average citizen to be packing an M249 or any other SAW, unless of course they were properly trained in its use and maintenance.

And I am pretty sure the 7.62 round of an AK packs more than enough power to drop game cleanly, as does a good compound bow does. I am well aware of what the difference are between what is considered an "assault weapon" and what is not. Most of the populace on the other hand, do not. And I am well aware of the power of the average deer rifle. Is that the reason why the US military uses weapons that chamber those rounds for sniper rifles?

And when I said what I did, I was referring to what most people view as their rights with the 2nd Amendment. Most Americans, including myself admittedly, do not understand the 2nd Amendment. Most feel that they should be able to own whatever weapon they see fit, even if it ISN'T for home or state defence. They see that they NEED a BAR to hunt Bambi, or a Barrett to go Turkey hunting. That is what I was going for in my post.