And why should the public have access to these again?

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And again its a somewhat outdated amendment.

"The right is for the PEOPLE to bear arms and have the ability to form what, at the time, was the citizen militia which was not absolutely under government control but could idependently stand against a tyrannical government to protect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution."

Key word there is "at the time", things were much different at the time and the weaponry was much different at the time. The public does not need access to these assault weapons and the reason "because I can" doesnt mean much when there are lives involved. This is one of those "Some idiots screwed it up for the rest of us" cases. I havent come across any legislation banning all guns everywhere like the NRA makes it out to be. The bans on weapons in public places, assault weapons ban (94) etc are set forth to make places in America safer, not to take the fun out of cleaning your gun sort of thing. In other words the liberals have not set out on a mission to rid every gun owner of their guns or banning a certain one for the hell of it. </div></div>

Read the quotes of the Founders, genius. I am given the right to arm myself to not only protect myself from a home invader, hunt if I want, or just shoot for fun. I am not only given, but expected to defend THIS NATION and its CONSTITUTION from any government, either foreign or my own, who tries to trample on my liberties. You yourself as well as "liberals" are indeed encroaching on my rights by telling me what I need and what I don't as a law abiding citizen. As a free man I have the right to decide, for myself, what I need for the preotection of myself and my liberties. And if the Constitution guarantees this right and then if I decide (I don't own one, by the way) I need a fully automatic weapon then as a law abiding citizen I don't need anyone to tell me otherwise.

[CoeburnCane]

Let me say this--personally, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I think the right to own arms for protection against government tyranny is a definite right of the people.

All guns can kill people, that's true--no matter if it's an old Civil War rifle or an AK-47. Whether intentional or unintentional, a bullet shot from a gun can mortally wound another person...plain & simple. I think it's a matter of we need to have a way to enforce that people are responsible with this right to bear arms.

If that means banning certain kinds of firearms that are more dangerous than others (i.e.--fully automatic weapons that can kill many people in just a few seconds) in this country, so be it. If that means beefing up education on firearms for all people in this country, then so be it.

The 2nd Amendment, ultimately, is about keeping the people of this country safe, and giving them a way to do so. We need to find a balance between freely allowing this right and finding a way to make sure that these arms aren't used against ourselves, but against imminent threats to the country. I interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean we should use said arms to defend our country, not to defend ourselves personally against other citizens.

I don't own a gun, have never shot a gun, by the way. That's just how I see it from a lil different perspective than what I'm seeing that a lot of people have on here on both sides of the equation.

[imported_GC1]

Good post Cane. But one thing I will point out is that a criminal with intent to do you, or your family bodily harm is a "citizen". I respect your right not to own a firearm. I own several and have never had to use one in any defensive manner. I love to target shoot, etc. But if any citizen, and I dread that day if it ever comes, tries to do any harm to myself or family I will without a doubt use a weapon for preservation without hesitation.

[R13]

But you dont need a Uzi or Tec-9 to do so. There's a lot of weapons you can use that arent considered "assault weapons" that'll do the job. Again no purpose for the public to have them.

[duckmeat]

Guess it can be interpreted different ways.

Only reason I can see for owning an uzi would be to go take care of the bastards whohow put in the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. I think Mr. Washington and Mr. Jefferson would be alright with that.

[1inStripes]

No but a Tec-9 or Uzi gives me a better shot of hitting them if I don't have my contacts in. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

Generally my sawed off under the bed keeps me safe if someone tries coming in while Im asleep.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you dont need a Uzi or Tec-9 to do so. There's a lot of weapons you can use that arent considered "assault weapons" that'll do the job. Again no purpose for the public to have them. </div></div>

You don't need an UZI or Tec-9 to do what? My right to own what I want, be it Uzi or MP5 is my business. What part don't you understand? And the government has no right to tell me what I need. Heck, Switzerland doesn't even have a standing army and the men that make up it's militia KEEP by requirement FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND AMPLE AMMUNITION IN THEIR HOMES! I myself have several guns myself, and they will never kill anyone unless I take them out and use them.

Let's just go through the Bill of Rights and declare them all obsolete. Or will you even have a clue as to what they are without looking them up on "some website" for an interpretation of them? I can see now, that from a pure Constitutional standpoint taken from the Founders perspective, and from their own words, there is no reason to even discuss any issue with your genius. I have come to the conclusion that you are a slave of the welfare state mentality (you show it by your support of "redistribute the wealth" Obama) and will goose step behind the hand that feeds you. A man that is willing to give up personal freedoms and liberties for government care doesn't deserve to be free in the 1st place.

R13, in you most genius way, read this and interpret it for our Founders as they didn't have the luxury of your being around to guide them:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787

[R13]

And once again, the founding fathers never anticipated the advances we have in weaponry. When a gun like that is used mainly by thugs and morons who wants to open up on people in a school, then in screws it up for the rest. Can you understand that? The founding fathers also had slaves, would you like one of those too? I dont see the point in bringing up switzerland - they have no army, we have the most advanced in the world. So the whole militia thing went out the window a long time ago. You or anyone else can give me an actual reason besides "just because" and when it comes to lives thats no excuse.

[1inStripes]

Who doesn't have an army?

http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/en/home.html

I would think you are very mistaken if you think the Founding Fathers did not think we would advance weaponry, because that has always happened since we have walked this earth, and they were smart enough to know it would continue to happen. Im not saying they new exactly what would be made, but they had an understanding about these things since many were military men themselves.

[BlueWahooChambordDevil]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And once again, the founding fathers never anticipated the advances we have in weaponry. When a gun like that is used mainly by thugs and morons who wants to open up on people in a school, then in screws it up for the rest. Can you understand that? The founding fathers also had slaves, would you like one of those too? I dont see the point in bringing up switzerland - they have no army, we have the most advanced in the world. So the whole militia thing went out the window a long time ago. You or anyone else can give me an actual reason besides "just because" and when it comes to lives thats no excuse. </div></div>
the also probably never figured the genepool would be diluted the way it has been and that we would have morons who dont even know whos running together voting

that still doesnt change much