KSI RoninReaper

As a gun owner and NAGR G14 Classified defender I'd like to continue the discussion on the 2nd amendment

16 posts in this topic

I'd like all parties who participated in the last thread to continue their thoughts about the 2nd amendment and the fact that our government is trying to destroy the constitution. This time I will be able to reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

That some how switched to a rush hour reference but it supposed to say fr0nt l1ne defender

Front-line is another term for Access Denied, a system we use in KSI to keep track of our members.

 

In terms of the 2nd Amendment. I believe people have the right to bear arms, as the 2nd Amendment states. I have guns, and shoot them on a regular basis. Some are for home defense, and some are for target shooting.

 

The comment you made about the government destroying the constitution, i think that's a little overreaction. There have been dozens of times throughout history where the constitution has been stepped on, and we got through it.

 

Hell, Lincoln blatantly suspended the writ of habeus corpus, but he's regarded as one of the best presidents in history. The Federal Reserve, Guantanamo, The PATRIOT Act, Black Sites, Magazine Size Regulations, Social Security, The Civilan Conservation Corps, National Parks, Prohibition, Income Tax, i mean jesus, there's been a thousand times the constitution has been spat on, violated, or circumvented. The only thing that changed any of them were lobbying efforts in congress. Now-a-days, the only thing that'd make a difference is if there were political messages on Wal-Mart Water Bottles, Accounts related to the cause on a hundred social media sites, a petition on Change.org, and TV Ad's burning the message into the minds of the public that the government is violating the constitution every day. 

 

But all they'd respond with is some generic response talking about "national security" the "protection of american lives" and some other stupid stuff like that. 

 

If the government encroaches on the rights of american citizens to practice their right to bear arms, and i mean REALLY enroach on it, like the Mayor of New Orleans did during Katrina, millions of people would just silently bow their heads in obedience to the mighty federal government.

 

The ones who would fight would be the intellectual people, no, not glases wearing professors at Harvard and Princeton, i mean 35 year old father's of three in Texas who know what the law is, and are willing to die defending it.

 

Sorry for the rant, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

That was very well put and believe me far from a rant. Yes this wouldn't be the first time it has been done but I see the previous attempts as a stepping stone for them to see what they can get away way with. I stand by the constituion completely and all it entails but the aggression they have chosen lately to sneak around the second amendment and begin restricting arms like the recent attempt to try and ban green tip 5.56 NATO rounds. They can't get the guns so now they are trying to ban ammo. Obama fairly recently amended the 1st amendment which is not amendable. I believe the rights of the American people are in danger of being stripped piece by piece of their freedoms and liberties. Our forefathers created the constituion as a protection for our rights not to give them to us as we are borne with these rights. I myself own and shoot all the time I think Americas past time when the proper use and safety of a firearm was taught in schools and at the homestead should be brought back to life. I also strongly believe media in general are creating to much distraction and plugging the brains of younger people with stereotyped beliefs. The second amendment is one of the most important of our rights that needs to be protected and properly taught to Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Also as far as the patriot act goes, with that in force it could make anyone with a large following including rights protestors with a powerful voice a terrorist. Any threat against the government foreign or domestic in which the government deems a threat can be held under the patriot act. I'm against the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I am as well. Unfortuntely, even bad things have their place, and i would be very surprised if the Patriot Act hasn't prevented a few terrorist plots.

 

It's like Wernher Von Braun, a high-ranking SS Officer and Nazi Party member who we kidnapped after the war during Operation Paperclip, protected from prosecution, and ultimately gave US Citizenship too.

 

Why'd we do this? He created the APOLLO Delivery Rocket, which delivered astronauts to the moon in 1969. 

 

I agree, though, they might use the Patriot Act to quell dissent, but if a cause is big enough, they wouldn't be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Guest   
Guest

Whether guns are completely outlawed, or we are can have them criminals will find ways to get them.

However when you outlaw them it takes the guns away from the people who just either want to protect there family, themself, there friends, or go hunting or anything that doesn't cause harm to others,

I do however think it should be limited like think people should own ARs like AK47 or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether guns are completely outlawed, or we are can have them criminals will find ways to get them.

However when you outlaw them it takes the guns away from the people who just either want to protect there family, themself, there friends, or go hunting or anything that doesn't cause harm to others,

I do however think it should be limited like think people should own ARs like AK47 or something

Couldn't have said it better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I feel any rifle should be readly available to all law abiding citizens because if you have a .308 bolt action what's the difference other than being a semi of having an AR? Rate of fire you might say but both are fired as fast as you can pull the trigger and reload. I see no reason why an individual can't be armed with new generation simi automatic rifles. See no one sees an issue with owning an M1 garrand with is a clip feed semi automatic rifle or an m40a1 but let people hear about the media twisted "assault rifle" which doesn't exist and is propagated in regards to new generation rifles and people make a big deal. Legal gun owners are not comitting the crimes illegal gun owners are. A properly trained person is no threat to anyone other than a criminal threatening their life, liberty and family. Getting these younger generations properly educated would go a long way to curbing irresponsible gun handling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

One of the biggest arguments against the 2nd Amendment (2A) is that the "founding fathers" never would have envisioned modern day weaponry. Such an interpretation is simply false and misleading. The big answer is yes, the 2A extends to "assault rifles"/automatic weapons to the citizenry. 

 

You see, people like to pick and choose which portion of the Constitution they like, and which ones they don't. Many people fail to see past the 2A as providing WAY MORE than just providing that the citizenry be armed. It is the defense from a tyrannical government. It is the defense of every other Amendment in the Constitution. It is the sole guarantor of Liberty. This simply cannot be interpreted any other way, though, I will gladly welcome any argument which begs to differ.

 

You see, it was the Forefathers' intention that the citizenry be armed as well as the federal government. 

 

Going back to the "but clause," as I like to call it. As in, "I think law-abiding American citizens should be able to own any rifle, but only those that are used for hunting, have a 10-round magazine capacity, have a barrel more than 16 inches..." so on and so forth. This is a fallacy. Because you are in essence asserting that you don't agree with the principle, only certain aspects of it. 

 

That is essentially the same things as, oh you have the right to free speech, but only if you speak only 10 words at a time to not any more than 16 people at any given time. It just doesn't make any sense to place arbitrary rules on the Constitution which already supersedes any federal law.

 

People want to feel safe. This is understandable. Tell me, you would not feel safe if John Doe was openly carrying an assault rifle (AR-15) slung on his shoulder, not bothering anybody, going about his daily business? He is not a police officer. He's not in the military. But you see him at a coffee shop, and you don't like the fact that he has a gun. Because you are scared of guns. Does this mean John Doe should be deprived of his right to own/carry the firearm? The answer is absolutely not. Even moreso, even if you did feel threatened by John Doe carrying his gun then guess what? You're in for great news because you have the right to carry a gun too! Just because an individual would choose not to exercise their right doesn't mean any other individual should be deprived of it.

 

The answer is simply this. Criminals AKA as in anyone who knowingly and intentionally breaks law and commits crime do not obey laws. Period. The more regulation you impose, the more "criminals," you create. The overcrowding of our prison system and burden on the taxpayers can attest to that.

 

We can all see how well banning marijuana, liquor, cocaine, and drunk driving has worked. lol. And you see, the ironic thing is, none of those are a Right. It is actually more your right to own a gun than it is to operate a motor vehicle. Please, show me where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to operate a car? So why would the Federal Government/anti-gunners be so dumb as to presume that they can place restrictions on a Constitutionally guaranteed right? It doesn't make any sense. 

 

All this mumbo jumbo banning guns thing is just to appease certain populations who feel victimized because of "mass shootings," and "police brutality." Mass shootings and police brutality are very terrible realities, which must be dealt with. But I prefer to try and not victimize myself as much as possible. I carry because I choose not to be a helpless victim. I would choose to help others in such a dangerous situation. I am not a hero. Just a law-abiding citizen. This isn't Nazi Germany. I don't call the police when I see people lawfully carrying weapons. I don't need the police called on me when I'm lawfully carrying a weapon. And I don't need to prove to the police, other citizens, or the government why I choose to carry a weapon. The only proof I have to show anyone is in my actions. How I act when I own the weapon. And even then, I am responsible for my own actions. Just like any one else in the entire world.

 

And perhaps the irony on top of it all. Is all these people saying guns should be banned, blah blah blah... as soon as they come face to face with a gun -as soon as an intruder breaks into their home and threatens their life or property, 10 times out of 10 guess who they would call to solve the problem.

 

People with guns.  

 

The tiresome stupidity in the logic that if we ban guns everything will be okay all violence will cease to exist is just make believe. Look at prisons where all weapons of any sort are banned and there is zero violence. Sike.

 

And the real slap in the face is that almost all anti-gun legislation comes from people who know nothing about firearms. I seriously mean nothing. It's as if all these politicians were candlestick makers making laws on building codes. And a Newsflash. Politicians love to hide behind policemen. They love bringing in the media to that big old conference room, have a policeman hold ALREADY ILLEGAL weapons which they confiscated from criminals and then proceed to say some scary things about it and use that to justify their legislation.

 

But at the end of the day, they still don't know anything about guns. I mean, it's obvious the Police don't want criminal to have guns. Just how it's obvious soldiers in the Middle East don't want terrorists to have IEDs.

 

But to go out on the limb and preach that they should be banned outright and made unobtainable by the rest of the law abiding citizenry is utter retardation. Do you understand how frustrating it is when the people making and voting for laws are people who know nothing about a firearm? 

 

I bet you your bottom dollar, you could ask 100 people on the street at complete random, regardless of gender/race what the difference is between .223 and 5.56 and 98-100% of them wouldn't know off the top of their heads.

 

I bet you your bottom dollar, that if I showed 100 people a bolt action rifle with a scope and a bipod and asked them what it was, 98% would say it was a sniper rifle. When sniper rifles don't even physically exist. (The real answer is it's the person BEHIND the rifle - a sniper, which makes it a "sniper rifle.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New member here, so I hope this thread is still alive... can I propose to you an idea as to why they restrict guns and gun sales off and on as they have been?  It comes down to one word... Accountability.  Our gun laws wouldn't have to be modified ever month if 2 things happened (which probably won't).

 #1 Illegal gun sales and failure to register weapons.  This has to happen for security, period.  New restrictions keep getting put into place because people keep finding ways to get by without following proper registration procedures   I don't agree with how they've been doing it, but I understand what they are trying to do.  I've never seen their added regulation as an attempt to gut the 2nd amendment.  Only poorly executed attempts at making sure people are held accountable for the weapons they have.  Sadly, normal law abiding citizens have to suffer for the actions of all the bad apples.  Yes, criminals will always find a way to get them, but I think their goal is to make them harder to acquire illegally.  

#2  Punishment for breaking said laws.  These need to be increased significantly.  Most gun sellers simply get a fine when they don't register, or fail to do so properly.  If you have the money to pay a fine for doing something illegal (in this case not following protocol, and trying to save on costs without registering or purchasing correct licenses) then why not?  You know?  This premise applies to the war on drugs as well, but that's another conversation.  

I didn't want to make this a super long post, so I spared the citations and such.  Let me know if you want them if you would like a clearer picture of what I'm talking about.

For the record, I don't mean to come off like a left wing apologist.  I am very pro gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.