Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My view on guns and gun control in the U.S. (Vanity)

Posted on 01/05/2014 7:42:01 PM PST by StormPrepper

I finished watching this exchange between a Navy Seal and Piers Morgan

And I'm getting irritated at all the dodging around I keep seeing everyone doing about the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment is not there to protect hunting or sport shooting. That's the argument that people use to avoid the truth.

The 2nd amendment is in the Constitution for the express purpose of protecting the Constitution. As long as the people are sufficiently armed, the power will always ultimately reside with the people and not the government.

That was the intent of the founding fathers. It had nothing to do with hunting.

It's time people started standing up and stop being afraid to defend this truth.

Increased gun crime is the result of not teaching morality to the children. It's about generation after generation growing up without a reason to treat each other with dignity and kindness. Being a good citizen for a reason. Thank you public school system. (I home school thank you very much)

So yes Piers, an AR15 has a use in civilian hands. It's to protect our country from itself. It is the last line of defense for the rest of the Constitution.

If we're not armed then we are no better than off than the citizens of North Korea, China, Cuba, etc...


TOPICS: Education; Miscellaneous; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 01/05/2014 7:42:01 PM PST by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper
I too tire of the "Elmer Fudd" arguments.

We have militia weapons for the defense of ourselves, our neighbors, our state, and the country. And if necessary, against tyrants.

And by the way, the NFA '34 and GCA '68 (as amended) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. End of story.

2 posted on 01/05/2014 7:49:49 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper
It's time people started standing up and stop being afraid to defend this truth.

If I knew how to post the US map which depicts how much the gun laws have changed in the last 20 years to our favor, it might improve your moral a bit.

So would turning off MSNBC.

3 posted on 01/05/2014 7:54:24 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (Damn ObamaCare, full speed ahead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper

Gun control is kind of like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.

4 posted on 01/05/2014 8:01:03 PM PST by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
I don't watch MSNBC... I saw it on youtube. I came across it while I was watching some of Ann Coulter's discussions on race relations (how the left screwed it up).

I live in Colorado where they passed a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. We successfully recalled 2 of the democrats that pushed that crap..and a 3rd resigned.

We talk about this subject around here all the time. Most of the people I know (anecdotal, but it's my perception), don't believe it's about reducing gun violence at all... it's about disarming the people for more sinister designs. That also happens to be my opinion.

I could go on, but I'll keep it at that. Let's just say I think everyone should be armed. Personally... I think gun control laws are for evil purposes.

uggg... I'll stop typing now... I get so worked up and emotional about this subject.
5 posted on 01/05/2014 8:10:10 PM PST by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper

Please read the Second Amendment. Plainly, even in the modern sense of the word, it is about the militia being “regulated”, NOT THE PEOPLE! Commas have meaning!

I’m willing to compromise, however. If the projectile exceeds three pounds in mass and can explode on impact, the firearm should be registered with local law enforcement. Of course me agreeing with this restriction means anyone can carry anything they feel like in any manner they see fit anywhere they wish, except upon private property if the property owner chooses to restrict this freedom. Should a property owner choose to restrict the free bearing of arms on their property, they are responsible for ensuring the security of all people on their property at any time, and are liable for any loss if life, injury and personal property of their “guests”.

See! I can compromise.

6 posted on 01/05/2014 8:10:59 PM PST by noprogs (Borders, Language, Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Next time someone uses the “The founding fathers could never have envisioned what we have today” argument or saying that civilians shouldn’t have military grade weapons, do remind them that the average gun owner does not have easy/ready access to the following:

Select fire weapons, MRAPs, NVG’s, Body Armor, encrypted radios, satellite surveillance, extensive training, pyrotechnics/incendiary weaponry, teargas, drones, helicopters, tasers...

You get the idea.

7 posted on 01/05/2014 8:15:22 PM PST by Antihero101607
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: umgud
Hence the essential paradox of the gun grabbers: the more they succeed in their campaign to deprive law-abiding citizens of the power of self-defense, the more they leave them vulnerable to the lawless element who will continue to possess an employee firearms and the more reaction generated among the law-abiding against gun laws.

The left's fundamental public-relations problem is that they believe that they will achieve a safer society when all guns are removed and that is their ultimate if publicly denied goal. Anything less than total confiscation means they will have achieved only making the law-abiding vulnerable. But there is simply no political consensus across the country to confiscate all guns so the left is reduced to nibbling at the edges. Every time they take a bite out of the right to own and bear arms, they make us more vulnerable and increase resistance to acceptance of their ultimate goal which is, of course, the elimination of all gun ownership.

To address the author's argument, the more the government expands and intrudes into our lives, the more it approaches tyranny and commensurately the more it generates resistance and support for gun ownership. The very act of grabbing guns is itself a tyranny which generates resistance and increases the general desire to keep and bear arms.

The essential tyranny of the left is to govern unmoored from the United States Constitution. Running roughshod over the Second Amendment is itself justification for the people to keep and bear arms as a reaction to the very tyranny it was intended to prevent.

8 posted on 01/05/2014 8:35:03 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Antihero101607
It has only been recently that the military had arms on par with civilians. The civil war was fought mostly with muzzle loaders when repeaters were available.

As far as the founding fathers envisioning modern firearms Franklin and Jefferson were avid inventors.

9 posted on 01/05/2014 8:38:49 PM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama phones= Bread and circuits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper

The purpose of the Constitution is as a constraint on governmental power - the 2nd amendment being the constraint of last resort.

Why is that difficult for people to understand?

10 posted on 01/05/2014 8:46:35 PM PST by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
And note that in 1776, the British redcoats were arguably the most capable army on earth. They had state of the art muskets.

And the colonists had exactly the same things.

The RKBA is not frozen in the 18th century. Citizens today should have the firearms that our soldiers carry in Afghanistan. I also have no problem with citizens having weapons more advanced than just a really slick carbine.

11 posted on 01/05/2014 8:47:08 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: noprogs

“Please read the Second Amendment. Plainly, even in the modern sense of the word, it is about the militia being “regulated”, NOT THE PEOPLE! Commas have meaning!”

As I read the Constitution and the 2nd in particular, the “militia” was the people. A “militia” was what was created once the common folk were called and organized and regimented for defense of the particular territory. The country at the time did not believe in a standing Army which they saw as an evil which served to deprive the regular folk of life and property. Basically, the people had the freedom to own arms as they saw fit since they could be summoned at any time to act in defense of the country. Casters and towns owned cannon that they had made themselves. The federal government never paid for them, owned them, or, controlled them. They belonged to the locals who paid for them.

In my mind the 2nd says that I need to be able to own anything I think is necessary to defend myself, my property, or my country from an aggressor. Who that “aggressor” is is not defined. It’s my judgement as a free person. It could be a neighbor on the rampage, a murderous tribe, a foreign nation, or, agents from a government I don’t recognize. I, as a free man, make that determination in my judgement.

To me, that is what the 2nd Amendment is.

12 posted on 01/05/2014 8:51:12 PM PST by FAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

“Why is that difficult for people to understand?”

They (Meaning the Left) don’t want to.

13 posted on 01/05/2014 8:57:34 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will. They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper
On the op-ed page of Sunday's Hartford Courant....the normally very LIEberal Colin McEnroe offered a very unusual observation about the Sandy Hook circus I have no idea what caused his abberation, but, finally a progressive sees the light.

In part:

**And, given that, there probably isn't anything in the area of gun policy or mental health that could have been done to save us from them or them from each other.** **

14 posted on 01/05/2014 8:59:10 PM PST by Daffynition (It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

You're right on target.

The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You cannot protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.


Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.

It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember: Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .
15 posted on 01/05/2014 8:59:29 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: StormPrepper

maybe people should start pointing out that the second protects the constitution from Democrats

16 posted on 01/05/2014 8:59:35 PM PST by jrd (All federal acts,laws,orders,rules regulations regarding firearms, infringe the 2 amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

All right, Yosemitest, when do we unleash Hell. I’m just saying.

17 posted on 01/05/2014 9:20:15 PM PST by FAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

We should have already ~ several months ago!

Let us remember ...
18 posted on 01/05/2014 9:25:02 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle; StormPrepper
I don't have the map you're talking about but I did work this up a while back...

The Dem/libs have been engaging in a steady push to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms for decades. And this is how it has been working out for them in the last two decades...

And in the last two months... (Nov. 2012 and Dec. 2012)

And it continues...


19 posted on 01/05/2014 9:37:35 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Antihero101607
The Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". That means they expected individuals to have enough firepower to take on foreign ships and armies (as shown by the "captures on land and water"). You aren't going to do that with a single musket, so at least some people had to own the 18th century weapon(s) of mass destruction, the cannon (and probably more than one). Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured. "Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A. Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country.

Applying for, and legal effect of, letter of marque

The procedure for issuing Letters of Marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President to sign Letters of Marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country's laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain, often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted. For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against "Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers".[17] (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)

During Colonial times, the 'battle ax' was replaced with the tomahawk, a device with utility as a tool and a weapon--and it was a fearsome weapon in the right hands. (Remember the scene's in The Patriot, a 2000 American historical war film directed by Roland Emmerich, written by Robert Rodat, and starring Mel Gibson)

Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders, the {William Tiffany}Tiffany Family gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower). See or below:

From Paragraph 7

But this was not a Gatling; it was a potato digger and, as TR wrote in The Rough Riders (1899): “Our regiment had accumulated two rapid-fire Colt automatic guns, (pre John Browning's design 50 caliber M2 machine gun, see also Note-1) the gift of Stevens, Kane, {William Tiffany}Tiffany {as in Jewelry Family}, and one or two others of the New York men … .”

Note-1: Prior, to the July 1, 1898, assault on San Juan Hill.


Spanish-American war service

When the Spanish-American War broke out, Kane, with other leaders of society, enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the "Rough Riders." Kane and several of his East Coast friends including William Tiffany donated two Colt Machine Guns that cost $7,500 each. When the Rough Riders will Sic{were} allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Roosevelt mention him {Kane} in his account The Rough Riders:

20 posted on 01/05/2014 9:45:04 PM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson