Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
"As to your question, I have no idea. 30 seems too high, in terms of NECESSITY. I might be able to accept the argument that 10 is too low."
So you think maybe we should split the difference at 20?
Saying "30 is too High! and 10 is too Low....but 20 is juuust right." is ridiculous.
So you think maybe we should split the difference at 20?
Saying "30 is too High! and 10 is too Low....but 20 is juuust right." is ridiculous.
MovedWest
Member
LOL
danez71
Member
Youre fundamentaly wrong.
Both have had, and will have, to go up against 1 or more armed bad guys. This is clearly documented. Many news stories to prove it.
The idea that police may have to encounter more individual situations is not relevant to the # of rounds a gun holds.
The only difference is that the police get paid to possibly get into a armed confrontation where-as I possibly will have to do it for free.
NickEllis
Member
It's not extremely difficult. A bit expensive due to the closing of the NFA registry, but any non-felon who wants to pony up the cash can own one of these impractical, expensive, ammunition-eating weapons that have an infinitesimal chance of being used in a crime, statistically/historically speaking.
What's your point?
So you're comparing me to a hippie? An anti-war activist? Some idiot who spat on soldiers returning from battle?
What exactly have I written in here to deserve this?
I missed where anybody said that?
22-rimfire
Member
Timmy4, you sound like you were beat around as a kid by bullies. Your recourse was of course to ask somebody else to help you rather than helping yourself. Assuming that is true, how did you feel having somebody else deal with the bully? What did it do for your self image? If you fight, you may be punished in our schools, but at least you'll feel good about "doing somethng" yourself.
The 2A guards against governmental bullies. Who is going to protect you?
The 2A guards against governmental bullies. Who is going to protect you?
420Stainless
Member
That is one of the most bizarre contradictions I've ever seen. The police need weapons and capacity enough to deal with threats at a crime scene, but the victim does not need those things against the same threat that led to the police call in the first place?
Figments of our imagination? Doesn't everybody know that unless you personally know the victim, there wasn't really a victim? They are just names on documents, not real people who were victimized.
DennisTheMenace
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 10
Timmy,
I've been following the discussion, and I'd like to try to provide an answer to your question: "In the first part of the 2nd Amendment, what does the term "well-regulated" mean".
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been debated for years. J. Neil Schulman proposed a novel way to advance the debate. He substituted books for guns. (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm)
His adaptation is: "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
In this version it's plain to me that the right to 'keep and read books' is not restricted to the 'well-schooled electorate' but instead exists to provide for one. In the same way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment is not restricted to 'a well regulated militia', but instead provides for private ownership of firearms in order to allow for formation of a militia in time of need.
I served as a member of the U.S. Air Force for 20 years, having sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". To me, the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure I'm free as a U.S. citizen to own the tools to uphold that oath.
Dennis
I've been following the discussion, and I'd like to try to provide an answer to your question: "In the first part of the 2nd Amendment, what does the term "well-regulated" mean".
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been debated for years. J. Neil Schulman proposed a novel way to advance the debate. He substituted books for guns. (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm)
His adaptation is: "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
In this version it's plain to me that the right to 'keep and read books' is not restricted to the 'well-schooled electorate' but instead exists to provide for one. In the same way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment is not restricted to 'a well regulated militia', but instead provides for private ownership of firearms in order to allow for formation of a militia in time of need.
I served as a member of the U.S. Air Force for 20 years, having sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". To me, the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure I'm free as a U.S. citizen to own the tools to uphold that oath.
Dennis
Did they have the will to fight after all those years of war?
Sorry, your example is once again a false premise.
Here is one for you to answer, name a regime that enslaved armed people in their own country.
Secondly, why did the British seek to disarm American citizens in 1775? What was the purpose of that if they shouldn't be afraid of folks with muskets. Why is that?
Last edited:
danez71
Member
False
Thats not the only time youve done it.
Nice try to come across as willing to have an honest debate about it
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
Timmy4 - the incidents I was writing of involved handguns, mostly six shot revolvers. Sometimes there were multiple officers involved each of whom discharged their service weapon. No where in any of these older incidents did an officer carry or use a rifle.
Returning to my point, no single bullet is guaranteed to stop an assailant. If it takes an officer or a team of officers more than twenty rounds to stop an assailant, what chance does a non-law enforcement officer have against a similar assailant? Ten rounds isn't enough.
Want another source? Read Black Hawk Down. In the street fight in Mogadishu, Army Rangers put numerous rifle rounds into singular opponents. It was not unknown for the opponents to drop, get back up and keep fighting. Would you like a second source? Read the ancient book by William Fairbairn, Shooting to Live. He tells of a Shanghai Municipal Police officer putting six .45 caliber bullets into one criminal. The criminal jumped over the counter and ran away.
Remember, no single or combination of multiple bullets is guaranteed to stop a threat.
BHP FAN
Member
''Quote:
Originally Posted by timmy4
Fundamentally disagree that you face the same threats the police do. Police are asked to go to not just home invasions, but robberies, violent situations, any altercation, etc...''
Except that when it happens to you, you'll realize that it takes the police maybe twenty minutes to show up, more if you live in a rural situation, and it's the Sheriff's dept. This is not placing blame, but you have to be your own ''cop'' until the police can get there.
Originally Posted by timmy4
Fundamentally disagree that you face the same threats the police do. Police are asked to go to not just home invasions, but robberies, violent situations, any altercation, etc...''
Except that when it happens to you, you'll realize that it takes the police maybe twenty minutes to show up, more if you live in a rural situation, and it's the Sheriff's dept. This is not placing blame, but you have to be your own ''cop'' until the police can get there.
Just because I reject those arguments (still do) doesn't mean I've refused to discuss them. How many times have I posted in this thread regarding specific tyranny arguments? Must be a few dozen or more.False
Thats not the only time youve done it.
Nice try to come across as willing to have an honest debate about it
Thanks for this post and thank you for your service.
But I don't find "well-schooled" to be analogous with "well-regulated". The word "regulated" has a very specific meaning. It seems to me that this phrase allows the government to make reasonable restrictions regulating the militia, which in this case means the people. Thus, while we cannot unreasonably restrict the ownership of firearms, we can reasonably regulate their ownership. Is this a reasonable interpretation?
9MMare
Member
There are many published police and FBI reports of people taking multiple high caliber rounds, like .45 acp...and I mean more than 3, and they still keep coming.
Contrary to the movies and tv, bullets dont often stop assailants instantly...they go on to keep fighting, keep shooting, even when they die later.
There are also many videos, esp. from convenience store and jewelry store robberies, where the robber gets shot, keeps shooting and/or runs away (even jumping over counters) and dies across the parking lot.
In case this is news for you, the point of a self-defense weapon is to STOP an attack. Not kill. Who cares if they die later if they are still able to mortally wound you?
Why should we risk ourselves with LESS if we can increase our chances of survival with MORE? Esp when we are talking about something small & practical like additional bullets rather than a rocket launcher?
After this and other posts here, do I have to draw a picture why MORE bullets can save a family's lives against multiple home invaders?
Timmy...please take my advice and print out the article so you can read it in its entirety at your leisure.
I think it contains what you're looking for.
http://www.womenshooters.com/archive/old0501issue/lyn0501.html
I think it contains what you're looking for.
http://www.womenshooters.com/archive/old0501issue/lyn0501.html
And if they show up too late to stop the crime, or do not show up at all, you're completely out of luck since the police are not liable for failing to protect you.
Timmy4, if nothing else, please read the above link about the case Warren v. District of Columbia.
I warn you, though, it may cause your blood pressure to rise and force you to take a break again.
Timmy4,
Maybe this explanation will give you the clarity which you are allegedly looking for. The Amendments to the Constitution, were not added to the Constitution until after it was written. Militia was a term used in the Constitution (you indicated that you read it already) The Amendments were ADDED to to clear up concerns. The Federal Militia was something that states feared. Thus, the amendments or Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
I am no scholar, but if you read more than just the Bill of Rights and start looking at the works of the framers of the Constitution, you will get a better picture, I believe.
Additionally, as a law enforcement officer, I disagree that the police need to be better armed than the average citizen. Equally is a good idea though. Law enforcement is not there to control the entire population. It is there to enforce the laws that the "people" have enacted. I have no problem with well armed law abiding citizens. I work in a state where most law abiding citizens are very well armed, good for them. I also know that police officers don't stop many crimes in progress. We do investigate them but sadly, the damage is already done by the time we arrive.
Finally, after reading your posts today I would suspect that you are attempting to bait people into an argument that will not end. More than likely because you dont really want their answers but rather some attention. The wonderful thing is that you can always rivet your own magazines to limit capacity any time you want and no one in the world will care. If you believe limiting capacity of magazines will placate those that claim it is all they want, you are more naive than your arguments indicate.
Wiki
Maybe this explanation will give you the clarity which you are allegedly looking for. The Amendments to the Constitution, were not added to the Constitution until after it was written. Militia was a term used in the Constitution (you indicated that you read it already) The Amendments were ADDED to to clear up concerns. The Federal Militia was something that states feared. Thus, the amendments or Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
I am no scholar, but if you read more than just the Bill of Rights and start looking at the works of the framers of the Constitution, you will get a better picture, I believe.
Additionally, as a law enforcement officer, I disagree that the police need to be better armed than the average citizen. Equally is a good idea though. Law enforcement is not there to control the entire population. It is there to enforce the laws that the "people" have enacted. I have no problem with well armed law abiding citizens. I work in a state where most law abiding citizens are very well armed, good for them. I also know that police officers don't stop many crimes in progress. We do investigate them but sadly, the damage is already done by the time we arrive.
Finally, after reading your posts today I would suspect that you are attempting to bait people into an argument that will not end. More than likely because you dont really want their answers but rather some attention. The wonderful thing is that you can always rivet your own magazines to limit capacity any time you want and no one in the world will care. If you believe limiting capacity of magazines will placate those that claim it is all they want, you are more naive than your arguments indicate.
Wiki
Someone did post that before, but thanks. I skimmed the article. Later I'll read it in it's entirety. I don't think it's going to justify a 30 round magazine as a NECESSITY for home defense, however.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked