What guns are protected by the 2nd?

Green Man said:

I take it that you are saying that the people can abolish the government if they choose, and perhaps you are right. However, please not that my comments were clearly concerning the law under our CURRENT government, the one we are living under right now.

So I'll restate just to be clear. UNDER OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT, the if the federal government passes a law (passes a bill, signed into law, upheld by supreme court) there is NO legal mechanism for any state, county, city, town, or person to circumvent or resist that law.

Click to expand...

Understanding does not come easy does it.

A right and duty of the people is legal. Whether the government recognises it as that is irrelevant as it is either going to change or be removed. The purpose of the second is to ensure people such as yourself do not indoctrinate "the people" into acceptance of the sovereignty of government to exist because it says so and give up their RIGHTS

Crimefree said:

Understanding does not come easy does it.

A right and duty of the people is legal. Whether the government recognises it as that is irrelevant as it is either going to change or be removed. The purpose of the second is to ensure people such as yourself do not indoctrinate "the people" into acceptance of the sovereignty of government to exist because it says so and give up their RIGHTS

Click to expand...

You may be right. I am merely describing what the US government considers to be legal.

More than 100 posts and still not even a discussion of what guns the second protects. Are we going to get to it sometime? :2wave:

Does it not matter just so long as one can own some gun somehow at any cost? All that counts is having a gun, any gun, even just one. Or like the idiotic Swiss where you can have guns but not ammunition at home. Now effectively disarmed and defenceless anywhere but on the shooting range. Whoo hoo another victory for firearm organisations. Look we can still own guns....

Green Man said:

You may be right. I am merely describing what the US government considers to be legal.

Click to expand...

It is the principle upon which government was instituted as the servant of the people to govern in a just and responsible manner. We should never ever forget that as we would then neglect our duty and rights. Is that the situation now because we have forgotten and we are never reminded not even by the education system?

Crimefree said:

Do the people not have the right to protest, object and remove government by force if need be? Would the excise of that right be illegal or legal?

Click to expand...

yes you have a right to protest, but people protested obamacare, with just over 50% population against it... did it stop the law?

yes you could remove government by force, it is a right of the people per the DOI, then we have no federal government.

Crimefree said:

More than 100 posts and still not even a discussion of what guns the second protects. Are we going to get to it sometime? :2wave:

Does it not matter just so long as one can own some gun somehow at any cost? All that counts is having a gun, any gun, even just one. Or like the idiotic Swiss where you can have guns but not ammunition at home. Now effectively disarmed and defenceless anywhere but on the shooting range. Whoo hoo another victory for firearm organisations. Look we can still own guns....

Click to expand...

Thats because it says so clearly in the amendment. Firearms. If it is a arm that uses fire, then you have the right to bear it. However, I would imply that as meaning you have the right to bear any weapon, and furthermore implying that you have the right to use it, not just carry it. But Im willing to amend it if thats not clear.

ernst barkmann said:

yes you have a right to protest, but people protested obamacare, with just over 50% population against it... did it stop the law?

yes you could remove government by force, it is a right of the people per the DOI, then we have no federal government.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what your point is?

Your example of Obamacare is not very good. 50% said they were against in a poll. A polls results and what people will do are two completely different things. Firstly if they could not be bothered to VISIBLY protest then they are not serious. Ignore. Why do you think gun control organises VISIBLE protests and encourages people to make a noise in public? Because its fun? It's sending a message to government that government will not ignore. People willing to get off their bum are serious. It also lets others know why they need to pay attention.

So we would have no government, so what? Could that be worse than the one we have now? The purpose is to install a new government. One that may have a bit more respect for the people and FEAR the people enough to get on with the job. Do you think the people will learn why they will have to do that? So far they have not.

jonny5 said:

Thats because it says so clearly in the amendment. Firearms. If it is a arm that uses fire, then you have the right to bear it. However, I would imply that as meaning you have the right to bear any weapon, and furthermore implying that you have the right to use it, not just carry it. But Im willing to amend it if thats not clear.

Click to expand...

Actually is says ARMS.

In that case government cannot read. What is being done to correct that?

Crimefree said:

More than 100 posts and still not even a discussion of what guns the second protects. Are we going to get to it sometime? :2wave:

Does it not matter just so long as one can own some gun somehow at any cost? All that counts is having a gun, any gun, even just one. Or like the idiotic Swiss where you can have guns but not ammunition at home. Now effectively disarmed and defenceless anywhere but on the shooting range. Whoo hoo another victory for firearm organisations. Look we can still own guns....

Click to expand...

The following are clearly protected

all weapons that are used by civilian police departments

weapons of lower rates of fire or lower caliber than the above

The standard infantry weapon of the the USA military

Crimefree said:

I am not sure what your point is?

Your example of Obamacare is not very good. 50% said they were against in a poll. A polls results and what people will do are two completely different things. Firstly if they could not be bothered to VISIBLY protest then they are not serious. Ignore. Why do you think gun control organises VISIBLE protests and encourages people to make a noise in public? Because its fun? It's sending a message to government that government will not ignore. People willing to get off their bum are serious. It also lets others know why they need to pay attention.

So we would have no government, so what? Could that be worse than the one we have now? The purpose is to install a new government. One that may have a bit more respect for the people and FEAR the people enough to get on with the job. Do you think the people will learn why they will have to do that? So far they have not.

Click to expand...

when obamacare came to a vote a little over 50% did not want it, however it was passed by congress anyway, politicians do not listen to the people.....when though there was much protest to it., they listen to special interest groups which drives each party....examples of them are unions, corporations, groups receiving subsidies from government.

with democracy you get unbridled interest groups, ..which in the end destroys the government.......one of the reasons the American founding fathers did not create democrat form of government, but instead chose a republican form of government.

if the current government, were to fall, then the compact is over, and i do not believe the compact could be reformed under a new government, since some states are oppose of other states,..IE. TEXAS VS CALIFORNIA.

TurtleDude said:

The following are clearly protected

all weapons that are used by civilian police departments

weapons of lower rates of fire or lower caliber than the above

The standard infantry weapon of the the USA military

Click to expand...

That I think we can take as a given. More suitable I think is all weapons "arms" necessary to defend against government since that is the ultimate purpose. To keep the balance of force in the hands of citizens.

What astounds me is how willing firearm owners are to modify that to something else because somebody comes along with a fake sob story. Be reasonable... Yeah!! Right!! Like we can expect government to be reasonable.

The real question is what is being done to protect our rights and reverse the foolish decisions we have already made? If we carry on like this we are going to give all our rights away because some slick tongued rogue can present a sob story. Do we not know any better? Why is that?

ernst barkmann said:

when obamacare came to a vote a little over 50% did not want it, however it was passed by congress anyway, politicians do not listen to the people.....when though there was much protest to it., they listen to special interest groups which drives each party....examples of them are unions, corporations, groups receiving subsidies from government.

Click to expand...

Funny how special interest groups like gun control and many others can get governments attention and citizens who cannot understand how government works are puzzled and annoyed.... but not annoyed enough to get off their bums.

If special interest groups can figure it out how come citizens cannot? There is only ONE currency of politics - POWER Nothing else counts. If you cannot demonstrate your power you are not even a flea on governments back. Expecting government to be nice, sympathetic, kind, generous, reasonable, just... is the expectation of the fool, the wannabe slave.

with democracy you get unbridled interest groups, ..which in the end destroys the government.......one of the reasons the American founding fathers did not create democrat form of government, but instead chose a republican form of government.

Click to expand...

It's not a contest between parties, one is as bad as the other. Neither respects the constitution. Both are supposed to respect the constitution not try to dilute it at every opportunity because it is inconvenient and a thorn in governments side. It is supposed to be that to keep government's greedy hands off citizens rights.

if the current government, were to fall, then the compact is over, and i do not believe the compact could be reformed under a new government, since some states are oppose of other states,..IE. TEXAS VS CALIFORNIA.

Click to expand...

Define "fail" first. I believe it has already failed. Apparently government believes a right still exists when it has been removed due to inconvenient circumstance or only removed from some undeserving people. The contract between people and government no longer exists as government has chosen a path of increasing its own power at the expense of the people. Part of that is gun control. Right now the lengths government is willing to go to achieve that is out of control. But as in any democracy the people get the government they deserve. A republic on the other hand....

Crimefree said:

Actually is says ARMS.

In that case government cannot read. What is being done to correct that?

Click to expand...

Duh, my bad. Filled in the fire in my head. Nothing is being done to correct govt. The people dont care about the constitution.

Green Man said:

Under our system of government, the legislature creates the law, the supreme court tells us what the law says, and the president and executive branch enforces the law. In short, the federal government makes, defines, and enforces the law. There is no legal way around this.

Click to expand...

Wisely, our government is divided into 3 separate entities, one for each of these tasks.

That way it reduces the possibility of corruption spreading throughout the whole.

The Mark said:

Wisely, our government is divided into 3 separate entities, one for each of these tasks.

That way it reduces the possibility of corruption spreading throughout the whole.

Click to expand...

Yes, the federal government is composed of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. All three branches must participate in the enactment of any federal policy. My point is that after that policy is enacted and upheld, there is no legal way to stop or circumvent it, regardless of the 2nd amendment or anything else in the constitution.

Green Man said:

Yes, the federal government is composed of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. All three branches must participate in the enactment of any federal policy. My point is that after that policy is enacted and upheld, there is no legal way to stop or circumvent it, regardless of the 2nd amendment or anything else in the constitution.

Click to expand...

Except by repealing it or amending it.

Via the same process.

The Mark said:

Except by repealing it or amending it.

Via the same process.

Click to expand...

Certainly. I am only describing the situation under our current federal government, the one we have now.

Green Man said:

Certainly. I am only describing the situation under our current federal government, the one we have now.

Click to expand...

As was I.

Green Man said:

Yes, the federal government is composed of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. All three branches must participate in the enactment of any federal policy. My point is that after that policy is enacted and upheld, there is no legal way to stop or circumvent it, regardless of the 2nd amendment or anything else in the constitution.

Click to expand...

No, that is just your oft-repeated (probably 200 of your 242 posts) assertion; you don't actually HAVE a point.

Crimefree said:

It's not a contest between parties, one is as bad as the other. Neither respects the constitution. Both are supposed to respect the constitution not try to dilute it at every opportunity because it is inconvenient and a thorn in governments side. It is supposed to be that to keep government's greedy hands off citizens rights.

Click to expand...

nothing i said had to do with parties, it had to do with the structure of our federal government, the founders created a republican form of government, article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution.

the politicians have turned america towards a democratic form of goverment, and are destroying what the founders created, along with the founding principles.