Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
It says people don't want to ban guns used for target practice. If I target practice with an AR 15 or an m60, does that mean I'm covered?

:D:

If you cant have a gun to defend yourself, what the hell is the point of target practice... thats the question I have to the anti gun crowd. If I can shoot great, but not have a gun to shoot if I need to, I guess I'm just screwed.
 

·
Endure ~ Adapt ~ Overcome
Joined
·
281 Posts
Yea, The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, sport shooting or self protection. It was written to allow the people to arm and defend themselves against an attack on the state/country.
 

·
... --- ...
Joined
·
14,874 Posts
Yea, The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, sport shooting or self protection. It was written to allow the people to arm and defend themselves against an attack on the state/country.
Actually,I believe it's primary intent was to allow citizens the means "to defend against tyranny in government", meaning OUR OWN government.;)
The restrctions built into the Constitution were designed to limit the power of our government, as the founders believed a citizen's own government was the biggest threat to liberty, which history has shown to be true.
 

·
Happy to be here!
Joined
·
5,637 Posts
This is an incredibly tricky issue. Long story short, weapons of mass destruction are currently illegal for citizens, but our government has them. I'm OK with that...some here aren't. Where do you draw the line between following the constitution and keeping Charles Manson from releasing Anthrax, or Timothy McVeigh from renting an Abrams tank with ammo? That's the beauty of our democracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Those who rail against the armed public have always sought to put the argument in the terms of "Sporting" arms.

"If you don't use it for hunting, why do you need it?"

I just tell anyone who thinks like that to read the 2nd Amendment, then read the applicable Federalist Papers regarding what the founders were thinking re the amendment.

Only a complete idiot would not understand after reading about it, but then only complete idiots would come up with this argument in the 1st place.

But the general public at large responds to this crap, so the sound bites are played.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
This is an incredibly tricky issue. Long story short, weapons of mass destruction are currently illegal for citizens, but our government has them. I'm OK with that...some here aren't. Where do you draw the line between following the constitution and keeping Charles Manson from releasing Anthrax, or Timothy McVeigh from renting an Abrams tank with ammo? That's the beauty of our democracy.
Myself, I subscribe to the Barrett Arms thinking on this.

When the State of California approached them about a purchase of several of the Barrett Arms .50 caliber sniper rifles, the company refused to sell them the weapons stating "if the citizens of California can't have them, you can't either".

That is my opinion on any of the weaponry in the military arsenal. If WE can't have them, THEY shouldn't either.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was included exactly to preclude this situation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Yea, The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, sport shooting or self protection. It was written to allow the people to arm and defend themselves against an attack on the state/country.

Actually this is incorrect.
This is what the NRA wants you to believe.

The 2nd Amendment is meant as a last defense against our own government--it is meant as a deterrant against governmental tyranny in all forms. It was meant as a means of your personally (if need be) to take up arms against your own country (gone freakin' crazy) if need be.

The other uses for the 2nd Amendment are secondary--that is defense of home (against criminal elements), defense of community and defense of the homeland against foreign invasion... do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

ST
 

·
Neo Confederate
Joined
·
2,256 Posts
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A
properly functioning (well regulated), Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."


IMHO
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A
properly functioning (well regulated), Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."


IMHO


He asked what this above is intended for--not what it meant.
Not the defination.

ST
 

·
RIP America 1776-2012
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Actually,I believe it's primary intent was to allow citizens the means "to defend against tyranny in government", meaning OUR OWN government.;)
The restrctions built into the Constitution were designed to limit the power of our government, as the founders believed a citizen's own government was the biggest threat to liberty, which history has shown to be true.
And MIL-DOT gets the prize! :thumb:

What the libtard/gun control mind can't seem to grasp, is the Second Amendment protects ALL other rights..................It couldn't be any clearer than that.


______________________________

III

"Obama, the skid-mark in the underwear of American history.
" - J.R.L. -
 

·
Senior Reactor Operator
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Thomas Jefferson:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.


George Washington:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

Alexander Hamilton:

The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

…or it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those whom they entertain the least suspicion.


Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.


Noah Webster:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band 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.

Arkansas Supreme Court - 1878:

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.

Georgia Supreme Court - 1846:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state.


ANY QUESTIONS???
 

·
Wilddieb
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
It says people don't want to ban guns used for target practice. If I target practice with an AR 15 or an m60, does that mean I'm covered?

:D:

If you cant have a gun to defend yourself, what the hell is the point of target practice... thats the question I have to the anti gun crowd. If I can shoot great, but not have a gun to shoot if I need to, I guess I'm just screwed.
They consider air guns sufficient for target practice.

Just look over at Monkey Island (Great Britain). There was no total gun ban. They can still do competition shooting with air guns, .22 LR, single shot rifles...isn't that enough? :rolleyes:

Dwind said:
all enemies- foreign AND domestic. The fathers knew evils lurk in the hearts of men.
Where I live I am far more afraid of the enemies within. Domestic.

But IMHO this applies to the US as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,794 Posts
" Shall not be infringed " says it all for me. Its cut and dry.

Look around where strict gun laws are in effect. Note the high crime rate. Gun restrictions do not stop crime. It creates a breeding ground for it.

Some of the most disgusting atrocities ever commited were on unarmed populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIXPACK

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Ok gotta put my .02 in. As it stands I feel until I commit a crime that removes my right to own ANY firearm, I should be allowed to own anything I please (yes this includes A Submachine gun, AT-4 anti tank rocket, hell even a 105 Howitzer if I so choose to own one). But with ownership comes responsibility, Knowing how to just shoot a gun is not enough, I have worked in several gun shops and stores where people come in and say

"I want to buy a gun"

"Ok Sir, What are you looking for?"

"One for self defense"

"Ok Sir have you ever owned a firearm or fired one before? Have you had any training in the proper use and carrying of a firearm?"

"No"

"Do you know how to load, clean, and handle a firearm?"

"No"
At this point I feel until some Responsible training has occurred that person should NOT be able to own a firearm. (such as when and where to unholster a weapon, how to load a weapon, and how to simply clean the weapon they own)

And I believe that to become a part of the "well regulated militia" this "training" should become mandatory first, to be able to purchase and own a firearm. A local Law enforcement or Gun Range should be the one to do the training or establish a curriculum that is the same no matter what state you reside in and that the FEDERAL GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE NO say in the training or how, who, or what.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top