2nd Amendment Foundation Online banner

[drewblood]

is this new? i just noticed it. personally i think it's really cool... they dont seem to have any real affiliation with the NRA. Maybe that's good.... not such a stigma attached with being an 'NRA' member. I think a lot of people would support the 2nd amendment / lobbyists etc, if it werent for the NRA being viewed as 'extreme' to a lot of people.

also curious how many firearm owners and NRA members we have here. for me, yes and yes.

[Amelia G]

Yes, I decided that what I believe in is more important than steering away from controversy. I think some of the NRA has lost its way. I'm not a member now. They forgot that the point of the 2nd amendment is to be an American Patriot and not a folksy woodsman hunter guy. We really don't need assault weapons to shoot Bambi. It is not what they are intended for and that is not what the 2nd amendment was intended for either.

[ForrestBlack]

Honestly, I quit my NRA membership because it started becoming more of a lifestyle organization, for a lifestyle I don't feel even a little a part of. Rather than being an organization of firearm enthusiasts and those interested in our rights as citizens, the newsletters started really being written to appeal to just the burley woodsman and kinda closed minded midwesterners. Not so much about respecting the spirit of the Constitution and being a good resource for regular people interested in guns.

[cheinara wraithwalker]

Before I sold my jeep, there was an NRA sticker from the previous owner. That was awesome. I've never had much interest in the group, but the law enforcement thought it was amusing.

[Morning Glory]

I support the second amendment. well to be more precise, I say 'oh some peice of paper says something? that's nice.' we don't really have any constitutional rights anymore, all of them can now be overruled by the government for supposed public intrest. I mean it's cool if you want to bear your arms, but if you try walking accross a bridge with them then you might get shot by the cops.

[Flip]

i have a feeling my views on this wont go down well, so ill limit my reply to "im against the nra"

[Morning Glory]

haha. yeah this is more like "how do you feel about the second amendment, NRA aside thread". the "NRA in LA" thread was more devoted to oppinions on the National (insert pun here) Association.

[Flip]

in that case i support the 2nd amendment (too an extent) and associate it in no way with the nra.

(im gonna try be careful and not go off on a rant here)
Fair enough every american has the right to own a gun, HOWEVER, there is a difference between having a gun for protection, and having a gun to blow the shit out of an animal (which i associate the NRA with). i dont think its nessecary to own a gun to protect your state/country in this day and age.

the reason i dont agree with the 2nd amendment is that it makes it far too easy for a criminal to get hold of weapons, and, inadvertently premotes violence.

[ForrestBlack]

in that case i support the 2nd amendment (too an extent) and associate it in no way with the nra.

(im gonna try be careful and not go off on a rant here)
Fair enough every american has the right to own a gun, HOWEVER, there is a difference between having a gun for protection, and having a gun to blow the shit out of an animal (which i associate the NRA with). i dont think its nessecary to own a gun to protect your state/country in this day and age.

the reason i dont agree with the 2nd amendment is that it makes it far too easy for a criminal to get hold of weapons, and, inadvertently premotes violence.

I think you may find that more people agree with your views than you think. For me, the 2nd amendment has little to do with hunting. I mean, I've gone fishing and even spear fishing, so I'm not going to say I've never done any form of hunting, but not with a gun anyway. I think hunting for sport, with guns, is just something I can't really get behind, but that's just my view.

I do think there are still civil responsibilities that we as citizens should uphold, and I do think that falls under the purview of protecting your state/country in this day and age. Sometimes the authority just isn't there to protect us and I feel that our country was founded on respecting and empowering it's good people to take care of themselves, their valuable, their loved ones, etc.

Criminals will always be able to have guns. It's not crazy high technology. So, if you disarm the good public, you are only removing your own defenses.

[Tequila Zaire]

i dont think its nessecary to own a gun to protect your state/country in this day and age.

That so? Why do you think that? If you look at recent history in just about any nation in Africa, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia...the gun is quite important to protect, defend, and in some cases create a nation.

the reason i dont agree with the 2nd amendment is that it makes it far too easy for a criminal to get hold of weapons, and, inadvertently premotes violence.

This is a huge misconception...I'll give a personal example. In my younger years I worked for men and women who needed guns to go about their daily buisness. Their associates did they same and they were from a variety of nations with strict gun laws...

All were armed with illegally imported, manufactured, and supplied weapons. It's very very rare that your average criminal goes to the local gun shop to arm up. The reason is simple...you can trace those weapons. The 2nd Amendment does not make it easier for criminals to get guns...guns laws do a lot to prevent that actually. But since criminals don't buy guns legally it's all pointless. These men and women are equally armed no matter the laws...be it in places like Japan and China...or London and the good ole USA. You're simply not dealing with people who follow laws to begin with so why would an element in the constitution or even our strict gun laws matter to them?

I never saw the reasoning anti-gun people had toward firearms in the legal arena when the illegal arena is what needed the proper attention...the ATF can only do so much. Even now with low level hoods and gangbangers...all of them deal in guns that are out of the legal spectrum and used MULTIPLE times for a variety of crimes.

If people had a more realistic view of how criminals around the world REALLY arm themselves their would be far less attention on the 2nd Amendment and much more attention on proper inspection of imported goods. Didn't it ever strike you as odd that in cases with criminals who've done time before...they are found armed? Their is no LEGAL way they could buy a gun. Their is a whole other gun culture that gets ignored in the U.S. and the longer we pretend it does not exist...the more it will thrive and endanger us all.

[Morning Glory]

well here's the actual text:
"(the right to) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

this says that you have the right to arm yourself and form a militia when it is neccesary to the security of the state... considering that at that time they had no unified national army, it was one thing. since we DO at this time, I'd say that it sin't neccesary for national security to have one today. sooo.. guess you all DONT have the right to bear arms, since it doesn't say anything about private citizens having them to settle personal disputes.

[Morning Glory]

not to mention the fact that the last time the US was invaded was 1812.

[drewblood]

ya...that's it everyone... keep the postin comin... i gotta contest to win here.

ummm... need more material to spawn discussion... GEORGE BUSH DOESNT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE!

[Morning Glory]

that's just not true. george bush loves poor black people. if it wasn't for them no one would fight his wars for him. zing. was that too low of a blow?

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

well here's the actual text:
"(the right to) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

this says that you have the right to arm yourself and form a militia when it is neccesary to the security of the state... considering that at that time they had no unified national army, it was one thing. since we DO at this time, I'd say that it sin't neccesary for national security to have one today. sooo.. guess you all DONT have the right to bear arms, since it doesn't say anything about private citizens having them to settle personal disputes.

But is a unified national army a militia? Currently that unified national army is in another country so you have to ask, how are they going to defend us in the event of trouble? Even when they were not at war the national guard cannot operate until the govener brings them in. So, if say your city is being burned to the ground and the govener won't call in the national guard until the riots hit westwood you begin to question what qualifies as a militia. Especially when you notice that the buildings where armed men are stnading on the roof don't get burned. You start to think, maybe this is what they meant by a militia. The men and women of the neigborhood taking up arms to defend it. It may sound scary, but you cannot help but notice that it has some potential.

I am not a gun owner, but you know every now and again I think it is important I have the right because the army or national guard is not a militia.

[Morning Glory]

that's a good point, but I don't see how that effects anyone outside of that community, and then if the governor decides to declare martial law all that shit goes out the window anyway.

I'm not saying it's right, but I mean the army and especially the national guard should be there, that's what they are for.

I guess at the end of the day it really comes down to doing what you gotta do, and what some paper says you can and can't do doesn't have much bearing on what you will do.

[keiko]

I like the idea of owning one nice dependable firearm for defensive purposes. I don't think any one really needs more than one. I'm kinda anti NRA though, just from alot of the vibe I get from them turns me off.Im all aobut rights, and the constitution and what it *USED* to stand for, but now?
K

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

The thing is MG, that is just one extreme example. On a more common not a miltia is also the five guys in a small rural town who grab rifles to chase off dangerous animals such as a pack of wild dogs. A town of 200 people is not going to have an animal control department.

There are many, many legitimate reasons to own guns. Unfortunately the NRA does not seem to care about the guys who say want to protect the right, but never actually want or need to own a gun. They don't seem to care about non gun owners.

[Flip]

if you can name one country capable of invading america you have won the argument.

if not then where is the need for a militia when your country has a global military presence, as well as allies, and on top of that the european union would most likely apose such an action.

and as my final point, have you ever tried shooting down a jet with a handgun? there is no feasable reason to own a gun when your invaders will just drop bombs.

oh and any country planning to invade a country the size of what america is would have a hard job, the only country with a large enough population to adequatly maintain an occupation of america is japan, but that would require all of the population to be in the military.

and finally, britain hasnt been invaded, and we dont have the right to carry arms... go figure!


ForrestBlack: i agree criminals will always be able to get arms, all im saying is its alot easier when every citizen has the right to carry them.

p.s. ignore the spelling mistakes, im tired and its late :P

[Flip]

i accidentally skirted around some of tequila zaire's points so ill address em now

your right, organised criminals can get them off the black market, however people who rob your newsagents etc the small time criminals, would just buy a gun and use it as an instrument of fear rather than to actually use it.

right so fine there is a wider spectrum to look at but it doesnt fall under the topic of this thread. unless of course you mean to say you need a gun to protect you from organised criminals? in which case the 2nd amendment doesnt help you there either.

[ForrestBlack]

i accidentally skirted around some of tequila zaire's points so ill address em now

your right, organised criminals can get them off the black market, however people who rob your newsagents etc the small time criminals, would just buy a gun and use it as an instrument of fear rather than to actually use it.

right so fine there is a wider spectrum to look at but it doesnt fall under the topic of this thread. unless of course you mean to say you need a gun to protect you from organised criminals? in which case the 2nd amendment doesnt help you there either.

Armed robbery stats are higher in areas with stricter gun laws. Probably because robbers don't like being shot at. The mere knowledge that the clerk or homeowner might have one too is a bit of a deterrent. I've been mugged by a guy who potentially had a gun in the District of Columbia, where we are not even allowed to carry mace.

[ForrestBlack]

if you can name one country capable of invading america you have won the argument.

North Korea

[ForrestBlack]

ForrestBlack: i agree criminals will always be able to get arms, all im saying is its alot easier when every citizen has the right to carry them.

Easier to get them, harder to use them. We were empowered by our founders. It was an experiment in giving social trust to the good people. There are lots of places to go live if you don't want to participate in that experiment, but I'd rather give it a shot.

[Flip]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2...0826_2546.html

realistically do you think they would?

[karyn]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2...0826_2546.html

realistically do you think they would?

can you explain your point?

[Flip]

"The North Korean air force and navy are an "aged" force, LaPorte said. Still, with nearly 100, the North Koreans have the largest submarine force in the world. Most of the boats are small and would be used for infiltration or mine laying."

air and sea are the two main advantages a modern army has, not only to get their troops into a country but also to perform effective strikes on a country.

"The North Korean air force has one squadron of MiG-29s and the rest with older series MiGs. The average North Korean fighter pilot gets 15 hours of flying time per year, less than what U.S. and South Korean pilots log in a month."

So pretty much no air force or not one worth acknowleging.

"This means the forces have the money, food and fuel to continue to train. Still, Combined Forces Command has not observed any large-scale ground maneuvers, but it has seen battalion and regimental training events, LaPorte said."

although they are a potential threat there has been no agressive movements from the north koreans.

i would still like to know how a gun can effectively protect a country from modern war tactics?

[Morning Glory]

we need more cops and more guns to keep us safe from armed gangs, otherwise we'll die.
We need global warfare and bombs falling everywhere, and peace will come when there's no one left to fight anywhere.
and god will roll down from the clouds. gosh I'll be so proud cuz I'll be the winner, and god will take me up to heaven for dinner.

[Flip]

lol morning glory :P

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

if you can name one country capable of invading america you have won the argument.

if not then where is the need for a militia when your country has a global military presence, as well as allies, and on top of that the european union would most likely apose such an action.

Is the only purpose of a militia to prevent invasion by a foriegn power?

The primary purpose of a militia is not to stop a threat outright, but to be prepared to respond immediately. This is something a global millitary presence is not able to do, especially once politics get involved. Also, it is a bit hard to justify calling in the army to put down dangerous animal for example.

A militia is a clumsy but useful tool, especially in a physically large nation where many live hours from more organized help.

[Flip]

actually i think you will find your military is capable of responding immediately to those coutries that are seen as a threat. i may see bush as inept but i think his military council would no better than to leave your country undefended.

unfortunately a dangerous animal is not threatening the security of a free state. Double check what the 2nd amendment is, because you either dont know, or are clumsily ignoring the fact that it say to "protect a free state" which i would interpret as protecting your country from being taken over.

Definition of militia:
mi·li·tia Audio pronunciation of "militia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

no where in there do i see "To form a hunting party", infact it specificaly says "...for military service".

a milita could be a useful tool, 100years ago, these days mordern warfare is far to advanced.

[evilassmaster]

guns are stupid... whatever organization you belong to

[drewblood]

guns are stupid... whatever organization you belong to

wow. i wish i could be satisfied simplifying things like that. it's kind of fun actually.

history is pointless.

disease is silly.

i dont like mean people because they are bad.

[LowKey]

Flip, you asked:
i would still like to know how a gun can effectively protect a country from modern war tactics?
Well, I have the answer for you. Look at Iraq. Forget politics for a moment and just look at the tactical senario. On one side you have the worlds largest, most technologicly advanced military and on the other you have a bunch of(by and large) poorly organized irregular fighters armed primarily with small arms(guns) and improvised explosives. Now take a look at how well the irregulars have hindered the efforts of the modern military units here.

[Amelia G]

wow. i wish i could be satisfied simplifying things like that. it's kind of fun actually.

history is pointless.

disease is silly.

i dont like mean people because they are bad.

[Amelia G]

Flip, you asked:
i would still like to know how a gun can effectively protect a country from modern war tactics?
Well, I have the answer for you. Look at Iraq. Forget politics for a moment and just look at the tactical senario. On one side you have the worlds largest, most technologicly advanced military and on the other you have a bunch of(by and large) poorly organized irregular fighters armed primarily with small arms(guns) and improvised explosives. Now take a look at how well the irregulars have hindered the efforts of the modern military units here.

Excellent point.

[Flip]

Flip, you asked:
i would still like to know how a gun can effectively protect a country from modern war tactics?
Well, I have the answer for you. Look at Iraq. Forget politics for a moment and just look at the tactical senario. On one side you have the worlds largest, most technologicly advanced military and on the other you have a bunch of(by and large) poorly organized irregular fighters armed primarily with small arms(guns) and improvised explosives. Now take a look at how well the irregulars have hindered the efforts of the modern military units here.

i wouldnt say hindered considering iraq is occupied, however you do have a good point, although they havnt protected the security of their state have they?

and of course you have brought up my other point that with americas current army there is no need for a militia in america. americas army is far too advanced, on top of that, i do believe that countries such as north korea or any other potential threats to america do not have the means to deploy their ground army in america.

[LowKey]

Something that always amuses me is that people always think Americas founding fathers envisioned the militia as only being to protect the country from threats to the government from forgin powers.
The people who had just faought a long hard bloody war for independance from what they saw as a corrupt, unfair, unresponsive, and opressive government we not overjoyed at the idea of they or their decendants having to do it again. To this end they desired to keep our standing military small, as large numbers of unoccupied troops tend to end up being used by those in power for purposes other than defence of a nation, and secondly they tried to ensure that any American citizen would have the means to augment the regular military in times of need as well as present the military establishment and state and federal governments with reason to pause and reflect before overreaching and exceeding the limmited powers granted to them by the constitution. Sort of a fourth check and balance of power.

[LowKey]

On another angle.....how does banning an object, substance, or item make people on a whole or as individuals safer? I don't care if its guns or heroin, they don't case damage until someone uses them improperly.
In the case of a gun that could be considered to be commiting murder or a negligent discharge that injures someone else.
In the case of heroin.....if you want to use it thats your call, your only doing it to yourself, and you know the risks.
Hurting yourself shouldn't be considered a crime, just stupid.
The argument for drugs being illegal tries to justify itself by (among other things)pointing to crimes committed by people to support/pay for their habit, which is pure BS. Robbing a store for money to buy heroin or meth is no worse that robbing it to obtain money to buy beer, jewlery, or anything else. It is robbery, and is illegal no matter what your motivations/reasons.
The argument against private ownership of guns is that people might kill someone for a reason other than self defence. Well, people do that all the time WITHOUT a gun (the most common murder weapon in the US is a "blunt object" according to the FBI), and it too is also illegal no matter what implement or weapon you may or may not use.
POTENTIAL for harm is by itself is not sufficient grounds to deprive people of something, unless you wish to be stripped of almost every tool, item, and artifact of use in your life as most of them can be misused to harm someone if you desire to.
If you don't like guns, you don't have to have them or hang around people who have them. If you don't like drugs, likewise. If you worry about your hearing stay away from loud nightclubs......but don't make the choices for other people unless your willing to have them force their choices on your life.

[Flip]

Something that always amuses me is that people always think Americas founding fathers envisioned the militia as only being to protect the country from threats to the government from forgin powers.

maybe im misinterpreting "security of the STATE"?

the rest of it, im not exactly sure how that has anything to do with american citizens owning guns?

[Morning Glory]

good points lowkey. as much as a dispute about the american colonies that we can get into... i'll spare the details, and say that I haven't really heard it put that way before and it rings pretty much true.

I have such mixed feelings on the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people." it's certainly true that a gun is just a tool in the hands of those that use it... but it really goes both ways, if someone wants to use it for evil then it sure makes it alot easier when they have access to a weapon that can do that. and while people do commit barbarous acts with blunt and edge weapons you can't rationally tell me there isn't a difference between a knife and a semi-automatic weapon that can shoot 30 rounds in ten seconds.