Tragedy in San Bernadino

[sirs]

I hardly think that permitting civilians to own bazookas, grenades and grenade launchers would be in any way advantageous.

I agree.....which is why it's not even a subject of debate.  Just because we did have the same weaponry as the military did back when the country was founded, doesn't negate the Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the right for all legal Americans to possess.....not bazookas, or grenades, or RPG's, ...... but firearms

And yes, when you try to absolve that right, it makes us that much less free, since the Government becames that much more powerful, if it no longer has to fear its citizenry

And before you even start the tangent of how "we the people" wouldn't be able to fight off our military and their superior weapons, the fact that the country is so deeply armed, is precisely why our Government would never even try to confiscate our firearms to begin with.  What they would try to do however is to "pass common sense gun laws" that would do nothing but make it harder for legal Americans to purchase/own firearms, and with such withering effort, over time, ..... only the Government, law enforcement, and the bad guys would have them

But that's not going to happen, because there far too many of us who our politically savvy, and care enough to not allow our rights be taken away from us.

In other words, there is NO CHANCE that the Government will confiscate our firearms.  NONE

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think the government fears the citizens.
There is no chance that any armed civilian group will even try to overthrow the government.

[sirs]

I do not think the government fears the citizens.

Of course not....we're too fully armed

There is no chance that any armed civilian group will even try to overthrow the government.

Nor is there any need to or anyone supporting such an act, since we're not at that stage of the Government trying to confiscate and absolve our 2nd amendment rights, outside of a Constitutional Convention        The 2nd amendment is all about the defense against such tyranny, not something pro-active

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, it isn't.
Originally it was because of the need of a rural populace to hunt game, the slaveholding population to prevent slave uprisings and the fact that the government had no power to confiscate weapons. They knew how hard it would be because the British tried it and failed.

[sirs]

Yes, it absolutely is.  Regardless of what people did with the firearms they had a right to, the specifics of the Bill of Rights, as espoused by those who put our Constitution together, couldn't have been made any clearer.  The Bill of Rights were specific LIMITATIONS applied to the Federal Government.  They are RIGHTS to help prevent what the Colonists had just fought a revolution for, to keep from reappearing in this new found country

What newly founded Americans did with their firearms, such as hunt, was not anywhere referenced in the Bill of Rights, or even the Constitution, for that matter.  What IS referenced is that a free country, is to guarantee these rights here in America, so as to prevent a NEW England from emerging

Hunting wasn't even in the top 10 reasons for the 2nd amendment

[Xavier_Onassis]

You do not have any clue whatever what the motives were.

[sirs]

Actually I do.......they wrote them down, for all to see, in both the Federalist papers, and in the Constitution itself.  You seem to be the one trying to read something in to what's not there.  And failing miserably at it, I might add

[Xavier_Onassis]

They were politicians and of course they did not mention anything about slavery or the inability of the government to confiscate weapons.
The most significant reason for the Second Amendment, and keep in mind this was in a time when all firearms were complicated single shot things was because they knew they had no means of confiscating them even if they wanted to.

[sirs]

What they were, were the founders of this country.  What motiovated them was the tyranny of England.  What they hoped to prevent in this country, was waged with the Revolutionary war.  And the mechanisms to help prevent that tyranny from ever recurring here in America was clearly articulated and written down in 1st, the Federalist papers, and then made as the foundation via the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights. 

The reason for the 2nd amendment had squat to do with hunting or slaves.....period.  The reason AND MOTIVES were specifically articulated in their own words themselves.  No need to try and "read between the lines", and make up garbage that wasn't there.  We just need to read what IS there

[Xavier_Onassis]

I seriously doubt any of them would have been in favor of assault weapons with 50 round clips.

The Second Amendment, like slavery and the Electoral College is something we should have sentm to the garbage heap years ago. Now we will have a massacre victim for every day of the year.

[sirs]

What you think/believe, and what is current reality are, ususally seperated by an ocean of facts.  I can just as easily opine that all of them would absolutely be in favor of legal law abiding Americans owning assault rifles with 50rd MAGAZINES (they're not called "clips"     )....when its a Government that the 2nd amendment was designed help defend the people against a growing out of control, unconstitutional regime

Sorry to disappoint your medevil mob majority madness, but neither the 2nd amendment nor the Electoral College is going anywhere. 

[kimba1]

Hmm
Assault weapon for home defense might be unwise. Isnt their greater collateral damage? Bazzoka definately out of the question.

What insurance company will cover it. You may have the right but so does a company have the right to not lose money

[sirs]

xo likes to use hyperbole, such as grenades & bazookas.  We could even throw in an MI Abrams, to entertain the hyperbole.  Assaut weapons, such as a fully automatic M-16, are not even in the debate.  Xo was trying to opine some notion that our Founders wouldn't have been supportive of such a hyperbolic hypothetical.  I opined that they would, considering what the 2nd amendment was all about.  Currently however, the Supreme court has not absolved the current law making ownership of such weapons, illegal, without special licensing by the ATF

So, I don't think we have to delve into the speculation of what insurance company would cover such weaponry, since no one is actually advocating that as a solution.  I'm merely countering xo's hyperbolic speculation

[Xavier_Onassis]

The difference between a 1790 musket and an AK-47 is quite comparable to the difference between an AK-47 and a bazooka.
And the Second Amendment was about muskets, flintlocks and other primitive single shot weapons and you know this. Everyone knows this.

[Christians4LessGvt]

And the Second Amendment was about muskets, flintlocks and other primitive single shot weapons and you know this. Everyone knows this.

The 2nd Amendment was about rejecting over-reaching control.
The outrageous government has grown, and thus the firepower has grown.
What would be the constitutional point if citizens had the right to only bear ineffective firearms?
The 2nd Amendment is above all the others because it is a line of protection for the others.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting and hunting is not mentioned anywhere.

Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.