The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

oros35 · By: **oros35** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:05 am

I come from a family of police officers. First and foremost, everyone of them will ensure their imediate family is safe and out of harms way, then and only then will they go to help everyone else.

It's simple human nature. Evolution. The drive to reproduce and see your children to through.

Sure there will be some that have no regard for their own family and serve. But these are also the types that I wouldn't expect their parenting skills to be greatest either. (another problem in its self)

The military does a good job of supressing these feelings, but it's just that, it if gets reall bad (end of the free world as we know it bad) instinct will take over for most. You protect you and yours first.

oros35 · By: **oros35** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:09 am

SteveZee wrote: It's pretty naive to think that the military wouldn't act if called on to do so.

And this is the sole reason for the second amendment! Allow people to protect themselves from thier government (or an army controled by their government

SteveZee · By: **SteveZee** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:33 pm

oros35 wrote:
SteveZee wrote: It's pretty naive to think that the military wouldn't act if called on to do so.

And this is the sole reason for the second amendment! Allow people to protect themselves from thier government (or an army controled by their government

That's true but let's have a little perspective also. Insuring that there are better background checks, or banning large volume magazines is not the end of the free world by any stretch. We've had so called assault weapons banned in the past and there were times when CCW was illegal in many states. It wasn't the end of the world then and it won't be now.

Coalfire · By: **Coalfire** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:56 pm

SteveZee wrote:
RWalker I would be willing to bet that you were never in the military. Not the military I was a part of. We were trained to follow orders. We were not trained to think about whether or not it impacted us, our family's or any other personal position. We were trained not to interpret them in any way, shape, or form period. It's pretty naive to think that the military wouldn't act if called on to do so.

I was not in the military so can't comment, this is more of a question. The military orders you would have followed would have been to attack forigen people or countries, nothing that would have effected you or your family(unless you were killed or wounded), I think if you were told to attack americans, on american soil most would not do it?

Eric

Flyer5 · By: **Flyer5** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:58 pm

SteveZee wrote:
oros35 wrote:
SteveZee wrote: It's pretty naive to think that the military wouldn't act if called on to do so.

And this is the sole reason for the second amendment! Allow people to protect themselves from thier government (or an army controled by their government

That's true but let's have a little perspective also. Insuring that there are better background checks, or banning large volume magazines is not the end of the free world by any stretch. We've had so called assault weapons banned in the past and there were times when CCW was illegal in many states. It wasn't the end of the world then and it won't be now.

The last ban did nothing to curb violence. The last month alone just 1 of the magazine suppliers has received orders for over 1 million magazines. So if the bill is anything like the last there will still be a lot of pre-ban mags out there. But you probably already know this. My point is there are so many laws out there now its too easy for someone to miss something and unknowingly become a criminal. There are currently over 2000 gun laws. I sure as hell don't know them all. Some as stupid as if you put a forward grip or handle on a pistol it can classify it as a short barreled rifle. Just silly stuff and that is what will happen this time they will fill any new laws with filler. We don't need any more laws. Just better enforcement of the ones we have.

SteveZee · By: **SteveZee** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:15 pm

That's true but let's have a little perspective also. Insuring that there are better background checks, or banning large volume magazines is not the end of the free world by any stretch. We've had so called assault weapons banned in the past and there were times when CCW was illegal in many states. It wasn't the end of the world then and it won't be now.[/quote]

The last ban did nothing to curb violence. The last month alone just 1 of the magazine suppliers has received orders for over 1 million magazines. So if the bill is anything like the last there will still be a lot of pre-ban mags out there. But you probably already know this. My point is there are so many laws out there now its too easy for someone to miss something and unknowingly become a criminal. There are currently over 2000 gun laws. I sure as hell don't know them all. Some as stupid as if you put a forward grip or handle on a pistol it can classify it as a short barreled rifle. Just silly stuff and that is what will happen this time they will fill any new laws with filler. We don't need any more laws. Just better enforcement of the ones we have.[/quote]

I agree that allot of them have no good purpose and your right that the last one didn't curb violence. But my point was not if they were effective or even valid. I was just saying that it's not the end of the world as some are proposing.

oros35 · By: **oros35** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:54 pm

SteveZee wrote:I was just saying that it's not the end of the world as some are proposing.

It's not the end of the world, but it's one step closer.

Why waste my tax dollars creating, implementing, and attempting to enforce something that has been proven not to be effective?

Hows that saying - Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results - Why should we expect any different results for this ban? How about we accept it's not the gun that is the problem, but the people. And focus my tax dollars there.

Flyer5 · By: **Flyer5** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:03 pm

SteveZee wrote:I agree that allot of them have no good purpose and your right that the last one didn't curb violence. But my point was not if they were effective or even valid. I was just saying that it's not the end of the world as some are proposing.

I know I just believe we don't need anymore laws that are not enforced unless they want a reason. Look at the piece of crap David Gregory. He has not been arrested. Why not?

plumb-r · By: **plumb-r** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:22 pm

For arguement sake lets clarify, what is your idea of a "Assault weapon". Is it how many bullets it holds when full? Is it that it can self feed rounds after each pull of the trigger? Is it that you can hold down on the trigger and the gun continues to fire as long as trigger is held? :confused:

SteveZee · By: **SteveZee** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:35 pm

Coalfire wrote:
SteveZee wrote:
RWalker I would be willing to bet that you were never in the military. Not the military I was a part of. We were trained to follow orders. We were not trained to think about whether or not it impacted us, our family's or any other personal position. We were trained not to interpret them in any way, shape, or form period. It's pretty naive to think that the military wouldn't act if called on to do so.

I was not in the military so can't comment, this is more of a question. The military orders you would have followed would have been to attack forigen people or countries, nothing that would have effected you or your family(unless you were killed or wounded), I think if you were told to attack americans, on american soil most would not do it?

Eric

They wouldn't be attacking American's on US soil for nothing Eric. There would have to extraordinary circumstances.

Flyer5 · By: **Flyer5** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:11 pm

plumb-r wrote:For arguement sake lets clarify, what is your idea of a "Assault weapon". Is it how many bullets it holds when full? Is it that it can self feed rounds after each pull of the trigger? Is it that you can hold down on the trigger and the gun continues to fire as long as trigger is held?

Assault weapon is one that is used in the military or by police and criminals to go after insurgents and terrorists or people they don't like or any hardware used to assault someone. My rifle is meant to shoot paper and hunt animals they may resemble each other but function differently. And as long as it is used legally it is not an assault weapon. Both can be used for defense so I prefer to call mine a defense/hunting rifle.

Airforce one can be a Jet and it can be a Cessna 150 if the POTUS is on board. Once the Potus is out it goes back to Cessna 150 or Jet.

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:05 pm

Flyer5 · By: **Flyer5** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:34 pm

Dann757 wrote::shock:

Sums it up in a not so nice sort of perspective. But true.

SMITTY · By: **SMITTY** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:59 pm

Just so happens a few of our elected officials hold Mao in high regard .... :shock:

KLook · By: **KLook** On: Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:06 pm

I think its amusing that people keep saying that it can't happen here like there is some reason we aren't privy to. It couldn't happen anywhere if it weren't for the humans involved. And they are everywhere.

Kevin

The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...

Re: The repeal of the Second Amendment, could it be done by ...