New York is first, who is next???

I like this statement

 

We're full.

Besides... we know that's how you got Texas and Hawaii.

35.7%

The first part of the amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
So it looks like there are going to be some regulations.

The second part says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Saying you can't own this firearm, but you can still chose from those left, is still allowing you to keep and bear arms. It's just regulated... see above.

 

x2. and TN is trying to pass something that saying they will not found any federal laws, and that the feds will have to found it for the hole state. pretty much saying we are not going to abide by any new laws, because we wont found them with our state money.

 

M1 Garands hold 8 rounds. know like 4 people that have them and have shot them a lot.

 

This statement has no implication to today's technology, that was the best stuff we had at the time. If the enemy had m4's with 30 round mags I think the outcome would have been different.

 

Except roll back time and give Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan AK-47's and M-16's. and bigger bombs Now who wins?

I don't think many people understand the second amendment or what its all about.

Who are the protectors of the nation in general? Law Enforcement and Military. Both carry High Capacity weapons and assault rifles. Why? Because otherwise they would be outgunned by those that would challenge them correct?

So what we are saying by banning weapons and high capacity magazines is, you dont need these for protection, you can just have a shotgun or a 38 special.

So now you are reducing the ability for a citizen to protect himself, leaving him or her outgunned by those that would choose to do them harm. So why the double standard? Why dont we remove assualt weapons and high capacity magazines from law enforcement and military?

Are we as a nation saying that only law enforcement and military need to be armed to combat violence? Everyone else should be unarmed or under armed?

As a free man the second amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear arms. The argument is always that you dont need weapon XY or Z but the second amendment makes no such distinction. If there was a distinction to be made it would have been made when it was written. For example, Only those in the regular army can carry muskets but citizens are restricted to handguns.

The concept is that a citizen should be equally armed to that of the government aka military. If the citizens are to be less armed then that defeats the whole idea of the second amendment.

This whole gun debate is laughable. Imagine if the leaders of the world got together and decided the US had far to devastating weapons and should be restricted because its not fair to the other nations. Thats it US turn in your M-16's your F16's your laser guided bombs, because after all we did it with M1 Garands that carried 7 rounds why not just go back to that?

Use some common sense folks.

 

...that was technology in 1941 (actually it was old tech by then)...

internal magazine w/ an enbloc "clip" (an actual "clip") that's what made the distinctive "ping" sound after firing the last shot, and surely helped get a lot of GI's killed, ...the enemy knowing their rifle was empty...

 

precisely! ...you'd think it would be common sense, usually that epiphany doesn't hit the sheep until they start getting corralled...

personally i made the decision for myself that i "need" AR-15s, ...and so I have three of them (redundancy is a good thing) i take being a citizen over being a subject any day

 

Should a citizen be allowed to own a bazooka or Javelin system ?

 

...funny we haven't heard the usual catcalls of "tinfoil hatter", etc, etc.. on this thread... hmm.... oh, wait, ...we were right...

 

right about what ?

 

"should" in reference to "if one could", ...or "should" in the context of "shall one be permitted"?

 

as many great leaders have said in the past that rebelling and revolutions are needed every once in a while because goverments get too much power and need reshaping. after all its goverment for the people by the people , lets not forget the first words of our constitution we the people. anyways if inflation continues like the way it is with our monetary system, the housing bubble continues to see banks being shady and national debtcontinue to increase not to mention our privacy taken away with " the patriot act" and now wanna take our protection away from us. yea eventually you will see a revolution. a much needed one. this is happening all over the world and we needed more than anybody else.

 

it's English , but I'll try again

In your opinion , should citizens be allowed to own bazookas and similar heavy weapons ?

 

in that they want to take them away, persecute and humiliate gunowners, and criminalize as many as possible w/ a stroke of the pen...

 

You mean regulate possesion of certain weapons

 

Name them... I'll start:

1. Thomas Jefferson

... so who else? You did say many.

Frank

 

They already own them illegally so why not legally? If you are intent on doing harm you will get whatever it is you need to do it. Laws make no difference to the person willing to break them.

 

in a free country anybody is could do whatever they please at longest it does not interfere with somebody else's freedom. because something is very dangerous or deadly does not condone for anybody to take the freedom of being able to have it. tragedies will occur no matter what taking peoples freedom and giving the power to a central goverment (federal) defines communism. so yes citizens should be allowed, will they i dont know because our freedoms are being taken away.

"There is absolutely never a reason to give up one ounce of freedom for the sake of security. It won't work." ron paul

 

Well i am mexican american and i have know a few mexican leaders that have had the same philosophy im not sure if you only know american history.

2. pancho villa

3. francisco madero

go on