What is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

What does the second amendment mean to you?

"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."

I'll chime in with my two cents in a minute, but I want to hear some other opinions first.

 

To me it means anyone who isn't an already proven danger to society(i.e. something like a convicted felon) has the right to own a gun. Now of course this means guns, tanks, chemical weapons, SAM missles, I think the military is good with those, not civilans.(Did you know though up to 1936, any citizen could own any type of weapon that was used by the military, including battleships, tanks, fighter planes, ect... andin the revolution and war of 1812, there were more then a few private battleships and raiders attacking the British)

 

Don't screw with them bears.

 

I'm kind of with MadcapSyd on thi issue. I don't think the amendment was put in to protect the right to have hunting rifles. I think the "arms" they are referring to are weapons designed to kill human beings. I think the provision was put in so that the American people would be well armed should the need for a citizen's militia to defend against foreign or domestic threats ever arise.

During the cold war, the US government did some studies to find out what would happen if USSR decided to invade America. I don't remember the exact figures, but they said that someting like 50 million troops would be needed to invade and occupy the US after the defeat of the US military. That number is due largely to the fact that Americans happen to be some of the most well-armed citizens in the world.

All that being said, don't vote bush because he's stronger than Kerry on the second amendment, because as I count it, he has broken four seperate amendment since taking office. 4>1

 

Well Kerry is pretty strong on the 2nd amendment too, he is an avid hunter, the only difference is he would try to get stricter laws on machine guns passed.

 

Stricter laws on machine guns? Fully automatic weapons have been very tightly controlled since 1934. Very few civilians have the extremely expensive and difficult to obtain license for fully automatic weapons.

 

No, now that the ban if gone you can go by an AK-47 with no problems now unless the state law is against it.

 

Yeah I heard about that assault weapons ban. Does this mean you can go to the store and buy an automatic AK-47 or Uzi, or can you only buy a single-shot (I forgot what the real word for it is) Assault weapon?

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Oh, and buy the way, I am not for gun control. I, as many people here know, believe the government DOES want to implement a police state, and although i am one of the most peaceful people, as a last resort, guns would be the only way to fight off the government from taking us to camps and rounding us up. Also, on an easier to accept note, if someone is breaking into my house, a gun pointed in their face will deifnitly make them think twice about stealing anything, or about ever coming back. It is just a fact that if you want to be safe against outside invaders or burgalers, you need a gun or atleast some form of weapon, which is sad, but it is reality.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Basically you can get a fully auto now.

 

Also, I am not for Gun Control. I think we should spend more money on educating responsible, adult gun owners. And looking for reasons that cause unnecessary violence between people, and trying to stop it. If worse came to worst and the government implemented martial law, and came to round us all up, the only way to stop them would be guns, not to mention if an outside force tried to do that as well. Also, if you live in an unsafe neighborhood, a gun or a bat is needed to protect yourself against people trying to break in. But, only under these and similar circumstances do I approve their use, and i do not advocate violence in any way, I am just being realistic.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

If you are afraid of a police state then go buy a tank, cuz that is what the government has.

 

NO!

BULLSHIT!

YOU CANNOT BUY FULL AUTO WEAPONS!

The weapons that were banned were semi-automatic single fire weapons.

FULL AUTO WEAPONS WERE FEDERALLY OUTLAWED IN 1934. That law has not changed.

If you don't believe me why don't you go around asking to buy a full-auto gun and see how long it takes to get arrested, because even attempting to obtain one without a license is a federal offence.

 

The assault weapons ban had no effect whatsoever on full auto guns. While the ban was in effect you could buy an AR-15 or an AK-47. On the other hand, in my state, you can buy full auto and/or silenced guns. There is a $200 federal tax stamp you must buy for each gun and a 90-120 waiting period.

 

Fully automatic weapons may be illegal, but if you got a screw driver, you can make that semi automatic into a full auto, no problems what so ever...

 

Okay, I don't usually post in the politics forum, but I happen to care a lot about my right to own and use my firearms.

Now, I live in Wisconsin. I've owned and fired automatic weapons, that I have purchased at gun shows, flea markets, wherever... anyway, a few friends have also purchased automatic weapons, no problem.

Here's where the purchasing thing comes in. I go purchase the rifle, alongside a coverter kit to automatic for $50 or less. An hour of work later, automatic weapon.

Here's the thing, at least to how I understand it. I can't legally use that kit on my gun to make it fully automatic without a license to do so.

I can't legally fire a fully automatic weapon, and doing so I believe is a straight ticket to jail and a hefty fine.

However, you can purchase everything you need to have an automatic rifle without too much effort at all.

 

It's too bad that Ashcroft seems more interested in cracking down on drug paraphenalia shops than sales of automatic weapon conversion kits.

Personally, I think that most (if not all) semi-automatic weapons should be banned. I've never heard a compelling reason why a law-abiding citizen would need the capability to kill several people within a few seconds. Unfortunately, though, I think that many criticisms of the assault weapons ban were legitimate. It was far too narrow in its scope to do much good. Short of a total ban on semi-automatic weapons, a comprehensive ban on the sale large capacity magazines (without loopholes or grandfather clauses) would probably make the most sense.

 

Those of us who hunt would be severely pissed off if we could not have semi-automatic rifles. Considering it has many advantages over single shot action firearms.

Personally I own a Remmington .270 semi-automatic rifle. With a 8x optical scope. Accurate as hell, and comparable to the same rifles that many SWAT and CIA/FBI/GOV snipers have used for years.

Why do I own this rifle? It is by far the best rifle I've shot, and it allows me to hunt deer and gives me food for 6 months or more. It makes sense economically.

Don't take the guns away. Criminals will always get guns. If they can't buy them, some other country will smuggle them in, or they'll make their own.

Freedom.

 

In the seventies there was rumbling going on about our right to bear arms,seems it's ba-a-c-k. I'll be damned if I roll over,belly up & hand over my guns! No fuckin' way! PEACE