Musings on 2nd Amendment

[CC]

Those opposed to the 2nd Amendment try to negate the individual ownership of firearms by pointing to the clause regarding the militia.  To some extent they are correct about the 2nd Amendment being written to protect militias. 

The need for militias was important when our country was founded to defend against the federal government trying to become a national government and from foreign enemies.  These two threats still exist today, but militias do not.

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the national government in its quest to take away the rights and liberties of the people will destroy the militia and replace it with its army.  Hasn’t this happened? 

I don’t believe the National Guard is or was a militia, but if it was considered to be one, then Burger’s prediction was correct.  The federal government has taken control of it.

I believe the militia as envisioned by our founding fathers was one where individuals would have arms, but go about their daily lives until they were needed.  They would then be called upon to defend their country.

I think the the militia was the only reason for individual ownership of firearms but was mentioned only because that is all our founding fathers believed was necessary to mention.  The point of the bill of rights wasn’t to grant rights, but to affirm the ones they felt needed affirming.  Owning a firearm for individual protection was a no-brainer and thus not in need of affirming it in the bill of rights.

Does the threat of the federal government becoming oppressive still exist?  The federal government has already attacked state rights, but they have used tax dollars and legislation as a means to do it.  Look at what Obama did and Trump reversed – taking state lands and claiming them as federal land.  The threat of the government using force to usurp the rights of the people still exists if you believe the Left when they say Trump is Hitler-like and seeks to be a dictator.

However, the greater threat in my view is a foreign country or countries attacking us on several different fronts in our own country.  Who among us on this forum wouldn’t take your private arms and use them to defend our family and country?  I would without hesitation. 

An invading army would not only meet resistance from our military, but from the people of this country.  We are not France or Italy – our resistance would be strong and powerful unless we surrender our 2nd Amendment right to the Tide pod eating snowflakes that depend upon the government for everything, but especially protection.

Finally, those opposed to the 2nd Amendment say the 2nd Amendment does not allow citizens to own military grade weapons.  I'm not advocating for citizens to own full-automatic weapons beyond what is currently in place now, but it is ludicrous to say the intent wasn't for us to own military grade weapons.

The citizens during the early days of our country had access to the same weapons the military did.  And, if the purpose was to defend against foreign enemies it then defies logic that citizens would be hamstrung by possessing lesser weapons than the military of the invading countries.

The Left wants to destroy the 2nd Amendment because they know if it falls then so do all other rights.

Just my thoughts - challenge them, share your own, but we must all stand up and push back against those that seek to neuter us.

[Mntnman]

Pretty much agree with the whole post except automatic weapons. I don’t think that there should be the restrictions that there are now. Don’t tell the libs but semiautomatic fire is more effective anyway.

[depserv]

Pretty much agree with the whole post except automatic weapons. I don’t think that there should be the restrictions that there are now. Don’t tell the libs but semiautomatic fire is more effective anyway.

How about if we compromise and legalize burst fire; see how that goes and go from there.  Just change the legal definition of a machine gun from more than one round fired with a single pull of the trigger to more than three (or five).  Then eventually just get rid of the entire illegal edict.  As it is now a single pull or a shotgun trigger fires multiple projectiles, so is it really that big a deal if we can have a similar capability with a rifle?

Based on what I've read, the idea behind the assault rifle is that a few hits with a smaller bullet has better stopping power than one hit with a bigger bullet.  And burst fire is better for suppressing enemy fire.  So burst fire capability would be a valuable addition to the arsenal of the militia.  And we really should be able to have the same rifle our military carries.

An automatic rifle isn't a true machine gun anyway, since it's not designed for sustained automatic fire.  It really isn't used to mow masses of people down like some people think.  And at ten rounds a second it depletes a magazine pretty fast, and you can only carry so many magazines.  So the person wanting to commit mass murder is probably as well off or better off with semi auto, but someone defending his family, his community, and his country against armed opponents would be better off having burst capability.

And this reminds me of something interesting.  Remember the Hollywood shootout awhile back?  Two bank robbers had converted their AKs to fire full auto, and they held off the police for quite awhile, before both of them were killed.  A few police were wounded, but none were killed (thank God).  The battle lasted 44 minutes.  They say roughly a thousand rounds were fired.  The rifles had a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute.  So with two rifles, it would take less than one of those 44 minutes to fire all the rounds those guys fired.  Based on news accounts I had the impression that the bank robbers were firing pretty steady, because how else were they able to keep so many police pinned down for so long.  But realistically, even if the fired short bursts (which is not what they were doing in the news footage I saw), they were not firing for 43 out of the 44 minutes.

They had kevlar outfits they had made, which were probably a bigger factor than the full auto capability.  But I think the biggest factor was the police weapons having been downgraded by the same kind of liberal ideology that seeks to disarm us.  Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Mntnman]

How about if we compromise and legalize burst fire; see how that goes and go from there.  ....  Just my thoughts on the matter.

Ummm...................no thanks. Full auto is legal right now if you want to pay the unjust tax and artificially inflated price of a weapon.

[StuartJ]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

[depserv]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

My compromise included eventually doing away with the illegal edict entirely.  And there was nothing in it about giving up legal full auto that exists for a price now.  You would not accept that compromise if it was a choice between that and the status quo?

[Mntnman]

My compromise included eventually doing away with the illegal edict entirely.  And there was nothing in it about giving up legal full auto that exists for a price now.  You would not accept that compromise if it was a choice between that and the status quo?

No.