07-07-2008, 11:34 PM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence Alabama
Posts: 718
|
|
The Second Amendment Question
This thread is in response to a question asked on an article in the blog section in the Army.com Field Report. I was surprised to see no thread on this topic, and if there is one and it slipped past me oops my bad. I feel this is a good topic to talk about for several reasons: One I just finished a research paper on the legality of the Second Amendment and I know a lot about this topic, Two all of us for the most part are affiliated with the military in some way and I want to see what the general feeling is on the topic.
So in this thread I’m going to be asking two distinct questions and answering one.
First the answerer to the post on the blog
The reason for the 5 to 4 victory is that in the past the vast majority of all court cases have ruled in support of select forms of weapons control (gun control for you civies) i.e. age limits, purchasing powers, automatic weapons (come on guys who the hell needs a fully automatic AK-47), licensing, ect . I'm no lawyer but in my understanding of the second amendment is extremely clear cut and to the point but there are those who believe other wise. The reason the second amendment was added was it was and still is a way to keep the government in check and to let them know who really holds all the power. It all goes back to the social contract theory witch in basic states that the people of the said nation give most of the powers except a select few to the national government in return for things that the individual can’t provide for him or herself i.e. Civil defense, law enforcement, military protection, ect. Now most of these weapons controls are just for protection of the overall welfare of the people. I’m willing not to buy a pistol until the age of 21, I’m willing to give up civil rights just so I can have fully automatic weapons, I willing to register my weapons with the local sheriff’s office (witch in the state of Alabama is only if you want a concealed carrying permit everything else you just need a bill of sale to prove its yours), but it will be a cold day in hell when they take my weapons from me. The reason I’m willing to do all of these things is because of social contract theory that I have accepted. I belive these current laws are in place to protect the general welfare. Now in the case of D.C. saying you couldn’t have any firearms in your household or on your person that is overstepping. They had no right to enact that and if I were the residence of the District of Columbia I would elect a whole new legislator. There are always going to be a group of people for everything saying it should be banned, alcohol, tobacco, off shore drilling, logging, weapons, video games and basically everything else in this world that is fun. The bad thing is usually in court they win. The other bad thing is usually they are extremely uneducated about their subject of interest that or something bad happened to them or somebody they know due to the products. It is extremely hard to beat a case of substance control when the guy or gal giving the argument for the other side had a family member or friend killed by the topic. **** happens and it sucks doesn’t look good before a congressional hearing, but thank God for the Supreme Court and checks and balances system. The good thing is all of us weapon toting citizens are not deranged serial killers, wife beaters, gangsters, drug dealers, bootleggers, or anything of the sort. Any one of us would gladly comply with REASONABLE laws. Just remember there are more of us good guys than the bad guys, and that we won and the tides are changing for us.
Now that that question is answered to the best of my abilities time for the first question.
Question No. 1:
Most of us are in the Military, and for the overwhelming majority that military force is government controlled. Now one of the biggest arguments that the pro gun control activist put up is in the Second Amendment it states this as a reason for the right to bear arms: ...Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State… This is basically saying that if the federal government was to enact laws that in crouched on our civil liberties that we have the right to push back and reform the government. Now the pro gun control activist says that our military is too advanced to take down with small arms. Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
My Answerer: The order is immoral and unjust I will not carry it out. I will join the patriots and fight back and take some my cool toys with me.
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
My Answerer: It is highly likely but it will not be in any or our lifetimes in my opinion.
Last edited by Grimm; 07-08-2008 at 08:11 AM..
Reason: added hyper links to the articles
|
07-08-2008, 10:15 AM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Country
Posts: 800
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scconwill
This thread is in response to a question asked on an article in the blog section in the Army.com Field Report. I was surprised to see no thread on this topic, and if there is one and it slipped past me oops my bad. I feel this is a good topic to talk about for several reasons: One I just finished a research paper on the legality of the Second Amendment and I know a lot about this topic, Two all of us for the most part are affiliated with the military in some way and I want to see what the general feeling is on the topic.
So in this thread I’m going to be asking two distinct questions and answering one.
First the answerer to the post on the blog
The reason for the 5 to 4 victory is that in the past the vast majority of all court cases have ruled in support of select forms of weapons control (gun control for you civies) i.e. age limits, purchasing powers, automatic weapons (come on guys who the hell needs a fully automatic AK-47), licensing, ect . I'm no lawyer but in my understanding of the second amendment is extremely clear cut and to the point but there are those who believe other wise. The reason the second amendment was added was it was and still is a way to keep the government in check and to let them know who really holds all the power. It all goes back to the social contract theory witch in basic states that the people of the said nation give most of the powers except a select few to the national government in return for things that the individual can’t provide for him or herself i.e. Civil defense, law enforcement, military protection, ect. Now most of these weapons controls are just for protection of the overall welfare of the people. I’m willing not to buy a pistol until the age of 21, I’m willing to give up civil rights just so I can have fully automatic weapons, I willing to register my weapons with the local sheriff’s office (witch in the state of Alabama is only if you want a concealed carrying permit everything else you just need a bill of sale to prove its yours), but it will be a cold day in hell when they take my weapons from me. The reason I’m willing to do all of these things is because of social contract theory that I have accepted. I belive these current laws are in place to protect the general welfare. Now in the case of D.C. saying you couldn’t have any firearms in your household or on your person that is overstepping. They had no right to enact that and if I were the residence of the District of Columbia I would elect a whole new legislator. There are always going to be a group of people for everything saying it should be banned, alcohol, tobacco, off shore drilling, logging, weapons, video games and basically everything else in this world that is fun. The bad thing is usually in court they win. The other bad thing is usually they are extremely uneducated about their subject of interest that or something bad happened to them or somebody they know due to the products. It is extremely hard to beat a case of substance control when the guy or gal giving the argument for the other side had a family member or friend killed by the topic. **** happens and it sucks doesn’t look good before a congressional hearing, but thank God for the Supreme Court and checks and balances system. The good thing is all of us weapon toting citizens are not deranged serial killers, wife beaters, gangsters, drug dealers, bootleggers, or anything of the sort. Any one of us would gladly comply with REASONABLE laws. Just remember there are more of us good guys than the bad guys, and that we won and the tides are changing for us.
Now that that question is answered to the best of my abilities time for the first question.
Question No. 1:
Most of us are in the Military, and for the overwhelming majority that military force is government controlled. Now one of the biggest arguments that the pro gun control activist put up is in the Second Amendment it states this as a reason for the right to bear arms: ...Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State… This is basically saying that if the federal government was to enact laws that in crouched on our civil liberties that we have the right to push back and reform the government. Now the pro gun control activist says that our military is too advanced to take down with small arms. Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
My Answerer: The order is immoral and unjust I will not carry it out. I will join the patriots and fight back and take some my cool toys with me.
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
My Answerer: It is highly likely but it will not be in any or our lifetimes in my opinion. |
Here are my answers to the questions being asked:
Question 1:
There is no way in hell I would carry out an order to fire on my neighbors, friends, and family. That's insane! To me, that would be like having another Holocaust except the ones murdered would be our own people. They'd have to kill me too.
Question 2:
I can see it happening. I think most of us will be long gone by that time, but I can see it happening. The country is divided on so many things now so who knows what it will be divided on in the future. It goes beyond democrats and republicans. There are other issues that aren't discussed that will eventually come to light.
__________________
OOH RAH!
|
07-08-2008, 01:15 PM
|
 |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where BIG is best
Posts: 2,517
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scconwill
This thread is in response to a question asked on an article in the blog section in the Army.com Field Report. I was surprised to see no thread on this topic, and if there is one and it slipped past me oops my bad. I feel this is a good topic to talk about for several reasons: One I just finished a research paper on the legality of the Second Amendment and I know a lot about this topic, Two all of us for the most part are affiliated with the military in some way and I want to see what the general feeling is on the topic.
So in this thread I’m going to be asking two distinct questions and answering one.
First the answerer to the post on the blog
The reason for the 5 to 4 victory is that in the past the vast majority of all court cases have ruled in support of select forms of weapons control (gun control for you civies) i.e. age limits, purchasing powers, automatic weapons (come on guys who the hell needs a fully automatic AK-47), licensing, ect . I'm no lawyer but in my understanding of the second amendment is extremely clear cut and to the point but there are those who believe other wise. The reason the second amendment was added was it was and still is a way to keep the government in check and to let them know who really holds all the power. It all goes back to the social contract theory witch in basic states that the people of the said nation give most of the powers except a select few to the national government in return for things that the individual can’t provide for him or herself i.e. Civil defense, law enforcement, military protection, ect. Now most of these weapons controls are just for protection of the overall welfare of the people. I’m willing not to buy a pistol until the age of 21, I’m willing to give up civil rights just so I can have fully automatic weapons, I willing to register my weapons with the local sheriff’s office (witch in the state of Alabama is only if you want a concealed carrying permit everything else you just need a bill of sale to prove its yours), but it will be a cold day in hell when they take my weapons from me. The reason I’m willing to do all of these things is because of social contract theory that I have accepted. I belive these current laws are in place to protect the general welfare. Now in the case of D.C. saying you couldn’t have any firearms in your household or on your person that is overstepping. They had no right to enact that and if I were the residence of the District of Columbia I would elect a whole new legislator. There are always going to be a group of people for everything saying it should be banned, alcohol, tobacco, off shore drilling, logging, weapons, video games and basically everything else in this world that is fun. The bad thing is usually in court they win. The other bad thing is usually they are extremely uneducated about their subject of interest that or something bad happened to them or somebody they know due to the products. It is extremely hard to beat a case of substance control when the guy or gal giving the argument for the other side had a family member or friend killed by the topic. **** happens and it sucks doesn’t look good before a congressional hearing, but thank God for the Supreme Court and checks and balances system. The good thing is all of us weapon toting citizens are not deranged serial killers, wife beaters, gangsters, drug dealers, bootleggers, or anything of the sort. Any one of us would gladly comply with REASONABLE laws. Just remember there are more of us good guys than the bad guys, and that we won and the tides are changing for us.
Now that that question is answered to the best of my abilities time for the first question.
Question No. 1:
Most of us are in the Military, and for the overwhelming majority that military force is government controlled. Now one of the biggest arguments that the pro gun control activist put up is in the Second Amendment it states this as a reason for the right to bear arms: ...Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State… This is basically saying that if the federal government was to enact laws that in crouched on our civil liberties that we have the right to push back and reform the government. Now the pro gun control activist says that our military is too advanced to take down with small arms. Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
My Answerer: The order is immoral and unjust I will not carry it out. I will join the patriots and fight back and take some my cool toys with me.
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
My Answerer: It is highly likely but it will not be in any or our lifetimes in my opinion. |
Question 1: You have your free agency no matter what in the military. To me the question would be could I be able to handle the consequence of not following an order if you had a feeling that conflicted with the order itself. I guess I am not sure the purpose behind the question. That example seems so far fetched to me.
Question 2: Anything is possible...in the mind of crazies...
__________________
-Fireball
Army Wife and mother of 3
Last edited by Fireball; 07-08-2008 at 05:51 PM..
|
07-08-2008, 01:52 PM
|
 |
General of the Armies
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ireland (Ex Irish Army)
Posts: 11,156
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scconwill
This thread is in response to a question asked on an article in the blog section in the Army.com Field Report. I was surprised to see no thread on this topic, and if there is one and it slipped past me oops my bad. I feel this is a good topic to talk about for several reasons: One I just finished a research paper on the legality of the Second Amendment and I know a lot about this topic, Two all of us for the most part are affiliated with the military in some way and I want to see what the general feeling is on the topic.
So in this thread I’m going to be asking two distinct questions and answering one.
First the answerer to the post on the blog
The reason for the 5 to 4 victory is that in the past the vast majority of all court cases have ruled in support of select forms of weapons control (gun control for you civies) i.e. age limits, purchasing powers, automatic weapons (come on guys who the hell needs a fully automatic AK-47), licensing, ect . I'm no lawyer but in my understanding of the second amendment is extremely clear cut and to the point but there are those who believe other wise. The reason the second amendment was added was it was and still is a way to keep the government in check and to let them know who really holds all the power. It all goes back to the social contract theory witch in basic states that the people of the said nation give most of the powers except a select few to the national government in return for things that the individual can’t provide for him or herself i.e. Civil defense, law enforcement, military protection, ect. Now most of these weapons controls are just for protection of the overall welfare of the people. I’m willing not to buy a pistol until the age of 21, I’m willing to give up civil rights just so I can have fully automatic weapons, I willing to register my weapons with the local sheriff’s office (witch in the state of Alabama is only if you want a concealed carrying permit everything else you just need a bill of sale to prove its yours), but it will be a cold day in hell when they take my weapons from me. The reason I’m willing to do all of these things is because of social contract theory that I have accepted. I belive these current laws are in place to protect the general welfare. Now in the case of D.C. saying you couldn’t have any firearms in your household or on your person that is overstepping. They had no right to enact that and if I were the residence of the District of Columbia I would elect a whole new legislator. There are always going to be a group of people for everything saying it should be banned, alcohol, tobacco, off shore drilling, logging, weapons, video games and basically everything else in this world that is fun. The bad thing is usually in court they win. The other bad thing is usually they are extremely uneducated about their subject of interest that or something bad happened to them or somebody they know due to the products. It is extremely hard to beat a case of substance control when the guy or gal giving the argument for the other side had a family member or friend killed by the topic. **** happens and it sucks doesn’t look good before a congressional hearing, but thank God for the Supreme Court and checks and balances system. The good thing is all of us weapon toting citizens are not deranged serial killers, wife beaters, gangsters, drug dealers, bootleggers, or anything of the sort. Any one of us would gladly comply with REASONABLE laws. Just remember there are more of us good guys than the bad guys, and that we won and the tides are changing for us.
Now that that question is answered to the best of my abilities time for the first question.
Question No. 1:
Most of us are in the Military, and for the overwhelming majority that military force is government controlled. Now one of the biggest arguments that the pro gun control activist put up is in the Second Amendment it states this as a reason for the right to bear arms: ...Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State… This is basically saying that if the federal government was to enact laws that in crouched on our civil liberties that we have the right to push back and reform the government. Now the pro gun control activist says that our military is too advanced to take down with small arms. Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
My Answerer: The order is immoral and unjust I will not carry it out. I will join the patriots and fight back and take some my cool toys with me.
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
My Answerer: It is highly likely but it will not be in any or our lifetimes in my opinion. |
As I understand the Ruling, its about a "well regulated militia" and the right to bear arms of every citizan.. the fact that it was at a time when the country was embroilled in Armed Conflict for Seperation from the UK is irrelevant now I suppose.. lol..
Ok, here the deal IMO, the Gun Culture in the US today is too embedded just to stop it cold. Restrictions such as age restrictions, pre licence training on the weapon and the law around firearm use along with restrictions for criminals, etc should be inforce. This is a must and why its not in some places of the US is just beyond any common sense IMO.
However, the day of the militia is at an end. Nowadays, they are called parimilitaries and are usually a threat to national security of sovereign and free nations. However, the US seems to be reaching into its past to justify a position on weapons today.... As Im not American, I would not have a passionate position on the ruling, only that I hope the appropriate measures are taken to keep weapons out of unstable and untrained hands... Ok, lets go to your questions now.....
Question 1
Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
Now thats just rediculous, Gettysburg is over man!!... Get over it!!... 
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
That question is even more rediculous then the first, you gotta stop drinking that redneck hooch!!... sheesh, some people!!....
__________________
 "Barrel High, Powder Dry!"
"Illic est haud effrego ex Veneratio"
|
07-08-2008, 06:40 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Country
Posts: 800
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exo1
As I understand the Ruling, its about a "well regulated militia" and the right to bear arms of every citizan.. the fact that it was at a time when the country was embroilled in Armed Conflict for Seperation from the UK is irrelevant now I suppose.. lol..
Ok, here the deal IMO, the Gun Culture in the US today is too embedded just to stop it cold. Restrictions such as age restrictions, pre licence training on the weapon and the law around firearm use along with restrictions for criminals, etc should be inforce. This is a must and why its not in some places of the US is just beyond any common sense IMO.
However, the day of the militia is at an end. Nowadays, they are called parimilitaries and are usually a threat to national security of sovereign and free nations. However, the US seems to be reaching into its past to justify a position on weapons today.... As Im not American, I would not have a passionate position on the ruling, only that I hope the appropriate measures are taken to keep weapons out of unstable and untrained hands... Ok, lets go to your questions now.....
Question 1
Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
Now thats just rediculous, Gettysburg is over man!!... Get over it!!...
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
That question is even more rediculous then the first, you gotta stop drinking that redneck hooch!!... sheesh, some people!!.... |
The words of Exo...straight foward as ever. lol
__________________
OOH RAH!
|
07-08-2008, 09:02 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence Alabama
Posts: 718
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exo1
As I understand the Ruling, its about a "well regulated militia" and the right to bear arms of every citizan.. the fact that it was at a time when the country was embroilled in Armed Conflict for Seperation from the UK is irrelevant now I suppose.. lol..
Ok, here the deal IMO, the Gun Culture in the US today is too embedded just to stop it cold. Restrictions such as age restrictions, pre licence training on the weapon and the law around firearm use along with restrictions for criminals, etc should be inforce. This is a must and why its not in some places of the US is just beyond any common sense IMO.
However, the day of the militia is at an end. Nowadays, they are called parimilitaries and are usually a threat to national security of sovereign and free nations. However, the US seems to be reaching into its past to justify a position on weapons today.... As Im not American, I would not have a passionate position on the ruling, only that I hope the appropriate measures are taken to keep weapons out of unstable and untrained hands... Ok, lets go to your questions now.....
Question 1
Now let’s put ourselves in the state of we are all in the military and we are ordered to fire on our own neighbors, brothers, sister, family, friends. Would you carry out the order or would you not?
Now thats just rediculous, Gettysburg is over man!!... Get over it!!...
Question No. 2:
Do y’all think we will ever find ourselves in another revolution? How do you think we would fair?
That question is even more rediculous then the first, you gotta stop drinking that redneck hooch!!... sheesh, some people!!.... |
I'm not going to stoop to the level of name calling like you are I'm just going to say this. You are a extremely childish person and you are extremely ignorant. In your case if you think the post is stupid then don't reply to it. BTW learn to spell.
|
07-08-2008, 09:16 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence Alabama
Posts: 718
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marine4Life
Here are my answers to the questions being asked:
Question 1:
There is no way in hell I would carry out an order to fire on my neighbors, friends, and family. That's insane! To me, that would be like having another Holocaust except the ones murdered would be our own people. They'd have to kill me too.
Question 2:
I can see it happening. I think most of us will be long gone by that time, but I can see it happening. The country is divided on so many things now so who knows what it will be divided on in the future. It goes beyond democrats and republicans. There are other issues that aren't discussed that will eventually come to light.
|
Well the reasons for Question 1 is that in doing my research I stumbled across a bunch of statements from the pro gun control lobbiest saying (none of this is word for word due to it is a bunch of legal mambo jumbo and I don't have the exact from with me) the Second Amendment was out of date. There main premise for the argument was that the amendment was created so that civilians would have a way of keeping a free state, but with current technology of the military any resistance would be futile. Now in reading this it flipped a switch in my head saying all the soldiers I know would never fire on U.S. Citizens If given that order. I just wanted to see if the majority of people thought the same way.
|
07-08-2008, 10:34 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Arcadia (for now)
Posts: 4,350
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scconwill
I'm not going to stoop to the level of name calling like you are I'm just going to say this. You are a extremely childish person and you are extremely ignorant. In your case if you think the post is stupid then don't reply to it. BTW learn to spell.
|
That told Exo... |
07-09-2008, 08:35 AM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Country
Posts: 800
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scconwill
Well the reasons for Question 1 is that in doing my research I stumbled across a bunch of statements from the pro gun control lobbiest saying (none of this is word for word due to it is a bunch of legal mambo jumbo and I don't have the exact from with me) the Second Amendment was out of date. There main premise for the argument was that the amendment was created so that civilians would have a way of keeping a free state, but with current technology of the military any resistance would be futile. Now in reading this it flipped a switch in my head saying all the soldiers I know would never fire on U.S. Citizens If given that order. I just wanted to see if the majority of people thought the same way.
|
Definately. I know for myself that I wouldn't fire on U.S. citizens just for the sake of firing on them. My life would have to be in danger in order for me to carry out that order.
__________________
OOH RAH!
|
07-09-2008, 09:42 AM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence Alabama
Posts: 718
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marine4Life
Definately. I know for myself that I wouldn't fire on U.S. citizens just for the sake of firing on them. My life would have to be in danger in order for me to carry out that order.
|
The general consensus that I'm seeing from everybody is that there would half to be some wrong doing going on for anything like that to happen. Other wise they would not fire at U.S. citizens. I also go back to the Boston Massacre with this. The citizens protesting were British subjects and they were fired at by British troops. |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:55 PM.
|
