The second ammendment

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

The_Fur

Back in black
Nov 2, 2000
6,204
0
0
www.rlgaming.com
Those Nazi's were some ****ed up people.

I'd like to point out that "those nazi's" were joe the baker and arnold the milkman. They were normal everyday people, the difference was they were wearing a uniform and had the power of anonimity and the strentgth of their group.
 

Dupre

Code Pimp
May 8, 2000
1,012
0
0
www.geocities.com
Originally posted by Domino
You may be wondering why I posted this, well it's because someone at my school got ahold of his dad's 9mm pistol and blew a hole in his head accidentally.. the father had left the safety off and obviosley left it out for him to get it.

So that's my rant, I hope you know where I'm coming from... and if you read closely, these aren't radical ideas... all I ask is that people who don't know **** about guns not have access to one... A gun should be a privelage that must be earned, not a right.

I think somebody's bought into the Rosie O'Donnell bullshit.

Okay, so a kid grabs a gun and kills himself with it. Now, how can you place the blame on the 2nd Amendment? And don't even start the argument about the blame being the gun manufacturer's. That's a croak of shit too. The blame rests solely on the father. He's the one responsible. He bought the gun, bought the ammo, loaded the gun, and left it out in the open. In the state I live in, he would be in handcuffs serving a jail sentence for improperly storing a firearm. In other states, he would be slapped with an involuntary manslaughter charge.

So you're uncomfortable with guns. THEN DON'T BUY ONE!! But don't preach to me about the 2nd Amendment or whether or not I have the right to defend myself. That's a choice I make.. not you. Now, I agree with your argument that people have to be trained to use firearms or some sort of safety course. That's fine. I believe in that too. You buy a gun, you should be required to learn how to use it. Same as driving.
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
UDTSnake why don't you get a clue before you argue? The warsaw ghetto wad a uprising that the Germans tried to crush. The jews ambushed and killed the German troops everytime they came in. as Rouge said the Germans never quelched it untill they set it on fire and used artillery bombardments. In fact the jews were so succsesful that german soldiers were teriffied and often refused to go into the ghetto at night adfter the uprising was put down because survivors that were left picked them off.

And that atlantic wall comment is pointless, yes the allies defeated the atlantic wall, but it took the biggest invasion of all time, many casulties and a vastly superior force. you saying because one fortification was defeated that all fortifications are useless?
 

Sweep

New Member
Jul 25, 2001
290
0
0
Visit site
Funny that Rosie feels us simple folk shouldn't have the right to defend ourselves, but her majesty O'Donnel herself should be able to hire armed bodyguards to protect her children... Only the "elite" should have these rights you know...
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
Back to the second amendment, the second amendment isn't about protecting yourself from criminals (unless you count the govt but thats a different issue). The 2nd amendment was written in direct response to Englands attempt to grab our guns prior to the revelution and John Lockes ideas. "of a free state" means that its to preserve the freedom of the people. lets say this again for clarity

"The sole and only purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the peoples right to rebel against a oppressive goverment, as stated clearly in the declaration of Independence"
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
ahh i keep forgeting things

that kid killing himself, that is the dad's fault for not taking the kid to the range and teaching how to use and respect it.
 
1.3.3 The structure of the Bill of Rights

The primary right of the people is personal liberty. All government functions are designed to insure personal liberties. The Constitution's Preamble states the Constitution's (and thus the government's) purposes:



"PREAMBLE: We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."



All of these purposes serve the final purpose of securing liberty: justice is established so institutions and majorities will not abuse our liberties. Domestic tranquility is secured lest criminal elements trample liberties. The common defense is provided for so foreign powers will not invade and enslave us. The "general welfare" (which benefits everyone, not select groups) must be promoted for the sake of fostering liberty. (Roads and mail, for example, benefit all citizens by allowing free movement, trade, and communication.) These are the sole legal purposes of the federal government and each is subordinate to maintaining the blessings of liberty.

This pattern of subordinating everything to personal liberties is also found in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, and the press. The remainder of the Bill of Rights is subordinate to free expression, not in the sense of being less important, but in the sense of insuring First Amendment rights. Therefore the Second through Tenth Amendments are designed to protect the First Amendment.


Article II: Gun rights are the "teeth" of the Bill of Rights, meaning that the people are empowered to enforce it against being infringed.

Articles III, IV, and V: Property rights give us a limited sphere of "personal sovereignty" where we can live freely without intervention.

Articles V, VI, VII, and VIII: Legal rights prevent the government from persecuting those who speak out against federal policies or practices.

Article IX: The rights retained by the people are anticipated as a contingency against the government inventing all sorts of new powers.

Article X: State rights divide and dilute the powers of the federal government. The more centralized the power the greater the tyranny.

FREE THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION (the essence of liberty)
GUN RIGHTS (enforce liberty)
PROPERTY RIGHTS (sphere of liberty)
LEGAL RIGHTS (prevent persecution)
UNENUMERATED RIGHTS (limit the expansion of federal powers)
STATE RIGHTS (divide and dilute the federal government's powers)

The Bill of Rights has an integrity that can only be maintained as each of its part remain intact. Eliminate a part, and the whole will crumble.

1.3.4 The meaning of the Second Amendment

Now let's examine the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was originally intended as an integral to the whole of the Bill of Rights.

"Article II: 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."


"A well regulated Militia" does not refer to the regular army. It would be absurd to recognize the federal government's prerogative to raise an army in the Bill of Rights since: (a) It is presumed that all governments raised armies. (b) Since Article II amends the Constitution which already recognizes this prerogative. And (c) since the Bill of Rights is in its entirety a limitation upon, not an empowering of the federal government. Nor does it refer to a state's national guard. Had the Framers meant state militias, they would have not connected the militia with the right of the people to bear arms. It does mean a well-organized army of the people by the people. The word militia originally legally meant (Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 13) and still legally means (U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 31) the whole able-bodied citizenry of the country, not the formal armed forces of the United States. Therefore, "A well regulated Militia" is a well-organized citizens' army, not a well-controlled standing army.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state." It does not say, "being necessary to the security of a crime-free state" nor does it say "being necessary to the security of a free hunting state." Thus, self-defense and hunting are not protected, per se (although these are legitimate derivative activities of gun owners). The reason that the right of the people to bear arms and form militia is protected is to secure a free state. Without the ability of the people to rise up against the growing tyranny of a government, there is nothing to stop the tyranny of the government growing! This intention is made explicit in Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights which clearly influence the development of Article II of the Bill of Rights.

"The right." As we have seen, rights are God-given and governments are formed to protect rights, not to grant them or take them away. Thus the right to bear arms is not something that the government can legitimately legislate away through gun regulation, registration, licensing, taxation, or prohibition.

"Of the people." Consistent with the view that "Militia" refers to an army of the people by the people, the Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people, or private individuals, to keep and bear arms. This right is possessed by people independently of membership in any government-controlled armed force or law enforcement agency.

"To keep and bear." Notice that we have the right both to keep and bear arms. The Framers did not waste words but were very concise in all their texts. So clearly they intended to say that keeping and bearing arms are two different things, both of which are protected. Now the keeping of arms is ownership and possession of arms on your property. The bearing of arms is the carrying of arms with you off of your property. So you have the right to carry weapons with you as well as to own them. Any federal, state, or local law that prohibits bearing firearms on your property or in public is unconstitutional. (Of course, people like business owners may prevent you from bearing arms on their property by exercising their own property rights.)

Arms." What are these arms that are to be protected? Clearly they are those that are useful and effective in maintaining an armed militia. In other words, it is military-style weapons like assault rifles, submachine guns, and combat shotguns that are explicitly protected, not just hunting and target shooting weapons. Whatever type of firearms are the standard-issue weapons of the armed forces, these are the weapons that you and I have the right to own. The more militarily effective a firearm is, the more it is protected by the Constitution. This is not to say that you and I should be permitted to own anything used by the army. Just as the citizen of 1789 did not own canons and ships-of-the-line, today's citizen should not own M-1 Abrams tanks and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. But just as the citizen and the soldier were armed with the same musket then, so citizens should be able to keep and bear Colt M-16 assault rifles now.
Select-fire assault rifles like the M-16 are the most Constitutionally protected firearms precisely because they are standard infantry weapons.


"Shall not be infringed." "Infringe" means to encroach upon and does not necessarily mean to totally do away with. There are many ways that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed: regulation limits gun ownership by controlling the production and sales of firearms. Licensing means that an individual is permitted to own or carry weapons. Registration means that an individual's possession of a particular weapon with a serial number is recorded. (Gun businesses are regulated, gun owners are licensed, and guns themselves are registered.) Taxation restricts gun ownership, particularly among the poor, by increasing the cost. Prohibition is either an outright ban of gun possession or the limitation of guns that can be bought.

All of these — regulation, licensing, registration, taxation, prohibition — are totally unconstitutional with respect to arms useful to a militia.

Regulation of guns is illegal if it is designed to reduce the supply or availability of them to the public. There is no difference in principle between limiting production and sales of guns and banning possession of guns. Both have the same effect of disarming citizens.

Licensing means the government gives permission to do something like driving a car and is totally contrary to the nature of a right. What would you think about the government "licensing" your religion or free speech? Having permission and having the right are incompatible.

Registration means you must list your gun with the government which is also contrary to a right. How would you feel about Christians having to register Bibles and newspapers having to register printing presses?

Taxation of guns is also illegal if the taxes exceed the normal sales tax because this artificially raises the cost and limits the citizens' ability to purchase guns. The $200 transfer tax on automatic weapons is a good example of an illegal tax intended to restrict ownership.

Prohibition is clearly unconstitutional as the ultimate infringement of gun rights since it absolutely bans their possession and use. Even limiting gun purchases to one gun per month is an infringement of gun rights since it slows the arming of a militia when a crisis develops.

From "The Field Guide of the Free Militia".
 

ms. godiva

quality shock value, obstinacy, and wit
Nov 30, 2001
16
0
0
40
Sh*thole 24B, Ohio
Visit site
And banning guns will not keep guns out of criminal hands. They're breaking the law already, why the hell would they care if they have to break another to own a firearm? All banning firearms from the law abiding public does is give the criminals less resistance.

Yeah, that's like the government punishing the good guys for what the bad guys are doing. We don't need stricter gun control, we need to actually enforce the gun control we have. What happened to personal freedoms, anyhow? I'd rather live in a country where there's a miniscule chance of me getting shot by some psycho who bought a gun yesterday than live in a country where the government controls everything 'just in case.'
 

UDTSNAKE

heart breaker and life taker
Nov 16, 2001
475
0
0
Good Old USA
Visit site
Originally posted by Snake13
UDTSnake why don't you get a clue before you argue? The warsaw ghetto wad a uprising that the Germans tried to crush. The jews ambushed and killed the German troops everytime they came in. as Rouge said the Germans never quelched it untill they set it on fire and used artillery bombardments. In fact the jews were so succsesful that german soldiers were teriffied and often refused to go into the ghetto at night adfter the uprising was put down because survivors that were left picked them off.

And that atlantic wall comment is pointless, yes the allies defeated the atlantic wall, but it took the biggest invasion of all time, many casulties and a vastly superior force. you saying because one fortification was defeated that all fortifications are useless?

The germans crushed th jews there...they had not the time, not inclination to dedicate resources to that ...so they just artyed there asses and torched them......You really need to get a grip if you think for a second that well armed infantry force could not have easily just kille every single person in the ghetto.

Part of that whole thing was that german trooops were becoming softend and tirsome of killing civilians...it was hurting their moral...thus ways to better kill them were devised...final solution etc. You think yourself to bright....Any..andy I mean any man made fortification is in fact testimony to mans ignorance....history shows this time and time again....even General patton said this....No matter what the cost....anything can be overcome... I think you need not to assume for me....If youve read anything about field fortification you may know a thing or two.....Oh you dont.

It really baffles the mind the **** some of you try to pass off to get off an insult.....most of it is so stupid i just say a thing or two and leave it.
 
Originally posted by RogueLeader
I think people with criminal histories shouldn't be able to own guns. Therefore I don't think the the cops or military should have guns, the state being responsible for 170 million murders in the last 100 years. Since most people don't kill millions of people, or even one, let them have their guns. Gun control is only a means to disarm the working people who might rise up in their own defense against the state someday.

not all of those police and military officials have commited crimes. just a handful.

your generalizing to make a point. you shouldn't do that :p
its grandstanding!
 

})FA|Snake

New Member
Aug 5, 2000
1,661
0
0
Visit site
UDTSnake learn your history, your denying history because it doesn't make tactical sense to you?

the Germans were overconfident and came right out into the open, that is the reason they were driven back. Of course fortifications can be overcome, but doing so takes much more manpower/tactics then just coming in. once again the Atlantic wall was beaten, but at a large cost of manpower.

History does not always do exactly what makes tactical sense, look at the vietnam war, how did a band of guerrilas hold up against a well trained, well armed standard army with air support? oh thats right it didn't happen because it doesn't make tactical sense
 

RogueLeader

Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"
Oct 19, 2000
5,314
0
0
Indiana. Kill me please.
not all of those police and military officials have commited crimes. just a handful.

your generalizing to make a point. you shouldn't do that
its grandstanding!
It has nothing to do with the individual. A cop that kills an innocent man in service of the state has committed a crime himself, but has also committed one for the state. The cop will die sooner or later, hopefully sooner, but the state will live on, and will still have that blood on its hands, and will still go unpunished.