• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Redirect Notice
d9ZKkE
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But...to return to the debate in hand...

What happened to the other bit of the 2A, BTW, you know, the bit about having a well-regulated militia? Surely that's the National Guard, Army and the police? Why do all these other guys need guns under the 2A? At the very least, shouldn't you have the 'well-regulated' bit even if yiu dont have a proper militia, if you're going to allow civvies to have guns, like for example in Switzerland? Mandatory training, courses, inspections, keeping locked away etc?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Surely that's the National Guard, Army and the police?
Wrong again. Read the Federalist Papers #46 to educate yourself regarding the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.

By the way, the Federalist Papers #46 was written by James Madison, the same guy who wrote the 2nd amendment.
 

thatbrian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Face it Matt, we are a VIOLENT people.

It's a necessary evil because of a few things called "freedom" and "self preservation" to name a couple.

It started in the American colonies when we rebelled against the tyranny of the British Crown.

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view there is indeed a price to pay when a nation has a Bill of Rights and a free society.

So far we have chosen the Bill of Rights these 240 or so years.

When the Bill of Rights disappears America disappears.

View attachment 1980

If "we" mean all mankind, then I agree.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Exactly. In 1933 Hitler and his Nazis won a landslide election. And the murder of 16 million people soon followed.

The Nazi party won a plurality in the November 1932 elections. Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933. He called for elections in March, 1933. The Nazis won the election in March 1933 with 43% of the vote. Hardly a landslide.

In 1931, Weimar authorities authorized the registration of all firearms and their confiscation, if required for “public safety.”

False. Gun registration laws were passed in 1928.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Restrictions were removed for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry or owning firearms.

What followed was Kristallnacht, Concentration Camps, and the murder of Jews and other "undesirables."

False. The 1938 gun law was signed in March 1938, and covered handguns. The Jews prohibition on owning firearms (or any weapons, including swords) went into effect the day after Kristallnacht.
Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938

Concentration camps had been built long before the 1938 gun law. Murder of Jews and undesirables occurred before the gun laws. "Night of Long Knives" for example.
 
Last edited:

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
suppose the armed people in the audience had fired back:
Suppose they people all grew wings and just flew away, that way nobody would have been hurt.

Or suppose the police hired a fortune teller and they knew in advance that the guy would be in the hotel room.

You can "suppose" all day long, but one thing you should keep in mind is that all gun owners licensed to carry are taught responsible use of said guns. So, unlike you, they would firstly know they could not hit the guy 1000 feet away so would not even try. Secondly, those same well trained responsible gun owners would know, due to their training, that they primary responsibility is to cover and escape. Protect themselves and their loved one by getting out of the line of fire. And thirdly responsible gun owners, if they did draw them firearms, would holster them with their hands empty and visible to the police when they arrived, and if approached by an officer tell him they are a licensed carrier and are armed and ask how the officer wants to handle it. (Which of course won't happen due to #1 and #2 above.)
 

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Because you haven't even grasped the point being made: suppose the armed people in the audience had fired back: how long would it have taken it to degenerate into a complete free for all with firearms going off right left and centre even before the police showed up? And when they did, how are they supposed to sort the good guys from the bad? The Vegas PD told armed civilians not to go to the scene for that very fear.
What-if-ism.
 

Adonia

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

I'm sorry, it was the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which allowed Protestants to bear arms within the law. of course as you point out the law was changed. Too bad.

Very rare.

But it has happened. I read all the time about home invasions and such and the people remain defenseless in their own homes.

Likewise rare and tend to be gang related ie: one vriminal with abgun shotting another criminal with a gun

Yes, but the gun banners at such things can never happen but the reality is they do.

And how exactly is a guy with a gun in a nightclub supposed to stop someone who's just thrown avid at him (our latest acid attack)? More likely someone innocent would be killed.

I was just pointing out all the terrible violence that occurs all the time in merry ole England. Tell me would you rather get shot or have acid thrown in your face? I'll take a bullet thank you very much.

Mostly yes, with one important exception: I know my kids won't get massacred at school by a gunman when I kiss them goodbye. Can you say the same?

Well you have a good point there. But I have accepted the reality that while we live on this earth there really is no safe place to be. Death lurks around every corner and it could happen any time to any one of us.

Evidence?

UK Telegraph 03 Sep 2012: A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.

Farmer Tony Martin shot a burglar dead in August of 1999. He was arrested, charged with murder and subsequently convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. And there are more stories like that out there.

You see, we can hang that drum too: we had to repel a foreign foe more deadly than yours and more recently. We then demobilised.

At the beginning of the war, you were crying for weapons to replace those left on the beaches at Dunkirk. Thankfully we sent them to you so at least your Home Guard had something to fight with.

...and killing schoolchildren it would appear.

With all your comments here, not once have I seen you place the blame on the shooter. That rifle did not magically pick itself up, trot down to the school and start killing those students. I don't want anyone to get needlessly killed, but the gun simply did not fire itself.

"The only answer to a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with a gun."

That is a ridiculous platitude. It remains a fact though, that the teacher who got killed after getting his kids into a classroom, had he had a firearm at least would have had a chance to survive. He didn't, and he didn't

But why not remove one part of your problem by reducing the number of guns in circulation? Just because one part of a mechanism is broke doesn't mean that you neglect other parts.

Because we have these rights that you just do not understand. The only way would be confiscation as no person would give their rifles up willingly. I guarantee you that if the authorities tried to get the guns from the people, it would get bloody real fast.
 

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But...to return to the debate in hand...

What happened to the other bit of the 2A, BTW, you know, the bit about having a well-regulated militia? Surely that's the National Guard, Army and the police? Why do all these other guys need guns under the 2A? At the very least, shouldn't you have the 'well-regulated' bit even if yiu dont have a proper militia, if you're going to allow civvies to have guns, like for example in Switzerland? Mandatory training, courses, inspections, keeping locked away etc?
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wrong again. Read the Federalist Papers #46 to educate yourself regarding the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.

By the way, the Federalist Papers #46 was written by James Madison, the same guy who wrote the 2nd amendment.
So we come back to the viability if an 18th century solution to a 21st century problem.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
Are they required to undergo any form of military training? If not, on what sense can they be held to constitute a militia
 

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are they required to undergo any form of military training? If not, on what sense can they be held to constitute a militia
That's the definition according to federal law. Plain as it says. I can't dumb it down any more. Did you see any mention of training (in the case if males)? If not, it's because there isn't any.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
So we come back to the viability if an 18th century solution to a 21st century problem.
Once again the issue flies far over your head. You just can't seem to understand having an inalienable, enumerated Constitutional right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top