The second amendment whats it mean to you

Well, first off TOG is not my friend any more than you are. TOG is someone who posts in the Political Forum with whom I often agree.

I haven't watched Dad's Army in many years but did watch it on a regular basic when it was shown on Public Television here.

National security is not what I am "all about but it is part of what I am about.

I have to believe, with your line of thought and your condescending manner in this thread, that you know very little about the military and military tactics. You keep making fun of firearms with comments like "your pop guns". Do you even understand firearms?

 

and I told you a week ago I have no issue with hunting. I enjoy the venison and wild boar hunt groups round here offer at the end of the season and the hunt usually puts on a huge free lunch for the town to thank them for access to their land.
Wild boar are a menace. They dig up your land and reproduce at speed. When someone all the hunt they come to eradicate them from properties.
Deer hide in maize fields and eat their way out from the inside because you can't see them.

But your justifications for having guns such as national security and fending off burglars don't hold.
Why not just say you enjoy hunting and stop pretending to be a national hero?

Perhaps if you made it less easy to kill each other by restricting gun ownership, you may come to allow the police to do its job without being interfered with.

 

And that is done with money. Trips to Israel aren't free.

 

You only think you have explained why. You know nothing of me or what my knowledge and experience with the military is. For that matter you know nothing about the firearms I own. I am not sure you actually know anything about firearms.

And who would be targeting individuals with rifles providing homeland security?

 

Oh stop it.
You can do better than that.

 

I am not going to go round this again.
It is physically impossible for any number of people to defend their home or country with guns available, against a serious military assault.
I am done here. There is nothing new to add and you haven't come close to making yourself necessary.
Enjoy your hunting. Leave national security to those who have the means to protect it.

 

You are extremely insulting with your continued "hero" BS. I in no way am pretending to be a hero, have no desire to be a hero. I was always one of those soldiers who believed in not sharing a foxhole with anyone braver then me. I am former military and as such am subject to recall for a period of time.

As for the police doing their job, in the area I live in there is not always time to wait for a cop. It was not too long ago that a neighbor had to shoot a man who was trying to sexually assault her mother. Had she waited for the police things might have been very different. She and her mother are still alive; the rapist is not.

 

I was think the same of you.

You only think you have explained why. You know nothing of me or what my knowledge and experience with the military is. For that matter you know nothing about the firearms I own. I am not sure you actually know anything about firearms.

And who would be targeting individuals with rifles providing homeland security?

You really seem to out of your element in this thread. From most of your comments I have to believe you have very little understanding of the US military and military tactics. All battles are not fought with tanks, aircraft and satellites.

 

Wh

en you ave to repeat verbatim another post, I know there is nothing left to be said.

 

I repeated myself because your reply to my post was this:

I was thinking you could do better too so I posted my comments a second time.

 

Correct. That's why I posted most states. Using your info, 44/50.

 

Guns as a statement says "I have some power over what others want to inflict on my life." You made a statement about one person facing a tank with a handgun. I thought that seemed ridiculous of course. Take your logic a little farther. Somewhere individuals had to enter that tank. They are just as vulnerable as any one else. Individuals who hold a little power over their own lives "collectively" when confronted with tyranny, can unite against such. Most of us prefer to have a little power to protect those around us, keep tyranny at bay, and pose resistance to untethered power. This is why we have a second amendment. In spite of all the technology.....we are all individuals.

 

Think most understand your argument. We are weak little citizens so we should just face the fact we must always submit when an elite force wants us to roll over and play dead.

 

Well I don't want you to carry on thinking you can make much difference.
That is why the opposition are called "elite".

 

sigh.
You have been watching too much media.

Why do you think the US government has spent trillions of dollars developing its military capability?
Because little people with handguns are useless in the defense of the nation against an invading force.
This is not Bonanza or How the West Was Won. This is warfare by satellite. Cyber warfare, which when used, will knock out the opposition in a matter of hours. This is missiles, submarine attacks, missile to missile warfare. This is jet fighters dropping incredible bombs that can wipe out a town in one go.
What are you?
People inside tanks aren't vulnerable. YOU are.
In fact I find the whole idea of owning a gun to help national security funny. I never dreamed anyone would take it seriously...maybe you just need some high sounding reason to justify it or you like playing in the back yard with the other kids, pretending to save the world. But seriously I cannot believe someone sold you this nonsense. Was it the same guy who sold you that gun?

 

Why don't you try and research a little about the "Elite King George" and what he tried to do to my ancestors! We did not descend from fearful people!

 

You still don't grasp it. I am one little guy with a gun.(actually more than one) I know countless other who have many many guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Do you understand that to take over a nation....you have to occupy that. Occupation can bleed you dry. (Kind of like Afghanistan, Viet Nam, and Iraq. An armed populace can be very very hard to subdue. Especially when you have a large ocean on each side. Is it worth tyrants (bullies) to take it on? We are to occupy our liberty until Armeggedon. Then it is my belief a larger power than even what you described will take control.
Again you don't understand......people have to get into tanks, they have to get out of tanks. They don't live in tanks. Even tyrants don't want to blow everyone to bits, they want power over others. At sometime, they have to have a face to face meeting. At that time, some of us will be armed!

Think you watch too much Star Wars. With a gun to the head.....even Vladimeer Putin will feel threatened!

 

Pixie.....if guns are of no concern to tyrants, why is it only tyrants (purveyors of Big Government and Mandates) want to take them away? They aren't concerned about murder by gun. If they were, they would enforce our gun laws and not let repeated gun violators out of prison, but they do! They want complete control with the least resistance!

 

They do.
Contrary to -your- claim, state legislatures do not.
You were wrong.
Admit it and move on.

 

The amendment means what is says; that citizens can possess weapons. What weapons or what quantities is not addressed.

 

Common, yes. Sense, not so much. That would mean that an inanimate object transmits signals to the owners brain altering their behavior. I don't believe this, but those that do should fashion a head covering to block such signals. Tinfoil, perhaps

As far as knowing that gun possession is an advantage, that would mean that gun laws only provide criminals with easy victims.

 

Yes it’s called eyesight and processing of information. Such is the impact of something like reading these words and coming up with your reply. A gun is no different. It conveys power through the ideas it presents to others. Don’t be surprised when “only criminals have guns” is proven false when as usual, gun crime is correlated with gun ownership.

 

So, you're in favor or arms infringement. Against the 2A.

It is a constitutional right to own claymores.

 

Which per the letter of 2A. Any and all is one option. None is another option. Or something in between.

I've seen some in this thread are for infringements on arms ownership. I assume most are.
The question is, where does the line in the sand get drawn.

But per the letter, 'shall not be infringed' are the words.

 

I understand that you may view correlation as proof. A logic 101 course can fix that.

I never said "only criminals"

I live in Los Angeles where second amendment rights are unrecognizable. Almost no CCWs are issued to common citizens, so only cops, judges, and criminals carry guns here.