"All Private Guns Will Be Confiscated By September 2009..."

[Omega]

The spark notes version is they are needed for personal protection, something the police are not willing to or simply can not do.

Anyways it won't happen. To legally do such a thing, the second amendment would have to be repealed. This alone would probably spark a second civil war. Reason being, it would set a precedent allowing other parts of the Bill of Rights to be removed or changed. If the second amendment was found invalid, what about the others? Are they also invalid? By repealing any of the articles in the Bill of Rights, the entire bill is open to further change. And believe me, that is not "change you can believe in".

I won't even attack the current political head for the US, I think the problem is way deeper and as with anything, to solve a problem, you need to strike the root.

To answer crenn's question:

"Why carry a gun? A whole police officer is too heavy.":
Lets say somebody has broken into your house and is threatening your physical well-being or the physical well-being of one of your family members or other occupants of the house. Which one is more effective:
1. Pulling out a rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc
2. Calling the police and waiting for them to arrive.

I am going to wager my money on #1, every time. I do not want to have to wait for the police to come and handle the situation (in the 5-10 minutes minimum drive time it would take from the PD to my house, even going balls out, assuming no traffic), in which time myself or my family/friends could get injured/killed. I would much rather pull a gun and either repel them (call the PD afterwords), or, if need be, kill them. If somebody holds any of my family members at gunpoint and refuses to drop their weapon when told to, I will shoot them, and, while a shot to injure and not kill would be preferable, I will shoot to kill if need be. No questions asked. I can and will not let myself sit by while people endanger those close to me, and I would not want the baddie ever getting the opportunity to commit crimes again, especially when putting others lives at stake. I couldn't sleep at night afterwords if I sat by and watched or let somebody kill or injure somebody close to me. No individual or group of individuals should have control over whether somebody can live or die -- and I'm no exception to that -- but I'd much rather live with the blood on my hands than to know somebody else got away with something I could have prevented.


"Who do you call when the Police or government break the law?":
The entire reason for the second amendment is pretty simple: Allow people to defend themselves against the government. You can not rely on the government to protect you and your best interests in every situation. Government has it's flaws. Citizens need to have the power to stand up against the government when the government is wronging them. I, in no way advocate resisting police officers, but if I see police doing something blatantly inappropriate and illegal (like raping somebody, or lesser extremes), again, I am going to stand up and do something about it. Again, this idea of standing up for the greater good. I'll be less keen on the idea of harming a police officer, but it's the same thing as above. If I don't stand up for what I believe is right, I don't think I could live with myself.

"I would rather have something and not need it..."
"...than need it and not have it."

I pray that I will never have to take aim at somebody holding a family member at gunpoint. I pray that I will never have to intervene and stand up for myself or anybody else being wronged by the government or police. But as much as I don't want these things to happen, they could, and I'll be damned if I'm not prepared and I don't take action. Simple as that.

So crenn, that's why, I at least, believe in owning a gun.

[Oneslowz28]

As a life time member of the NRA, a CCW permit holder in 2 states, and the owner of 21 guns, I can honestly say that they will not take one single fire arm from me as long at there is still a breath in my body. For over 200 years I have had the right to bear arms and I will not stand silent. I will be writing a lengthy letter to my congressman tomorrow.

I got my first real gun at 8 years old. It was a marlin .22 and I used it to shoot squirrel and targets. (I say first real gun because I had several pellet and bb guns by that time) My grandfather bought me my first shotgun the next year and by the time I was 10 I was shooting deer with a .270. When I turned 14 he gave me a 30-06 and since I have killed many deer with it. The week I turned 21 I purchased my first handgun, a Springfield Armory XD .45acp. 2 months later I got my CCW and have been carrying either a kel-tec .380 or a 4" barrel XD .45 every day. When my grandfather died my uncle and I split his gun collection with me getting about 30% of the collection. Some of the guns I own are quite valuable and in terms of family history they are priceless.

I hear all the time from foreign friends who think we Americans are nothing but trigger happy barbarians who look for reasons to kill. That is about as far from the truth as possible. Most of us who own guns do so as a hobby or for personal protection reasons. I don't know the percentages but I know the actual percentage of people who legally buy a gun from a licensed dealer and commit a crime with that same gun is very very low. 99% of us legal gun owners are law abiding citizens who have no intentions of breaking the law.

You can take every single gun there is away from us legal law abiding citizens and you have done nothing to deter violence and gun related crimes. Why you ask? Because those of us who are purchasing the fire arms and owning the fire arms legally are not the ones committing the crimes. Its the people who buy them out of trunks and basements or who steal them or are given one in a gang who are committing the crimes. If you take away guns then only criminals will own guns and that leaves the rest of us open to becoming victims of crime.

They outlawed pot and look what happened. Its popularity increased and anyone in any city in America can get some easier than they can go to the store and by a beer. They outlawed any form of consumable alcohol in the 30's. Did that stop anyone? NO! Speak easy's and moon shiners just flourished. If you do the research you will see that prohibition made more people drink because of the taboo of doing something illegal. Hell look at moonshine, it has been outlawed ever since prohibition in the 30's and still every town in America has someone who distills their own liquor and sells it. If you out law guns then people will still get their hands on them.

[Mach]

The source of your first article is Sorcha Faal aka David Booth, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304918/pg1.

I like this story better tho:
‘Ship of Giants’ Said Attacked By Israel in Strike on Syria

[Luke122]

Here's a great thread from another forum that I'm on.

[mtekk]

And it's in the constitution that the first 10 amendments can't be repealed.

IIRC that isn't true. It's been more or less a "gentleman's rule" that you don't try to repeal parts of the Bill of Rights. There may be more substantial things standing in the way, but it would be hard for the constitution itself to say "you can't touch this" when the "this" did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution (the result is no one would have signed the constitution if such clause existed, as the non existent bill could claim anything). Additionally, an amendment to the constitution can overwrite any clause in the constitution. So they could remove any clause protecting the Bill of Rights (they abolished slavery, and removed the clause that stated that slaves only counted as part of a person (3/5 to be exact)).

[Omega]

Hoax or not, there's still a lot of good discussion in this thread IMO.

[nevermind1534]

IIRC that isn't true. It's been more or less a "gentleman's rule" that you don't try to repeal parts of the Bill of Rights. There may be more substantial things standing in the way, but it would be hard for the constitution itself to say "you can't touch this" when the "this" did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution (the result is no one would have signed the constitution if such clause existed, as the non existent bill could claim anything). Additionally, an amendment to the constitution can overwrite any clause in the constitution. So they could remove any clause protecting the Bill of Rights (they abolished slavery, and removed the clause that stated that slaves only counted as part of a person (3/5 to be exact)).

I was sure that it was in there, but I couldn't find anything to support me, so you must be right.

[mtekk]

I was sure that it was in there, but I couldn't find anything to support me, so you must be right.

You may be thinking of the fact that many of those that signed the constitution did it on the condition that a set of amendments guaranteeing basic rights would be passed "shortly" after that of the constitution (again, that's if I remember the details correctly from a class I took over three years ago. It doesn't help that my brain is a glob of electrostatics and magneto statics equations at the moment).

[hinow41]

Anyways it won't happen. To legally do such a thing, the second amendment would have to be repealed. This alone would probably spark a second civil war. Reason being, it would set a precedent allowing other parts of the Bill of Rights to be removed or changed. If the second amendment was found invalid, what about the others? Are they also invalid? By repealing any of the articles in the Bill of Rights, the entire bill is open to further change. And believe me, that is not "change you can believe in".

If there was a civil war I want to be on the side with the guns

[nevermind1534]

You may be thinking of the fact that many of those that signed the constitution did it on the condition that a set of amendments guaranteeing basic rights would be passed "shortly" after that of the constitution (again, that's if I remember the details correctly from a class I took over three years ago. It doesn't help that my brain is a glob of electrostatics and magneto statics equations at the moment).

That was true, but I thought that it was in there somewhere that they couldn't be repealed, but I guess I'm wrong.