Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tl;dr

The constitution is holy and infallible, unless it ever gets changed to something I don't like. Then feth the thing, I'll be an outlaw.

If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

And when would you ever need to arm a Militia?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

It exists so I can pack my neighbor's old frige with tannerite and shoot that fether from a dangerously close position...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

And when would you ever need to arm a Militia?

Ooh ooh I know! When the Great Dictator* turns the armed forces against us!

* - The Great Dictator is copyright Charlie Chaplin, 1940

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

Might have been true at one point.

But at some point enough people on the SCOTUS decided that this was not the case.

hotsauceman1

I still have my guns. Enjoy your opinion.

And if for some strange reason the constitution gets amended to ban them?

Will you still be "'merica! Constitution! Hurr Durr!"?

No.

As posted above, I'll be criminal scum.

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

Might have been true at one point.

But at some point enough people on the SCOTUS decided that this was not the case.

Im all for gun rights, Im not for people ignoring historical context to things if people say things like "The Founding Fathers believed in the right for individual citizens to own guns" that is wrong.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

Might have been true at one point.

But at some point enough people on the SCOTUS decided that this was not the case.

Im all for gun rights, Im not for people ignoring historical context to things if people say things like "The Founding Fathers believed in the right for individual citizens to own guns" that is wrong.

The founding fathers advocated gun ownership for all because at the time the people were the militia. Until an army could be stood up, it was up to average joe to defend himself (in the event of sovereign nations invading) and the nation. And it was average joe's job to defend himself and family/property (because at the time we were very much a frontier nation, and with no standing law enforcement, and individuals right to defense was even greater than it is now)

jamesk1973 wrote:
No.

As posted above, I'll be criminal scum.

Good to know that you don't care about the constitution now then.

d-usa

You are hard to read. Are you for, against, or only playing devil's advocate?

 d-usa wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
No.

As posted above, I'll be criminal scum.

Good to know that you don't care about the constitution now then.

Thing is, we all know that not enough of the country could agree to such an amendment, and so this would come down to individual state laws. In which case, I'd do everything I could to never go to those states, move out of them (if I lived there) or, if none of those were viable options, just be an outlaw.

It really is in the same vein as the Prohibition acts... When they outlawed alcohol, we became a nation of outlaws.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

It really is in the same vein as the Prohibition acts... When they outlawed alcohol, we became a nation of outlaws.

And we don't even have a "right" to drink alcohol.

Imagine a bunch of people who've grown up their entire lives seeing something they do consider a right going away tomorrow.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
No.

As posted above, I'll be criminal scum.

Good to know that you don't care about the constitution now then.

Thing is, we all know that not enough of the country could agree to such an amendment, and so this would come down to individual state laws. In which case, I'd do everything I could to never go to those states, move out of them (if I lived there) or, if none of those were viable options, just be an outlaw.

I know that we wouldn't get such an amendment. It's mostly just a point that you can't take people like that seriously. You can't wrap the constitution around yourself like a blanket and weep while going "this holiest of documents ever written by man must be protected and obeyed at all costs, it says we can have guns and because it is the supreme law of the land it must be obeyed by all" and then just decide "Constitution? Feth it" when the constitutional process of amending it is followed and something that used to be allowed is now banned and now you don't think it is worth the paper it was written on. Why should the Government obey it when people already say that they won't obey it themselves?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:
d-usa

You are hard to read. Are you for, against, or only playing devil's advocate?

You are hard to read. Are you for or against the Constitution?

Besides, appealing to the constituiton is just a form of appealing to illegitimate authority

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

You should probably read what the founding fathers actually said about the Second Amendment before making such sweeping statements.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Besides, appealing to the constituiton is just a form of appealing to illegitimate authority

I'm slow. You're gonna have to explain that one to me.

The responsibility to defend and support the Constitution seems to pop up in a lot of Oaths of Office to this day. Including the one POTUS and congresscritters take. Are you really claiming the constitution is an illegitimate authority? If so, do you advocate getting rid of the whole federal gov't?

The same "free ID" logic pushed by the pro-ID conservatives (who are also often the pro-gun crowd) could be used for an "everybody gets a free trigger lock" argument. No burden to gun owners, since the trigger lock is free and now you can be required to store it safely, just like you can be required to show ID if it's free.

I think everyone gets a free trigger lock already. The last five pistols we bought had trigger locks with them.

 Frazzled wrote:
The same "free ID" logic pushed by the pro-ID conservatives (who are also often the pro-gun crowd) could be used for an "everybody gets a free trigger lock" argument. No burden to gun owners, since the trigger lock is free and now you can be required to store it safely, just like you can be required to show ID if it's free.

I think everyone gets a free trigger lock already. The last five pistols we bought had trigger locks with them.

Mine didn't

But then again I got it from a guy named Manny from Little Havana, and the serial number seems to be filed off...

 Alfndrate wrote:

But then again I got it from a guy named Manny from Little Havana, and the serial number seems to be filed off...

My creepy gun friend in college called that his "drop gun".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Besides, appealing to the constituiton is just a form of appealing to illegitimate authority

That statement lacks sanity. It is the ULTIMATE authority in the US. Quit being ignorant.

Those trigger locks are not free. The manufacturer may eat part of the cost of including them with each weapon (accepting less profit per unit sold), but the buyer takes on part of the cost too. Some states mandate new weapons include them so many manufacturers put them on all weapons (not just ones sold where the inclusion is mandatory).

The last weapons I've bought had the dumb things. More stuff for the recycle bin...

 Frazzled wrote:

The same "free ID" logic pushed by the pro-ID conservatives (who are also often the pro-gun crowd) could be used for an "everybody gets a free trigger lock" argument. No burden to gun owners, since the trigger lock is free and now you can be required to store it safely, just like you can be required to show ID if it's free.

I think everyone gets a free trigger lock already. The last five pistols we bought had trigger locks with them.

That's not really a government thing though. I think it's just something that gun manufacturers include free-of-charge in the box (or free-but-already-worked-into-the-price-of-the-gun). I would love to think that it was out of the goodness in their hearts, but I imagine it's just to prevent a lawsuit from somebody that will accuse them of selling them something dangerous after their kid shoots himself with it...

Other than older pawn-shop rifles I think every weapon I have purchased had a trigger lock.

Edit: Saw CptJake's post. I wasn't sure if some states required them.

I was partially wrong. Inclusion (as of 2005) seems to be a Fed mandate (for handguns), though several states also have laws.

http://smartgunlaws.org/locking-devices-policy-summary/

Might as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html

 d-usa wrote:
Might as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html

Yup... watching this with interest. That's the general area where my folks lives.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The house I'm moving to in the coming months has an HOA, and while they certainly will have rules against that sort of thing, it's not really something that AFAIK is very legally enforceable. As I will be the one paying the mortgage on that house, they cant very well evict me

Be careful. You'd be amazed at how enforceable they are.

Tons of stories about people refusing to pay some HOA fine, join the HOA, or falling behind on a few hundred bucks in dues, and the HOA seizes the house and sells it at auction.

My advice to you is to strongly reconsider buying a house that requires you to join a HOA.

/end threadjack

hotsauceman1 wrote:If the constitution is invoked for the second amendment I point out the the original intent was that the founding fathers did not believe in a standing army and it was meant to arm Militias. Just histroy, you can argue gun rights all you want, But dont ignore the reason the second amendment really exists.

d-usa wrote:Might have been true at one point.

But at some point enough people on the SCOTUS decided that this was not the case.

D already answered you, but to expand on it, the idea that the second amendment was for militias exclusively was behind the Washington, DC gun ban. It was overturned in 2008. You may read about it here. The (minority) dissent expressly mentions the theory Hotsauceman espouses.

 d-usa wrote:
tl;dr

The constitution is holy and infallible, unless it ever gets changed to something I don't like. Then feth the thing, I'll be an outlaw.

Well, when all else fails...

d-usa wrote: You are hard to read. Are you for or against the Constitution?

I am for the Constitution.

The day that one of the Bill of Rights is abolished, is the day that our country ceases to exist.

At that point it will be game on.

jamesk1973 wrote:

d-usa wrote: You are hard to read. Are you for or against the Constitution?

I am for the Constitution.

The day that one of the Bill of Rights is abolished, is the day that our country ceases to exist.

At that point it will be game on.

So you are not for the Constitution.