Second Amendment on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 2

Negan tried that in New Orleans when Katrina hit, he took a bunch of guns by force and was later told by the 5th Circuit that he had broken the law. He was threatned with prosecution if there was a dely in returning the guns.

As for the Homeland Security Act, please provide these sections, I am not familliar with those.

Marital law sounds a lot like a tyranical government and the reason the 2nd was written. I have to admit if they come for my guns, they're going to get them, bullets first.

I would provide the section for you, but since the act is sooooo secret that even members of Congress haven't seen all of it yet I don't have that information.
As far as Katrina/Nagen are concerned I don't think the Act was completed & in force at the time of Katrina.

As far as taking MY guns: Cold dead hands & all that!

Haaaa, I knew this thread would have a good outcome! Now I HAVE to buy it just to read the articles.

Since I started this thread, I guess I'll weigh in with my 2 cents. I agree the 2nd guarantees an individual right. I do not have a problem with reasonable limitations on that right. By reasonable limitations, I mean convicted felons, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, whack-jobs, etc not being allowed to have guns. They are already prohibited by statute, and rightly so. Grenades and rocket launchers...well, they should be registered. My opinion. We need accountability on these kinds of weapons.

AV8R-

I'm curious to know why you believe convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to possess/own firearms (if the crime they were convicted of didn't involve a gun and/or violent). Felonies cover a broad spectrum of non-violent crimes as well. Postal fraud, DUI, shoplifting over a certain amount, tax evasion, down to possession of an American Bald Eagle feather....just to name a few. Hasn't a person had paid his/her debt to society already by serving time (providing they aren't on probation or parole)? Illegal aliens, I would agree with since they shouldn't be here in the first place. Drug addicts? Are we speaking of people like street crackheads addicted to illegal drugs or are we speaking about people like Rush Limbaugh addicted to prescription meds or both? What about alcoholics? Smokers? "Whack-jobs"- I wonder who and how one determines who is fit and unfit. Cops who have been subjected to psychological evaluations have snapped. Military people have snapped. People who jump through all the hoops and have led model lives snap. I tend to believe under any number of given circumstances all of us could snap and could be considered "whack-jobs". Yes, there are laws already on the books that address these kinds of people. A nice indirect way of gun control also- every year laws that were once misdemeanors become felonies. Don't these people have a right to protect themselves as any "law abiding" citizen?

(Idle thought here) I wonder those with a gasoline tank in their garage for their lawmowers could be charged with the crime of "possession of explosive materials".

Define "Whack-job".

For the purposes of this thread, a "whack job" is defined by Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 922:

"has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution"

Whack job is the technical jargon.

As far as I'm concerned, once the government tries to take what little means I have to defend myself from tyranny, then it is time to exercise my 2nd amendment rights to their fullest extent. You can try to play games with the wording of the amendment, but if you look just a little further into what the founders actually thought about the issue, it is clear that they intended that we bear arms in order to defend our inalienable rights from tyrants.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

I think everyone should be able to buy guns. Any gun. It's the bullets they should charge a lot of money for. Make bullets about 10k each. No more innocent bystanders, no more doctors pulling bullets out, cause if you missed, the shooter would be digging the bullet out, and trying to re-shoot it. Just imagine the conversation. "Man, I'm going to shoot you, I'm going to get this second job, toss a bullet on law-away, and when that time comes, it's in your head!"

I heard something similar to the above on a comedy show I saw a while back. Good $hit...


I do also agree that if you own an illegal firearm, you should go to prison for a long time. Shoot it, longer. Kill someone, life w/o parole. Sometimes you get less time for actually killing someone than you do for attempting to kill someone. Lock em all up, let em know that it is not tolerated. I wish people could just box like back in the day. No guns, knives, bats. Just fists, but this day in age, you get in trouble for that also...Which is so ignorant...

"It's the bullets they should charge a lot of money for. Make bullets about 10k each."

Yep, and we know who would have access to the illegal black market bullets, wouldn't we? Not the law-abiding, taxpaying gun owners, but the criminal minset who knows how to come up with the illegal gun to shoot those illegal (or stolen) bullets.

When caught with an illegal weapon, or bullet, Just shoot em in the leg. Blow their foot off. Bet you they won't do it again...And their friends will be down at Guns for Toys, or whatever that thing is called, turning in theirs. Be like the old days, just cut / shoot a foot off, or a hand. Either one will work.

Note: This post is a continuation of a thread in the general forum entitled "Charleton Heston died." The thread quickly took a political turn so I follow up here to a post by made byHipKat in the Charleton Heston thread:

Of course there is no constitutional right to threaten another person, and there are statutory limitations on the person in your example from carrying or possessing a weapon. Somehow I think you know that, which is likely why you resorted to a strawman argument.

See my response above. Again, strawman argument. There is no constitutional amendment protecting violence, it is a criminal act.

There are approximately 300 million people in this country. In order for the police to effectively protect every citizen, 50% of the population would need to be cops, on duty 24/7 protecting the other 50%. That's 150 million cops on duty 24/7. Law enforcement protection is a fallacy, it always has been, and the Courts recognize it. There are a number of cases that can be found with a google search, the most famous of which is probably Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). The Court held that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" And this from the D.C. Circuit, where guns have been outlawed for decades. (That may soon change though, SCOTUS will likely release it's decision in D.C. v. Heller in the next few months). Sorry HipKat, but you had better be ready to protect yourself. Nobody else is required to.

Those are good rebuttals, except that instead of 50% being law enforcement, how about 90% being law abiders?
Of course that expands into a repressed society turning to crime because the opportunites are not there for everyone.
Because the lack of a health plan for every citizen allows a drug induced crime spree, fed by a drug influenced group of people that have no way to seek treatment, so instead just keep the circle going.

I guess that's a tangent in another direction, but when you refer to the criminal element, that's where most of it comes from.

Our rights are so very important!

In the state of Utah since 2004, College policies have changed to allow faculty to carry a concealed weapon as a preventative measure against gun violence in school. There have been no incidents of students making threats since this amendment was implemented and updated.

Would the threat be any less if he had an ax, chainsaw, or tiny little bottle of strychnine?

Yeah.
I can out run a guy with an axe.
I'm pretty super, but I'm not superman