Can someone tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says you can carry machine guns?

[Thumpalumpacus]

How about 12 rounds in under 3 seconds from a revolver and he had to reload in between. Jerry Miculek is accurate at this speed too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

Now do it with a musket. 

Sure ... when you restrict your free speech to parchment or the unaided voice.

[Brian37]

On top of my friend from Oklahoma, a friend of 16 years, a guy in his mid 30s raised with firearms, this rural "redneck" in this video

 too is also NOT for an all out ban, but even he recognizes we have a problem.

---

Now do it with a musket. 

Sure ... when you restrict your free speech to parchment or the unaided voice.

What do you mean by "unaided voice"? Not sure what you mean by this, but below is what I am seeing. Feel free to correct me if i got it wrong.

The government is there to protect the voice of all sides, thus the First Amendment, the First Amendment does not say "Only when one sect of a population gets everything they want 100% of the time".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now do it with a musket. 

Sure ... when you restrict your free speech to parchment or the unaided voice.

Some people post shit at 120/minute.

[Nanny]

The reason we have guns is to kill other living creatures.  Guns kill so that you don't have to get up close.  Long range rifles keep you even farther away from the creature that you intend to kill.

The reason that we have large capacity magazines is so we can shoot more times before reloading; so killing more living creatures or giving us more of a chance to kill one if conditions are not conducive to a single-shot kill.

The reason that the Bill of Rights includes the common sense Second Amendment is to provide The People with the means to keep their governments free of tyrants and to keep their liberties intact, as well as, provide for the defense of their communities and nation.  It was such a common sense liberty that there were many who thought it need not be included in this extremely important document.

Our Constitution has always been to protect the rights of the individual and the states, while allowing for a well-controlled central government.

So...it IS about me.  It IS about each of us and what rights we have guaranteed by the supreme law of our land.

In some locales, citizens are encouraged to responsibly own at least one firearm per household and I think there is one county that makes it a local law to do so.

Each and every regulation acts to restrict in some manner the right of the individual to bear arms.  

In the situations described in the Second Amendment, The People should want up-to-date firearms with large capacity magazines and more than just pistols and rifles in order to be "well regulated."  

Would it be a fool's errand to stand against tyranny?  Do we currently see citizens of nations standing against tyranny without guns?  Are they fools?  Do they have a natural right to fight against tyranny in their own countries?  Would you fight with them if you were a citizen there?  Would you rather have a gun?

Those who carry long rifles in public do so to make the point that each of us has that right.  Too many have forgotten that it is the individual who is of supreme importance in the framing of the Constitution.  How can many be granted the liberty to govern themselves and still form a nation united?  That was a tricky business, which I think went well.  It was always accepted that its citizens must be responsible, informed and moral for it to keep working well.

Was it the gun that became the "fly in the ointment" or was it something else?  Is the gun just an easy target for those who WANT a different America now?  When I read the quotes of Leftists who would alter the Bill of Rights in many ways, I see the gun as just that; proceed down this path and then The People will be lambs to the slaughter and we will finally have our Communist America.

This is why for many of us we agree; "from my cold dead hands."

Are we any more extreme than others whose vision is for America in serfdom?  

Stop discussing who wants bans or partial bans or restrictions and laws and get to the heart of why we have a Bill of Rights, which includes a Second Amendment, a First Amendment, etc.

-Jeanne

Stop discussing rights while skipping the responsibility part, and even the 2nd has the word "regulated" in it, and regulations are what hold us to being responsible. 

You have a right to a car, you don't have a right to a 5 lane wide monster truck on a public highway. 

You have a right to drink beer, but not drink and drive. You have a right to drink beer, but not sell it to kids.

Bans on some things are not oppression. You have a right to buy Asprin, but without a medical degree you don't have a right to prescribe codine or morphine. 

Yes we have a First Amendment too, and part of that is my right to say we have a problem with how we view firearms as a society. 

Regulations are not oppressing anyone's rights, not regulating speech and not regulation of firearms.

So many issues with this post.

Nobody is ignoring the responsibility of firearms ownership in this thread. To use your own tricks, go find where anyone says that it should be a free-for-all?

I pointed out that AR-15s without selectable fire are by definition not machine guns. I also pointed out that there is the 2A and then there are laws like the NFA that carve out things like machine guns (>1 bang per squeeze). Then there are state laws and local ordinances. I have friends who don't want firearms in their houses and I do not carry when I visit them because their house, their rules. 

Show me where I have the "right" to own a car, please. If I have the resources I can purchase a car. Owning a car is not an inalienable right. 

Show me where I have the "right" to drink beer, please. If I'm under a certain magic age I clearly do not have that right. 

Your drinking and driving example is telling. We already have laws that cover injury caused to other persons. Who is harmed if Tex drinks a couple of beers and then drives home safely? Where exactly is the harm? You won't find one because drink-driving is a malum prohibitum law. It's bad because we say so. If some drunk crashes into my car but does no harm, I have the legal right to restitution. The drunk is legally accountable for her actions. What if it was some fanboi street racer instead? what exactly changes if someone operates negligently, without influence of chemistry, and causes harm? Should we pass laws that say if fanboi street racers do harm they can be double-secret punished? Should we allow traffic stops on suspicion of being a fanboi?

Who chooses whether bans on some things are oppression? Who is the umpire? Be careful not to say "the majority." The rights and interests of the minority are legally protected.

So you're just mad because, in your opinion, you think there are too many guns in the USA. To that I say there's no putting the cork back in. You can either choose to own firearms or not to own them. That's your right. 

It's clear that you have a passing knowledge of some firearms stuff, but you really don't understand how guns are regulated here. There are hundreds of pages of legislation at every level. So other than just wanting fewer guns, what is your point?

Here's a challenge for you. Try to reply without cursing.

[Silver]

You actually do not have the "right" to own a gun, either. At least not in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the second amendment. The courts rectified the interpreted meaning to make crazy gun owners happy, which was a mistake.

[Nanny]

You actually do not have the "right" to own a gun, either.  At least not in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the second amendment.  The courts rectified the interpreted meaning to make crazy gun owners happy, which was a mistake.

SCOTUS confirmed in Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. McDonald confirmed that the 2A applies to the states under the 14th amendment. 

Heller

McDonald

Also, just because you have a medical degree confers no prescribing rights. You need a license from the state to prescribe or dispense drugs.

[Brian37]

Stop discussing rights while skipping the responsibility part, and even the 2nd has the word "regulated" in it, and regulations are what hold us to being responsible. 

You have a right to a car, you don't have a right to a 5 lane wide monster truck on a public highway. 

You have a right to drink beer, but not drink and drive. You have a right to drink beer, but not sell it to kids.

Bans on some things are not oppression. You have a right to buy Asprin, but without a medical degree you don't have a right to prescribe codine or morphine. 

Yes we have a First Amendment too, and part of that is my right to say we have a problem with how we view firearms as a society. 

Regulations are not oppressing anyone's rights, not regulating speech and not regulation of firearms.

So many issues with this post.

Nobody is ignoring the responsibility of firearms ownership in this thread. To use your own tricks, go find where anyone says that it should be a free-for-all?

I pointed out that AR-15s without selectable fire are by definition not machine guns. I also pointed out that there is the 2A and then there are laws like the NFA that carve out things like machine guns (>1 bang per squeeze). Then there are state laws and local ordinances. I have friends who don't want firearms in their houses and I do not carry when I visit them because their house, their rules. 

Show me where I have the "right" to own a car, please. If I have the resources I can purchase a car. Owning a car is not an inalienable right. 

Show me where I have the "right" to drink beer, please. If I'm under a certain magic age I clearly do not have that right. 

Your drinking and driving example is telling. We already have laws that cover injury caused to other persons. Who is harmed if Tex drinks a couple of beers and then drives home safely? Where exactly is the harm? You won't find one because drink-driving is a malum prohibitum law. It's bad because we say so. If some drunk crashes into my car but does no harm, I have the legal right to restitution. The drunk is legally accountable for her actions. What if it was some fanboi street racer instead? what exactly changes if someone operates negligently, without influence of chemistry, and causes harm? Should we pass laws that say if fanboi street racers do harm they can be double-secret punished? Should we allow traffic stops on suspicion of being a fanboi?

Who chooses whether bans on some things are oppression? Who is the umpire? Be careful not to say "the majority." The rights and interests of the minority are legally protected.

So you're just mad because, in your opinion, you think there are too many guns in the USA. To that I say there's no putting the cork back in. You can either choose to own firearms or not to own them. That's your right. 

It's clear that you have a passing knowledge of some firearms stuff, but you really don't understand how guns are regulated here. There are hundreds of pages of legislation at every level. So other than just wanting fewer guns, what is your point?

Here's a challenge for you. Try to reply without cursing.

Far too many are. And unfortunately it seems you are too.

36,000 gun deaths per year is not a passing knowledge, that is documented fact.

Far right gun worshipers argue like theists, "what would you know about my holy book".

98 people a DAY die from use of a firearm. If America's collective attitude about firearms were sane, we would not be seeing those numbers. 

Same with economics coming from the right. If the rich always got everything right nobody would be bitching. If the rich got everything right, there would be no need for voting.

I am getting sick about "responsible gun owners", because this is about ATTITUDE not individuals, climate not individuals. And again, I cant even point to Gawdzilla, or my friend John who grew up with firearms. And you probably WONT read what the family of the inventor of the AR 15 said either. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fami...ut-n593356

All I am getting from the far right is stonewalling and excuses to shoot more and sell more without regards to the 36,000 gun deaths on average per year. 98 deaths on average per day.

---

You actually do not have the "right" to own a gun, either.  At least not in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the second amendment.  The courts rectified the interpreted meaning to make crazy gun owners happy, which was a mistake.

SCOTUS confirmed in Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. McDonald confirmed that the 2A applies to the states under the 14th amendment. 

Heller

McDonald

Also, just because you have a medical degree confers no prescribing rights. You need a license from the state to prescribe or dispense drugs.

SCALIA, so you wont even listen to him when a GOP SCOTUS says it is NOT a free for all?

Just admit you are not for solving problems with gun deaths and it is all about protecting the object and not human lives.

[Nanny]

So many issues with this post.

Nobody is ignoring the responsibility of firearms ownership in this thread. To use your own tricks, go find where anyone says that it should be a free-for-all?

I pointed out that AR-15s without selectable fire are by definition not machine guns. I also pointed out that there is the 2A and then there are laws like the NFA that carve out things like machine guns (>1 bang per squeeze). Then there are state laws and local ordinances. I have friends who don't want firearms in their houses and I do not carry when I visit them because their house, their rules. 

Show me where I have the "right" to own a car, please. If I have the resources I can purchase a car. Owning a car is not an inalienable right. 

Show me where I have the "right" to drink beer, please. If I'm under a certain magic age I clearly do not have that right. 

Your drinking and driving example is telling. We already have laws that cover injury caused to other persons. Who is harmed if Tex drinks a couple of beers and then drives home safely? Where exactly is the harm? You won't find one because drink-driving is a malum prohibitum law. It's bad because we say so. If some drunk crashes into my car but does no harm, I have the legal right to restitution. The drunk is legally accountable for her actions. What if it was some fanboi street racer instead? what exactly changes if someone operates negligently, without influence of chemistry, and causes harm? Should we pass laws that say if fanboi street racers do harm they can be double-secret punished? Should we allow traffic stops on suspicion of being a fanboi?

Who chooses whether bans on some things are oppression? Who is the umpire? Be careful not to say "the majority." The rights and interests of the minority are legally protected.

So you're just mad because, in your opinion, you think there are too many guns in the USA. To that I say there's no putting the cork back in. You can either choose to own firearms or not to own them. That's your right. 

It's clear that you have a passing knowledge of some firearms stuff, but you really don't understand how guns are regulated here. There are hundreds of pages of legislation at every level. So other than just wanting fewer guns, what is your point?

Here's a challenge for you. Try to reply without cursing.

Far too many are. And unfortunately it seems you are too.

36,000 gun deaths per year is not a passing knowledge, that is documented fact.

Far right gun worshipers argue like theists, "what would you know about my holy book".

98 people a DAY die from use of a firearm. If America's collective attitude about firearms were sane, we would not be seeing those numbers. 

Same with economics coming from the right. If the rich always got everything right nobody would be bitching. If the rich got everything right, there would be no need for voting.

I am getting sick about "responsible gun owners", because this is about ATTITUDE not individuals, climate not individuals. And again, I cant even point to Gawdzilla, or my friend John who grew up with firearms. And you probably WONT read what the family of the inventor of the AR 15 said either. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fami...ut-n593356

All I am getting from the far right is stonewalling and excuses to shoot more and sell more without regards to the 36,000 gun deaths on average per year. 98 deaths on average per day.

You said that already. 

To be clear, I'm not even close to being far right. I'm a classical liberal. I believe people are basically good and can make their own choices without doing others harm. If someone is harmed that's why we have laws. I'm not in favor of laws that are intended to protect people from themselves. It's none of my business what human beings put into their own bodies or with whom they freely choose to fall in love, etc. Government is necessary and good, particularly in protecting the minority from the majority.  

I am politically "unenrolled" - which is my state's way of saying I don't support either of the two main parties. My take on the Ds and Rs is that they strive for the status quo but brand it as ideological progress. I cast my ballot for Johnson last time. I'd rather vote for a fool than a monster.

[Silver]

Just admit you are not for solving problems with gun deaths and it is all about protecting the object and not human lives.

Just like pro-lifer's. They don't care about the person when it is born, but they go crazy in regard to their belief that a woman must always give birth.

[Brian37]

Far too many are. And unfortunately it seems you are too.

36,000 gun deaths per year is not a passing knowledge, that is documented fact.

Far right gun worshipers argue like theists, "what would you know about my holy book".

98 people a DAY die from use of a firearm. If America's collective attitude about firearms were sane, we would not be seeing those numbers. 

Same with economics coming from the right. If the rich always got everything right nobody would be bitching. If the rich got everything right, there would be no need for voting.

I am getting sick about "responsible gun owners", because this is about ATTITUDE not individuals, climate not individuals. And again, I cant even point to Gawdzilla, or my friend John who grew up with firearms. And you probably WONT read what the family of the inventor of the AR 15 said either. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fami...ut-n593356

All I am getting from the far right is stonewalling and excuses to shoot more and sell more without regards to the 36,000 gun deaths on average per year. 98 deaths on average per day.

You said that already. 

To be clear, I'm not even close to being far right. I'm a classical liberal. I believe people are basically good and can make their own choices without doing others harm. If someone is harmed that's why we have laws. I'm not in favor of laws that are intended to protect people from themselves. It's none of my business what human beings put into their own bodies or with whom they freely choose to fall in love, etc. Government is necessary and good, particularly in protecting the minority from the majority.  

I am politically "unenrolled" - which is my state's way of saying I don't support either of the two main parties. My take on the Ds and Rs is that they strive for the status quo but brand it as ideological progress. I cast my ballot for Johnson last time. I'd rather vote for a fool than a monster.

36,000 people did make a choice and died because of that choice. 

I am a liberal too, I also believe most have good intent, but again, if all it took were good intent  we would not see those numbers.