2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon 166 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  That's what I've been saying. The 2nd amendment as interpreted by Scalia makes no sense. If the right is a right then it should allow people to own tanks and RPGs - there was no limit to how "much" they should fight surely? If it's not really a right to all then the 2nd amendment should be crossed out.

  It has no place in todays world - the US has several levels of armed and well organized military forces at the state and federal levels and is not in any threat that some locals with a few sidearms will make a difference to.

  The "well organized militia" is absolutely linked to the "bear arms' part whether that is called yoda speak or latinism. It's the reason for the clause, a reason that no longer exists.

  Now, just because you do away with the reason and the clause, doesn't mean it automatically means all guns are immediately banned except to the black and white thinking of some political opinionated where the mere mention of the words "2nd amendment" causes immediate brain paralysis and vocal spasms.
• 

  just fine

  I like handguns - I have several. I do not hunt with them. I do take one with me when we go into mountains for protection from animals or humans. I also use them for protection at home as I live in a place where police help is a long way away, sometimes more than an hour. I also have dogs and bear spray, so the gun isn't my only protection.

  That being said - I do not need an Uzi for protection or hunting purposes, so I do think there is middle ground, and extended rounds are not needed to stop a threat.
• 

  Hadriel

  As I said before, I have asked people who are active hunters. A side arm is not necessary to be a good hunter. Not at all. If you ask any northern Canadian hunter about using a side arm in hunting, they would call you either a sissy or a bad hunter.

  @OrphanCrow called the entire mounted police sissies. They apparently see a need for any person licensed and working with wildlife to carry a sidearm for projection. Isn't the below pretty much exactly what I was referring to? See Below

  BTW your laws also vary from region to region, Just texted a buddy of mine with the ATF. So your statement that they aren't used in Canada is patently false. You're implication that American's are sissies for carrying a side arm for close quarters protection is employed by your own wildlife departments and police.

  
  
• 

  Simon

  That is clearly an exception for specific needs. The general rule is given first:

  "In general, the only firearms allowed or wilderness protection are non-restricted rifles and shotguns."

  It makes sense that a rifle for some people, while working, would not make sense for purely practical reasons. Bit it's clearly not the normal tool for hunting and requires special permission (at the bottom of the screenshot).
• 

  Hadriel

  It makes sense that a rifle for some people, while working, would not make sense for purely practical reasons. Bit it's clearly not the normal tool for hunting and requires special permission (at the bottom of the screenshot).

  I agree those are their laws but Orphan was implying that Canadians think it's silly and not needed but clearly the Canadian government sees carrying a sidearm for protection. That was all my point was. it couldn't be more clear that Canada sees this as valid for protection. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.

  My bud at the ATF said that the laws are not the same for each province either. He said it isn't across the board and that they ban other things as well like muzzle loaded weapons and so on.

  Bottom line @Orphan's statement just wasn't accurate.

  In the end I'm just glad I'm not a sissy anymore LOL.
• 

  Simon

  What Canadian hunters may or may not think vs what the Canadian government has on their website doesn't have to be identical for it to be a true statement. They are talking about different things for different reasons, I don't think any comment can be proven absolutely right or wrong (and doubt it really matters). None of us can really talk for an entire nation of people last time I checked.
• 

  Finkelstein

  
• 

  Hadriel

  Fair enough but he said "any Canadian". I took him at his word. To say to me that it is silly and "any" Canadian thinks you're a sissy doesn't seem accurate based the law and the indication that sidearms have a purpose of personal protection given the circumstances. Seems pretty plain there to me.
• 

  Diogenesister

  hen all is going well I tend to agree no one needs weapons however you'll never sell me on the fact that when it all goes to hell in a handbasket that only government should be allowed to bear arms. When government breaks down due to invasion, bombing or whatever it is important to be able to protect yourself. If only the police have weapons and food is scarce what prevents them storming into your home taking what they want for their families and leaving you to starve?

  ????? I know its Pavlov's dog and all that and you guys are used to salivating over doomsday scenarios but the USA is not going to hell in a hand basket any time soon,
• 

  Simon

  the USA is not going to hell in a hand basket any time soon,

  Trump and his supporters say it already has. The rest of us think it will if he's elected. LOL

  but he said "any Canadian".

  You know that doesn't mean there has been a national poll with 100% response and agreement right? ;-p