Americans Fight For Right To Bear Arms - At Work

[impulse]

Imagine a whole nation whose inhabitants are scared of their own shadows. Who scared them to that extend? Their church? Their politicians? Their parents? Their mirrors? Pathetic really.

Yup, so pathetic that 694,000 people became naturalized citizens last year. They left their home country behind to become Americans.

How many people left their home country behind to become citizens of your favorite country?

[Fishenough]

Not to add my personal feelings on Americans and guns, maybe because I'm a polite Canadian.

But roughly 20 years ago I spent a week at a pulp and paper mill, located in Missississippi near the Alabama state line, and several year previous to my visit the employees were no longer allowed to bring there guns to work. Well, all I heard about from the mills workers was their constant complaints and how their very rights and freedoms had been violated by this 'disregard for their safety'.

And having toured North America, visit all but 2 states of the US, find it funny that the 'god fearing' American population is the same group that appears often to be packing. Camped in many parts of America, and always found that the same family that said grace before dinner kept a side arm nearby. The prayers at mealtime I'm ok with, but the holstered semi auto resting on the food cooler? Should you feel safe because you have a gun, or worry about what could happen....because you have a gun around. Been to many different parts of the world, not all, and haven't encountered this. Is this common in any other countries (I've never been to Africa or Eastern Europe)?

Personally experienced more culture shock visiting southern states than visiting anytime visiting any popular Thailand city.

[koheesti]

Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights". There is absolutely no way that carrying a lethal weapon - gun, knife, grenade, whatever - can be described as a "right" in anyone's eyes other than a republican american.

I repeat, it is NOT just Republicans that defend the right to bear arms. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc all have supporters of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA doesn't contribute nearly as much money as the anti-gun crowd likes to pretend. If you need a group to blame, I would guess that people in urban areas are probably more for gun control laws than people in rural areas regardless of politics.

[maturebrit]

its well known that people than have or carry guns are much more liable to get shot. I would have thought reducing the amount or availability would have been a more proactive approach. America seems to have no grip on this issue whatsoever then complain and sensationslise when a high school massacre occurs

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect App

[samran]

America is messed up in many ways, but its still the freest country in the world.....

yep, keep telling youself that....you've drunk the Koolaid.

Pick this link up at about 3.18

[folium]

When they wrote in the constitution that you had the right to bear arms over 250 years ago, the world was a bit of a different place now wasn't it, lets agree on that.

With all due respect.

Most folks who say as you do the world was a different place are probably not American.

I say that because non-Americans often do not know the reason the Second Amendment exists.

They are under the impression that the Second Amendment was written to form some kind

of military or national guard. It was not!

The Second Amendment exists solely as a final check on the power of the Government.

Yes as someone pointed out they are "our" elected government but that does not guarantee

they will abide by the Constitution.

Also remember the framers of the Constitution were mainly anti-federalist they above all wanted to ensure the power

to enforce the Constitution would remain in the hands of the people as it should.

The Second Amendment remains the final check.

If the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people.

That final check is there. Hopefully it in itself is enough of a deterrent.

So the Second Amendment is as valid today than 250 years ago.

I am sure someone will now say that is the job of the military but it should be obvious why it is not.

Yes it is controversial for folks who are not American. Even for many who are.

American born or otherwise an interesting viewpoint.

Can Timothy McVeigh and his murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995, be explained away as all part and parcel of him exercising his Second Amendment rights as he felt the government was out of control? Since when has the Second Amendment allowed individual citizens to defy and overthrow (according to your logic) the government (presumably elected unless things have really changed since my day)?

Hint: the Brits are not coming back to reoccupy their colonies, nor are the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Swedish, Dutch, Russians or Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

In the meantime on 2010 data a mere 8775 US citizens are murdered with firearms, not even counting the facilitated suicides and tragic accidents involving firearms and over-armed, under-trained civilians.

Small price to pay for having the right to overthrow the government and keeping foreign colonial nations at bay....

[folium]

America is messed up in many ways, but its still the freest country in the world.....

yep, keep telling youself that....you've drunk the Koolaid.

Pick this link up at about 3.18

No, no watch the whole clip....amazing, unexpected, clever and bang on the money....HBO at its best!

Where's the totally firetrucking love it option...?!

Edited December 14, 2012 by folium

[mania]

American born or otherwise an interesting viewpoint.

As I said controversial for both Americans & non

Since when has the Second Amendment allowed individual citizens to defy and overthrow (according to your logic) the government (presumably elected unless things have really changed since my day)?

You say "allowed" so you still do not grasp the intent.

I am not going to bother with the Timothy McVeigh comment as it is not relevant to this discussion what a madman does.

As much as many would like to use such events or even this one reported as leverage

Hint: the Brits are not coming back to reoccupy their colonies, nor are the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Swedish, Dutch, Russians or Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Again the military is for external forces. The Second amendment was not written for that.

Folks both American & non may discuss as they like & I do not disagree the world would be a better

place with no guns, no missiles, no threats of governments & military gone wild.

I am just pointing out a common misconception as to the origin of the Second Amendment

[SouthernMan3]

The vast majority of posters here are the same who seem to always miss the the issue and simply babble. While the tittle and topic are ripe for humor and parody, the fact is, this is an issue of rights. It is like freedom of speech, a rule by an employer that prevents someone from saying the F word in certain places or situations is not about appropriateness or morality, it is about the constitutional right to free speech. The NRA is pushing the legislature on this is as just another battlefield over our constitutional right to bear arms. No European can understand this because they don't have the same aversion to gov't control, many of them still believe that one particular person who pops out of one women's vag I nah verses another is somehow superior to all the rest of us. America is messed up in many ways, but its still the freest country in the world due to our constitution that has only needed 27 amendments in 223 years...not like Thailand that has had 18 different constitutions in just 80yrs.

Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights". There is absolutely no way that carrying a lethal weapon - gun, knife, grenade, whatever - can be described as a "right" in anyone's eyes other than a republican american. Many countries have strict controls on guns and the people arguably feel more secure than the average paranoid republican american.

Let's get it clear - there is no problem if you want to own a hunting rifle in UK - but you will be interviewed by the police and your records checked extensively. You can own a handgun in UK, if you satisfy the authorities about your intent (usually target practice at a recognised range). In UK you are required to keep your firearm concealed when in a public place, but that is to reduce the possibilty of theft and to decrease the public alarm factor.

Your point ?

If your point is "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights"." then I basically say, Take a hike buddy,

[folium]

American born or otherwise an interesting viewpoint.

As I said controversial for both Americans & non

Since when has the Second Amendment allowed individual citizens to defy and overthrow (according to your logic) the government (presumably elected unless things have really changed since my day)?

You say "allowed" so you still do not grasp the intent.

I am not going to bother with the Timothy McVeigh comment as it is not relevant to this discussion what a madman does.

As much as many would like to use such events or even this one reported as leverage

Hint: the Brits are not coming back to reoccupy their colonies, nor are the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Swedish, Dutch, Russians or Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Again the military is for external forces. The Second amendment was not written for that.

Folks both American & non may discuss as they like & I do not disagree the world would be a better

place with no guns, no missiles, no threats of governments & military gone wild.

I am just pointing out a common misconception as to the origin of the Second Amendment

Nice swerve but who gets to determine when, according to your own words:

"the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people"...?

McVeigh appears to have thought that he was doing the right thing against an over-powerful state. Why let madmen, or anyone who has made a false/erroneous judgement re the intent of their government, have the ability and weaponry to do insane things?

Why does no other country give its citizens such an alleged right? Is the USA really the greatest country on this planet...at least in this respect?

[delh]

It has been shown again and again that the so-called "Gun Free" zones are anything but. Just like at Virginia Tech, they simply allow the criminal an helpless field of defenseless victims. I am very grateful for the outstanding work of the National Rifle Association in their defense of the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

P.S If the smarmy and clueless Piers Morgan doesn't like the way we do things in the U.S.A., he can go to the nearest airport and leave my country. And "Hey, Piers. Don't let the door hit you in your dumb "arse"!"

I have never heard anyone say that they liked what Piers Morgan has to say. Does this show I am from the UK

[samran]

American born or otherwise an interesting viewpoint.

As I said controversial for both Americans & non

Since when has the Second Amendment allowed individual citizens to defy and overthrow (according to your logic) the government (presumably elected unless things have really changed since my day)?

You say "allowed" so you still do not grasp the intent.

I am not going to bother with the Timothy McVeigh comment as it is not relevant to this discussion what a madman does.

As much as many would like to use such events or even this one reported as leverage

Hint: the Brits are not coming back to reoccupy their colonies, nor are the French, Spanish, Mexicans, Swedish, Dutch, Russians or Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

Again the military is for external forces. The Second amendment was not written for that.

Folks both American & non may discuss as they like & I do not disagree the world would be a better

place with no guns, no missiles, no threats of governments & military gone wild.

I am just pointing out a common misconception as to the origin of the Second Amendment

So what is the seperation of the arms of government all about?

That works pretty well. Why is an armed malitia neccesary?

And I disagree - McVeigh is entirely relevant. He was a mad man, but a mad man who thought he had a point under the law.

Your founding fathers actually broke the law of the land at the time. So what are they? Criminals or Heros?

[mania]

Nice swerve but who gets to determine when, according to your own words:

"the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people"...?

McVeigh appears to have thought that he was doing the right thing against an over-powerful state. Why let madmen, or anyone who has made a false/erroneous judgement re the intent of their government, have the ability and weaponry to do insane things?

Why does no other country give its citizens such an alleged right? Is the USA really the greatest country on this planet...at least in this respect?

No swerve intended, instead folks who bring up many other things comparisons are swerving.

Again I just pointed out the intention of the 2nd Amendment

The people as always decide when & where to enforce it not any single person like McVeigh

Who by the way never fired a single shot so again perhaps you & Samran have a better example.

Or would you two also like to outlaw fertilizer due to the act of a single madman.

Lastly if "We The People" of the USA ever decide the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant "We" will make another amendment

to the Constitution.

Until then folks on the internet are free to discuss all they want what other countries do....

That is irrelevant & swerving but feel free to express yourself.

Again I have never once said or offered an opinion of what is "Right" or "Wrong" just what is.

[Sing_Sling]

If your point is "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights"." then I basically say, Take a hike buddy,

This seems to be a major factor in your posts . . . so you demand all these rights for yourself but don't like others airing theirs. Go on, look back at your posts . . . quite amusing, really.

[SouthernMan3]

If your point is "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights"." then I basically say, Take a hike buddy,

This seems to be a major factor in your posts . . . so you demand all these rights for yourself but don't like others airing theirs. Go on, look back at your posts . . . quite amusing, really.

Not true.

I am open to anyone airing anything.

That is what these board are all about.

But, when it degrades to a bashing bout, I just get fed up.

If this is something that I have done in the past, thank you for pointing it out to me.

I will watch myself on that.

There is always room for improvement for any human being.

[samran]

Nice swerve but who gets to determine when, according to your own words:

"the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people"...?

McVeigh appears to have thought that he was doing the right thing against an over-powerful state. Why let madmen, or anyone who has made a false/erroneous judgement re the intent of their government, have the ability and weaponry to do insane things?

Why does no other country give its citizens such an alleged right? Is the USA really the greatest country on this planet...at least in this respect?

No swerve intended, instead folks who bring up many other things comparisons are swerving.

Again I just pointed out the intention of the 2nd Amendment

The people as always decide when & where to enforce it not any single person like McVeigh

Who by the way never fired a single shot so again perhaps you & Samran have a better example.

Or would you two also like to outlaw fertilizer due to the act of a single madman.

Lastly if "We The People" of the USA ever decide the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant "We" will make another amendment

to the Constitution.

Until then folks on the internet are free to discuss all they want what other countries do....

That is irrelevant & swerving but feel free to express yourself.

Again I have never once said or offered an opinion of what is "Right" or "Wrong" just what is.

So if McVeigh went in and gunned everyone down with an Uzi cause he thought he was doing what he thought was his guaranteed constitutional right, then that is okay?

Also need your opinion on the consitutionality various means of overthrowning government. Doing so with guns in perfectly fine...but other weapons are illegal?

Is that how we should strictly read that amendment?

[Baloo22]

Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights". There is absolutely no way that carrying a lethal weapon - gun, knife, grenade, whatever - can be described as a "right" in anyone's eyes other than a republican american.

I repeat, it is NOT just Republicans that defend the right to bear arms. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc all have supporters of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA doesn't contribute nearly as much money as the anti-gun crowd likes to pretend. If you need a group to blame, I would guess that people in urban areas are probably more for gun control laws than people in rural areas regardless of politics.

I agree with you that it's not just Republicans that defend the Second Amendment. As for the urban areas; It's more the self-serving politicians in the urban areas that keep wanting to refuse their citizens the right to defend themselves and to exercise their Second Amendment rights. For a long time it has been the areas with the most violent crime that have also had the most restrictive gun control laws. Most often it's one of the elite left-wing politicians demanding stronger and more restrictive gun laws for the common citizen while they manage to obtain their "specially issued" permit for concealed carry or have their own armed bodyguards.

[samran]

Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights". There is absolutely no way that carrying a lethal weapon - gun, knife, grenade, whatever - can be described as a "right" in anyone's eyes other than a republican american.

I repeat, it is NOT just Republicans that defend the right to bear arms. Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, etc all have supporters of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA doesn't contribute nearly as much money as the anti-gun crowd likes to pretend. If you need a group to blame, I would guess that people in urban areas are probably more for gun control laws than people in rural areas regardless of politics.

I agree with you that it's not just Republicans that defend the Second Amendment. As for the urban areas; It's more the self-serving politicians in the urban areas that keep wanting to refuse their citizens the right to defend themselves and to exercise their Second Amendment rights. For a long time it has been the areas with the most violent crime that have also had the most restrictive gun control laws. Most often it's one of the elite left-wing politicians demanding stronger and more restrictive gun laws for the common citizen while they manage to obtain their "specially issued" permit for concealed carry or have their own armed bodyguards.

Hold on - defend themselves against who? Mania is telling us that us that guns are perfectly fine for defense against government?

So how is the crackhead mugging you an arm of an evil government?

[mania]

So if McVeigh went in and gunned everyone down with an Uzi cause he thought he was doing what he thought was his guaranteed constitutional right, then that is okay?

Also need your opinion on the consitutionality various means of overthrowning government. Doing so with guns in perfectly fine...but other weapons are illegal?

Is that how we should strictly read that amendment?

Please.......What is it you wish to debate anyway?

A madman is a madman. He should be put down like a mad dog period.

It is a silly argument you are trying to fabricate where none has claimed such rights of any madman.

Basically you like to dance I dont.

I will also say I find it amazing how the US Constitution is usually attacked here on TV in regards to the 2nd Amendment

How does it concern anyone but Americans?

I would think this being a Thailand Visa forum those who seek change to gun related deaths would be much more concerned with Thailand.

Unless things have really changed in recent years. Thailand smokes the US in murder by firearms.

Perhaps they should vent their gun ownership concerns more locally? Thailand in the past only fell behind South Africa & Columbia for most gun related murders.

Unless of course you have no rights to back up concerns in either the USA or Thailand?

Go for it you have Thai rights if I remember correctly. Make a change where it counts....Where you and I live

Edited December 14, 2012 by mania

[chiangmaikelly]

If your point is "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights"." then I basically say, Take a hike buddy,

This seems to be a major factor in your posts . . . so you demand all these rights for yourself but don't like others airing theirs. Go on, look back at your posts . . . quite amusing, really.

Not true.

I am open to anyone airing anything.

That is what these board are all about.

But, when it degrades to a bashing bout, I just get fed up.

If this is something that I have done in the past, thank you for pointing it out to me.

I will watch myself on that.

There is always room for improvement for any human being.

Americans and guns are a difficult thing for others to understand; it's a cultural thing. It is like people from the US trying to understand Morris dancing; it's just never going to happen. I would suggest the only way to avoid useless discussion about the issue is for Americans not to post in any threads that guns are mentioned. I am stopping. It just gives the American bashers another opening to display their ignorance of American customs, laws and traditions.

[SouthernMan3]

If your point is "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights"." then I basically say, Take a hike buddy,

This seems to be a major factor in your posts . . . so you demand all these rights for yourself but don't like others airing theirs. Go on, look back at your posts . . . quite amusing, really.

Not true.

I am open to anyone airing anything.

That is what these board are all about.

But, when it degrades to a bashing bout, I just get fed up.

If this is something that I have done in the past, thank you for pointing it out to me.

I will watch myself on that.

There is always room for improvement for any human being.

Americans and guns are a difficult thing for others to understand; it's a cultural thing. It is like people from the US trying to understand Morris dancing; it's just never going to happen. I would suggest the only way to avoid useless discussion about the issue is for Americans not to post in any threads that guns are mentioned. I am stopping. It just gives the American bashers another opening to display their ignorance of American customs, laws and traditions.

Agreed.

[mania]

Americans and guns are a difficult thing for others to understand; it's a cultural thing. It is like people from the US trying to understand Morris dancing; it's just never going to happen. I would suggest the only way to avoid useless discussion about the issue is for Americans not to post in any threads that guns are mentioned. I am stopping. It just gives the American bashers another opening to display their ignorance of American customs, laws and traditions.

Oh how I wish you posted before I did

Thanks for the tip though I intend to use it.

[samran]

So if McVeigh went in and gunned everyone down with an Uzi cause he thought he was doing what he thought was his guaranteed constitutional right, then that is okay?

Also need your opinion on the consitutionality various means of overthrowning government. Doing so with guns in perfectly fine...but other weapons are illegal?

Is that how we should strictly read that amendment?

Please.......What is it you wish to debate anyway?

A madman is a madman. He should be put down like a mad dog period.

It is a silly argument you are trying to fabricate where none has claimed such rights of any madman.

Basically you like to dance I dont.

I will also say I find it amazing how the US Constitution is usually attacked here on TV in regards to the 2nd Amendment

How does it concern anyone but Americans?

I would think this being a Thailand Visa forum those who seek change to gun related deaths would be much more concerned with Thailand.

Unless things have really changed in recent years. Thailand smokes the US in murder by firearms.

Perhaps they should vent their gun ownership concerns more locally? Thailand in the past only fell behind South Africa & Columbia for most gun related murders.

Unless of course you have no rights to back up concerns in either the USA or Thailand?

Go for it you have Thai rights if I remember correctly. Make a change where it counts....Where you and I live

okay, before you go off and defining me as a stereotypical lefty/socialist/communist etc etc...where exactly have I said I don't like guns, or, peoples ability to use them?

What you refer to 'dancing' I like to think of as taking an argument to its logical conclusion. I'm sorry if that process makes some of your arguments look silly.

First you tell us that the historical basis for the second ammendment. Internal protection from government. Understand it, god almighty, can vaugely empathise with it.

Then I ask - well what about McVeigh.

Your short answer was: well he was using fertilizer, not a gun.

Then I ask: well if he was using a gun, and he thought he was undertaking his constitional right - then is that okay?

I also ask - if guns are supposed to be for protection yourself against government (according to your interpretation on the historical foundation for the second ammendment) then where does it say that it is okay to use the for defending yourself against the crackhead?

So forgive me for trying to take an intellectual route to all of this.

[mania]

So forgive me for trying to take an intellectual route to all of this.

Last post for me promise

You would like to flatter yourself with this comment.

Instead what you do is twist what others say in an attempt to incite.

I do not know what the "Honorary Member" near your name stands for but,

I would hope it meant you have some honor.

Yet you post & twist words to fit what ever argument you want to put forth.

I never said the things you are now claiming in this last post. Instead I said

madmen should be put down. It is you that are trying to claim McVeigh. was exercising a right.

He was not....He was a madman period.

The gun vs fertilizer came about since we are in fact On the topic of guns as allowed by the 2nd amendment

& the reason it was written as such.

Yet you would like to constantly twist & misrepresent others posts.

Honor? Should be earned not labeled.

Bye

[SouthernMan3]

Then let's try this.

In your opinion "Americans have a very skewed concept of "rights".

You have a right to your opinion as do we all.

Is this discussion about how skewed American's concepts are ?

Really you need to read the whole post. Cherry-picking one line to suit your combative style is not going to help anyone understand the logic behind your viewpoint -- assuming there is some ?

I read the whole post.

As for me trying to help anyone understand the logic behind my viewpoint, if you don't by now you never will.

Please refer to

chiangmaikelly's post

Consider me out of this conversation as I have better things to spend my time on.

[samran]

So forgive me for trying to take an intellectual route to all of this.

Last post for me promise

You would like to flatter yourself with this comment.

Instead what you do is twist what others say in an attempt to incite.

I do not know what the "Honorary Member" near your name stands for but,

I would hope it meant you have some honor.

Yet you post & twist words to fit what ever argument you want to put forth.

I never said the things you are now claiming in this last post. Instead I said

madmen should be put down. It is you that are trying to claim McVeigh. was exercising a right.

He was not....He was a madman period.

The gun vs fertilizer came about since we are in fact On the topic of guns as allowed by the 2nd amendment

& the reason it was written as such.

Yet you would like to constantly twist & misrepresent others posts.

Honor? Should be earned not labeled.

Bye

So you make this personal. Good one.

I've not for a moment twisted your words. All I've tried to do is take what you say to the next logical conclusion.

So pick up your bat and ball and off you go to have a little cry in the corner. Free speech - but only for some so it seems.

Intellectual debate? Wouldn't dream of it from what now passes for the right of politics in the US.

[jpinx]

Mania is not in your list of quoted posts. Try making some sense in your next post and actually connect your response to the posts you are quoting.

The forum software does not allow more than a few quotes - it is up to us to read the posts and remember who said what.

Defending the second amendment has always taxed the citizens of USA because it was badly conceived and badly written. You can buy a gun is most countries in the world, but not without having yourself looked at by the authoriities elected and appointed.

Any excuse which uses an argument about "in case the government screws up" is facile. Such people need to look at what is happening in other countries where dictatorships are overthrown by popular rising - not by having a shoot out -- that only happens when the police/military get heavy-handed...

[samran]

Mania is not in your list of quoted posts. Try making some sense in your next post and actually connect your response to the posts you are quoting.

Does he have to be for me to refer to him? Or does that just make it easier for you to follow things?

Just a refresher as to what I was refering to.

The Second Amendment remains the final check.

If the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people.

That final check is there. Hopefully it in itself is enough of a deterrent.

So the Second Amendment is as valid today than 250 years ago.

I am sure someone will now say that is the job of the military but it should be obvious why it is not.

Yes it is controversial for folks who are not American. Even for many who are.

[Baloo22]

Mania is not in your list of quoted posts. Try making some sense in your next post and actually connect your response to the posts you are quoting.

Does he have to be for me to refer to him? Or does that just make it easier for you to follow things? Just a refresher as to what I was refering to.

The Second Amendment remains the final check. If the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people. That final check is there. Hopefully it in itself is enough of a deterrent. So the Second Amendment is as valid today than 250 years ago. I am sure someone will now say that is the job of the military but it should be obvious why it is not. Yes it is controversial for folks who are not American. Even for many who are.

The right to defend one self and family, and also, as a "final check" against a tyrannical dictatorship are both valid justifications for the writers of our Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment in said Bill of Rights.

[samran]

Mania is not in your list of quoted posts. Try making some sense in your next post and actually connect your response to the posts you are quoting.

Does he have to be for me to refer to him? Or does that just make it easier for you to follow things? Just a refresher as to what I was refering to.

The Second Amendment remains the final check. If the government, yes our own, tried to seize power & the rights of the people. That final check is there. Hopefully it in itself is enough of a deterrent. So the Second Amendment is as valid today than 250 years ago. I am sure someone will now say that is the job of the military but it should be obvious why it is not. Yes it is controversial for folks who are not American. Even for many who are.

The right to defend one self and family, and also, as a "final check" against a tyrannical dictatorship are both valid justifications for the writers of our Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment in said Bill of Rights.

So again, when do we judge the act of a 'defender' legitimate? Or are you just relying on the 'vibe' of the situation to decide? Or, do you really have to win the war (like your war of independence) to provide justification for your inital actions? Otherwise, you might be lumped with the McVeigh's of the world.

And again, what type of weapons are allowed? Guns okay? But not fertilizer? But what if that tyrannical government has bigger weapons (you know those black menacing helicopters piloted by those guys with the dark masks). Is fertilizer justifiable then?

Who decides? Fox news, the NRA?

Edited December 14, 2012 by samran