Gun Laws Debate - Ellijay, GA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Ellijay, GA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Ellijay thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
18
Yes
 
3
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Ellijay:

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bonzi Buckaroo

Fayetteville, GA

#1 Jul 24, 2012
The second amendment allows citizens to carry a gun to protect their families. If everyone carried a weapon there would be a lot less crime
Jim

Ellijay, GA

#3 Jul 27, 2012
nothing to explain!!
Reality

Ellijay, GA

#4 Jul 27, 2012
Bonzi Buckaroo wrote:
The second amendment allows citizens to carry a gun to protect their families. If everyone carried a weapon there would be a lot less crime
That's not quite right about citizens being ALLOWED to carry guns.

It states that our natural RIGHT to carry guns shall NOT be disallowed by the government.

Big difference.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#5 Jul 27, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not quite right about citizens being ALLOWED to carry guns.
It states that our natural RIGHT to carry guns shall NOT be disallowed by the government.
Big difference.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And this is where all the confusion comes from, the wording. If you read it one way yes it says the people shall be allowed to keep arms, however it doesn't state what kind.

If you read it exactly as written it could be saying only that for each state to remain sovereign in the republic they may need a militia, and that militia will need to be regulated and armed. Knowing the militia is made up of citizens they will get to keep weapons for that purpose.

I tend to think the second statement is what was intended however we have used it for the first option for so long that it now means that. Further as someone who is for individual rights over most everything else I agree that the people should have the right to own weapons.
Terry Daniel

Ellijay, GA

#6 Jul 27, 2012
Stryffe wrote:
<quoted text>
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And this is where all the confusion comes from, the wording. If you read it one way yes it says the people shall be allowed to keep arms, however it doesn't state what kind.
If you read it exactly as written it could be saying only that for each state to remain sovereign in the republic they may need a militia, and that militia will need to be regulated and armed. Knowing the militia is made up of citizens they will get to keep weapons for that purpose.
I tend to think the second statement is what was intended however we have used it for the first option for so long that it now means that. Further as someone who is for individual rights over most everything else I agree that the people should have the right to own weapons.
I am for citizens of this country having the right to keep and bear arms and I plan to keep mine no matter what; but, I see no need for a citizen to have a 90 round clip. What purpose does a 90 round clip have except for killing a lot of people quickly? Perhaps we should have a second level of checks and mental evaluations for people who want to buy certain types of weapons?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#7 Jul 27, 2012
Terry Daniel wrote:
Terry says stuff here
And that is another issue. It's not infringing on your right to own weapons by limiting the types you own. There are many things people can buy that have a military equivalent that you can't. Laser, explosives, vehicles, and yes guns and ammo. So this isn't anything new.

The problem now though is the amount of surplus that is already owned by the general population. Should they be expected to give up something they acquired through legal means if a law is passed against them having it? How can you take it back? Should you? If not then what was the reason behind the law? What about the police? What about members of the national guard or any other militia group? Should they be allowed to own high powered weapons?

The constitution was created with a few things in mind. First, to protect the rights of the people, and 2 to have the ability to change via amendments, with the times.
Reality

Ellijay, GA

#8 Jul 27, 2012
Terry Daniel wrote:
What purpose does a 90 round clip have except for killing a lot of people quickly?
This is not rocket science.

It would be very useful if a lot of of people were trying to kill you and your family.

Do you think the bad guys stop to give you a chance to reload?

What the hell is WRONG with you?

Terry, you can be the forum authority on step-stools, OK?

And they're called "magazines" not "clips".
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

#9 Jul 27, 2012
Terry Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
I am for citizens of this country having the right to keep and bear arms and I plan to keep mine no matter what; but, I see no need for a citizen to have a 90 round clip.
Clip? Why do you regurgitate the media's ill-informed terms?
The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, Not the Bill of What Terry Daniel Thinks You Need.
Do you always accept everything the government says you need?
Terry Daniel wrote:
What purpose does a 90 round clip have except for killing a lot of people quickly?
Really? The people I shoot with regularly have never killed one person with theirs. But you'll continue to focus on the inanimate object.
Terry Daniel wrote:
Perhaps we should have a second level of checks and mental evaluations for people who want to buy certain types of weapons?
Yah, that's it. More government. That's ALWAYS the answer, isn't it.

There are far more of these weapons out there in the hands of people that will never commit that kind of a crime but you believe in punishing the majority for what a very small minority does.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

#10 Jul 27, 2012
Stryffe wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is another issue. It's not infringing on your right to own weapons by limiting the types you own. There are many things people can buy that have a military equivalent that you can't. Laser, explosives, vehicles, and yes guns and ammo. So this isn't anything new.
Are vehicles & explosives listed in the 2nd Amendent? Don't think so.
Stryffe wrote:
The problem now though is the amount of surplus that is already owned by the general population.
Only a despot would consider that a problem.
Dontchaknow

Ellijay, GA

#11 Jul 27, 2012
Read The Federalist Papers and other documents written by our founding fathers (including the Declaration of Independence) and it is clear the Second Amendment was written to make plain the federal government can NOT infringe on the peoples's right to keep and bear arms of ANY type. Franklin very much believed when a government no longer serves the people, it should be overthrown. A citizenry without guns cannot overthrow a government with guns. Unpopular - scary - yeah, but necessary if you don't want to live under the thumb of an oppressive government one day. If we fail to protect the Second Amendment, it will happen - its just a matter of time.
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

#12 Jul 27, 2012
Stryffe wrote:
<quoted text>
...
The constitution was created with a few things in mind. First, to protect the rights of the people, and 2 to have the ability to change via amendments, with the times.
And only to EXPAND rights and liberties.
Terry Daniel

Ellijay, GA

#13 Jul 27, 2012
By the logic expressed above I should be able to buy any weapon that the army has...no limits. RPG's, Bazookas, 50 calibre machine guns...why, even a tank if I want one and can raise the money to buy it. How about surface to air missiles? At the time this amendment was written a citizen could own the same type of firearm that the soldiers of that day could own; this has changed. A militia today could not last 3 minutes against the US Army. That is the Reality of the situation. Ask David Koresh.
Louiston

Des Moines, IA

#14 Jul 27, 2012
Terry Daniel wrote:
By the logic expressed above I should be able to buy any weapon that the army has...no limits. RPG's, Bazookas, 50 calibre machine guns...why, even a tank if I want one and can raise the money to buy it. How about surface to air missiles?
Terry, are you really this stupid? Tell us it's an act. Do you not know the difference between arms and ordnance? Obviously you don't.
Terry Daniel wrote:
At the time this amendment was written a citizen could own the same type of firearm that the soldiers of that day could own; this has changed.
Really? How did it change? Was the 2nd Amendment changed? When did that happen? Do you even have a clue why the 2nd Amendment was written? Do you know how the Founding Fathers felt about standing armies?
Terry Daniel wrote:
A militia today could not last 3 minutes against the US Army. That is the Reality of the situation. Ask David Koresh.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! If the government ever turned on the citizenry, I hope you'd be standing in the front of their line!!
Koresh didn't have a militia the size of the citizenry.
And BTW, what did Koresh do wrong to make the government go in and burn the place down?
Your ignorance is staggering!
Reality

Ellijay, GA

#15 Jul 27, 2012
Terry Daniel wrote:
A militia today could not last 3 minutes against the US Army. That is the Reality of the situation. Ask David Koresh.
AND YET, despite our AWACS, satcoms, bunker-busters, daisy-cutters, artillery, total air-supremacy, robots, cruise missiles, predators, and night vision, we're paying the Taliban $10 Billion a month in protection money to not kill us inside our "green zones", because the enemy is a ragtag bunch of old men and boys with Russian WWII rifles.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#16 Jul 27, 2012
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>
Are vehicles & explosives listed in the 2nd Amendent? Don't think so.
Nope, put neither are lots of things. However there are some items designed for a specific purpose, and heavy weapons are made for war, it's pretty simple.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#17 Jul 27, 2012
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>And only to EXPAND rights and liberties.
There are many cases where it have been used to take away form your individual rights. Often those have been over turned but that doesn't change the fact that the option is there to take away for the individual if it's for the greater good.

I don't agree with it at all but none the less it is there.
Terry Daniel

Ellijay, GA

#18 Jul 27, 2012
Louiston wrote:
<quoted text>
Terry, are you really this stupid? Tell us it's an act. Do you not know the difference between arms and ordnance? Obviously you don't.
<quoted text>
Really? How did it change? Was the 2nd Amendment changed? When did that happen? Do you even have a clue why the 2nd Amendment was written? Do you know how the Founding Fathers felt about standing armies?
<quoted text>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! !!! If the government ever turned on the citizenry, I hope you'd be standing in the front of their line!!
Koresh didn't have a militia the size of the citizenry.
And BTW, what did Koresh do wrong to make the government go in and burn the place down?
Your ignorance is staggering!
Who is the stupid one here? Are you telling me that a large group of citizens with hunting rifles could take down the US Army? That could have been done 200 years ago....not today. One missile from a drone would destroy every weapon in your house. You are the one who needs to "get real". A gun today is useful for protecting yourself from home invaders and they are for hunting game but if you think they can be used to protect us from our government then you need to go get your brain flushed.
Dontchaknow

Ellijay, GA

#19 Jul 27, 2012
Terry, all of the weapons you mentioned are available to purchase, although many are illegal to own in opearting condition. While I agree a citizen could own the same type weapons the militia or army used when the amendment was enacted, how does that fact imply a citizen should not be able to keep and bear any type of weapon the government possesses? Is successful armed revolution possible in this modern age? I suppose the answer depends on all the things Sun Tzu says determines the success of battle. Ask yourself this question, however, why does the government - particularly those with socialist agendas - want your firearms if it is not concerned about the threat of an armed populace?
Terry Daniel

Ellijay, GA

#20 Jul 27, 2012
Dontchaknow wrote:
Terry, all of the weapons you mentioned are available to purchase, although many are illegal to own in opearting condition. While I agree a citizen could own the same type weapons the militia or army used when the amendment was enacted, how does that fact imply a citizen should not be able to keep and bear any type of weapon the government possesses? Is successful armed revolution possible in this modern age? I suppose the answer depends on all the things Sun Tzu says determines the success of battle. Ask yourself this question, however, why does the government - particularly those with socialist agendas - want your firearms if it is not concerned about the threat of an armed populace?
Let me repeat: I totally support the 2nd amendment and I will not give up my guns. I would feel more comfortable when going to any crowded event if I knew that some fool was not going to step out with a military type rifle and a 90 round drum magazine, a couple of Glocks, tear gas canisters, and a shotgun while wearing bullet proof clothing. I fear these crazy people....I don't fear my government. That may change in due time but for now that is how I feel. Your mileage may vary.
Dontchaknow

Ellijay, GA

#21 Jul 27, 2012
Terry, a totally reasonable response. I also would feel more comfortable knowing I have nothing to fear from a neighbor or some "joker" in the crowd. We all have families and loved ones we want to protect. But we the people cannot be motivated by fear in providing for and protecting our collective rights, indeed, our inalienable rights. Our soldiers put themselves in harm's way on foreign soil to protect us and our way of life. We all are obligated to accept the fact life is scary and not give up our liberties to make ourselves feel more comfortable.(BTW: I appreciate the tenor of polite debate you employ.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellijay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ladies Please Read 3 hr Ga Girl 56 6
What's going on tonight on Roy Rd? 9 hr Ellijay Local 2
rusty beamon (Apr '14) 20 hr tmv post 12
Coosawattee River Resort Ripping Off Owners (Apr '07) Thu Been there done that 11,034
Shut it down Dec 18 Ellijay 1
Blue Ridge Topix crossover to Ellijay Dec 18 Ellijay 1
Stalking case Dec 18 Ellijay 1
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]