Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
Blogs > Julie_Tgirl > From a woman's point of view: |
What would the writers of the 2nd Amanement think now? Being this is a gay website I usually don’t write about things like this in here but mainly about being born a genetic male with a fem side. I try to stay on topic with this website. But I will on occasion write something in response when someone gets political and there are those that try to turn this into a political blog or forum. I am a gun owner and a FORMER member of the NRA. I was also in our nation’s military and a combat veteran but I do not really like to think about that part of life. I am not going to list all my firearms but I do have firearms sufficient for combat use. My semiautomatic rifles I know how to use very well and can fire very quickly. But I do have a lever action hunting rifle and pump shotgun also. For pistols I have semiautomatic and revolvers both. My revolvers are very powerful and one is known for leaving an exit hole bigger than the entry wound. Yes, with a fully automatic firearm all one has to do is hold the trigger to keep it firing and a semiautomatic one has to keep squeezing the trigger but if one is well versed enough with a semiautomatic they can fire it almost as rapidly as a full auto, I know I can but I am experienced. I will admit though that I am not familiar with all the newer versions of the M16/AR15, M4 carbine, AK47 or 9mm assault weapons (UZ but I do know enough where it would take me less than a minute figure it out. I carried an M14 (semiauto), which was an upgraded Garand M1. I also am familiar with the .30 caliber M1 carbine. I have never used and M16/AR15 or an M4 carbine but I do know something about guns. My father bought me my first bolt action single shot .22 caliber rifle when I was 5 years old. My father I wrote about in Remembering Memorial Day was a combat veteran during WW2. He was raised as a hunter because that was what his family had to do to put meat on the table. So I am not just some lame ass about firearms that some may want to try to disqualify me on this subject. I just may know more on this subject than they do. I just don’t write about that in here. The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. This was about 225 years ago. Probably not a long time as far as the history of the world goes but still a long time in recent history. When our forefathers framed the 2nd Amendment muskets and black powder muzzle loading firearms were being used and had been around for awhile and they followed a firearm called the arquebus. Muskets were nothing like the firearms we have today. The process of loading just to get off one shot was slow. The average time for loading and reloading a musket was about 2 times per minute. Someone good and really fast could load one 3 times in one minute. There were also the ones that could only load 1 time per minute. This loading and reloading procedure was to get of just 1 shot. When they were used in combat many times the musket user was shot and killed or wounded while standing on the battlefield reloading. This was the ultimate combat weapon that could be fired from the shoulder when our forefathers adopted the 2nd Amendment. So can anyone really say that the forefathers that wrote the 2nd Amendment, had any idea and foresight of what the advanced weaponry would be like today? If they would have envisioned there someday would be weapons that could cut 8 year old school almost in half, would they have framed that amendment as they did? The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms but I have not seen yet that it specifically means firearms. I’m not saying that firearms are not included in that but arms can be many things; bow and arrows, crossbows and bolts, clubs, axes and hatchets, spears, knives and just about anything that can be used in defense or aggression. I have personally seen the wrath and damage that is done to whatever is the path of a minigun mounted on a helicopter. Some were mounted on river patrol boats. The M134 and variations, aka ’puff the magic dragon’ in Vietnam; at the time I thought was the ultimate killing machine. So much fire power and the gun was based on the design of the old Gatling Guns with multiple barrels that rotated in a circle. When I lived in California I remember something about a law banning the ownership of a Thompson Sub Machine Gun that was fully automatic. One could be owned if it had been converted to strictly semiautomatic and could no longer be converted back to full auto. That was the main tool of the Mafia and organized crime but theirs were full auto. During beach raids in WW2 my father told me he sometimes carried a Thompson when he participated. He also sometimes carried a .303 bolt action rifle. Saying the forefathers envisioned today’s weapons and approved of them would be ludicrous and stupid. They simply did not know. Would our forefathers want American citizens murdered in such fashion? So the 2nd Amendment is 225 years old. Like anything else that gets old and outdated and maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be modified and updated. We don’t drive cars after they are worn out. I am not saying to abolish the 2nd Amendment but to modernize it and bring it up to modern times. From what I have read the forefathers were thinking more of being able to assemble a militia in case it was needed for defense weapons or for hunting game animals when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. In Iraq the M16s were modified to shooting in burst or 2 or 3 rounds per burst. This was to keep from wasting ammunition when in the full automatic mode. I remember trying to get .223 (5.56mm) rounds and they were scarce because of the war. By no means am I objecting to owning firearms. As I said I am a gun owner myself but I do think that some common sense is needed here and do we need these weapons of such destruction for personal use. A 12 gauge shotgun is considered by many the best firearm for home protection if someone is not familiar with firearms. I would suggest that for women not experienced with guns that they can use even smaller because a 12 gauge with high base shells can have some kick but a 20 gauge or even a .410 can still be effective but with less recoil. I am thinking that I will get responses on this saying that Mateen had already been on the FBI watch list and they dropped the ball. Okay, rather one thinks they can do a better job than the FBI, then let them go tell the FBI how to do their job and see how far they get with that. Some people just like to complain and bitch. Anyway that is backwards thinking. What we need to do from now on is think forward and try to prevent mass murders in the future. We cannot change what has already happened but work on preventing it from happening again. Do we need military weapons for home defense? I know I don’t because I have adequate firearms for defense. There are also people that will say everyone should be packing to prevent things like the Orlando shootings from happening. Well some more common sense will tell you that a nightclub full of intoxicated people with firearms is not a good idea. So, the shooter starts shooting and everyone else pulls their guns and starts blindly shooting at anything. Just maybe somebody kills the shooter (Mateen) but there is plenty of gunfire going and soon people are shooting at muzzle flashes. The shooting continues until everyone is dead, even the police. The disaster turns out to be much worse that it would have been. I am in line with the president on gun control. He has been lied about by people saying he wants to take your guns away. I have read and heard him talk about his policies concerning gun control and he just wants more in depth checks to make sure that weapons of mass destruction do not get in the hands of the wrong people intent on doing cowardly bodily harm to others. If you are a good law abiding citizen then you can have your guns. The president and many others just want to make sure that firearms do not go in the hands of bad people that intend on harming others. Yes the bad guys can still get illegal or stolen guns if they have the connections but it is more difficult to get a full automatic if they don’t have connections. All illegal or stolen guns at one time were bought legally. BTW, a few years back Rosie O’Donnell had a day time talk show if some of you remember. The show was a flop but she had Tom Selleck on as a guest on once when he was a member the NRA. I do not approve of her ambushing Selleck the way she did when he sat down. |
||||
|
when u can guarantee that the no fly list and the terror watch list do not contain any law abiding citizens then I will back them as the basis for enhanced back ground checks that will prevent gun ownership. Also as long as the terror watch list is accurate that would not contain law abiding citizens. there also needs to be a quick appeal process so anybody placed on the list can appeal his inclusion. if there was a way to get rid of names on these lists the Congressman John Lewis's name would be off by now. This issue seems to boil every few years and until both sides can decide on an approach there will be nothing done. There are politicians on both sides o the isle that are against any gun control. The country today is a very angry country and people are lashing out and unfortunately the innocent are the ones to get hurt.
| |||
6/23/2016 8:27 pm |
An AR-15 isn't a weapon of mass destruction,as a rifle,it's really rather small. Yes,when the constitution was written,muskets were the norm. However,they were the only thing around. It's my belief thew second ad was written to protect citizens from oppressive govt,and also my belief we should be armed almost to the degree of the military if we so choose.
| |||
|
An AR-15 isn't a weapon of mass destruction,as a rifle,it's really rather small. Yes,when the constitution was written,muskets were the norm. However,they were the only thing around. It's my belief thew second ad was written to protect citizens from oppressive govt,and also my belief we should be armed almost to the degree of the military if we so choose.
| |||
6/23/2016 6:17 pm |
Thank you and your father for your service, however, we do not get effective laws written with kneejerk, rash, politically flamboyant showoffs staging a childish set-in eating pizza while in the House Chambers. The Laws have to be constitutional which Pelosi's concoction is not. You can not take away the rights of decent law abiding citizens , like yourself, by using a list based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay. The compiled "watch" list needs judicial review. For MONTHS after the shooting in the South Carolina Church thousands of FBI & DOJ man hours were wasted by Black Lives Matter activists chasing down every Confederate flag owning "terrorist" Just maybe had those agents time not been WASTED they might have focused a bit more time on the Matteen case. We need effective laws within the constraints of the constitution this is only achieve by negotiation and cooperation not by garish theatrics in the halls of Congress for the media cameras.
| |||
|
A very thoughtful; and correct approach to this situation
|
×
×