Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
9MMare
Member
Heh, oh yeah.
But we should be more than happy to accommodate him. Some of us argue with people we know will never change their minds all the time...knowing that it gives us a platform to speak our mind and present our side.
Gives us practice honing our arguments for when they really count
so you say its better for us citizens to be armed by outsiders?
or let us keep our arms as the second amendment says
Sam Cade
Member
Not that the source of small arms in the hands of the citizenry matters but...
Back that up. Got Cites?
The ownership of private arms was wholly illegal in Libya*. The citizenry armed themselves chiefly by raiding government armories.
*my spellcheck wants to autocorrect Libya to labia. LOL!
One of the moderators sent me a post about the Battle of Athens in 1946. This is a fascinating story to me, and its one that I was unaware of until tonight. I believe that it may justify the 2nd Amendment on a micro level, but I already was willing to accept that argument. I want to stress that I am a believer in the 2nd Amendment. I just don't believe that it would be effective on a macro level, nor has it ever been.
In other words, private citizens can be effective using firearms to protect themselves against home invasion or from a corrupt local government. But I don't believe they can be effective protecting themselves against a national government.
In other words, private citizens can be effective using firearms to protect themselves against home invasion or from a corrupt local government. But I don't believe they can be effective protecting themselves against a national government.
Timmy4 - have you ever heard of Timothy Murphy?
He was the American marksman who killed British General Simon Frazier at Saratoga, NY in 1777.
Historians generally agree that France only entered the war because the American colonists showed themselves capable of winning a battle at Saratoga. A civilian using his own rifle made a shot count on that battlefield and affected the outcome of the entire war. His actions helped get us that French aid, which we did need to win.
In any case, the Second Amendment has been decided as an individual right. At the very least, Heller vs. DC outlines a right to own weapons in common use and to use them for self defense.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in this country. Magpul is currently working on a backlog of over 1 million magazines, and there are probably a billion high capacity magazines in circulation in this country right now. People are buying them as fast as they can be made. If that doesn't institute common use, I don't know what does.
In reading the words of the Founders, it is evident that many of them saw an armed population as a deterrent to tyranny. Whether that's relevant or not in today's world isn't really even the point. The right exists and if people want to change that, there is a system in place to change the Constitution. I would argue against it and oppose it vigorously, but if this country did decide to repeal the Second Amendment and place some kind of restrictions on arms, I'd abide by it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd obey the law.
But opponents of the RKBA need to stop trying to gut it with legislation. Go about it the right way, or don't do it at all.
You also may want to check out the Liberal Gun Club discussion forum. I just found them myself... and was shocked to find a community of liberals who are all firearms enthusiasts. But I think my ideology is more in line with them than it is with the "right."
He was the American marksman who killed British General Simon Frazier at Saratoga, NY in 1777.
Historians generally agree that France only entered the war because the American colonists showed themselves capable of winning a battle at Saratoga. A civilian using his own rifle made a shot count on that battlefield and affected the outcome of the entire war. His actions helped get us that French aid, which we did need to win.
In any case, the Second Amendment has been decided as an individual right. At the very least, Heller vs. DC outlines a right to own weapons in common use and to use them for self defense.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in this country. Magpul is currently working on a backlog of over 1 million magazines, and there are probably a billion high capacity magazines in circulation in this country right now. People are buying them as fast as they can be made. If that doesn't institute common use, I don't know what does.
In reading the words of the Founders, it is evident that many of them saw an armed population as a deterrent to tyranny. Whether that's relevant or not in today's world isn't really even the point. The right exists and if people want to change that, there is a system in place to change the Constitution. I would argue against it and oppose it vigorously, but if this country did decide to repeal the Second Amendment and place some kind of restrictions on arms, I'd abide by it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd obey the law.
But opponents of the RKBA need to stop trying to gut it with legislation. Go about it the right way, or don't do it at all.
You also may want to check out the Liberal Gun Club discussion forum. I just found them myself... and was shocked to find a community of liberals who are all firearms enthusiasts. But I think my ideology is more in line with them than it is with the "right."
If us pro2a guys have no chance at taking on the government, they why do politicians and big government supporters want to restrict firearms so much? If rifles are only used in 6% of murders, they why do they want to take away the semi auto rifles, yet they let pistols slide (other than magazine capacities)? Why is it that the few cases in which rifles are used, it is all over the news, but local deaths due to pistols don't make the nightly news?
Could it be that people think they will be able to control us, if we are not armed as well? Do they want to weaken the general public? If one person can cause so much devastation in a school, then what can a whole militia of like minded citizens do? What if some LEO's and military side on the citizens' side and help them out?
The government already tells us how much we will pay in taxes, what we can and can not buy, how we have to build vehicles to strict emissions standards, and they tell us that we have to buy health insurance, among other things. It sounds like we serve our government, rather than government serving the people. Many of us are already unhappy about the government controlling our lives. The people who don't mind, are probably the same ones who want to do away with gun rights. They don't loose anything if the 2nd Amendment disappears. We loose everything we stand for.
The speed limit doesn't stop people from speeding, laws don't prevent people from causing harm to others, making drugs illegal doesn't protect us from having people hooked on drugs. Should bars be made illegal? How many people drive to the bar, have a few, and decide they are good to drive home? There are many who will use a designated driver or will hang out and eat and drink without consuming alcohol. They know what is right and wrong. Gun owners know right from wrong, and are generally law abiding. Why should the masses pay the price for a few? If people really want a gun, they can obtain it the same way they get their illegal drugs. If that is more difficult, they will find some other way to do harm. It comes down to the persons intent, not what object they have. Where there is a will, there is a way!
Could it be that people think they will be able to control us, if we are not armed as well? Do they want to weaken the general public? If one person can cause so much devastation in a school, then what can a whole militia of like minded citizens do? What if some LEO's and military side on the citizens' side and help them out?
The government already tells us how much we will pay in taxes, what we can and can not buy, how we have to build vehicles to strict emissions standards, and they tell us that we have to buy health insurance, among other things. It sounds like we serve our government, rather than government serving the people. Many of us are already unhappy about the government controlling our lives. The people who don't mind, are probably the same ones who want to do away with gun rights. They don't loose anything if the 2nd Amendment disappears. We loose everything we stand for.
The speed limit doesn't stop people from speeding, laws don't prevent people from causing harm to others, making drugs illegal doesn't protect us from having people hooked on drugs. Should bars be made illegal? How many people drive to the bar, have a few, and decide they are good to drive home? There are many who will use a designated driver or will hang out and eat and drink without consuming alcohol. They know what is right and wrong. Gun owners know right from wrong, and are generally law abiding. Why should the masses pay the price for a few? If people really want a gun, they can obtain it the same way they get their illegal drugs. If that is more difficult, they will find some other way to do harm. It comes down to the persons intent, not what object they have. Where there is a will, there is a way!
You seem to want absolutes and the world is rarely a matter of black and white absolutes.
If the start of a revolution through armed resistance by the population would be crushed without outside support that doesn't invalidate that the population had the capability to resist and hold on long enough to receive assistance from internal sources like defecting police and military units or outside sources. Without that initial unsupported ability to resist the opportunity for assistance would never have come about. The validity of the benefit of armed resistance by citizens isn't based on success at every point in the struggle.
I don't know why people think I'm a shill. As I understand it, that would mean that I am fake somehow. But I've been very open in my disagreements. If I were a shill, I would probably pretend to agree with you guys and then throw around some fake quotes or some stupid arguments that hopefully you might absorb. But I've been pretty honest.Heh, oh yeah.
But we should be more than happy to accommodate him. Some of us argue with people we know will never change their minds all the time...knowing that it gives us a platform to speak our mind and present our side.
Gives us practice honing our arguments for when they really count
I am not trying to win anything here. I don't see this as a game.
9MMare
Member
Exactly. And that doesnt even take into consideration the ability of the govt to command our own troops against us. A great many will not. And they will be an entryway into many more tactics, arms, and bigger and better weaponry.
For whatever faults it has, Rawlings' "Patriots" paints a decent picture of how this could possibly go down....as have many other SHTF/post-apocalyptic authors.
And even if we dont win, that's doubtful...it doesnt matter. The toll wouldnt be worth it.
Last edited:
BobTheTomato
Member
I would like to point out in Rwanda the Tutsis were hacked to death with machetes and other knives by their neighbors. The Hutus were told by the government to kill the Tutsis or they would be shot. Gang rape and mutilation and horrific things followed. Had people been armed they might not have been murdered or it would not have gone so easily. It might not have stopped it but I am sure the people with nothing other than their hands or a piece of wood to defend themselves knowing a gang of people were about to kill their family and rape any women present before slaughtering them would have gladly died fighting.
Wow! Timmy4. What a nice non-threatening username.
Comes in hear and expects everyone to defend their opinions to him.
I'm not playing Timmy4. I, for one, am tired of people demanding I defend my beliefs to them.
How about you, Timmy4, defend yourself to us?
What gives you the right to question our right to keep and bear arms? What give anyone the right to question what we want to do?
Does your fear of weapons give you the right to want to take away ours?
Can you show any examples of any firearm owned past or present by any member of this forum having been used in a crime?
Have you ever served in the military? Or done anything else to serve your country, and protect the rights of its citizenry? Even participated in a neighborhood watch?
I suspect your life has centered around book learning. Like so many, you've probably never lived outside of your comfort zone and had real life experiences. You won't gain experience here on an internet forum. If you really want to experience the "gun culture", get out and meet people. Go to a range, rent a weapon, and when you've sent a few hundred rounds down range, see if your opinions don't start to change.
My advice to fellow members? Get off the defensive. Playing a defensive game only ensures loss. Imagine the Super Bowl coming up. Teams will score by being on the offensive. This battle for our rights is no different.
Comes in hear and expects everyone to defend their opinions to him.
I'm not playing Timmy4. I, for one, am tired of people demanding I defend my beliefs to them.
How about you, Timmy4, defend yourself to us?
What gives you the right to question our right to keep and bear arms? What give anyone the right to question what we want to do?
Does your fear of weapons give you the right to want to take away ours?
Can you show any examples of any firearm owned past or present by any member of this forum having been used in a crime?
Have you ever served in the military? Or done anything else to serve your country, and protect the rights of its citizenry? Even participated in a neighborhood watch?
I suspect your life has centered around book learning. Like so many, you've probably never lived outside of your comfort zone and had real life experiences. You won't gain experience here on an internet forum. If you really want to experience the "gun culture", get out and meet people. Go to a range, rent a weapon, and when you've sent a few hundred rounds down range, see if your opinions don't start to change.
My advice to fellow members? Get off the defensive. Playing a defensive game only ensures loss. Imagine the Super Bowl coming up. Teams will score by being on the offensive. This battle for our rights is no different.
9MMare
Member
That's nice.
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.
Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.
mljdeckard
Member
(By the way, the article I posted in #149 has some great detail, of which I was not previously aware. Good read.)
mljdeckard
Member
Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Janet Reno, just for quick examples, have all said that they intend to eventually confiscate all firearms. Why would you not believe their own words?
9MMare
Member
Cool. How do laws restricting the firearms of regular citizens prevent mass shootings (about as rare as airline crashes or wildfires that destroy hundreds of homes) or make them less deadly?
And is that your only issue with Americans owning and carrying firearms? (Sorry, didnt read the whole thread). Or do you have others, besides your personal fear?
Hey, did you see the video of the town councilman in Oak Harbor, WA who walked out of a council meeting because someone was legally carrying a firearm? It's been on the news and a YouTube is circulating.
as in every society there are crazy people and some of them are in government
i believe some of them crazies do want to control us because they are sick with power
many of them might even think they are doing good
on the mass shootings there is no way to stop them
the same way you stop drug smugling is the same way you stop people from having weapons so you see there is no way of doing that
hso said:
Also, being armed could provide the necessary psychological support to resist.
Most of the gun owners I know have considered the possibility of having to resist someone at some point, even if only in a very hypothetical sense. Many are veterans and many more have at least had to master an adrenaline rush in a hunting situation to accurately deliver a round on target.
That doesn't necessarily make them an effective fighting force, but being armed and being able to steady your nerves enough, and having the Second Amendment in your corner as reassurance that you are in the right... well it's certainly better than being armed with a pitchfork.
It's not that a partisan force would even have to win. They just have to make the whole damn thing more trouble than it's worth.
Timmy4, while I agree with you about taking on a national government and winning, many examples have been given about taking on a national government and having a draw. Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets and US), Iraq, and pretty much anywhere else the US has stuck its nose in the last 50 years. While neither side won, in each case the invading power left, or is leaving.
It wasn't effective when the Federal government invaded the Confederacy, but there were times when the North had very bad morale and suffered horrendous defeats. The war probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did had not Southerners been armed. The Southern army was not made up of professional soldiers on a whole, but farmers, merchants, hunters who wanted to resist what they saw as tyranny. They organized themselves as a nation, an army, and built up the logistics to resist. I believe they did a very effective job at it as well.
As I stated previously: Under most oh history's viewpoint, we may not be under a tyrannical government now, but what is to say that it won't happen in 4, 10 or 20 years? Wouldn't you rather trust your neighbor, who you know, to a tyrant 1000 miles away who enforces edicts at the point of a gun?
It wasn't effective when the Federal government invaded the Confederacy, but there were times when the North had very bad morale and suffered horrendous defeats. The war probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did had not Southerners been armed. The Southern army was not made up of professional soldiers on a whole, but farmers, merchants, hunters who wanted to resist what they saw as tyranny. They organized themselves as a nation, an army, and built up the logistics to resist. I believe they did a very effective job at it as well.
As I stated previously: Under most oh history's viewpoint, we may not be under a tyrannical government now, but what is to say that it won't happen in 4, 10 or 20 years? Wouldn't you rather trust your neighbor, who you know, to a tyrant 1000 miles away who enforces edicts at the point of a gun?
9MMare
Member
He has every right to be afraid of guns.
Some people are afraid of dogs.
I'm afraid of spiders.
He claims that's not his motivating factor in his journey of discovery.
And even if it was, it is not a legitimate reason for curtailing the rights of others.
This will be my last post of the night, guys. I need to go to bed. I will try to respond more in the morning.
1. I don't expect anyone to defend themselves to me. I've asked some questions, and some people were kind enough to answer. I make no demands.
2. I'm happy to answer your questions. Here goes:
3. As an American citizen, I reserve the right to give my opinion about any law or proposed law. That includes all issues of gun ownership.
4. You live in a civilized society, not out in the woods. That gives everyone else who lives in said society the right to question what you do. It doesn't necessarily give them the right to enforce their will upon you, but it does give them the right to question.
5. My fear of firearms is immaterial to the discussion of what should be done about them. I wrote that to provide an honest evaluation of my own personal biases so that people could understand where I was coming from. It does not make me any more correct nor incorrect in my opinions on this issue.
6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.
7. No, I have not served in the military. My father and grandfather did. I have great respect for anyone who serves or has served. I thank them for their service and for protecting my freedom.
8. I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.
Hope that answers all of your questions. Good night, everyone!
1911 guy
Member
Some of them ARE well meaning. That's precisely what terrifies me sometimes.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Treat me with benign neglect.– C. S. Lewis
The second amendment was put in place by Founders who saw a real threat from government, even the government they themselves had created. The point was not that they envisioned a coming conflict between the government and the people, they sought to prevent it by making the people have parity with the government.
I'm going to make a statement that will probably bend your mind a little regarding supposed "high capacity" magazines. They offer no benefit nor liability for someone intent on a mass shooting. Simply inserting another lesser capacity magazine in place of the now empty one results in a freshly loaded firearm in approximately one to two seconds. In fact, I could, if you wanted me to, make a case that a determined shooter with the same amount of ammunition distributed in a larger number of lesser capacity magazines may in fact be more likely to kill more people.
As far as background checks, most criminals report getting their guns from theft, either directly or from a "fence". Imposing checks on gun owners would do nothing to deter an already established black market.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Treat me with benign neglect.– C. S. Lewis
The second amendment was put in place by Founders who saw a real threat from government, even the government they themselves had created. The point was not that they envisioned a coming conflict between the government and the people, they sought to prevent it by making the people have parity with the government.
I'm going to make a statement that will probably bend your mind a little regarding supposed "high capacity" magazines. They offer no benefit nor liability for someone intent on a mass shooting. Simply inserting another lesser capacity magazine in place of the now empty one results in a freshly loaded firearm in approximately one to two seconds. In fact, I could, if you wanted me to, make a case that a determined shooter with the same amount of ammunition distributed in a larger number of lesser capacity magazines may in fact be more likely to kill more people.
As far as background checks, most criminals report getting their guns from theft, either directly or from a "fence". Imposing checks on gun owners would do nothing to deter an already established black market.
9MMare
Member
Sleep tight.
My signature clarifies some things for me, "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
And everyone has to decide how much responsibility they want to take for their own lives and own safety...and realize that 'freedom' means some risks in life. How much freedom we are willing to give up for that safety is up to us.
The rarity of random shootings seems a silly thing to give up freedom for. And the frequency of crime seems like a very good reason to retain as much of my freedom and 2A rights as possible (even tho that is not the reason for the 2A).
My signature clarifies some things for me, "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
And everyone has to decide how much responsibility they want to take for their own lives and own safety...and realize that 'freedom' means some risks in life. How much freedom we are willing to give up for that safety is up to us.
The rarity of random shootings seems a silly thing to give up freedom for. And the frequency of crime seems like a very good reason to retain as much of my freedom and 2A rights as possible (even tho that is not the reason for the 2A).
BobTheTomato
Member
If politicians were truly well meaning, they would be trying to do something about murder in Chicago or DC. As many have pointed out here many of these rabidly anti gun governmental officials hate concealed carry but carry a firearm themselves. Diane Finstein has a CCW but she thinks you shouldn't. They gladly accept armed guards with automatic weapons but you can't have a glock with more than 10 rounds.
You know what? When Obama gets up and says, "Hey I gonna take Uncle Joe's advice and tell the secret service to drop the full autos and use good old double barrels like he suggested." Then I might start to believe him. Biden actually did say a shotgun was a better defense weapon:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...arthquake-buy-some-shotgun-shells_697650.html
When cops can only have 10 round mags and no scary features then I might start to get on board. I mean we potentially face the same threats as the police.....right?
Oh and you say no slippery slope will happen but NY just went from 10 to 7. I guess if there is another tragedy they might go to 5. I mean you can't let a good tragedy go to waste.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked