Most will be afraid to fight back. I give you advice. Hire CPA or tax professional so you can pay least in taxes as allowed by regulation. Help your kids or grandkids encouriging them to study hard so they have opitons other than joining the military or police work. If you want to be heard organize and stage large peaceful demonstrations as that is the only thing politicians pay attention to.
1A vs 2A
- Thread starter milemaker13
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
Paulsj, we can war game this until the cows come home. There's always "something" the authorities can do and always "something" the resistors can do in response.
I never said a resistance would have it easy. They won't. My main novel point (assuming I have one ...... ) is the govt. will not have it "easy," either.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they believed they would win the war. They were wrong. When we responded by declaring war, we hoped and prayed we would win .... and we did. On December 8th, 1941, no one knew we would win and no one knew how long the war would last.
"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy," ~~ General Dwight David Eisenhower.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
The same people that are against the 2nd amendment are now coming out against the 1st. They also seem to be against property rights and most individual rights
Deanimator
Member
By their own admission, they want to reduce this country to medieval squalor. Armed resistance would be a real impediment to that.
AlexanderA
Member
Who are you talking about? Nobody, but nobody, is against prosperity.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover AR 15s, then the 1st Amendment doesn't cover radio, television, or high-speed offset presses.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
These people can be divided into two groups, evil and ignorant. The majority, IMO, are just ignorant followers that have little money, no property and lack the intellect and ambition to improve their lives. They are easily lead by evil politicians to think that striping rights from others will somehow better their plight.
Really? https://nypost.com/2019/01/15/americans-support-ocasio-cortezs-70-percent-tax-rate-on-rich-poll/
Ban high capacity assault media such as Twitter. Wonder why? Just for reference, depending on the topic, the right, the left, the religious, the nonbelievers, various minorities - all have proposed 1st Amendment violations. Don't get into the mode of thinking your particular group is holier than thou on this issue.
Politically correct speech codes are no different from flag burning laws or blasphemy laws.
An armed populace is a threat to elites because it gives an alternative basis of power. Both the left and right monied elites don't want the peasant/worker class to have guns. Rich factory conservative owners don't want union folks to resist union breaking gangs or police, for instance. See the past.
Politically correct speech codes are no different from flag burning laws or blasphemy laws.
An armed populace is a threat to elites because it gives an alternative basis of power. Both the left and right monied elites don't want the peasant/worker class to have guns. Rich factory conservative owners don't want union folks to resist union breaking gangs or police, for instance. See the past.
entropy
Member
My reply to those who've tried to tell me that the 2nd should apply to flintlock muzzleloaders only is "OK; then it is only fair the 1st should apply to quill pens and platen presses only." Most just stare blankly because the do not know what either of those are......
entropy
Member
Socialists are, by definition. Socialism brings every one down to the same level of misery. (Except for the ruling elite, of course. Read Animal Farm sometime.) There has not been one example on this Earth of Socialism turning a poverty-stricken nation into a wealthy one, yet there are numerous examples of the reverse, including the latest playing out before our very eyes. No, not the US (yet), Venezuela.
Deanimator
Member
Does the name Alexandria Octavio-Cortez not ring a bell?
Her "Green New Deal" would inflict on the people of the United States a combination of the razing of Carthage, Stalin's terror famine, the Nazi Hunger Plan for Eastern Europe, the Japanese "3 Alls" in China, the Morganthau Plan for Germany, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge "Year Zero".
How many Democrat presidential candidates have endorsed it?
That can ONLY be imposed by brute force, something that would be resisted with utmost violence.
As Lenin said, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. That's infinitely harder when the eggs have guns.
jamesjames
Member
ya know, guys, using hyperole is not the same as a convincing argument. When you go to the extreme to paint the other side as animals or tyrants, you score lots of knuckle-dragger style points, but your argument is not convincing.
The left is persuaded by breathless media reports that their safety is in peril because we own guns. Guns are designed for killing so they must be bad.
Its up to us to argue that 300 million guns in the hands of responsible gun owners means that these guns don't kill people precisely because responsible gun owners don't kill people. More gun laws and restrictions don't make you safer if criminals find ways to obtain guns unlawfully and kill people for unlawful and crazy reasons. Gun death is in the top 40 ways to die in this country, but the likelyhood of any particular person being killed by a gun is similar to the chances of getting hit by lighting or dying in a car crash.
Refining our arguments to the most reasonable, sane, rational, obvious arguments is how we win. Taking them to the ridiculous extreme is how we lose.
The left is persuaded by breathless media reports that their safety is in peril because we own guns. Guns are designed for killing so they must be bad.
Its up to us to argue that 300 million guns in the hands of responsible gun owners means that these guns don't kill people precisely because responsible gun owners don't kill people. More gun laws and restrictions don't make you safer if criminals find ways to obtain guns unlawfully and kill people for unlawful and crazy reasons. Gun death is in the top 40 ways to die in this country, but the likelyhood of any particular person being killed by a gun is similar to the chances of getting hit by lighting or dying in a car crash.
Refining our arguments to the most reasonable, sane, rational, obvious arguments is how we win. Taking them to the ridiculous extreme is how we lose.
Last edited:
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
No, I disagree with your concluding point. Both 1A and 2A are as relevant as ever.
1A is an expansive individual right. 1A is not technology dependent - "speech" has not changed, but the technology options have certainly evolved. 1A is not limited to political speech, purely speaking. But there are limits to what you can say (slander, libel, government secrets are not covered) and where (the public space, vs. private spaces). And even in the latter, First Amendments rights are creeping into the private space, such as with social media (at least in regards to public officials "tweeting" ... that becomes a public space).
2A - after a few centuries delay - has finally been confirmed to be an individual right. And 2A extends not just to firearms, but to things like stun guns (according to SCOTUS). So, 2A is not entirely technology dependent** (more on this below). And 2Ais not limited to narrow "militia" related roles ... quite to the contrary, SCOTUS has found the right to individual self-defense to be covered under 2A. But there are technological and behavioral limits here as well - in terms of what you can possess, where you can carry, etc. And that is going to be a vibrant area of court tests over the coming years.
The logic behind 2A is finally beginning to dovetail with 1A and the other individual rights enshined in the Bill or Rights.
Discussions like these are difficult if the participants don't have at least some of the same assumptions. So, with your co-worker, it is more than likely that he is not up to speed on the very fundamentals.
- 2A is an individual right. Period.
- 2A covers self defense as well as community defense. Sorry, it ain't just for hunting.
- 2A does not in itself limit what types of weapons an individual may keep and bear (aside from the interpretation that an "arm" is something that can been individually managed).
Many people are simply not up to speed with what SCOTUS has already decided on 2A. Many in media cannot come to terms with it, and report it inaccuratly or more commonly don't cover this part of the story at all. Many on the left cannot accept it, and are intent on pursuing legislation that flies in the face of the real scope of 2A, disingenously creating their own narrative separate of Court doctrine or the real world.
Your co-worker is either ignorant or unwilling to accept these fundamentals. And no meaningful discussion can happen when the other side keeps inventing their own "story."
On the other side, we get caught up in simplistic ideas that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, because 2A says "shall not be infringed." Well, the reality is not going to be that simple...
- 2A does not necessarily convey an individual right to all forms of arms, without limitation. The limits of this part of the right to keep and bear arms is a core part of the current debate. As Scalia himself once jested, an individual right probably does not convey to an anti-aircraft missile or a nuclear bomb, because you can't really "bear" a nuclear missile. (OK I guess you could if you had an SS-25 and cruised around town with it...)
- The framers intended us to have whatever was commonly in use at the time. There are probably something like 10 million AR-15s lawfully possessed by Americans. That sure as heck seems like something that is in "common use".
1A is an expansive individual right. 1A is not technology dependent - "speech" has not changed, but the technology options have certainly evolved. 1A is not limited to political speech, purely speaking. But there are limits to what you can say (slander, libel, government secrets are not covered) and where (the public space, vs. private spaces). And even in the latter, First Amendments rights are creeping into the private space, such as with social media (at least in regards to public officials "tweeting" ... that becomes a public space).
2A - after a few centuries delay - has finally been confirmed to be an individual right. And 2A extends not just to firearms, but to things like stun guns (according to SCOTUS). So, 2A is not entirely technology dependent** (more on this below). And 2Ais not limited to narrow "militia" related roles ... quite to the contrary, SCOTUS has found the right to individual self-defense to be covered under 2A. But there are technological and behavioral limits here as well - in terms of what you can possess, where you can carry, etc. And that is going to be a vibrant area of court tests over the coming years.
The logic behind 2A is finally beginning to dovetail with 1A and the other individual rights enshined in the Bill or Rights.
Discussions like these are difficult if the participants don't have at least some of the same assumptions. So, with your co-worker, it is more than likely that he is not up to speed on the very fundamentals.
- 2A is an individual right. Period.
- 2A covers self defense as well as community defense. Sorry, it ain't just for hunting.
- 2A does not in itself limit what types of weapons an individual may keep and bear (aside from the interpretation that an "arm" is something that can been individually managed).
Many people are simply not up to speed with what SCOTUS has already decided on 2A. Many in media cannot come to terms with it, and report it inaccuratly or more commonly don't cover this part of the story at all. Many on the left cannot accept it, and are intent on pursuing legislation that flies in the face of the real scope of 2A, disingenously creating their own narrative separate of Court doctrine or the real world.
Your co-worker is either ignorant or unwilling to accept these fundamentals. And no meaningful discussion can happen when the other side keeps inventing their own "story."
On the other side, we get caught up in simplistic ideas that we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, because 2A says "shall not be infringed." Well, the reality is not going to be that simple...
- 2A does not necessarily convey an individual right to all forms of arms, without limitation. The limits of this part of the right to keep and bear arms is a core part of the current debate. As Scalia himself once jested, an individual right probably does not convey to an anti-aircraft missile or a nuclear bomb, because you can't really "bear" a nuclear missile. (OK I guess you could if you had an SS-25 and cruised around town with it...)
- The framers intended us to have whatever was commonly in use at the time. There are probably something like 10 million AR-15s lawfully possessed by Americans. That sure as heck seems like something that is in "common use".
Deanimator
Member
The other side goes to the extreme to paint ITSELF as animals and tyrants.
It wasn't advocates for the 2nd Amendment who proposed a luddite police state or threatened to nuke the United States.
That was proponents of racially invidious gun controls.
I'm certainly not going to keep quiet about that. And why WOULD I, to shield THEM from embarrassment and ridicule?
jamesjames
Member
I try to be reasonable with my posts here precisely because it is a social media platform where 1A and 2A rights are discussed and come together. This is the crucible where positive and persuasive 2A arguments are honed and where we learn from each other how to be better ambassadors of 2A to the general public.
Using the unhinged rhetoric of the Twitter-verse to unleash tirades of mass destruction does our side harm.
After 20 or 30 years of venting our spleen at the other side, the only thing we have accomplished is fear and loathing. Nice job!
Meanwhile, and in spite of ourselves, there seems to be an undercurrent of people on the left and in the middle discovering 2A and arming themselves for the first time. They are discovering their own personal power and personal responsibility.
This is accomplished through arguments that appeal to reason, not bloviation.
Using the unhinged rhetoric of the Twitter-verse to unleash tirades of mass destruction does our side harm.
After 20 or 30 years of venting our spleen at the other side, the only thing we have accomplished is fear and loathing. Nice job!
Meanwhile, and in spite of ourselves, there seems to be an undercurrent of people on the left and in the middle discovering 2A and arming themselves for the first time. They are discovering their own personal power and personal responsibility.
This is accomplished through arguments that appeal to reason, not bloviation.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
I tend to agree - hyperbole is fun on forums, and fodder for headline blurbs, but it not the stuff for a convincing argument. But, the world being what it is, there can be no convincing arguments if we are all reduced to the level of screaming hyperbolic 280-character tweets at eachother. The world has been reduced to the one sentence soundbite.
That's the irony - as the OP noted, we can communicate worldwide with the touch of a button. But we've handicapped ourselves into communicating with these ridiculous tweets - going for the zinger, and not a real discussion.
The other irony is who does not trust human nature, and who does. The left - the progressives - do not trust us to make our own decisions. They have no faith in humankind. Their entire platform is based around the assumption that we are lazy, incompetant, or will always do our worst. When you say that "guns are designed for killing so they must be bad" ... that actually is a deflection from their real assumption: "People are bad"
Hence the ever expanding social programs. And regulation upon regulation. And taking away anything more dangerous than a marshmallow from the individual - whether that is a lawn dart or a rifle. Heck, I don't doubt that someday someone will legislate against square tables, because we can't be trusted not to run into the corner of and get a groin injury. Because it's not about the individual. It's about the community, about society (or at least their vision of it). And if one individual can't be trusted (for whatever reason), then nobody can be trusted.
However, the conservatives - the curmudgeonly, right of center, suit and tie guys - at heart have to have MORE faith in human nature. Even though the conservatives always sound more negative, we are at heart more positive about the individual and what they can do. Individual want to acheive, want to excel, will usually try to do our best. And we make mistakes. But the vast majority of people are trying. And we trust that they will generally do the right thing.
"People are generally good". Yes, some people are bad, and they must be guarded against. But to deny rights, opportunities and liberties to the majority, because of the potential actions of the very few, does great injury to the very principles on which this form of government was founded.
This is why the "gun debate" is about a LOT more than just chunks of metal that propel other little chunks of metal. The the real debate is much more fundamental.
And that is the exact debate that caved in around one of the "Moms" I was "discussing" things wiht two months ago. The convo is pretty well burned into memory:
me - "Why don't YOU trust ME.?"
her - Pause ... "It's not about you, its about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them."
me - "OK, great totally agree, let's enforce the laws. So you're OK with AR-15s, for example, with people that can have them"
her - "Absolutely not, there's no place in society for such weapons of war"
me - "Ah, so that get's back to the question, why don't YOU trust ME?"
her - "Because one person - not you, but some person - can do so much damage"
me - "Ah, one person. Why do 300 million have to sacrifice a right for the actions of one person? Aren't we still talking about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them?"
her - "No, if there were no weapons of war on the streets, we wouldn't have to worry about that one person"
me - "Yeah, until he gets a knife, a car, or a can of gasoline..."
her - "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. We can't have this conversation anymore."
Of course, now that she's extrapolated that I may have one of these horrible AR thingies, she won't allow her kids to play with our kids.
And I am aware that she is active within the county Democrat Party, Everytown, PTA and is a school board activist. And I am watching her closely - she's a walking conflict of interest, one-woman ethics violation machine.
That's the irony - as the OP noted, we can communicate worldwide with the touch of a button. But we've handicapped ourselves into communicating with these ridiculous tweets - going for the zinger, and not a real discussion.
The other irony is who does not trust human nature, and who does. The left - the progressives - do not trust us to make our own decisions. They have no faith in humankind. Their entire platform is based around the assumption that we are lazy, incompetant, or will always do our worst. When you say that "guns are designed for killing so they must be bad" ... that actually is a deflection from their real assumption: "People are bad"
Hence the ever expanding social programs. And regulation upon regulation. And taking away anything more dangerous than a marshmallow from the individual - whether that is a lawn dart or a rifle. Heck, I don't doubt that someday someone will legislate against square tables, because we can't be trusted not to run into the corner of and get a groin injury. Because it's not about the individual. It's about the community, about society (or at least their vision of it). And if one individual can't be trusted (for whatever reason), then nobody can be trusted.
However, the conservatives - the curmudgeonly, right of center, suit and tie guys - at heart have to have MORE faith in human nature. Even though the conservatives always sound more negative, we are at heart more positive about the individual and what they can do. Individual want to acheive, want to excel, will usually try to do our best. And we make mistakes. But the vast majority of people are trying. And we trust that they will generally do the right thing.
"People are generally good". Yes, some people are bad, and they must be guarded against. But to deny rights, opportunities and liberties to the majority, because of the potential actions of the very few, does great injury to the very principles on which this form of government was founded.
This is why the "gun debate" is about a LOT more than just chunks of metal that propel other little chunks of metal. The the real debate is much more fundamental.
And that is the exact debate that caved in around one of the "Moms" I was "discussing" things wiht two months ago. The convo is pretty well burned into memory:
me - "Why don't YOU trust ME.?"
her - Pause ... "It's not about you, its about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them."
me - "OK, great totally agree, let's enforce the laws. So you're OK with AR-15s, for example, with people that can have them"
her - "Absolutely not, there's no place in society for such weapons of war"
me - "Ah, so that get's back to the question, why don't YOU trust ME?"
her - "Because one person - not you, but some person - can do so much damage"
me - "Ah, one person. Why do 300 million have to sacrifice a right for the actions of one person? Aren't we still talking about keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them?"
her - "No, if there were no weapons of war on the streets, we wouldn't have to worry about that one person"
me - "Yeah, until he gets a knife, a car, or a can of gasoline..."
her - "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. We can't have this conversation anymore."
Of course, now that she's extrapolated that I may have one of these horrible AR thingies, she won't allow her kids to play with our kids.
And I am aware that she is active within the county Democrat Party, Everytown, PTA and is a school board activist. And I am watching her closely - she's a walking conflict of interest, one-woman ethics violation machine.
AlexanderA
Member
This is not earth-shaking. Back in the 1960's, the top marginal rate was as high as 91%. When I went to work for the IRS, in 1970, the top rate was 70%, with a cap of 50% for earned income. To say that the top 1% of earners should pay more tax is not remotely "socialism."
By European standards, Bernie Sanders and AOC are not socialists, but are "social Democrats." A welfare state, per se, is not socialism. No American politician advocates the public ownership of the means of production, which is the hallmark of true socialism. BTW, the latest Wisconsin poll shows Bernie Sanders at 39% and Elizabeth Warren at 14%. Does that mean that a majority of Wisconsin Democrats are "socialist"? I don't think so...
Deanimator
Member
Don't you mean the ON THE RECORD comments of two sitting members of Congress? One wants to make the United States look like 1970s Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and the other threatened to nuke gun owners.
Again, why on earth would I NOT talk about that? They're just two of the proponents of "common sense gun safety regulations".
It's almost as if you're trying to shield the other side from embarrassment...
Deanimator
Member
AlexanderA
Member
You should have nailed her down on what she would do with the millions of AR-15's already in private hands. Antigun politicians don't like to talk about confiscation. Beto O'Rourke is talking about stopping the commercial sale of AR-15's, but grandfathering existing ones (and he's getting a lot of flak from the left on that). That's the position that most of the Democrats are going to take, once the difficulties become evident.
Last edited:
So now she is not only an ignorant democratic anti, she’s also a segregationist. Seems about par for the course.
You could offer her facts. Like that the police have no duty to protect her or her precious children should they be attacked, robbed, raped, or attempted to be murdered. Or you could show her how many people are killed in every other possible way except “weapons of war”. And how those numbers compare. You could use New Zealand as an example of a good guy with a gun being the only thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun.
I could play the “Or” game all day with this one. But she is indoctrinated. So might as well just let her be a sheeple. It’s her 1A right to spew ignorance and (now) stupidity from her mouth.
milemaker13
Member
Hey now.... was the NZ shooter stopped by a good guy? Any more details? I certainly haven't heard that on the radio news... hmmm... I wonder why they didnt mention that?
Tommygunn
Member
A highly progressive income tax was one of the 10 planks of communism according to Marx and Engels. Back when the top rate was 91% there were so many tax shelters that most people in that catagory, taking advantage of those shelters, actually cut a check to the government for +- 35% of their income.
As for whether Bernie Sanders or AOC are true socialists or "democratic" socialists, I don't give one whit. They're dangerously inimical to American freedoms, culture, and free enterprise which are the hallmarks of America.
In addition, AOC is ... well, I'm sorry, just woefully ignorant. Bernie ..... well .... he has a better "act."
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
This is the interesting dichotomy in how the two amendments are being handled.
1A is not about a technology or a thing, its about the right of an individual do DO something. 1A gives you amazing free reign to speak your peace - whether by soapbox, telephone, twitter, radio, or TV.
2A debates are so often about the technology or the thing. The other side is consumed with a hoplophic focus on a chunk of anodized aluminum. And that's the distraction we cannot let them get away with. It's not about the technology, the gun itself. It's about the right of the individual. They say it is about the gun, intentially distracting from the underlying debate about individual freedom of action. But, that's just it - just as 1A protects individual freedom of expression, 2A protect another individual freedom.
And 1A infringments must be able to survive the highest levels of judicial scrutiny. 2A infringments must also be able to survive strict scrutiny. I look forward to the day that SCOTUS takes this on, and rams it down the Circuit Courts pipes. This would dramatically turn the tables of the conversation in the halls of Congress, and even state legislatures (though I doubt anyone in the Twitterverse or Everytown/Moms would pay any attention).
With strict scrutiny, the government would have to provide that purpose of any gun law is compelling (crucial or necessary), rather than something that is simply desired or preferred. Under strict scrutiny, a court may also way how much a positive effect such a law would have, relative to the loss of liberty - and whether there is a less restrictive method of acheiving that end.
With a defined strict scrutiny doctrine, the government would have to defend each of its decisions to limit 2A rights.
Here is where our side needs to think and weigh in carefully. There are likely gun legislation areas where the public interest is compelling, would have a significant positive effect (insert definition of "positive"), and may be the least restrictive method of acheiving an end. And outright ban of semi autos, or "assault weapons" would, IMHO, fail the strict scrutiny test, beause there are less restrictive methods of promoting public safety. Uh oh, but adding them to the NFA would be less restrictive (and backed by precedent on automatic weapons), but would not be the least restrictive. Uh oh (part 2), universal background checks could be argued to be the least restrictive means.
So our side needs to be ready, with thoughtful arguments, to rebut each of those different levels of "infringement." And the challenge, once again, is that presenting such arguments in a legal/regulatory environment, is quantumly different than trying to make a coherent point in the Twitterverse, where we're all just screaming past eachother.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
You stated that "nobody, but nobody is against prosperity" so I gave an example of someone who is (of course she likes her own prosperity).
Want to guess who all those high taxes get passed down to?
- Status
