Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2A is archaic

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 69Chevy, Oct 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 69Chevy

    69Chevy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    I was having a debate with a friend the other day. He leans left on issues, and often without giving a lot of though to the situation (IE: whats wrong with illegal immigrants? let them all in). Yet he likes guns? He said he has no problem with democrats placing restrictions on the types of guns we can own. Such as assualt weapons, he says, you don't need them. I explained that the second amendment was a safe guard against the government and we are entitled to the weapons that the common soldier gets to use, and he said it is archaic. He then says it doesn't matter if the population is armed, that if the government really wanted to use the army to round up civilians for whatever purpose, that they could easily do it and being armed isn't going to make a difference. I pointed out in the revolution and again in vietnam, a determined armed indegenious population can and will put up a fight. He then says that the vietnamese were supplied with arms(like that makes any difference, point is they had them). I think he is an idiot, and I stayed calm, while he got extremely upset, which made me laugh. Then I went to shoot my evil assualt rifle.

    Focus: How is the 2A not archaic and still applicable to today?
     
  2. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    He's right. The 2A is "archaic." So are all the other Amendments. Who needs the Democrats? Sauve qui peut.:evil:
     
  3. Rev. DeadCorpse

    Rev. DeadCorpse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    295
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Criminals still exist.
    Governments still oppress their people.
    Still game to hunt.
    It's fun.

    :banghead:
     
  4. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    How old is this genius?
     
  5. 69Chevy

    69Chevy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    23 years old. We went to a gun store the other day and he immediately fell in love with the old mil surps and was about to buy one. Still probably does want too. Maybe he can be saved, who knows...
     
  6. DRMMR02

    DRMMR02 member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    The problem is, at least to me, that it's really hard bringing up the "governments oppress their people" argument without sounding like a Bubba. It's true of course, but it's hard to argue, especially online, without immediately sound like some paranoid anarchist.
     
  7. Thefabulousfink

    Thefabulousfink Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Just tell him that that mil-surp is and "Evil Assault Rifle" (which it is) and he doesn't need it. Then show him a H&R single-shot break-action and tell him that is all he needs.:p

    I think that might sink in after a few minutes thought.
     
  8. Steve499

    Steve499 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    628
    Location:
    Central Missouri
    The right to freedom and to defend yourself is much more archaic than any restriction any government ever has/will place on the means to do it. Governments can pass laws but they can't change a basic human right by legislation. The 2nd amendment was included to recognize a right that pre-existed it by hundreds of thousands of years. Now THATS archaic!

    Steve
     
  9. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    To many (even in our own government) the entire Constitution is "archaic".

    They can't mold the world (and the US) into what they want with that pesky Constitution which keeps reaffirming our rights as individuals, property owners and "citizen soldiers".


    Free speech is archaic because it allows "hateful" Christians to openly state they believe X is a sin and Y is wrong. And the bloggers to question the "authorities" in the MSM.

    Gun rights are archaic because the police are there to protect us and "civilized" people don't do their own fighting.

    Property rights are archaic because it allows those who own property to do what they want with it (even if the Sierra Club doesn't like it) and it keeps those who don't own property from able to go anywhere they want at any time or using resources they don't pay for.

    States rights are archaic because it keeps the visions of the anointed from trickling down to the local level (those bureaucrats in Washington know whats best for you).

    Freedom of association is archaic because it allows people to chose not to accept [insert specially protected subgroup] in their club/business/home/etc.



    Gun rights is just the tip of the iceberg.
     
  10. kfranz

    kfranz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,155
    Location:
    WI
    I've found that this is usually the argument that you can bring them around on most easily. Just start listing the little things that he has but doesn't need, at least as far as you are concerned.
     
  11. Juna

    Juna Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    The 2nd Amendment is only "archaic" in terms of the date it was written. But the Bill of Rights and all the Constitutional Amendments that we use as the framework of our great nation should never be considered "archaic". That's what makes this the most free nation in the world.

    What happens if we let people start telling us that Amendments are "archaic"? Well, then what's next? The first amendment is archaic, the fourth, the fifth, etc. The reason all of these basic rights (notice I said RIGHTS, not priviledges) were explicitly written down by the founding fathers of this country is that they viewed those as inalienable rights (forever--with no expiration date) that were infringed upon by the British government, which is why they revolted. They foresaw what has happened in this country, which is people trying to whittle away our rights until we're "under control". That's what they were trying to guard against.

    Many people in this country seem to be on this "we wanna be like Europe" thing. The entire point of our nation's existence is to be free, not be shackled with no rights like the Europeans. The government is supposed to be for, of, and by the people, not vice versa. The government is supposed to serve us, not control us.

    The problem lies in the fact that what is broadcast (media, movie stars, Hollywood, etc.) is markedly liberal. It's "cool" to be against guns because guns cause violence and b/c George Clooney and Oprah say so, right? Wrong. Guns are inanimate objects. Knives, fists, and baseball bats are no less capable of being used to inflict violence than guns. It all depends on the user. Hell, cars are more likely to cause violence. What happens is kids grow up idolizing celebrities, and the vast, vast, vast majority of celebrities are non-patriotic liberals who want to be Europeans b/c they think it's "cool". Well, IMO, they can go move there.

    So, no, none of the Amendments should be considered "archaic". Remember, the government is supposed to serve and fear the people, not vice versa. Think about that, and you can see how off our society has become. Think about Hurricane Katrina and the video of the cops & military systematically disarming old ladies trying to defend their homes. Ask your friend if it's still archaic.
     
  12. EddieCoyle

    EddieCoyle Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I have an "anti" friend that asked me, "Why do you need so many guns?"
    I replied, "Why do you need so many golf clubs?

    When he started to answer, I cut him off and said, "I have guns for the same reason."
     
  13. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    5,503
    Location:
    Deep in the valley
    The truely sad aspect (to me at least) is the idea that the government is more like an overbearing mother than anything else. It would be very nice if you could simply and nicely say "Dear mother, I appreciate that you are trying to look out for me but I am all grown up now and would like to take care of myself".

    Unfortunately, many governments (at this point in time) are more like Cathy Bates in "The Water Boy".
     
  14. 69Chevy

    69Chevy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Carlisle, PA
    I told him he didn't need his TV. He cited entertainment. I said that shooting an "assualt" rifle was entertainment to me. Yet it doesn't sink.
     
  15. DRMMR02

    DRMMR02 member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    The standard anti response is. "TV's aren't designed to kill people"
     
  16. Juna

    Juna Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    This is the one I hear all the time from my co-workers. I bring up all sorts of things we don't need. I don't need a Ferrari. I could drive a Yugo. Maybe the government should ban all cars larger or faster than a Yugo. Heck, I don't even need a car, and cars kill more people each year than airplanes or guns. Maybe cars should be banned, altogether.

    I don't need a house. I could live in a one bedroom apartment. It would take up less space and cost less.
     
  17. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    remember the titans

    Paranoid anarchist? You got a problem with that?

    Archaic? Old is beautiful. Trust me, I know from personal experience. Yes, the Founding Fathers are not new and hip. They can't rap for ****. Their clothes look funny and their sentences are too long. All true. But, damn, we miss their CLARITY, do we ever.

    Meanwhile, the Chinese have KillMobiles circulating around. How long before they come to Wal-mart?
     
  18. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Texas
    Ask him if he thinks the rest of the bill of rights written at the same time by the same authors with the same verbiage is archiac.

    If he says "yes" shoot him in the crotch so he won't reproduce and taint the gene pool any more than he already has.
     
  19. cbsbyte

    cbsbyte Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    Location:
    Cradle of Liberty
    Good god, I know the type. It is very hard to argue with people who are gun owners and controdict themselves by not support the RKBA. They are deeply confused people, and much harder to understand than a straight Anti-gunner. I had an argument awhile back with a blue collar hippy type, who is an avid hunter, and gun owner but he supports strict gun control, leftist politics, and the most Liberal anti-gun Democrats. He also had a strong belief that in the long run, it did not matter who he voted for since one day all our gun where going to be taken away, and their was nothing we could do about it. He did believe that the 2nd Ad did gurantee our rights, but that it no longer applied in today's society.
     
  20. Steve499

    Steve499 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    628
    Location:
    Central Missouri
    He has a right to his T.V.! It's all he may have to aid him in his pursuit for happiness. You, on the other hand have GUNS, which not only help you chase happiness into a catchable corner, but also help you out in the life and liberty areas as well!

    Steve
     
  21. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    Gun control: The gateway to tyranny and genocide

    Here are some thoughts you may want to throw at your anti gun leaning friend:


    - Rights are rights, period.

    - "The Government" does not get to decide which rights we can have - the Constitution does that.

    - "The Government" does not get to decide what rights - or guns - we "need."

    - There are no "Good Rights" and Bad Rights." There are only rights and they ALL are guaranteed to We The People by the Bill of Rights.

    Take a look at www.jpfo.org for some really outstanding information on this issue. This website is a goldmine of information about gun control, governments and genocide.

    As far as "assault weapons" :barf: are concerned, ask your friend this: So you think the Jews in Nazi Germany did not need them? The defenseless Jews of Germany were shipped off by the millions to the death camps like animals to the slaughter house - by their own government.

    OTOH, of all the nations overrun by Nazi Germany in WWII, Switzerland was left alone. Why? Because Hitler knew that every house in Switzerland contained a military rifle, a supply of ammunition and a rifleman who knew how to use them.

    I read a story about a German intelligence officer who was dispatched to Switzerland during WWII to access the viability of Nazi troops invading Switzerland. In doing his research and talking with the Swiss people, he asked the question, "The German army outnumbers the Swiss people 2 to 1. How can you hope to repel them if they decide to invade?"

    The Swiss man who was asked the question replied, "Then each of us will kill two Nazis."

    Government officials - politicians - have murdered more of their own citizens than enemy soldiers, terrorists, murderers, serial killers or any other type of domestic criminal. The count stands at 57 million and is climbing . As you read this, the disarmed people of Darfur are being brutalized and murdered by mercenaries hired by their own government. Ultimately, the most menacing threat to the freedom and the very lives of citizens is politicians.

    History proves this - and history cannot be denied.
     
  22. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    um yeah ... like in Iraq ....? :rolleyes: ;) :p
     
  23. Rumble

    Rumble Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    Indiana, PA
    Progunner, I'd say that not even the Constitution gets to decide which rights we have. As you say, rights are rights; what we have in that regard is decided by something greater than us (choose your deity or higher power as appropriate, of course).

    As far as I'm concerned, if you are a human being, you have the enumerated rights, plus all those non-enumerated other ones that the 9th Amendment mentions. The Constitutional language just serves to acknowledge their existence and tell the government to back up off 'em.
     
  24. dragongoddess

    dragongoddess member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    557
    Location:
    Way Way out in West Texas
    Yep both the Republican and Democratic party keep tripping over the one stumbling block that prevents them from their ultimate goal of complete control. That stumbling block is the Constitution.
     
  25. quatin

    quatin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    970
    The 2nd A says bear ARMS, not bear GUNS. The common soldier gets anti-tank weapons. The common soldier gets anti-aircraft weapons. The common soldier gets a tank. How are you going to stack up your rifle against a tank or jet fighter? The government has nuclear arms. We justify the spending of tax dollars to build nuclear arms as a defense to other nations in the theory of "mutual destruction". In the same order, the citizens of this country needs nuclear weapons as a defense against any government domestic or foreign with nuclear capabilities.

    Some will say they don't need nuclear weapons and can do without it even in war, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be banned of it. Some people currently say you can do without assault weapons (or anything tacti-cool) for home defense, but do you support that?

    There may be no explicit law that says you can't own a SAM site, but there are laws in place that prevents you from REASONABLY getting one. The distributors that funnel the weapons for the government are not allowed to funnel them to you. If you will not tolerate this type of restriction of firearms, why do you tolerate them on missiles, bombs and tanks? How come I don't see any support for this rationale? You can't pitch the "defense" against government suppression without fighting against such policies that prevent the citizens from being a formidable force against a modern army.

    I see alot of people defend the 2nd A solely for the idea of self defense against the common "perp". The 2nd A needs to be re-written to clarify solely for this purpose if that is the case. Otherwise, we should all be in support of an open market to the civilian population on anything that the US/Foreign militaries have.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page