Has anyone changed their position on the 2A?

[Wisco]

My views on the 2A haven’t changed so much as the reasons I feel it’s necessary.

I’m not as fearful of liberals or violent crime or a Democrat nanny state with UN helicopters as much as I’m concerned about right wing religious extremism. I won’t live under a christian taliban...

 

[huntsman]

I’m more firmly in the Jefferson camp,

The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is it’s natural manure.

 

[Sistema1927]

I have been an absolutist since High School. The experience of a lifetime has shown me that this is the correct position to hold.

 

[Garandimal]

Yes, I have.

Now, I believe that Violators of the Second Amendment should not be shot as Traitors - but, instead, be hanged for Treason.




GR

 

[LRDGCO]

Absolutely. As a younger man, I was under the misimpression that there were compromises that could be made and that "sensible gun control" was something other than an utterly dishonest Leftist shibboleth. More recently, within the last decade, I was mistakenly of the view that the NRA was unnecessarily inflexible and that its hardline stance alienated Democratic lawmakers who might otherwise have been more amendable on the issue of 2A rights. I was wrong. Mind you, I still despise Wayne LaPierre and I think the NRA decision to broaden its portfolio to other conservative issues is wrong. But not the inflexibility.

But, I have learned that there can be no compromise. Not because I think, for example, that so-called "universal background checks" would be an unbearable burden on my 2A rights, but because within seconds of that having been conceded, the front line in the attack on Americans rights will move forward without Bloomberg, the Brady Bunch, and the like of the vile little Hogg even drawing breath. Opponents of freedom in the country are implacable. They are not interested in gun control. They want people control and disarming law-abiding Americans, entirely, is a necessary step in their program.

So I now recognize that no compromise is possible and that instead of being vigilantly defensive, we must, especially through the courts, challenge every restriction and every attempt to take away our rights. There can be no truce because those opposed to our rights will never stop.

 

[WrongHanded]

Being completely honest, I don't entirely understand how the 2nd Amendment applies, as intended, in today's US.

Let me explain further so you understand where I'm confused.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." We have a National Guard, the strongest military in the world, and all number of Federal and State LE agencies. So I can't see a militia being critical to securing a threat from outside the US. That leaves a threat from inside the US; a tyrannical Government; which means civil war. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about asymmetrical warfare, but I'm just not seeing how a militia formed of the citizenry, and armed with small arms, is supposed to effectively fight the (tyrannically run) US Military in any winable way. I do understand that not all of the military personnel would choose the tyrannical side, but even so I'm not sure it's going to work out well. Not to mention, this would leave the Country as a whole very weak to outside attack.

So yeah, that's what I don't understand.

I do however, believe to my core in the right to self defense, and as effective of one as is possible. Which means I believe in the RKBA. But personal self defense seems outside the scope of the 2A.

 

[AlexanderA]

, I think you will be hard pressed to find a liberal politician that if given the opportunity wouldn't vote for total confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

The key word here is "politician" and not "liberal." Politicians are very good at reading the desires of their constituents, or they don't stay in office very long. If there's a demand for gun control, it's coming from the grass roots and not from the professional political class. I'll give you an example. We had a local politician, Jeannemarie Devolites (Davis), who, when she was our representative in the Virginia House of Delegates, had an "A" rating from the NRA. When she ran for the State Senate, in a somewhat bigger district, suddenly she became a gun control advocate and her NRA rating dropped to "F". (She was a Republican the whole time.) Her change in stance on guns didn't help her much, though, because after one term she was beaten by a Democrat, Chap Petersen (who strangely enough is not as bad on guns as she was).

Same with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. When she was a Representative from an upstate district, she had an "A" rating from the NRA. As soon as she was elected to the Senate, she became a leading advocate for gun control. What I'm saying is that you have to assume that no professional politician has any enduring principles. They simply reflect the people that vote for them.

 

[AlexanderA]

But, I have learned that there can be no compromise.

A true compromise would be one in which we would get something in exchange for giving up something. But that's not on the table because the antis want concessions from us without giving anything in return. Their idea of "compromise" is settling for less than their maximal demands -- for now. That's not compromise -- that's abject surrender. If this was a business negotiation, the parties would be laughed out of the room.

 

[Garandimal]

Being completely honest, I don't entirely understand how the 2nd Amendment applies, as intended, in today's US.

Let me explain further so you understand where I'm confused.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." We have a National Guard, the strongest military in the world, and all number of Federal and State LE agencies. So I can't see a militia being critical to securing a threat from outside the US....

​

Understand now?




GR

 

[Texas10mm]

Being completely honest, I don't entirely understand how the 2nd Amendment applies, as intended, in today's US.

Let me explain further so you understand where I'm confused.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." We have a National Guard, the strongest military in the world, and all number of Federal and State LE agencies. So I can't see a militia being critical to securing a threat from outside the US. That leaves a threat from inside the US; a tyrannical Government; which means civil war. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about asymmetrical warfare, but I'm just not seeing how a militia formed of the citizenry, and armed with small arms, is supposed to effectively fight the (tyrannically run) US Military in any winable way. I do understand that not all of the military personnel would choose the tyrannical side, but even so I'm not sure it's going to work out well. Not to mention, this would leave the Country as a whole very weak to outside attack.

So yeah, that's what I don't understand.

I do however, believe to my core in the right to self defense, and as effective of one as is possible. Which means I believe in the RKBA. But personal self defense seems outside the scope of the 2A.

The purpose of the 'militia" was to fight a tyrannical Government. If you want to see how asymmetrical warfare works just look to Afghanistan. We barely control the ground we stand on there. They are losing 25 police/military a day to attacks. All this caused by a few fighters with the will and some weapons.

First thing that would happen in the US if it came to it would be that the police would be gutted. Either through deserition or death. Tanks and aircraft have a very hard time operating if they don't have fuel. Soldiers have to eat, they need water to drink. All those services, fuel, food, and water come from outside. Asymmetrical warfare of the Citizens against the Government will be bloody.

There less than 3 million serving in the military, of that number only about 200,000 are actually war fighters. The rest are the dog that feeds the tail. If 3% of American citizens decide to resist that's ~10 million. Let's not forget that almost everyone of those 3 million have a family. Their families would become targets if the person in the military did not defect. What's left of the military would pretty much be hunkering down in their bases waiting for food, water, and fuel.

Yeah, I may have given this some thought.


My views on the Second Amendment have moved to being a total absolutist. ANY law that restricts the Rights of the people is an infringement.

 

[Sistema1927]

I'm not terribly knowledgeable about asymmetrical warfare, but I'm just not seeing how a militia formed of the citizenry, and armed with small arms, is supposed to effectively fight the (tyrannically run) US Military in any winable way.

Goat herders with beat up AK's have been doing a credible job of keeping the most advanced military technology in the history of the planet from winning a victory. Don't underestimate the power of an armed citizenry to hold tyranny in check.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Mine have only strengthened towards the 2A.

And I hope that the ones on here who love to talk politics have a Plan B, because we are rapidly approaching the point beyond talk.

 

[SilentStalker]

Being completely honest, I don't entirely understand how the 2nd Amendment applies, as intended, in today's US.

Let me explain further so you understand where I'm confused.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." We have a National Guard, the strongest military in the world, and all number of Federal and State LE agencies. So I can't see a militia being critical to securing a threat from outside the US. That leaves a threat from inside the US; a tyrannical Government; which means civil war. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about asymmetrical warfare, but I'm just not seeing how a militia formed of the citizenry, and armed with small arms, is supposed to effectively fight the (tyrannically run) US Military in any winable way. I do understand that not all of the military personnel would choose the tyrannical side, but even so I'm not sure it's going to work out well. Not to mention, this would leave the Country as a whole very weak to outside attack.

So yeah, that's what I don't understand.

I do however, believe to my core in the right to self defense, and as effective of one as is possible. Which means I believe in the RKBA. But personal self defense seems outside the scope of the 2A.

If you don’t get it, then I’m not sure it can be explained. But, I think you are sadly mistaken if you think a few determined men with some small arms can’t take own and make life miserable for a modern standing army. This is effectively how the revolutionary war was won. Same thing applies today.

Have you served? Look no further than the Middle East and see how well we are doing with all the fancy toys we have. We barely maintain any ground with all that hardware. Think about that.

I’m not going to go in real deep on strategy here but taking on the big bear is much easier than one might think. The difference would be if the air force got involved and or they decided to use bombs/nukes on their own people. If that were to happen then yes, you wouldn’t have much of a chance (and there was a senator or something recently that suggested as much so the need for the 2A is certainly there). But, I don’t see that happening. Even if they did, as pointed out below, you hit the supply chains to things like fuel and food. Take control of the needed supplies and you effectively control what the big bear can do, which wouldn’t be much. Small groups of cells don’t need much supplies and can make quite and impact with some small arms and a few hundred rounds of ammo. Like I said I won’t get into it in detail but it’s actually pretty easy. And most of the supply chain and routes are pretty well known.

One thing you are certainly spot on about is that it would certainly weaken the US, which would be my bigger concern. There would be plenty of countries chomping at the bit to come take advantage of the situation. One thing the US is not good at doing is fighting a multi-front war, period, especially if one broke out on home turf. That you should worry about. You should also worry about what kind of government rises up in place of what was overthrown if that were to ever happen. From my experience, it is seldom better, almost always much worse. Something to think about.

The purpose of the 'militia" was to fight a tyrannical Government. If you want to see how asymmetrical warfare works just look to Afghanistan. We barely control the ground we stand on there. They are losing 25 police/military a day to attacks. All this caused by a few fighters with the will and some weapons.

First thing that would happen in the US if it came to it would be that the police would be gutted. Either through deserition or death. Tanks and aircraft have a very hard time operating if they don't have fuel. Soldiers have to eat, they need water to drink. All those services, fuel, food, and water come from outside. Asymmetrical warfare of the Citizens against the Government will be bloody.

There less than 3 million serving in the military, of that number only about 200,000 are actually war fighters. The rest are the dog that feeds the tail. If 3% of American citizens decide to resist that's ~10 million. Let's not forget that almost everyone of those 3 million have a family. Their families would become targets if the person in the military did not defect. What's left of the military would pretty much be hunkering down in their bases waiting for food, water, and fuel.

Yeah, I may have given this some thought.


My views on the Second Amendment have moved to being a total absolutist. ANY law that restricts the Rights of the people is an infringement.

Hit the nail on the head. Assymetrical warefare would be very effective here. I think it would be a lot easier than some here think. See response above.

 

[WrongHanded]

The purpose of the 'militia" was to fight a tyrannical Government. If you want to see how asymmetrical warfare works just look to Afghanistan. We barely control the ground we stand on there. They are losing 25 police/military a day to attacks. All this caused by a few fighters with the will and some weapons.

First thing that would happen in the US if it came to it would be that the police would be gutted. Either through deserition or death. Tanks and aircraft have a very hard time operating if they don't have fuel. Soldiers have to eat, they need water to drink. All those services, fuel, food, and water come from outside. Asymmetrical warfare of the Citizens against the Government will be bloody.

There less than 3 million serving in the military, of that number only about 200,000 are actually war fighters. The rest are the dog that feeds the tail. If 3% of American citizens decide to resist that's ~10 million. Let's not forget that almost everyone of those 3 million have a family. Their families would become targets if the person in the military did not defect. What's left of the military would pretty much be hunkering down in their bases waiting for food, water, and fuel.

Yeah, I may have given this some thought.


My views on the Second Amendment have moved to being a total absolutist. ANY law that restricts the Rights of the people is an infringement.

I see what you're saying. I do take issue with the comparison between Afghanistan and US based on a few things. Most people here want to maintain their way of daily life (if not increase their level of comfort and general happiness). That life differs greatly to the one of the average Afghan. Most US citizens want law and order, and generally the status quo (not to mention delivery pizza and Netflix). I'm assuming they'd be much more co-operative with whatever government entity existed than the people of Afghanistan are with the "Foreign Occupants". And as such, a lot of US citizens would probably be willing to aid in the capturing of "rebels", if only by informing on the whereabouts of "suspicious people". Whilst those fighting against our military in Afghanistan seem all to willing to hurt and kill innocent civilians to get what they want, I don't see Americans doing that to other Americans under the banner of Freedom.

Plus, I have to wonder why any of the rich and powerful would abondon the proven and profitable system of capitalism that makes them so rich and power, in favor of an openly tyrannical dictatorship which would only serve to demoralize the labor force. They already have what they want. And they do get more and more control all the time, given to them by the sleeping masses.

 

[jmorris]

Nope, I think some restrictions should be undone.

As I get older it only becomes more obvious that more laws don’t stop law breakers.

More importantly that our .gov doesn’t even want to enforce the ones we already have on the books.

So, no, I don’t need more “common sense” laws from people that don’t have any....

 

[Sistema1927]

I see what you're saying. I do take issue with the comparison between Afghanistan and US based on a few things....

Your entire post reveals a certain level of naivete.

Most of the people of Afghanistan want to maintain their daily life. It is not a large percentage of the population that is waging asymmetrical warfare.

It does not take a large force to bring things to their knees.

Yes, there will be those quislings who rat out the patriots, but a few bullets in selected brain pans would sort that out.

Many of the rich and powerful have already abandoned capitalism, and are clamoring for socialism. That is part of the reason why we are where we find ourselves today.

 

[Deanimator]

I see what you're saying. I do take issue with the comparison between Afghanistan and US based on a few things. Most people here want to maintain their way of daily life (if not increase their level of comfort and general happiness).

Forcible confiscation will require destruction of not just the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st, 4th and 5th. How will that "maintain their way of life"?

 

[AlexanderA]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." We have a National Guard, the strongest military in the world, and all number of Federal and State LE agencies. So I can't see a militia being critical to securing a threat from outside the US. That leaves a threat from inside the US; a tyrannical Government; which means civil war. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about asymmetrical warfare, but I'm just not seeing how a militia formed of the citizenry, and armed with small arms, is supposed to effectively fight the (tyrannically run) US Military in any winable way. I do understand that not all of the military personnel would choose the tyrannical side, but even so I'm not sure it's going to work out well. Not to mention, this would leave the Country as a whole very weak to outside attack.

The 2nd Amendment "militia" is a conceptual framework, that can only be understood in the context of 1791. Don't worry about trying to apply it to today's realities.

The 1791 militia was the whole body of the people (or at least the white, free, male, able-bodied ones). Thus, the whole populace was supposed to hold itself in readiness for military service, equipped with its own arms and led by officers appointed by the state. There were annual musters to verify that the militia, in fact, was ready for service. This whole system fell into disuse by the time of the War of 1812. It never could work on a practical basis. It was mainly just an idea in the Founders' heads.

In today's terms, the 2nd Amendment "militia" is, simply, everybody. It's not the National Guard or various private self-appointed militias, all of which lack the essential element of universality. A select, self-organized "militia" does not qualify as a 2nd Amendment "militia." Such a "militia," by its nature, must remain unorganized.

If we take this analysis to its logical conclusion, the 2nd Amendment means that everybody is entitled to keep the same military weapons supplied to the standing army, including machine guns, mortars, artillery, etc. The courts, being instruments of "law and order," would never agree to such a radical interpretation, but it's the one the Founders left us with.

 

[Deanimator]

Mine have only strengthened towards the 2A.

And I hope that the ones on here who love to talk politics have a Plan B, because we are rapidly approaching the point beyond talk.

I encourage everyone to watch the movies "Michael Collins" and "Defiance".

 

[EIB0879]

No. I never have believed that any gun control is desirable or necessary. The last 50 years have reinforced with me that we should not give an inch.

 

[Deanimator]

It does not take a large force to bring things to their knees.

More to the point, what percentage of the American populace supported the Revolution against the British?

It wasn't very big... yet somehow they managed to humiliate the most sophisticated army of its time.

Maybe Swalwell knows what the odds against his side REALLY are.

 

[SilentStalker]

More to the point, what percentage of the American populace supported the Revolution against the British?

It wasn't very big... yet somehow they managed to humiliate the most sophisticated army of its time.

Maybe Swalwell knows what the odds against his side REALLY are.

Less than 3%! Well, that’s what a lot of history teaches anyways. The real number was probably closer to 15%. Either way, given what had to be done, it wasn’t a huge amount of people.

 

[WrongHanded]

The 2nd Amendment "militia" is a conceptual framework, that can only be understood in the context of 1791. Don't worry about trying to apply it to today's realities.

The 1791 militia was the whole body of the people (or at least the white, free, male, able-bodied ones). Thus, the whole populace was supposed to hold itself in readiness for military service, equipped with its own arms and led by officers appointed by the state. There were annual musters to verify that the militia, in fact, was ready for service. This whole system fell into disuse by the time of the War of 1812. It never could work on a practical basis. It was mainly just an idea in the Founders' heads.

In today's terms, the 2nd Amendment "militia" is, simply, everybody. It's not the National Guard or various private self-appointed militias, all of which lack the essential element of universality. A select, self-organized "militia" does not qualify as a 2nd Amendment "militia." Such a "militia," by its nature, must remain unorganized.

If we take this analysis to its logical conclusion, the 2nd Amendment means that everybody is entitled to keep the same military weapons supplied to the standing army, including machine guns, mortars, artillery, etc. The courts, being instruments of "law and order," would never agree to such a radical interpretation, but it's the one the Founders left us with.

Thank you for that.

 

[WrongHanded]

Your entire post reveals a certain level of naivete.

Most of the people of Afghanistan want to maintain their daily life. It is not a large percentage of the population that is waging asymmetrical warfare.

It does not take a large force to bring things to their knees.

Yes, there will be those quislings who rat out the patriots, but a few bullets in selected brain pans would sort that out.

Many of the rich and powerful have already abandoned capitalism, and are clamoring for socialism. That is part of the reason why we are where we find ourselves today.

Whilst I'm somewhat reluctant to reply to your post, I will do so. Not to start an argument, but I think there's been some misunderstanding about what I wrote.

I didn't say the people of Afghanistan don't want to maintain their daily life. Nor did I intend to imply such, but I can see why you read it that way. Neither did I say it was a large percentage of their population fighting. I haven't believed it was. I know we are not at war with Afghanistan, but rather a relatively small group of radicals who don't care who gets hurt in their attempts to gain control.

I wouldn't know what size fighting force is required to bring things to their knees, as you put it. But I have a hard time believing a bunch of guys with rifles have much of a chance against the US government (or some variation there of) inside the US, providing the country is functioning fairly normally on a day-to-day basis for most people. So I guess it depends on the level of effect the "tyranny" has. If utilities are cut off, internet is down, food distribution is disrupted, and the whole economy comes to an abrupt halt; that's a different situation. But I don't see that being beneficial to any would-be dictator, so I find it a pretty obscure possibility. Maybe it's not, but discussing that much further seems fruitless.

"Quislings" and "Patriots" seem like very well defined titles. It seems unlikely to me that any scenario will arise where things are so clear cut. But what's that saying; "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Good guys, bad guys, it's all a matter of perspective. What perspective the majority of the population have will depend almost entirely on the circumstances, their level of contentment or suffering, and the media.

As far as the rich and powerful abondoning capitalism, well that's another can of worms all together. But it seems to me that so long as there's the illusion of a ladder to climb, and some measureable gains for those willing to try, most people will work to climb it. In that, there is profit. Maybe not so much for the ladder climber, but definitely for the one who owns the ladder.

 

[Deanimator]

The key word here is "politician" and not "liberal."

The liberals have left the building, replaced by "progressives". A progressive is somebody who thinks that we shouldn't dismiss all of the "good" that Stalin did. Their instincts are coercive and totalitarian. They KNOW that they can't do what they want without first disarming their intended victims.