New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs

[JustinJ]

I don't think anyone is going to take time and read your link without some context. I toured the area a couple of years ago when I was working at Watts Bar nuclear plant. The short of it is that there was a justified armed uprising here in the US in the last 75 years, right here in Tennessee.

I started but decided to do the cliff notes on wiki instead. The article also seems to have a very heavy political slant. Anyways, yes, firearms were used to defeat a corrupt local government in 1946. However, if such a thing happened today its hard not to imagine the state police or feds would be swooping in quickly. The question is which side they would side with. Regardless, the local police fought against were not armed with modern military weapon so i don't think this in any way provides evidence that privately owned weapons could be used to defeat a military backed US government in modern times.

 

[9MMare]

My primary belief in gun rights is stemmed in the right of self defense and defense of one's family. I believe that is a natural right that we all posses. While I do believe guns other than the AR15 are sufficient for that purpose in every day america there is always the potential for a temporary or even long term collapse of society.

In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.

In addition i am troubled by the notion that my right to guns should be infringed because of the actions of another. However, i can understand the opposition's position that the right of people to not be murdered is already being infringed upon at an alarming rate with firearms. Obviously murder will never be stopped completely but attempts to reduce it are certainly understandable, if often misguided.

Your right to self-defense would be covered by your right to Life.

The 2A has nothing to do with self-defense (IMO but others as well). It is about defending our nation ...against the govt (domestic) or foreign enemies.

And that is why I wrote that perhaps the part about defending against foreign enemies was outdated....because NOW we have a much larger and widespread military. I dont think you understood that from what you wrote.

So it sounds like you no longer see a need for the 2A. That's certainly your perogative. It's true that we gun-owners benefit in other ways from our Constitutional right to being armed...but that is not the reason for that amendment and except for that, there is no Constitutional right to bear arms. (Because there are many methods and tools you can use for self-defense to uphold your right to Life.)

 

[DaisyCutter]

I don't necessarily consider elitist snobs to be anti-gun.



Anti gunners are generally liberal.



People with disposable income, who buy guns, pay taxes, etc., are generally conservative.


I said "generally".

There are rich liberals. *BUT* Overwhelmingly, this president wasn't voted in by elitist snobs, it was the 47% Romney alluded to , who are leeches.



Elitist snobs hunt pheasant using purebred Brittany Spaniels and a Perazzi O/U shotgun.



Don't give the mouthbreathing degenerates the label of elitist snob, they haven't earned it and they never will.

 

[9MMare]

I don't necessarily consider elitist snobs to be anti-gun.



Anti gunners are generally liberal.



People with disposable income, who buy guns, pay taxes, etc., are generally conservative.

I said "generally".

There are rich liberals. *BUT* Overwhelmingly, this president wasn't voted in by elitist snobs, it was the 47% Romney alluded to , who are leeches.

Elitist snobs hunt pheasant using purebred Brittany Spaniels and a Perazzi O/U shotgun.

Don't give the mouthbreathing degenerates the label of elitist snob, they haven't earned it and they never will.

47% isnt 'generally' and if you are claiming that 47% of this country are leeches or even close to that I'd be interested in seeing the data.

Even Romney had to backtrack on that statement....but he said it for the same reason you did...he didnt like the FACT that half the country didnt agree with him.

 

[DanTheFarmer]

One thing to consider in the "AR15's in the hands of civilians stand no chance against tanks, etc.".

This is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Consider Bosnia: ethnic cleansing was accomplished by police pulling people out of their homes armed with nothing but a revolver. 100 policemen = 50 families pulled from their homes each night. If the "ethnically undesirables" were armed it would have required a planned operation to pull them from their homes. 100 police + 1 tank + 1 APC + 1 fuel truck + ... = 1 family pulled from its home each night.
Obviously my numbers are just made up but I think the point is made that the more resources the oppressors need the less oppression that can take place at any given time.

I believe it is FantasyLand to be considering the US Army taking on its citizens but both pro and anti gun supporters are using the idea to justify their positions. I hadn't seen my topic discussed so I toss it out their for your consideration.

Dan

 

[JustinJ]

Your right to self-defense would be covered by your right to Life.

The right to life as outlined in the constitution was written to prevent the federal government from depriving me of it at will. Second, if i do have a right to life, and to defend it, then i'm entitled to the means to do so. Are you saying right to life by default guarantees a right to firearms?

The 2A has nothing to do with self-defense (IMO but others as well). It is about defending our nation ...against the govt (domestic) or foreign enemies.

I don't read the second amendment to say it is solely for defense against tyranny and there are strong arguments to be made that it was not intended for this sole purpose. Realistically its pretty much impossible to say this one amendment was written for this one sole purpose as there were quite a few different mean who signed off on it, each with his own thoughts and reasons.

In addition, the constitution does not say "these rights are valid so long as all of their original purposes remain". There is no provision that limits a right to one application only.

So it sounds like you no longer see a need for the 2A. That's certainly your perogative. It's true that we gun-owners benefit in other ways from our Constitutional right to being armed...but that is not the reason for that amendment and except for that, there is no Constitutional right to bear arms. (Because there are many methods and tools you can use for self-defense to uphold your right to Life.)

I don't think our privately owned firearms would allow us to defeat our military today but as i've already said i still see a need for the second amendment. Firearms, especially for weaker individuals, are the most effective and reliable tool available for one to defend his or her life. No law could remove all firearms from the hands of criminals in the foreseeable future so what other tool is available to effectively defend against them in the hands of criminals? Or what tool could effectively defend a 100 lbs woman from a 250 lbs male attacker?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

If you want to look at inferior armed "patriots" standing up to an enemy, look to the Afghanis when they battled the Russians, and later, us. They use whatever they have, and do not quit. They shoot their enemies and use their weapons. Should the necessity of arise in a "free" country, I'm sure it will happen that way also. The Afghanis chased out the Russians, and now we are leaving.

 

[JustinJ]

If you want to look at inferior armed "patriots" standing up to an enemy, look to the Afghanis when they battled the Russians, and later, us. They use whatever they have, and do not quit. They shoot their enemies and use their weapons. Should the necessity of arise in a "free" country, I'm sure it will happen that way also. The Afghanis chased out the Russians, and now we are leaving.

First, they have not defeated us. However, in both situations they were fighting an invading army with the option to leave. The Russians left because it cost too much for too little gain to stay. Again, that is very different from a dictator trying to retain power in his home country.

Two, against the russians they were getting slaughtered until we began providing them with military aid and weapons.

 

[Jnitti1014]

Please delete this thread

As the OP,

Wow! Didn't mean to cause this firestorm! Let me answer a few things....

1) I did not mean to imply my inlaws are snobs just cause they saw the movie. I saw the movie (and the musical). And liked both. Just that the stereotype of us by the anti's would seem to run contrary to Les Miserables target audience.

2) I forget who said it, but I misspoke or was outright wrong in comparing a cannon to an ar-15. Obviously it is not a fair comparison. I guess I was just trying to make an argument for why parity in the small arms category would be one of the founding fathers intents in the second amendment.

3) I harbor no fantasies about an overthrow of the government and find it a horrid thought that US troops would be used against the populace. Although I do believe if the unimaginable were to occur and somehow we were either invaded or even worse, somehow the constitution gets tossed and we get a dictator, that the millions of small arms in the hands of the civilians would be a key factor in getting the country back. Not the main factor, an ar-15 can't kill a tank, as many have stated. But to say they wouldn't be a part of it is just being obtuse.

4) to the moderators, this is veering pretty close to a SHTF thread, which wasn't my intent. I apologize, as my intent was to start a discussion about stereotypes and parity of small arms ownership. In other words, why we need 30 round mags and semi auto weaponry for defense( from whomever).

PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD IF POSSIBLE.

 

[Warp]

In the event that this Red Dawn fantasy comes true good luck convincing your CO to let you use your own person weapons.

What CO would that be?

 

[9MMare]

The right to life as outlined in the constitution was written to prevent the federal government from depriving me of it at will. Second, if i do have a right to life, and to defend it, then i'm entitled to the means to do so. Are you saying right to life by default guarantees a right to firearms?



I don't read the second amendment to say it is solely for defense against tyranny and there are strong arguments to be made that it was not intended for this sole purpose. Realistically its pretty much impossible to say this one amendment was written for this one sole purpose as there were quite a few different mean who signed off on it, each with his own thoughts and reasons.

In addition, the constitution does not say "these rights are valid so long as all of their original purposes remain". There is no provision that limits a right to one application only.



I don't think our privately owned firearms would allow us to defeat our military today but as i've already said i still see a need for the second amendment. Firearms, especially for weaker individuals, are the most effective and reliable tool available for one to defend his or her life. No law could remove all firearms from the hands of criminals in the foreseeable future so what other tool is available to effectively defend against them in the hands of criminals? Or what tool could effectively defend a 100 lbs woman from a 250 lbs male attacker?

While I have seen most of that before, the majority of interpretations I've read dont support it. I also dont believe it that way, altho I agree that the Constitution is not set in stone, that it may be changed.

 

[Warp]

While I have seen most of that before, the majority of interpretations I've read dont support it. I also dont believe it that way, altho I agree that the Constitution is not set in stone, that it may be changed.

If I am not mistaken the Constitution may be changed...by vote of 2/3 of the states

 

[9MMare]

If I am not mistaken the Constitution may be changed...by vote of 2/3 of the states

Exactly, there are provisions for that.

 

[bldsmith]

Takes a 2/3 majority vote in congress to even propose a constitutional amendment then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it with a 2/3 majority to make the actual change.

 

[Warp]

Takes a 2/3 majority vote in congress to even propose a constitutional amendment then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it with a 2/3 majority to make the actual change.

Pretty tall order.

As it should be.