Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My guy says that with the collective modern firepower brought to bear on the middle east during The War on Terror™ would have been enough to turn the region to glass.

And yet they, American and Allied forces, lost engagements and took heavy casualties against glorified goat herders with vintage, decrepit weapons held together with duct tape.

Weapons in the hands of people with the heart, the guts and the conviction to take on a threat, regardless of how that threat is presented can and does make a difference.

Your argument that the sorts of weapons that they are seeking to ban now would be useless against a modern military is wrong.
 
You guys do realize that this is a shill planting their rhetoric on a gun forum for search engine access? So their arguments show as coming from this forum when people look at Google. They are playing the game for keeps. Probably follows their plan along with the emails from the king and Joe to get you to go to the new kings non-profit website and report your senators and representatives if they are not doing as the king has decreed.

I would suggest deleting the whole thread.

Gosh you guys are trusting and so calm. Kick his but to the curb.

Deleting discussions on the topic and denying people the ability to ask questions or present an opposing viewpoint?

I'd rather not.
 
Agreed. We cannot persuade people that fear of our right to bear arms is not valid grounds to oppress it if we let fear of their free speech cause us to oppress that.
I have an honest intellectual argument for my rights. I am not ashamed of it or afraid to be heard or quoted.
 
Timmy.
Buy a .22 rifle.
Practice safety and common sense handling procedures.
Go shoot it.
You'll probably like it.
You will then be ready for larger calibers for target practice and chances are you'll love that too.

I find that you can never truly enjoy or understand a freedom until you exercise it.

God Bless
 
Nope, we're going to let this continue.

Behave yourselves, or you'll take a vacation for the weekend.



Art Eatman said:
For those who say that a citizenry armed only with AR 15s can't resist the US military, all I know is that the US military is leaving Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there. The issue is not armaments; it's all about one's will. The will to resist on the part of any significant portion of this population will inevitably win out over a tyrannical government. However, it's easier for an armed citizenry.

Yes, and we're leaving under hostility.

How many of our soldiers, airmen and Marines have been killed by partisans who surreptitiously got their way into the local army or police and used a gun we gave them to kill our people? 60 now?

The standing order now is - no armed foreign nationals around US forces. And no US personnel will be near any local national alone.


We're leaving, and they're shooting us in the back of the head - literally - as we leave.
 
I would suggest a reading on the subject of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943.

When you read about the Polish Resistance's weak support and lack of supplying weapons and ammunition, it becomes very clear - if you can't take care of yourself as a people, then others who can and will exercise a program of euthanasia will attempt it.

This has happened repeatedly in human history. It is exactly what the British first attempted in controlling their colonies here - they arranged to safeguard the Boston Militia's firearms, and then simply walked away with the keys. Being disarmed, the city had no choice but to comply, and the British obliged themself by quartering their troops in the people's homes. There were no barracks or military facilities.

That meant knowing that when left the house for work, you were leaving two or three lonely, armed men at your home - with your wife and daughters. Not that they didn't have duties to perform, but since they lived in your house, it was up to you to put up with it. Feed them, too.

There were some ways to complain about their behavior, but after months of close proximity, even the most polite troops could finally succumb to their natural impulses and their intent be clear: Men will be men.

Since similar instances have continued to reoccur in history, in this hemisphere and around the world, you find that other peoples sometimes look to American with it's Bill of Rights as being where they would prefer to live. And they do anything to get here.

Ask around in your family, neighborhood, and friends. Unless you find someone who is Native American, ALL of our ancestors moved here to escape the oppression of their home country. Mandatory service in the Army, taxation, extremely limited opportunity, on and on - our forefathers, whether from England, India, or Italy, all wanted to get out from under the onerous conditions of their nations and move here.

One reason - the 1st Amendment, which they quickly learned was genuine. They actually could voice their opinion, and they actually could win political arguments and even in court. We as a nation have a higher law than the overseers word. Even they are supposed to adhere to the systems of government.

That 1st Amendment exists in our bylaws entirely because of the 2d. If you can't literally defend your rights from those who would oppress you, and meet them with equal resolution, they will run you over and trample your rights.

LOOK TO THE WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING. They held on as long as they could, but in the end, they simply couldn't stop the Nazi's from literally herding them in trucks and driving them off to the gas chambers of Treblinka. The Nazi's demolished the Warsaw Synagogue with explosives, and literally erased the lives of tens of thousands.

With that lesson purchased at such a high price in Jewish blood, I find it incomprehensible why so many of Jewish origins don't own guns - especially when their brothers and sisters in Israel carry them on a daily basis for the exact same reasons the Ghetto needed them. Be armed or be killed.

I don't question those of faith who choose the tenets of being a non combatant. Please don't question my right to combat those who would take away my life, my family, or my faith. We are not all chosen to be martyrs. In America, we have the right to oppose those who would violate the basic right - the right to live.

Those who would oppress us chip away at our rights, and the last American left standing will likely have a gun in his hands. They will pay a high price to pry it from his cold dead hands. Better that, than a long ride in a cold truck to be stripped and thrown in a ditch. Many in Warsaw made that choice.

Tyranny hasn't stopped, it just chooses the easiest prey.
 
Deleting discussions on the topic and denying people the ability to ask questions or present an opposing viewpoint?

I'd rather not.

There is no opposing view point. He/or she isn't trying to learn anything. They are simply trying to raise and saturate their anti-gun views and rhetoric in the search engines so that anybody doing a search only gets their ideas to come up. Since most people only go 1 or 2 pages in, it's easy for them to do. They have no interest at all in anything you say.

By being so nice and polite you are playing right into the "enemies" hands. Timmy4 is probably setting in the Brady campaign offices.

This is an ideological war, but a war none the less. Continue to help their battle plan. They are playing to win.

I always respect you guys, but you are letting all the trolls and shills do exactly what they want.
 
There is no opposing view point. He/or she isn't trying to learn anything. They are simply trying to raise and saturate their anti-gun views and rhetoric in the search engines so that anybody doing a search only gets their ideas to come up. Since most people only go 1 or 2 pages in, it's easy for them to do. They have no interest at all in anything you say.

By being so nice and polite you are playing right into the "enemies" hands. Timmy4 is probably setting in the Brady campaign offices.

This is an ideological war, but a war none the less. Continue to help their battle plan. They are playing to win.

I always respect you guys, but you are letting all the trolls and shills do exactly what they want.

And you believe there aren't very good pro-2A arguments on the first and second pages?
 
Timmy,

2A is the right that protects all the others. Take away firearms from private hands and nothing stops government personnel from walking all over us.

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire is not protected speech because it's not speech--it is sounding a false alarm, just as surely as pulling the fire alarm would be. Pulling a fire alarm is not speech. It's illegal.

If armed civilians ever have to stand up to an approaching government force, it will be an infantry force. There is no chance that even anti-gunners would tolerate air strikes or artillery shelling of gun owners making a stand. Would you tolerate it?

If you're ok with government regulating rights as long as all they're doing is squelching the legal owners of scary guns, what happens when government decides to curtail a right you do love? If you think the government effort to squash 2A is benevolent and caring and that it is only trying to save the lives of children, your head is in the sand. Its goal is to confiscate all guns, and it is currently taking an incremental step whenever it sees an opening just as it has been doing since 1934.

Keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and dangerously mentally ill is indeed important, especially given the high proportion of crimes involving guns that are committed by members of these demographic categories. On this we agree, it seems. You argue that if guns are plentiful and have lots of bullets that it's too easy for these people to acquire them and use them to kill innocents, and I can mostly agree there as well. But the way to keep these people from getting guns is not by removing the guns from places they can access--it is too deny them access to places where people can acquire guns. Yes, that means keeping in prisons and in institutions. If we as a society don't trust them to mingle with us, then why are we letting them do so?

My guns are not a danger to anyone who doesn't first pose a danger to me or my family or innocent others within my power to protect. Do you really want to take mine away or hamstring them so severely that only the bad guy--whom we all know will never comply with any law that stands between him and his desire to commit crimes--still has guns of full capacity? When one or two or a handful of those guys, all on meth and cocaine and who knows what else, attacks you and your family, and I'm nearby, close enough to intervene and save you, do you want me to be unarmed? Do you want me to have just ten rounds?
 
Missileman,

I just told you the Staff's position is we will allow this debate to continue.

Don't presume to tell the membership what debates this site should allow when the Staff has already weighed in on the matter.


Seeing as Timmy said at quarter after 7 Eastern -

timmy4 said:
Everyone, I have enjoyed this immensly, but I have to run- for now. I will be back. Want to assure you that I am not a troll- I enjoy good discussion and debate. I also am not here to spread talking points- I've never seen the point of that. I really appreciate all of the responses so far.

He will be back.

But there has been another 3 pages of "response" since then. I imagine by the time he gets back there will be too many reponses for him to read and respond to.


So I'm taking this action.

I'm temporarily closing the thread. When timmy gets back, he can read through the responses without being overwhelmed. And timmy, when you're ready for the debate to continue, PM anyone on the Staff you see on the board at the time and we'll reopen it for discussion.


In the meantime, Missileman, consider this a healthy debate that is useful to everyone. Even if you think he's a shill, which the Staff does not believe to be true, it will give you an opportunity to sharpen your debating skills. We'll all need them well-polished in the coming months.

timmy, as I said, send a PM to any of the Staff you see on the board (our names appear in bold among the rest of the members at the bottom of the main page) and we'll gladly re-open it for the discussion.

Happy to have you here.
 
Glad you guys chose to open up this thread again. I want to write first that I appreciate the good will and discussion here. I was hoping to find good discussion and debate in this forum, and it appears that I have. Many of you are quite knowledgeable on these issues. I'm only sorry I can't respond to every post- there's just been too many.

I also want to say that I am not a troll, and not a shill looking to "plant rhetoric" as Missileman accused me of. I certainly have my own point of views, and many of them probably disagree with many of yours. But there's no secret plot here. And if there was one, I don't think it would work. You guys don't strike me as stupid or easily persuaded.

That being said: it strikes me that about 80% of the discussion in this thread has been devoted to the question of a tyranny, and how gun restrictions would either help lead to a tyranny or prevent you as private citizens from combating a tyranny or both. People have brought up Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Ghetto, slavery, and other examples. I want to emphasize that, among my friends who support forms of gun control, this subject never comes up except as a matter of derision towards you folks. It makes liberals and independents believe that you guys are extremist and paranoid. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but I'm trying to be honest here. In terms of trying to convince people like me, you are much more convincing when you argue the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Even if I disagree with some of those arguments as well, they are rational arguments that people on the "other side" can wrap their heads around.
As for myself, I don't mind discussing the tyranny issue, but a warning: if my knowledge of guns is limited, my knowledge of history is pretty damn good. And I'm going to take to task anyone who makes false claims. Let me make three statements:

1. In modern history, no dictatorship has ever seized guns from private citizens as a means to impose the dictatorship- in the rare cases when it happened, it was usually an afterthought, and the seizure of those guns had no effect on the imposition of the dictatorship.
2. In modern history, there has never been a "slippery slope", in which modest gun laws led to seizure of all guns which led to a dictatorship.
3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

I challenge any of you to contradict these points with real examples. If you can, I will of course change my mind, and I will come in here and acknowledge it. But I don't believe you can.
 
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.
Sorry, I guess you never heard of the American revolution.
 
Let me ask you this. Has a successful genocide been committed against any population that was well-armed?

Just because the events have happened in different order doesn't mean that they had nothing to do with each other.
Yes. The Armenians in Turkey were armed, as were the Ukrainians in the 1920s. I believe the Cambodian villagers slaughtered by Pol Pot were fairly well armed as well.

Private arms are irrelevant to genocide.
 
But it would not have been won without the armed resistance of the Colonists. The fact that another nation eventually intervened to support the Revolution doesn't mean that the French won the war.
 
Yes. The Armenians in Turkey were armed, as were the Ukrainians in the 1920s. I believe the Cambodian villagers slaughtered by Pol Pot were fairly well armed as well.

Private arms are irrelevant to genocide.
I am unfamiliar with these genocides; what books or scholarly articles would you recommend I read to learn more about them and how well armed the victims were?
 
Eh?

Marcos in the Philippines.
(as a precursor to seizing power.)

Castro.

Mao.

etc etc....
Certainly not Mao nor Castro. Both of them rose to power by arming the citizenry, not removing the arms.

The case of Marcos is a little more complicated. It's true that when he imposed his dictatorship, he passed certain laws that made most private gun ownership illegal. Yet this fact is highly deceptive. First off, private gun ownership was not prevalent in the Phillipines when the law was passed. Second, it's highly doubtful that the alternative would have been a revolt, as Marcos' dictatorship was incredibly popular. He was paranoid and feared assassination, but his regime would not have been overthrown due to private gun ownership. And most importantly, when Marcos finally was ousted it was due to a democratic movement in which armed resistance played no role whatsoever.

So no, I don't believe that any of the examples are valid, sorry.
 
3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

Will you accept the formation of citizens militia which overthrows the dictatorial government?


If so, just recently:

Libya.

Syria (they are gonna win, sooner or later)

...and the nasty little war the Croats had for their independence involved a great many private citizens taking up arms.
 
I am unfamiliar with these genocides; what books or scholarly articles would you recommend I read to learn more about them and how well armed the victims were?
These are two of the most famous genocides of the 20th century. There are dozens of books written about them. I have no specific ones to recommend. Start with Wikipedia.
 
Will you accept the formation of citizens militia which overthrows the dictatorial government?


If so, just recently:

Libya.

Syria (they are gonna win, sooner or later)

...and the nasty little war the Croats had for their independence involved a great many private citizens taking up arms.
In the case of both Syria and Libya, the rebels are armed by outsiders (including the United States). Left to their own devices, the revolts would have been easily crushed.
 
My guy says that with the collective modern firepower brought to bear on the middle east during The War on Terror™ would have been enough to turn the region to glass.

And yet they, American and Allied forces, lost engagements and took heavy casualties against glorified goat herders with vintage, decrepit weapons held together with duct tape.

Weapons in the hands of people with the heart, the guts and the conviction to take on a threat, regardless of how that threat is presented can and does make a difference.

Your argument that the sorts of weapons that they are seeking to ban now would be useless against a modern military is wrong.

Some good stuff right here.
 
Certainly not Mao nor Castro. Both of them rose to power by arming the citizenry, not removing the arms.

By arming SOME of the citizens and DISARMING others.

First off, private gun ownership was not prevalent in the Phillipines when the law was passed.

O.K. I'll bite.

How prevalent was it? Got Cites?

Second, it's highly doubtful that the alternative would have been a revolt, as Marcos' dictatorship was incredibly popular

Oh yes. Soooooo popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top