Second Amendment

Talk about anything and everything.

Moderators: wallace044, rtn393, Irv, cru77jones

Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » November 16, 2015, 8:49 pm

This has been bothering me in light of the Republicans claiming France would have been better off with more conceal carry permits. I'll leave aside for now the fact that, even with the Paris tragedy, the US has had more gun deaths in the last week then France. Let's just talk about whether we can do something about guns in America.

What I've always wonders as an attorney is - where are there any special rights concerning guns in the Constitution?

Here's the Second:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


No mention of guns. Arms, sure. Of course "Arms" would include guns, but also knives, swords, spears, grenades, rockets, cannons, bombs, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles, rpg .... you get the idea.

Now - as far as I know, there are no Second Amendment supporting politicians who claim that we cannot ban people from owning grenades. Ban outright. No exceptions for private owners. Right?

So, if we can outright and completely ban one category of "Arms" and be okay dokey with the Second, why would any certain category receive special protections? If we acknowledge that Joe Bob can't have an RPG, how is his M-14 protected by the same provision when its says nada about specially protected categories of "Arms"?

Like I said - it doesn't say a word about guns.

The Second talks about militias b/c its is talking about weapons of war when it says "Arms." The expectation was that state militias would be able to resist tyranny - i.e. effectively wage war against federal power. So it preserved state rights to own military arsenals.

...but no one expected Joe Bob to be able to resist Red Dawn style. We may be that stupid today, but they damn well knew then that joining together we barely defeated a foreign ruler. No one was under the delusion that freedom was protected by individual gun owners.


Can anyone explain where the Second protects specifically gun ownership?
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby egluck » November 17, 2015, 1:44 am

Yes I have thought the same thing. But it is not unlike many laws in that it is written vaguely and has been left to the supreme court to decide its meaning. For instance, it is not even clear whether the amendment is limited to the federal government or also bars the states from "infringing."

Unfortunately, in its few decisions on this issue, the supreme court has supported the idea that "arms' means guns, although they do agree that right is not absolute, and thus bans on automatic rifles or certain types of assault rifles is ok. Likewise, I believe barring convicted felons from owning guns has been found permissible as well.

The main routes to curb gun violence (while still complying with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) are background checks, wait times, closing off loop holes, limiting the amount of guns any one person can purchase, technology to track guns, and increasing the penalties for engaging in straw purchasing. Although a law abiding citizen may have the right to ultimately own a gun, I don't believe it significantly diminishes that right if the person needs to wait a week or two while we make they are not a danger and/or likely to put that gun into the black market.
User avatar
egluck
 
Joined: February 5, 2004, 2:05 am
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » November 17, 2015, 1:22 pm

The one thing that I think would be highly effective that no one seems to be discussing is tracking the guns themselves. The NRA crowd talks about criminals not caring about gun laws, but they don't want to do anything meaningful to prevent criminals from getting the guns. Every gun owned by a criminal started out as a legal purchase somewhere. Its not like they are making guns in south central chicago. The guns of criminals have Glock, Ruger, S&W, etc. printed on the side, just like the ones in the store.

Track every gun from manufacture through each and every transfer and make people liable for crimes committed with their registered guns, if they don't report them sold or stolen or if they failed to secure them when outside their possession. Lazer tracking codes on all critical components. Use sentencing enhancements against anyone who is in possession of a gun without tracking marks. Give law enforcement the right to make inventory checks, and enact criminal penalties for failing to account for missing guns.

People want to own dangerous arsenals, fine - make them responsible for theses hazards to life and health. Tracking doesn't effect possession, so it can't very well "infringe" on the right.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby egluck » November 17, 2015, 4:10 pm

People attempt defeat that argument with their wild conspiracy theories about the corrupt federal government tracking legitimate gun ownership so they can one day suppress an armed revolt that rises up in response to their oppression of its citizens. Unfortunately this craziness has held sway with the NRA crowd.

In their minds, it is worth tens of thousands of Americans dying each year due to gun violence on the off chance that some years from now citizens may need to take out their government with small arms.

In their minds, these many thousands of deaths are a fair trade for their own personal desire to own a gun and "protect their family," even though such ownership actually increases the chance that they or their family members will be killed by a gun.

Again, this is not to say I am against gun ownership at all, I just think there is something in the middle. Even though this recent spate of mass killings is horrible, it is just the tip of the iceberg of gun violence in America and in my mind it is even more of a problem than ISIS.
User avatar
egluck
 
Joined: February 5, 2004, 2:05 am
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » November 18, 2015, 12:51 pm

washingtonparkjones wrote:Can anyone explain where the Second protects specifically gun ownership?


Great topic Park.

Without having all the brain cells needed to actually debate this topic, I think it's safe to say that special interests groups have pumped enough money into the Beltway to ensure the 2nd is interpreted as "gun" ownership. Once giant chunks of cash are involved the sky's the limit (because our elected officials can be bought) on how big your gun can be.

Moving on, couldn't one consider the KKK (of the past) a militia? Certainly the original Black Panthers were. If a large enough collective of armed American citizens disagree with government statute, don't they have a right to attempt an overthrow? I don't want to take too many liberties assuming that, but it's frightening when you think about the loonies out there.

Do you think the BoR and the Constitution underestimated the perverse and insane nature of its people?
"Prince will steal your girl, then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girl's clothes."

Xani Machdo (Twitter user)
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » November 22, 2015, 5:26 am

One of the cool things about the constitution is that it's malleable to the will of the People. If People decide the 2nd amendment means gun for everyone/nobody gets a gun then that's what it means. While I personally don't think gun control is a very good idea, Americans get to have to some degree the country they deserve, all top down manipulation aside we reap what WE sow. So if I could trade highly regulated guns for the handshake agreement that people would be (from now on) open to ideas that challenge their beliefs, I'd consider it. As things stand this divisiveness is poised to have huge consequences that will absolutely destroy lives on both "sides" meanwhile in those countries that are being subjected to regime change over the last 100 years, life is getting harder and harder, for whatever reason.


Once and for all, I'd consider anything that might be called a concession, if it allowed people (who weren't prefiltered and approved by a six headed corporate mass media hydra that tells us all what to think) to speak their minds, be heard, and sincerely engaged with in a way that ultimately unifies the people. Gun control IS dangerous, imo, but what pro gun people fail to realize is that this bickering is even more of a threat, because it prevents the democracy from doing what it's meant to; act as a mechanism by which people without power or position can guide their own future in a sea of elitist predators.

And hopefully I only need to say/scream this twice. This is not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy is something we've all been taught to reject from early age and the realm of conspiracy doesn't start until you wonder why everything is this way. The above is stone cold reality.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » November 22, 2015, 6:47 am

The idea that the people need arms to protect against tyranny is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if you're just being rhetorical to support your argument, but if your interested there are many prominent intellectuals and political figures who have echoed this belief for longer than America has even existed. Maybe America is a special case. Maybe not. In general, the idea that the people and those who hold the reins of power are diametrically opposing forces reoccurs over and over. In the case of America an elite political class (or bloodline) has consistently won elections, become high class buisnessmen, and received high-level judicial and miilitary appointments. Of course there are exceptions, some would say just enough to make the whole process seem open to everyone, but all in all its the same faces we see through history. What are they all about? How do they exist in society? How do they perceive those for whom their birthright enables them to make decisions? It's all up for you to speculate on, and hopefully from that meditation gain insight that allows you to influence the world too. What you should not do is abandon speculation, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and say for whatever reason that this stuff doesn't matter.

I could very convincingly list all the ways this world is going down the tubes, and the one consistent cause among the disparate problems is a lack of directed conciousness towards things from outside onesself and one's habits, such as whatever news stations one is in the habit of watching. I'm still waiting for msnbc or whatever channel that claims to try to look out for the planet to thump the story that we are DESTROYING our ability to naturally feed ourselves. Our fisheries, our topsoil, they are all being depleted because the way we use them is fucking really inefficient.

Did you know that using trees and animals to remediate land is THE fundamental way to save the planet? You can eat all the fucking meat under the sun, it's great for the earth and the kids. If it comes from the right place, that is. Global warming is nonesense. If we use trees as the super productive systems they are we can take huge quantities of co2 out of the atmosphere and feed the world (on organic healthy flora and fauna, not this chemical food bullshit) without even trying. And it goes deeper, but I gotta resolve to my point which is nothing you hear is meant to help you own your own life. You don't hear this on the news, but you hear spooky climate change because it gets you the People to let everyone's hand into your pocket, one way or another.

You might get to hear the problem, or the shadow of something that looks nefarious, but the solution offered to you by spoon will always be a quagmire that in the end will have only benefited those who played both sides, and this is, to me, the prevailing philosophy held by those who hold and exert power yesterday, today, and tomorrow too unless something changes.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » November 23, 2015, 5:53 pm

qdman wrote:...but I gotta resolve to my point which is nothing you hear is meant to help you own your own life...


Precisely.

Affixing aluminum foil hat onto head now:

What you hear is agenda being pushed by the powers that want to remain in power. Take Daylight Savings Time as an example. Around the turn of the century (20th), George Hudson and Bill Willet actually manipulated something that was a constant since before the dawn of man - TIME (not Morris Day). Hudson proposed this as a way to simply enjoy more daylight hours away from work. Likewise, Willet conceived the idea as a way to get in more golf time. Slap either of these guys in front of a dinner table with the influential, and BAM - everyone needs them some DLT! Hudson had the ear of the Wellington Philosophical Society, and Willet had Robert Pearce, a member of Parliament (not Funkadelic) to pitch the idea to. Point is, farmers were waking up at the crack of dawn and working all day anyway. Did they really need elitists fucking with their clocks? Probably not but "they" will eventually convince you of what you need, all the while getting exactly what they want.

Same goes for guns, but the spin is that this WILL help you own your own life. Gun lobbyists pump money to our legislators who in return convince the public that guns will halt the advances of evil immigrants and other scary minorities. Ignorant people eat this shit up too, I've seen it firsthand here in Texas. Conversely, zombie shows are the hot shit these days because they subliminally convince the terrified ultra-conservative that zombies (Blacks, Mexican, Muslims) are tomorrows less-intelligent, inferior bullet cushions. Get yer gun Earl!

Foil hat off, whew.

Look, nobody is overthrowing today's government by force. If you believe that then I have some magical wood that will burn hot in your West Virginia shack for weeks at a time. If you own a gun and you're not using it for home defense, sport, or hunting dinner, then you're either:

- T.J. Hooker
- A doomsday planner
- Starring in Lethal Weapon 5

Selling fear is the dirtiest thing I can think of and it's not beneath our government to use it. People don't fact check anymore. They simply take soundbites that appeal to their agenda and run with it. The 2nd Amendment is the personification of ambiguity manipulated for the special interest of a few, and the jeopardy of many.
"Prince will steal your girl, then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girl's clothes."

Xani Machdo (Twitter user)
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » November 23, 2015, 6:36 pm

Mr. Glass wrote:Look, nobody is overthrowing today's government by force. If you believe that then I have some magical wood that will burn hot in your West Virginia shack for weeks at a time.


Not today's govt. Not yesterday's govt. Not any govt ever.

In the founder's day, the force with the most people won, with rare exception and only then because of military skills - not just guns in the hands of joe bob. You could be five guys shooting at twelve guys with unloaded guns, and even if you hit every shot - seven guys are coming to stab you with bayonets. No one is holding out in their log cabin against a canon.

The 2nd Amendment is the personification of ambiguity manipulated for the special interest of a few, and the jeopardy of many.

:thumbsup:
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » November 23, 2015, 6:40 pm

qdman wrote:The idea that the people need arms to protect against tyranny is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure if you're just being rhetorical to support your argument, but if your interested there are many prominent intellectuals and political figures who have echoed this belief for longer than America has even existed.

Name a single incident where this was proven to work in the last century (or two) - i.e. that an armed populace resisted tyranny.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » November 24, 2015, 1:28 am

Wpj, I'm done with the pissing contests.

Glass, I'd like to address everything you said in depth but I have to just wish you the best of luck with your decisions. Like I said, Americans make their own bed, and will have to lie in it. Hopefully you weren't saying you think I want to violently overthrow anything or am fixated on the threat of other races. If you do I can't control it. It seems to me everything is cracking apart, and unfortunately everyone is part of some group programmed to hate or otherwise be at odds with everyone else.

The only thing I'll offer, and I know I shouldn't but I'm obviously an eternal flame to controversy, is this; populace held guns aren't for "takeovers" or resistance. This is both a matter of deterrence (hundreds of years of thought behind this one) and secondly but still importiant, a matter of self-reliance. Its nice that old ladies can pack their little pistols, feel somewhat safe on the street at night etc. I can't name any time the army lost to the people in a way where arms conclusively saved the day. But I can name times where people lost their rights to modern weapons, and were then oppressed because they were easy to control, not even possesing the recourse kill 5 and fight seven. Presumably at the time just before the arms were confiscated, the armed populace thing was working! Clearly bullies fight victims, exclusively. Yes no one's gonna stick up the generalissimo or what have you but the point is to resist systematic organized oppression by one group on another, and the ability to let it be known you can make a dent with your life means a lot to the safety of your community, versus not being able to.

I can also name scores of people who stopped crimes with guns, and people who were victimized because they were attacked in gun-free zones by people with guns. But again, it's your country too, so do what you want with it.

What do you two intend to do about those who say they won't give up arms (after the possibly inevitable federal ruling)? Are you prepared to take this all the way? That's the real issue, imo.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » November 24, 2015, 1:28 pm

@Q - Nah, none of what I said was directed at you. I hold the highest value towards those willing to share their ideas, especially when they are different, radical, and/or thought provoking. I'm always trying to understand cause and effect, but more importantly, the pre-causes and the unforeseen post-effects. As I get older and subsequently more interested in the working parts of our rights as citizens, my outlook turns bleak because I know the problem(s). I don't want to get off track because WPJ's topic on the classification of arms has me really interested. But allow me to spew from my pew for a few:

Our founding fathers were brilliant but they were not infallible. The ideology that the Constitution and other baseline standards for American life are almost biblical, is arrogant at least and destructive and obtuse at worse. And like the bible, a selected few should be charged with its unbiased interpretation. All the while considering its vulnerabilities as a document touched by mankind. Our first problem as a nation is the standards we hold for those selected few. Integrity on Capitol Hill is like caviar at Burger King, and I don't think any of those wig-wearing freaks of yore anticipated the blatant absence of it. So the populace suffers. Where have all the cowboys gone? That truly dedicated public servant untouched by money, power or sway. "Whatever man puts himself before his country..." sounds like the beginning of an oath in a movie that would be binding and punishable by death or something. But not for our elected. You screw this country over for self-serving reasons and you simply retire.

What happened to God? He was supposed to be the element that kept man morally accountable. You know, In God we trust and whatnot? Now God is simply a tool for gathering certain votes. When you remove a higher judgement from the equation, you eventually start looking at yourself as God. So the gross narcissism of mankind flourishes under a system that retains these types because they've convinced us that nothing can be done to stop it. We've created Godzilla. What will you do to achieve riches as an elected official? Start a war and kill thousands? Allow pharmaceutical companies impunity from moral accountability? Waste millions in time and tax payer money on a cause that's futile? You need not look any further than the approval ratings of both houses to see that most officials are morally inept. And Americans do nothing about it.

If the price to pay for injustices by the elected were higher it would one, thin out the heard of greedy bastards running for office, and two, the ones that are elected would do a better job. Including rules for guns that protects all Americans and their rights.

qdman wrote:What do you two intend to do about those who say they won't give up arms (after the possibly inevitable federal ruling)? Are you prepared to take this all the way? That's the real issue, imo.


I don't think we will ever see a ruling that takes guns away from Americans. What I would do instead is require an annual recertification for gun ownership. This recertification process would evaluation your mental capacity to own a gun, gun safety training, and yes minimal tracking of your hardware. Trust me, being from Texas I know that the average gun owner wants more tracking of their firearms like they want another (shotgun) hole in the head, but there has to be some give and take here. A national database is a great idea in case your guns are ever stolen. IF your scenario ever comes to fruition, just replay the Prohibition era all over again. Some will die, most will hide their stash.

America.
"Prince will steal your girl, then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girl's clothes."

Xani Machdo (Twitter user)
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » November 24, 2015, 7:24 pm

Great bit about God glass.

So details like certification aside in your opinion anyone not objectively dangerous should be allowed to posess weapons? That works for me though unfortunately I'm gonna have to assume whatever strings get attached to this will irl be used to try to supress the armed populace as a whole, inch by inch.

Yeah the founders sure weren't infallible, I think we all know the major reason why, but their view of how a democracy needed to function was brilliant. I wouldn't expect prophecy from them. But, I think when they talk about the fundamental nature of democracy, everyone should be taking notes, because that's kind of their thing.

And what they said was that the democracy is cyclical. Time will pass and the integrity of politicians will inevitably be corrupted by the influential versus the relative weak masses, who would be unable to continually thump the principles of the constitution (i'll personally budge on the constitution is bible thing, but the principles behind it hell no) in the face of manipulation. Ask these gun people how they feel about unconstitutional wars and domestic spying, you'll see how much they care about The constitution, when it doesn't seem convenient to them. And little by little we've reached a point where the constitution is actively subverted or ignored, and the people tolerate this. If we deal with this problem once and for all then maybe we can work towards a world where guns are not needed.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Mr. Glass » November 25, 2015, 12:39 pm

qdman wrote:So details like certification aside in your opinion anyone not objectively dangerous should be allowed to posess weapons? That works for me though unfortunately I'm gonna have to assume whatever strings get attached to this will irl be used to try to supress the armed populace as a whole, inch by inch.


Guns could be regulated much like cars. Both can be deadly weapons in the right scenarios. Why not have people renew their gun registrations along with their cars each year? Nobody's screaming, "They're coming for my fuggin' truck", so why is this the case with a national database for firearms? My $3.42 opinion is that its the Toyota-Fear-anthon being promoted to vulnerable segments of our population. Take the Patriot Act as an example - Could you EVER imagine a time when Conservatives would pass a law allowing the federal government to spy on her citizens? Hell no. But if scary people who talk funny destroy a few buildings here, we change our tune quickly. Americans have proven willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms for the greater good, so why the giant erection-fest for boom-sticks? It's clearly fear Q.

I am an imperfect God-fearing Christian man. I accept everyone's right to practice their beliefs without persecution and bla bla bla bla...but here's the REAL conundrum I pose to any true-believer in Christ - If God says that fear is of the devil, and that faith in Him is a fundamental requisite (paraphrased), then many of our so-called leaders are faithless and fearful in their actions. I'll back off with the religious stuff shortly, but let me say this Q:

Everything I was saying in my last post about the Constitution and the things that made/make America great, were ALL co-components with faith and religion-based morality. Again, In God We Trust. These things (used to) go hand-in-hand, and we were once a very blessed nation for it. We've strayed under the hypocrisy of our elected officials.

The day that we reclaim our faith in God and each other, is the day that gun regulation won't even matter. Same goes for abortion, gay rights, and every other talking point.
Last edited by Mr. Glass on December 1, 2015, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Prince will steal your girl, then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girl's clothes."

Xani Machdo (Twitter user)
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » November 26, 2015, 7:48 am

Your God stuff is beautiful glass. I agree with all of it. Especially the bit about the devil. The people who are chained up in their wealth, no real friends, nothing to do but play world master, knowing they are getting old and can't take it with them, I think they are indeed insecure and afraid.

Now what I don't believe in is exactly what we both said righly about Americans. That they do the old Ben Franklin copout, giving up liberties and so on. We as intelligent conciencious human beings should be fighting this on every single front. Otherwise we get pitted against one another and whittled down, just like you say we are between gun rights and the domestic surveilence and inevitable other spooky shit we all know the powers that be are up to. One side cares about one kind of freedom, other side another kind, but the two are divided against one another so we all lose both. But I won't be part of any fight that leads me to be manipulated. I won't be oppositionally defiant.

I don't really think a gun is like a truck, except that if you hurt people with one you need a good reason. But you can't really protect yourself with a truck. I'm not really that concerned with forming milita bullshit. I'm worried about what happens when Americans lose guns, at some point or another feel a greater threat to their security (or a fear will be manufactured), and ask for protection from the government, and suddenly we're giving up shit you and I haven't even dreamed of that makes ndaa and patriot act look like not much. Cause that, as you kinda said yourself, would be the human nature of the powerful and the powerless playing itself out.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby washingtonparkjones » November 30, 2015, 7:25 pm

Pissing contest?
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Second Amendment

Postby Isa Soulstar » November 30, 2015, 8:38 pm

Pissing contest.
oOoO...Friends don't let friends VOTE REPUBLICAN...OoOo
User avatar
Isa Soulstar
Writer
 
Joined: June 18, 2003, 9:13 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC...Originated in Newark Noo Jerz.

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 1, 2015, 2:55 pm

I answered your question. No response? I'll just have to put up some pro gun quotes then.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Re: Second Amendment

Postby nazrmohamed » December 1, 2015, 3:23 pm

In most of the third world anybody can walk around with an AK47. Even in Iraq regular civilians regularly carry fully automatic machine guns.

Now ask yourself whether or not its ever prevented tyranny or oppression. Yet in most of the civilized world where overt oppression is scarce, where generally lead very happy lives the common use of weapons is minimal to noon existent.

How does one explain this? Maybe there is no correlation but I can tell you this. Personal use arms is not going to stop any government from oppressing you. You think the rebels in Syria are holding up because of thier glocks and smith and wessons? Or is it because the USA and allies are airlifting them mortar and Rockets daily?

So the idea that the right to bear the arms that you find in Wallmart is gonna stop the most advanced fighting force in the world from oppressing you when clearly they don't in the first place is just retarded to say the least.

Cmon, you wanna hunt and shoot for sport and I actually support that. I just feel one doesn't need an automatic weapon to do so and that for anyone to get a gun it should be the hardest thing you ever got in your life. If you are that determined to have a gin you will jump through hoops to get it. And jets the thing, if you already own guns why WOULDN'T you want that. It should be the right of a select few who have been vetted so that his who mean harm don't ruin it for everyone else.
PHISHER
User avatar
nazrmohamed
 
Joined: December 16, 2004, 9:06 pm
Location: Rockland, Ny

Re: Second Amendment

Postby qdman » December 1, 2015, 5:24 pm

first of all: What about Switzerland?

furthermore, I flatout reject the notion that the lack of gun control, and not the various regime changes installed by the USA (like pumping Syria full of weapons that end up in the hands of people like ISIS) has been in any way shape or form responsible for the violence and unrest in the Third World. The USA has armed so many little groups all vying for power, whether in the ME, Africa or Central/South America that's what I'd call a major factor though there are others. A violent unstable region is exactly what you get with a long history of arming one group to do your fighting for you. Anyway, had assad confiscated the arms there wouldn't be any rebels for the US to give rockets and bombs to. They would all be dead already. We took soldiers that were there to start and armed them well. This is a similar situation in that sense to that of French intervention in the American Revolutionary war, without which we likely would not have won the war for independence. We weren't well armed/rich enough to beat the British, but it was enough to give our enemies enemy a viable side to back and that made the difference.

As I said above, it's not at all about an army beating another army. It's about resisting systemic oppression, the non overt kind. The government is owned by people who see us all as cattle and have held that point of view for generations. This is clear to anyone who actually looks to verify it. So why would you be motivated to overthrow or exterminate what you consider your property? You wouldn't. So that's not the point of gun control. In America, the goal is to make everyone more dependent, and therefore willing to accept less and less control of their lives.

Every time the right to arms are taken, brutal oppression follows, usually in the form of taxes (on peasants who are starving), conscripted labor, jim crow style ethnic regulation etc. I don't know why people think there are no examples of this, just look at the history Japanese/Chinese society during the periods where its illegal for any citizens to carry/possess weapons, the or the legal status of slaves in various historical peoples like the Romans. Or, to summarize the modern era, the actions of dictators such as Mao, Stalin, pol pot Idi Amin, and others after taking the guns. You want to talk about mass shootings? How about a mass shooting that takes out millions of people? In fact, I challenge you to name a historical act of oppression that wasn't preceded by the government first seizing the weapons.The Intolerable Acts (Boston tea party)? That didn't go so well for the British Crown though. <<example of arms preventing oppression

In Sum, armed people, with all their negative sides, are really hard to fuck with. The powerful always want to fuck with people. These are historical eternal truths. So I'd rather everyone get armed, so we can actually settle disputes with words, and not get ultimatums. Furthermore, I don't want people to accept this pov based on my arguments. really. What I want is your cooperation in ending the divisiveness, and demonstrate a logic strong enough to achieve this respect. That means when I parrot the words of Thomas Jefferson, everyone should recognize that this is a super valid point of view, not acting all aghast like there's no thought being put into these words. Even if you disagree with them. You guys are the ones who are suggesting a new way to do democracy, not me, im looking at the creator's manual. Your newness happens to be a majority but that majority means nothing in terms of your pov being correct. It couldn't mean less. So stop hiding behind the fact that there are more of you and get in the logical trenches with me. Or renounce claims to thoughtfulness.


decided to make this shorter, but then....
Last edited by qdman on December 1, 2015, 7:43 pm, edited 16 times in total.
User avatar
qdman
 
Joined: September 14, 2007, 12:55 pm

Next

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest