"Slavery was Legal when 2nd Amendment Was Written"

originally posted by: SatansPride
a reply to: FamCore

Tell the people, it helps more if you do it in your own vicinity. Some of your points are crucial, even though it may be embarrassing or awkward or may lead to a conversation you are uncomfortable with, telling people who you live around is much more efficient than just the computer. Next time tell them what you think, just don't be rude huh lol & listen to valid points

I don't know about that. Certain people, especially in a group, could be downright dangerous if you go against their beliefs. I've seen some scary responses from people on this subject especially the ban-the-gun advocates.

Slavery is not written in to the Bill of Rights.
This is a false equivalency for an argument.

If you want to abolish the second amendment, then lobby congress for that. It won't happen, but go ahead if that's what you want. Oh, and slavery is STILL legal in the U.S.
The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. In Congress, it was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by the House on January 31, 1865..

except as punishment for a crime....

a reply to: FamCore

One of the reasons Americans are so worried about their government turning against them is because they turned against the government, it's not so much a tyrannical government they are worried about it's the government getting revenge.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: FamCore

To add... Which not many people bring up. Citizens having guns has also kept us safe from invasions.



Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." [upon learning of the success of the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor]

It sounds really good and gives the appearance of supporting the efficacy of an armed citizenry. The only problem is that there is nothing to actually support Admiral Yamamoto ever making the statements widely attributed to him.

For the record, I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, former military and long time gun owner. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws of propping up a position with poor due diligence and scholarship. Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence that 2A has prohibited any invasions of the continental US and there's less evidence that Yamamoto actually made the statements people have been repeating for decades now (the earliest mention of the alleged quote was from an aide of General McArthur's who helped compile material for a biography of McArthur). There just isn't a single, contemporaneous, documented piece of evidence that Yamamoto made any of the statements.

a reply to: FamCore

Been in similar situations. I have a hard time explaining it.

It's like they get charged up all day long in the echo chamber. Then at an event like you mentioned, they get the opportunity to discharge. Or they're fireflies and when one starts lighting up, the whole group just instinctively joins in.

If one were to mention a failing in one of their statements, it would have no affect. There was no thought to their statement in the first place. It was an animalistic regurgitation. A Pavlovian response. One firefly identifying themselves to another firefly.

They need to feel a positive, loud resonance to what they believe. That is a powerful thing. Distinctions and analytics can be cold and singular. Not as sexy or reassuring.

Instead of engaging you in thoughtful dialog, you will be attacked as a threat to resonance.

How's that? I'm still not sure if I have it down yet.

Anyone needs a slave, I hear Libya is open for biz. $400.

Thanks hillary and obama.

Can't afford a whole one, splitzies anyone?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: FamCore

To add... Which not many people bring up. Citizens having guns has also kept us safe from invasions.



Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

"I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." [upon learning of the success of the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor]

It sounds really good and gives the appearance of supporting the efficacy of an armed citizenry. The only problem is that there is nothing to actually support Admiral Yamamoto ever making the statements widely attributed to him.

For the record, I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment, former military and long time gun owner. I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws of propping up a position with poor due diligence and scholarship. Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence that 2A has prohibited any invasions of the continental US and there's less evidence that Yamamoto actually made the statements people have been repeating for decades now (the earliest mention of the alleged quote was from an aide of General McArthur's who helped compile material for a biography of McArthur). There just isn't a single, contemporaneous, documented piece of evidence that Yamamoto made any of the statements.

I do think we can agree though, it is still thought about by foreign nations in their war games / contingency plans.

It's still a threat assessment that needs addressed. I guess you can say that there no proof, but I will say it definitely made an impact one way or another.

a reply to: FamCore

So what

a reply to: FamCore

Women couldn't vote when the 2nd Amendment was written.

Yes, yes, we got rid of slavery, so why not just get rid of guns?

To eradicate slavery the way we did it, cost an estimated 620,000 American lives, the utter destruction of huge areas of the country, the assassination of a President, billions of dollars in rebuilding costs, an animosity that still exists after 150+ years, a Constitutional Amendment... is it worth that to keep me from hunting Bambi?

We have forgotten the lessons of history. I fear we may need a refresher course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But hunting Bambi isn’t just about hunting Bambi, it is about being self-sufficient. An understanding that is severely not understood by those on the other side of the issue, as is the case on most every other issue. Where the same voices take the same stands.

Everyone knew that slavery was a dying institution. It was even written into the Constitution to expire the importation of slaves, after the appeasement of the 3/5 rule for representation. The Civil War slavery issue was over forcing the end versus letting it die out of its own.

Gun ownership in the US is currently about 40% of the population. That number is actually up due to the expections of Obama banning guns. Could we see history repeat...oh yeah. Big time. Only the quick friend or foe identifier might just be if you can hold up an assult rifle with both hands above your head to show you got one. If so, the one that can’t might just find themselves in a bad spot.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Don't be scared, be prepared, we have the luxury to sit at home for the first time in all of human history, don't get weak & abuse it. Noone who made a difference or became an influence to people kept their perception & body at home entirely. & the crazy thing is, name one time in history where mass amounts of violence has not worked, once that violent group gets disbanned, incarcerated, then a legal respresentitive takes hear to those proples concerns & applicates it in an orderly & public ordaned fashion. Violence makes rumors, rumors make money, blame it on the media but its happend all throughout human history. I still despise violence, facts are facts though.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: FamCore

So what

Great post - thanks for the thoughtful contribution

a reply to: Ahabstar

That's really what all this is about, isn't it? Self-sufficiency versus dependency. The elite always need dependent people, for otherwise no one would follow them when things get tough. And sooner or later, things always get tough.

The way I look at self-sufficiency is, it gives me a choice. If I am hungry, I have a choice: go buy food or get food for free with a little work. A deer is a lot of food, and takes one bullet (or one arrow) and a little time to obtain all that food. A garden can be grown almost for free if one works the ground themselves and saves their seeds for the next year, and that garden provides more food than one family can eat.

The danger of having those choices is that it removes the power base. If I am good with spending $100 a week on groceries, but then one day I realize groceries are going to cost me $150 that week, I can choose not to buy the groceries and instead live off the land. Others who do not understand how things work are not so lucky... their only choice is to pay or starve. Those who profit from the cost of groceries have limited power over me. They have extreme power over others.

Tools are critical for any type of self-sufficiency and a gun is exactly that: a tool. I can be used for defense should one be under attack by other humans or by critters, and it can be used as a tool for easier harvesting of meat. A hoe can be used to kill a snake (more food) or to aerate soil and remove weeds. An axe can be used to cut wood for heat or clear land for development. All these are tools, but the gun stands out as one of the easiest to use.

The dependent do not understand this. They exist without choice and without options. They must obey those who are in control of them, or they will starve. I believe the push for gun control is in large part a result of jealousy these dependents have toward the independent, fueled by the fear of those in power that they really might not have the kind of control they think they do, and that they need to satisfy their dependent lifestyle.

TheRedneck