As a Brit I now see the need for the second amendment

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The governor declares curfew and it is your right not to follow it?

There's no such thing as a curfew on your front porch.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: HRH27

Wouldn't the rioters also have just as much access to guns?

The 2nd doesn't discriminate between the good and the bad.

A few months ago we had some 2nd Amendment rallies. They were very peaceful.

It seems that when every third person is carrying a gun, both police and protestors tend to be polite and respectful. Go figure.

The National Guard are shooting, at least it is only paintball or rubber bullets at present.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

There's no such thing as a curfew on your front porch.

It seems like they were out in their front on the edge of their yard? How does one know if that is your yard as others walk around... Sounds like someone itching to prove a point when it might not be the best time to try. Kind of like someone standing right at a broken window as people loot and say I'm not looting as the cop takes them down too. Maybe if they work with the people trying to secure the area they would not get a bean bag.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

A few months ago we had some 2nd Amendment rallies. They were very peaceful.

It bears mentioning that those attending were white, and the authorities did # even when the State House was taken over.

I seriously doubt the same would happen with a bunch of armed, but peaceful, black protesters, since we already see how the protesters (not the rioters) have been assaulted by police, sometimes even on their own property, as well as clearly identifiable members of media.

I'd wager the police would not allow that to happen in any form.

If police keep acting this way, and if the military is called up, things might actually come to a head.

This is getting serious, and it's about us a nation, our values, and what we fairly find acceptable and tolerable as a collective society.

It does not bode well.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It seems like they were out in their front on the edge of their yard?

They were clearly on a (raised) porch, right by their front door, if you actually watch the video.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
It seems like they were out in their front on the edge of their yard?

No, they were on their porch.

originally posted by: chr0naut

My point is that you only have to defend your armed selves, against your armed selves, because your selves are armed.

You are creating the very crisis from which you need to defend yourselves.

Guns don't naturally occur. They have to be manufactured, marketed, bought and sold.

Not only that but in a situation of gun proliferation, you are only one, defending against many. The numbers will always be against you, and the situation gets worse, the more guns that are out there.

Gun proliferation in the name of 'self-defense' is nuts!

The purpose of being armed is to equalize the difference in force between two combatants. Rocks, clubs, swords and axes reduce the physical strength and imposition needed to counter a much larger opponent. Firearms are in turn a complete negation of the need for strength to defend oneself altogether, which makes self-defense far easier than a lifetime of training with melee weapons that start to lose their usefulness with extreme age of the wielder.

While there is some truth to the premise of the arms trade trickling down to both good and bad people, ultimately, criminals do not deliberately attack opponents who are well-armed. They prey upon the weak--a mindset that is served by disarmament agendas. What fool would attack someone who stands a great chance of cutting them down with equal prejudice? It's been said by many, but high crime rates and frequent shootings are associated with highly-restrictive localities where carrying of arms or even simple ownership are prohibited, or limited to the point of impracticality.

I noticed your signature mentions the Christchurch massacre. Do you believe any act of terrorism of that scale would've been carried out against citizens who were legally permitted to defend themselves with concealed or openly-carried arms?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

The Second Amendment actually is what allowed for the end of slavery as part of the Civil War.

Many abolitionists supported John Brown. His martyrdom was made possible because the Constitution was still followed and there was no standing army. Federally owned arms had to be kept in an armory like the one at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. It wouldn’t become West Virginia until after the Civil War began...

originally posted by: Greenfire

originally posted by: chr0naut

My point is that you only have to defend your armed selves, against your armed selves, because your selves are armed.

You are creating the very crisis from which you need to defend yourselves.

Guns don't naturally occur. They have to be manufactured, marketed, bought and sold.

Not only that but in a situation of gun proliferation, you are only one, defending against many. The numbers will always be against you, and the situation gets worse, the more guns that are out there.

Gun proliferation in the name of 'self-defense' is nuts!

The purpose of being armed is to equalize the difference in force between two combatants. Rocks, clubs, swords and axes reduce the physical strength and imposition needed to counter a much larger opponent. Firearms are in turn a complete negation of the need for strength to defend oneself altogether, which makes self-defense far easier than a lifetime of training with melee weapons that start to lose their usefulness with extreme age of the wielder.

While there is some truth to the premise of the arms trade trickling down to both good and bad people, ultimately, criminals do not deliberately attack opponents who are well-armed. They prey upon the weak--a mindset that is served by disarmament agendas. What fool would attack someone who stands a great chance of cutting them down with equal prejudice? It's been said by many, but high crime rates and frequent shootings are associated with highly-restrictive localities where carrying of arms or even simple ownership are prohibited, or limited to the point of impracticality.

I noticed your signature mentions the Christchurch massacre. Do you believe any act of terrorism of that scale would've been carried out against citizens who were legally permitted to defend themselves with concealed or openly-carried arms?

Yes, I do think that such an attack could still be possible against armed defenders.

It happens all the time in regular shoot-outs, skirmishes and warfare.

Additionally, drawing a gun, in a situation where both sides are armed, makes you more of a threat and therefore a target to be dispatched quickly (before more reasonable re-consideration may moderate things).

If they have their gun up, aimed, and loaded before you do, as armed criminals are likely to, you are at a tactical disadvantage and no amount of ethical/moral considerations are, in the slightest way, relevant to the situation.

a reply to: Ahabstar


Thanks for the American History Lesson there . I was not aware of that ..........._^

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

No, they were on their porch.

OK and your point? Is this one more notch in your anarchy stick? I have made the same point over and over that there are places with dysfunctional societies in America, many are in big cities. These places where the general tone of the society that live there breed a lot of crime, drugs, gangs, easy money so on a so forth that all feeds into the dysfunction of the area.

Well guess what... The cops there will be harden as much as the society they work in. This is actually small in comparison to most of America. As they riot I went out with some friends and played golf where two of my friends playing were black. We all agree on the same thing that dysfunctional areas are going to be just like this. Bad cops tend to happen because the population they work in are also bad in many ways.

IDK how to fix it... 50 years of Democratic rule in these areas and 8 years with a black President has done nothing but made it worst, so you tell me how do you fix it?

Add in that many or the rioters (I'm not talking protesters) are just feeding off of this with hardly a care for George Floyd in anyway.

I'm 20 mins from Portland, and there are no curfew here, no riots, no one is doing crap except for enjoying a nice spring evening. Cops are not beating people up, ever, not killing people with their knee, and most of America even right now is just like this.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: HRH27

Wouldn't the rioters also have just as much access to guns?

The 2nd doesn't discriminate between the good and the bad.

I think the poster is more concerned by the police..I could be wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

Possible, but unlikely, for the aforementioned reasons. Unless you believe the criminal element lacks self-preservation instincts.

I wonder what it is you consider a "regular shoot-out" since there is no universal condition for one other than both parties are equipped with firearms. "Skirmishes" and "warfare" are out of the scope of this discussion. Other than in the context of gang vs. gang violence, this is not even relevant. We're talking citizens with arms, not militaries, who by definition need weapons to enforce policy.

Criminals aren't the Predator. They don't seek and destroy people holding a weapon. While it would be logical to assume that a criminal with a firearm will attempt to shoot someone who draws on them, this assumption rides on stupidity and lack of preparedness on the defender's part, and even intent on the criminal's--I will submit to you the defender may have occasion to already be displaying a weapon, and the criminal may not have the stomach to kill. Still, someone who brandishes a weapon, be it a blade or a gun, at you has indicated their willingness to use it. Whether you become a "threat" to them is irrelevant. I have seen too many people become injured or killed even after complying to ever accept submission as more than a stall.

There is an entire school of thought and strategy to being both armed and aware. Entire businesses exist to teach proper methodology for self defense, which doesn't boil down to a convenience store clerk drawing on a guy who's already looking at him. There's no shame in not being a gun person, but I advise that you don't presume to lecture those of us who are on how best to conduct ourselves. To put it bluntly, your rationale has exposed both extreme ignorance of all levels of armed combat, and unfamiliarity with criminal behavior. It is unwise to base policy on assumption, and it may just get you killed some day.

originally posted by: Greenfire
a reply to: chr0naut

Possible, but unlikely, for the aforementioned reasons. Unless you believe the criminal element lacks self-preservation instincts.

I wonder what it is you consider a "regular shoot-out" since there is no universal condition for one other than both parties are equipped with firearms. "Skirmishes" and "warfare" are out of the scope of this discussion. Other than in the context of gang vs. gang violence, this is not even relevant. We're talking citizens with arms, not militaries, who by definition need weapons to enforce policy.

Criminals aren't the Predator. They don't seek and destroy people holding a weapon. While it would be logical to assume that a criminal with a firearm will attempt to shoot someone who draws on them, this assumption rides on stupidity and lack of preparedness on the defender's part, and even intent on the criminal's--I will submit to you the defender may have occasion to already be displaying a weapon, and the criminal may not have the stomach to kill. Still, someone who brandishes a weapon, be it a blade or a gun, at you has indicated their willingness to use it. Whether you become a "threat" to them is irrelevant. I have seen too many people become injured or killed even after complying to ever accept submission as more than a stall.

There is an entire school of thought and strategy to being both armed and aware. Entire businesses exist to teach proper methodology for self defense, which doesn't boil down to a convenience store clerk drawing on a guy who's already looking at him. There's no shame in not being a gun person, but I advise that you don't presume to lecture those of us who are on how best to conduct ourselves. To put it bluntly, your rationale has exposed both extreme ignorance of all levels of armed combat, and unfamiliarity with criminal behavior. It is unwise to base policy on assumption, and it may just get you killed some day.

You are right that I am not a gun person, but I am trained.

There's no magic in the training. You don't suddenly become Superman and cease to do stupid human things. Nor does it miraculously improve your aim or reaction times by much.

originally posted by: chr0nautYou are right that I am not a gun person, but I am trained.

There's no magic in the training. You don't suddenly become Superman and cease to do stupid human things. Nor does it miraculously improve your aim or reaction times by much.

Nor did I mean to suggest that it does. Training is simply an aid, leverage to improve an outcome. You'll forgive me if I have doubts as to your qualifications, because one of the most basic pretenses of bearing a weapon is not becoming a target. It's the concept of a deterrent, a complete sidestep from even having to use force. One need only observe how nuclear weapons have historically, in the hands of disagreeing but mostly rational leadership, canceled each other out. Only madmen still threaten to deploy them without regard for the outcome.

Plenty of skilled combatants have gotten killed in history. Sometimes poor luck is all it takes. It doesn't change the fact that the public should be entitled to preserve their lives by whatever means are necessary, and should not be deprived of weapons they're disinclined to abuse because a few cannot be trusted. This comes down to human beings having a right to not get stabbed, beaten, or otherwise brutalized by people who won't follow society's rules regardless of how many laws are made.

There are, and always will be, violent non-conformists in society. I'd rather have an efficient weapon to protect myself than a clumsy one that can't stave off a surging mob. And none of this even touches upon the true purpose of the Second Amendment.

No "right" or freedom matters if you dont have power. Sorry to say but power is the only thing that actually gives you freedom. And power comes from numbers and will, it comes from other people having your back, which means it comes from organization, it comes from rallying around a common good/purpose. Like-minded caring individuals.

Which is why the thing they fear the most is people organizing in a cohesive block, where they are going to actually make good use and be able to back up all these so called freedoms and rights.

They dont care about a bunch of atomized individuals waving around their rights in vain publicity, virtue signaling about how much they love freedom. Completely meaningless.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

Your point?

If they're done away with, and we're all good little veals--to coin a phrase--only the bad ones would have them.

I much prefer a level playing field in matters of this nature...or one I can tilt in my favor. Which I can.

I can, and will defend myself. I'm not about to wait around for the cops to maybe, if they're feeling like it, show up to help. To do that requires the best tools I can lay my hands on--and safely use.

My point is that you only have to defend your armed selves, against your armed selves, because your selves are armed.

You are creating the very crisis from which you need to defend yourselves.

Guns don't naturally occur. They have to be manufactured, marketed, bought and sold.

Not only that but in a situation of gun proliferation, you are only one, defending against many. The numbers will always be against you, and the situation gets worse, the more guns that are out there.

Gun proliferation in the name of 'self-defense' is nuts!

Aww. It’s sweet how you really don’t get it at all. Once they banned those scary blacK Gunz from your home they all just disappeared.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
OK and your point?

My point is simple, really simple, it was another example of government violation of our rights. It has nothing to friggin do with anarchy.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

Your point?

If they're done away with, and we're all good little veals--to coin a phrase--only the bad ones would have them.

I much prefer a level playing field in matters of this nature...or one I can tilt in my favor. Which I can.

I can, and will defend myself. I'm not about to wait around for the cops to maybe, if they're feeling like it, show up to help. To do that requires the best tools I can lay my hands on--and safely use.

My point is that you only have to defend your armed selves, against your armed selves, because your selves are armed.

You are creating the very crisis from which you need to defend yourselves.

Guns don't naturally occur. They have to be manufactured, marketed, bought and sold.

Not only that but in a situation of gun proliferation, you are only one, defending against many. The numbers will always be against you, and the situation gets worse, the more guns that are out there.

Gun proliferation in the name of 'self-defense' is nuts!

Aww. It’s sweet how you really don’t get it at all. Once they banned those scary blacK Gunz from your home they all just disappeared.

Mostly, it's a process towards greater public safety.

And they only banned semi-automatics, some shotguns, and their associated hardware (things like bump stocks and large magazines).

It reflects in our low numbers of gun deaths. But you wouldn't understand, having to defend, as you do, against every nutter who can buy a gun and go on a killing spree.

a reply to: chr0naut

Y’all must have had a recent surge if turn ins. Last I heard the program wasn’t working all that well. But I suppose when you have to spin a narrative, facts aren’t all that important.