Federal judge tosses Kansas machine gun possession case on Second Amendment grounds

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
We know, only criminals break laws....

And that is what you will be labelled as by the government that you are trying to bring down.

And it doesn't matter if the constitution mentions the right to keep and bear arms because you are going to go out there and source more destructive weapons than machine guns.

Why is it so hard for people to understand this concept?

a reply to: daskakik

The revolutionaries weren't outlaws until the government decided to call them that.

I've never asked the government for permission to buy a gun.

We're not trying to bring down the government, we're trying to correct it.

It shouldn't be that hard of a concept to understand.

originally posted by: watchitburn
We're not trying to bring down the government, we're trying to correct it.

It shouldn't be that hard of a concept to understand.

I understand that perfectly, the 2A is basically for times of peace.

And the concept you can't wrap your head around is that if you go to war with the government it makes no difference if you have the 2A or not because you will not be following their laws anyway.

a reply to: daskakik

The second amendment, like the entire Constitution is not just for times of peace. It's for yesterday, today and every tomorrow.

You have this notion in your head that it's for going to war with the government this being seen as criminals by said govt.

The part you're missing is that the 2a hinges on self defense. Meaning that the govt would be doing things.....illegally to where self defense is warranted.

This shows your bias and deference.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

He sounds like a fud trying to incite people.

a reply to: watchitburn

"I don't want gun control, but I do want to control guns...."

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
You have this notion in your head that it's for going to war with the government this being seen as criminals by said govt.

No, I said if you go to war it makes no difference what the constitution says. Your goal is to change it anyway.

The part you're missing is that the 2a hinges on self defense. Meaning that the govt would be doing things.....illegally to where self defense is warranted.

So tell me, how did that work out for those at Ruby Ridge, Waco or Robert Finicum?

This shows your bias and deference.

Whatever bias you think you see is your imagination.

a reply to: watchitburn
Nope, I am pointing out simple truths.

You are the one that came in with the typical "The 2nd Amendment is specifically for us to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical."

Only to then cop-out with "We're trying to exhaust all peaceful means. It's what civilized people do before resorting to violence."

All I said was that if you declare war, you can buy whatever types of weapons you can afford, 2A or no 2A.

a reply to: daskakik

Didn't the Finicum guys take over a federal building?

Regardless, you're trying to reframe the purpose and scope of the second amendment for reasons that only serve to justify your undermining of it.

You don't have to agree as it's already been typed and posted.



So again I'll ask, what rights to you agree with folks having as perhaps that'll be a smaller list....

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Regardless, you're trying to reframe the purpose and scope of the second amendment for reasons that only serve to justify your undermining of it.

I am not doing any of that. That is what you want to see. I'm sorry you just don't get it.

So again I'll ask, what rights to you agree with folks having as perhaps that'll be a smaller list....

There is no list. The answer is simple, as long as they don't hurt anyone, except in a self defense situation, they should be able to do whatever they want.

a reply to: daskakik

What is it, in exact terms, that I am not getting in your estimation?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp
The idea that many hold that "The 2nd Amendment is specifically for us to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical."

Also, "we need automatic weapons to repel an invading army" is a fantasy.

It makes no difference if the 2A existed or not because if you have declared war then the Constitution no longer applies to you. I know you said it is for self defense from small illegal government actions but I'm talking about claim one.

As for the second, there are better trained and equipped troops at hand. So yeah, go get your full auto rifle and have fun at the range, just don't try to make it seem like the existence of the US depends on you having one.

a reply to: daskakik

The idea that many hold that "The 2nd Amendment is specifically for us to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical."

Is this idea inaccurate? Because its certainly for that as the term militia is used within the amendment, followed by the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed. Which is predicated on protecting yourself and your property as the other amendments describe.

This isn't difficult ....

You may be interested in reading The Federalist Papers as your opinions seem rather strong but your knowledge on the matter to do rise to the occasion....

a reply to: daskakik

It's not a cop out, it's a fact.

Self defense includes overthrowing tyranny.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Is this idea inaccurate? Because its certainly for that as the term militia is used within the amendment, followed by the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed. Which is predicated on protecting yourself and your property as the other amendments describe.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by:

The part you're missing is that the 2a hinges on self defense. Meaning that the govt would be doing things.....illegally to where self defense is warranted.

My point still stands, which is also simple, if you are going to go to war with your government you are now an enemy combatant not covered by the constitution. It is what it is.

You may be interested in reading The Federalist Papers as your opinions seem rather strong but your knowledge on the matter to do rise to the occasion....

I have read them, I understand the concept, but I'm just pointing out that it really only has value during times of peace. Once war is declared, whoever rises up against the government is no longer granted the rights that the constitution and the bill of rights offer.

a reply to: daskakik

If the government turns tyrannical, it would be an act of self defense to use arms. Quite literally.

You seem to want to believe that it's the people who carry the burden of declaring war (outside of elected representation). While the fact is that it boils down to people defending themselves against a rogue or tyrannical govt.


I do not see any point you've tried making except trying to rationalize the people not having the same as as our own military.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
If the government turns tyrannical, it would be an act of self defense to use arms. Quite literally.

That is beside the point.

If you live under a dictatorship that is tyrannical and doesn't allow ownership of firearms but there is this underground movement to oust them. You go and get weapons and take them down. No 2A needed. That is the point.

You seem to want to believe that it's the people who carry the burden of declaring war (outside of elected representation). While the fact is that it boils down to people defending themselves against a rogue or tyrannical govt.

When you try to take down a government it is the people, or at least a group thereof, who decide to go to war against that government.

I do not see any point you've tried making except trying to rationalize the people not having the same as as our own military.

What do you mean by rationalize. Does the average joe have a tank. a fighter jet, an apache helicopter?

a reply to: daskakik

Why do you keep putting the onus on the oppressed? This is what I'm talking about regarding your bias and deference.

What do you mean by rationalize. Does the average joe have a tank. a fighter jet, an apache helicopter?

They can all be bought legitimately. Did you have a point to make here?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
Why do you keep putting the onus on the oppressed? This is what I'm talking about regarding your bias and deference.

Who else is supposed to do it?

You tell me who is supposed to overthrow this tyrannical government if not the oppressed?

They can all be bought legitimately. Did you have a point to make here?

But does the average person have one? If they need to be acquired, who is going to foot the bill? And why even bother if there are troops and equipment already paid for, to do that job.

My point is that this now we can finally protect our country because of this change in law is hyperbole. That is what I originally replied to, this isn't Red Dawn.

a reply to: daskakik

Who else is supposed to do it?

You tell me who is supposed to overthrow this tyrannical government if not the oppressed?

Do you not consider tyranny being a war on the people....?

But does the average person have one? If they need to be acquired, who is going to foot the bill? And why even bother if there are troops and equipment already paid for, to do that job.

My point is that this now we can finally protect our country because of this change in law is hyperbole. That is what I originally replied to, this isn't Red Dawn.

They are rather cost prohibitive but they certainly are privately owned and available.

My point here is the purpose of the 2a is to not have infringements by the government and that if the military has it, so should it be available to the people.