The second amendment only exists when it is destroyed

Hello, This is an artical i read about the second amendment. I thought it made a really good point about how it only matters when the gov tries to take it away. I found it on gcn. It talks about how if tyranny were to become full blowen in our nation that this would be the first amendment that goes. That makes sense, if the gov wants all of the power thay wouldn't want you to be able to stop them. "We have a tendency to see the Constitution as a document telling the people what they can do, but it is actually a document telling the government what it cannot do."

Here is the link. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as i did. www.gcnlive.com...

They are already taking rights away. They havent taken this one and probably wont try to either. They are eroding our rights in secrecy, and use underhanded tactics. If they did take it away then people would take up arms right away. This isn't what they want, not yet anyway.

reply to post by TraptInTheSystem


I agree and i ment to say that. The gov is already (and has been for awhile ) "nickel and diming us" out of our rights. But when it comes down to BIG moves this will most-likley be the first. That is in my opinion anyway.

There's a few funny things about the 2nd amendment.

First off, it's irrelevant, under its intended purpose. Unless US citizens are allowed to own military-grade hardware, then there will never be a point where we could resist an invading force effectively, much less any tyranny within our own borders. You have a beretta sidearm; they have an apache gunship. Good luck, you crazy Wolverines!


Second, ever seen the quote about the amendments, "the second protects the first?" Really? No it doesn't. In fact, it greatly hinders most of the other rights - Oh, it's not the 2nd Amendment's fault, but rather the attitude of the Americans who love it. For example, have a look at the Republican Party. The 2nd amendment is holy, sacrosanct, unquestionable... but all the others, first through twenty-seven, are completely negotiable. And their supporters, who are obsessed with the concept of owning a doodad and the illusion that said doodad will protect them from the government if things get "too bad" (see #1) blithely agree to this setup; sacrifice all your rights, just so long as your right to keep and bear arms isn't one of them. look at the attitudes of the previous posters - The notion of "when they ban guns, it's go time!" is burdened with hte accompanying notion that it's not going to be "go-time" until that point. Since as I've already said, our firearms pose no threat to ANY government, and we've been conditionedto think that removing guns is the "first step" of tyranny... why would tyrants ever ban them?

Third, on the self-defense angle, the people who need guns to defend themselves the most, tend to be the people least able to afford them. Sorry, white middle-class suburbanites, you're pretty low on the danger list, no matter how much you fantasize about blowing away a bunch of dusky savages with bones in their noses who are storming your castle. No, it's the poor homeless bastard three blocks down that your kids kicked the crap out of last week that needs a gun. it's that hooker you hired for your stag party that could maybe use a nice firearm next time Luscious Snuggybear Esquire decides to choke her. The mom living in public housing and pulling three jobs just to keep underwear on her kids' asses who's been robbed three times and threatened with rape once needs that gun, but certainly can't spare the money for it. The right to keep and bear arms is by no means the same as the ability to do so. And none of those dudes with bunker basements lined with their personal armory are going to be thinning out the ranks to provide for the needy, that's for damn sure.

I just recalled a comment from YouTube: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

reply to post by Luckyxfactor


And people with guns kill much more easily and efficiently.

Sort of the reason we don't run up and stab deer with sharp sticks anymore.

So the second amendment is like Schoedinger's Cat and Quantum theory all wrapped up in a delicious hamburger bun?

It's even worse than that.
Our state run militias have already been taken away from us.

No longer do you men get to go through the right of being recognized, by the state, as a contributing member of society and receiving their first firearm. And just look at what happened to the homicide rate since.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4518b4fa69f9.jpg[/atsimg]

B: The murder rate from 1870 to 1905 was slightly under or slightly over 1 per 100,000. During this time anyone, black, white, immigrant, a 14 year old, etc. could buy a firearm anywhere and anytime. If "guns cause murder" as the anti-freedom groups say, why was the murder rate so low when anyone and everyone could buy firearms? It is self-evident that whatever factors increase the murder rate, the open and free sale of firearms is NOT one of them.

www.amfire.com...

We should rightfully have tanks, jet aircraft, bazookas, even our own space craft by now. 9 the eleventh would have been swatted down like a mosquito. But no, big momma nanny state knows best.

How did it all happen?
I did some looking into this.

Huey P Long was Governor of Louisiana and he was crazy. Once while trying to get back into the Capitol of Baton Rouge, the Lt. Governor called out the State Guard and had the capitol surrounded to keep him out. Shortly after that the Fed nationalized all guard units and now it's called the National Guard. That's where our gun rights went.

All this arguing over shotguns and pistols is pocket change.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Correlation doesn't imply causation. For a graphic example, take a look at this chart; pirates vs. global warming:


Clearly, as the number of pirates on the high seas has fallen, global temperatures have risen! The two MUST be related, right?

Of course they're not.

In your post, any number of factors could cause any of the facts you cite. In fact, many could do it better because a paucity of guns leading to an increase in gun crime kind of doesn't really make sense. it has that "propaganda" smell to it.

Yarrrgg ye m'aties,
we're all a retreating to the north pole
to melt the caps and bring the blazin sun down on every one!

/end pirate voice

In this particular case
it is not correlation, but actual causation.
Hell these days if I walk into someone's house and they accidentally
point the buisness end of an empty shotgun at me and I get mad, they act like I'm the crazy one.
Being taught from a very early age to respect and properly handle firearms is what we used to have.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You have a beretta sidearm; they have an apache gunship. Good luck, you crazy Wolverines!

Or we may have a .50BMG with armor piercing rounds? Never know.

Edit: I hate Berettas.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


You're saying that because young men no longer receive firearms (from whom? I hope you weren't suggesting the government ever handed 'em out) that the murder rates have gone up.

These two don't cleanly relate. Could it be a factor? Perhaps. Could it be the sole factor? Almost certainly not. If you had a different agenda, you could put up a graph of US homicide rate next to a chart demonstrating the increased prevalence of High Fructose corn syrup in the American diet, and I'll bet they'd mirror nicely. Or the amount of television watched. Or the increase in boy bands. Or, you know, the decline of pirates!

Point is, there are definitely multiple contributing factors to the rise of the US homicide rate. You've attributed this to the nationalization of state militias, because you want to convince others that such nationalization is a terrible thing - just as you could correlate it with corn syrup to posit that that's a terrible thing. You could also correlate it with the use of gun violence in television and film, if that were your goal.

And... how often do you end up with a shotgun pointed at you that you actually have a "regular reaction" to it?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You've attributed this to the nationalization of state militias, because you want to convince others that such nationalization is a terrible thing

I do?


Why do you think all the kids are getting tattoos these days.

Cause the old ceremonies of being recognized as an adult member of society are gone. It's the only way many can find to prove they are grown up and in charge of their own bodies. Besides that I want my own tank, and my own space ship.

Why are you against this?


David Grouchy

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And... how often do you end up with a shotgun pointed at you that you actually have a "regular reaction" to it?

I'd say the "regular reaction" to such a situation would probably be the need for a change of underwear. I've not been in that situation but would prefer to have on a pair of Depends rather than Calvin Kleins.

Imagine you come home from work and find your beautiful wife in bed with 4 of your best friends and two of your brothers as well as your boss.
I would consider that what we call a "Deal Breaker".
From there no reconciliation could be made.
Both the first and second amendments are not negotiable and the loss of them would be a deal breaker.
I would take the house, the kids, the dogs, the cars, Etc. although not in that order.
I know there are several folks in the US that feel the same, this keeps me warm at night.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


There's a few funny things about your idea.
You use a hollywood movie for an example, this is akin to using wikipedia for a definate source material.
First off only an idiot would go nose to nose with an M9 versus an apache.
Second, and think hard, can you think of any major world power that was put in their place by poorly armed rebels?
I can think of 2, and they got their behinds handed to them by the same country.
Even bigger than that, it has happened much more times than i can count.
This is a resistance, little by little you demoralize the big guy until they are broken mentally, physically and financially.
Then you give them the release they pray for.

If you want to know what America is all about, take a listen to this mans 8 hour class on the constitution...its free and will make you aware (or extra aware) of how far down the green mile we already are. The point is, it is ALREADY bad enough to take up arms, yet we have, since the early 1900's (maybe earlier) kept on moving the line in the sand further and further back. Now, like a poster above has pointed out, the military would absolutely crush a resistance. I am convinced it will take generations to change, if at all.

Originally posted by g146541

Both the first and second amendments are not negotiable and the loss of them would be a deal breaker.

I appreciate this and losing either the 1st or 2nd would be a definite 'deal breaker'. But I think the point TheWalkingFox is trying to make is that losing any of our rights should be considered a deal-breaker.

We still have the 2nd amendment, but we've completely lost the 4th amendment. Why is that not a 'deal breaker' for you? Because we've been distracted with our guns and our free speech, we've given up our right to privacy.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


This military you speak of that would crush a resistance, is this the same military that is losing against a bunch of bolt action armed cavemen in Afghanistan?

reply to post by drwizardphd


Good point but i will say that i know nobody who's 4th amendment has been broken.
Can you point some or one out to me please?
Other than some landless peasant that unknowingly gives his consent of course.