The 2nd Amendment is a JOKE - The hypocrisy of gun owners!

I'll make this quick

Let us start with some facts, shall we.

- The 2nd Amendment grants the American citizen the right to bear arms
- The 2nd Amendment puts no limit on what arms are to be owned
- The purpose is so that the citizens, a militia, secures the security of a free state

So we know why you have a right to arms, and we know there was no further detail on which arms, no set limits on rate of fire, caliber, that sort of thing. Because of this gun advocates scream until they're blue in the face that they need assault rifles and that they need machines with dumb high magazines, and that they need 20 guns and thousands of bullets, just in case they have to take to the streets and defeat tyranny. This is what they say, when asked why such weaponry is needed it almost always comes back to the 2nd amendment. It's an excuse, but it's what they say. And it's hard to argue with that - We have the right, therefore we're going to own the guns.

Now here's the stupid part. When confronted with the fact that back in them days they had muskets and other weak weaponry, the gun owners say what? that it doesn't matter, it says the right to bear arms and it's all relative, right. Tyrants have muskets, we have muskets. Tyrants have assault rifles, we have assault rifles. It's the right to bear arms, not the right to bear muskets. They need to protect themselves from tyranny in government. They need

If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.

If the founding fathers were alive today, would they not - in the same way that we're told they'd support assault rifles - see what the government has at their disposal, and recognise the need for citizens and militia to have surface-to-air missiles. To shoot down planes, spy drones, that sort of thing? Am I not right in saying that such weapons would be necessary, were a tyranny to form. That a gun would not do the trick, no matter how many rounds it has? Citizens also need fighter jets which are armed to the teeth. They need grenades.

Instead what happens? If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not?

I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required!

so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else.

I no longer want to see you hiding behind the 2nd amendment because you have no reasonable argument for your high powered guns, not unless you're also vocal supporters of the types of weapons I've outlined above, only then will I take seriously your belief in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, you're just pretenders, frauds.

Your 30 round clip is no more necessary or justifiable than an automatic grenade launcher. If guns - which couldn't have been imagined at the time - are protected by the 2nd amendment, so too should all the weapons I listed off.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


You will have my vote as next US president
But trying to talk sense into gun loving rednecks is like learning explaining a heroin addict drugs are bad

nvm..

If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.

reply to post by GrandStrategy
so you are going to tell us what should we support and what not??? we are quite comfortable with our guns..

If the founding fathers were alive today, would they not - in the same way that we're told they'd support assault rifles - see what the government has at their disposal, and recognise the need for citizens and militia to have surface-to-air missiles. To shoot down planes, spy drones, that sort of thing? Am I not right in saying that such weapons would be necessary, were a tyranny to form. That a gun would not do the trick, no matter how many rounds it has? Citizens also need fighter jets which are armed to the teeth. They need grenades.

if founding fathers were alive today, they would have deported the anti gun crowd to syria...or n korea..

Instead what happens? If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not? I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required! so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else.

why are you so concerned for us....

I no longer want to see you hiding behind the 2nd amendment because you have no reasonable argument for your high powered guns, not unless you're also vocal supporters of the types of weapons I've outlined above, only then will I take seriously your belief in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, you're just pretenders, frauds.

are you serious???? is the constitution a jokebook to you...

Your 30 round clip is no more necessary or justifiable than an automatic grenade launcher. If guns - which couldn't have been imagined at the time - are protected by the 2nd amendment, so too should all the weapons I listed off.

yeah consider that all your listed weapons are protected but we don't need them.... happy??? can you stop whining now??
anyway..thnx for the joke...

Oh look another anti gun whine fest. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and many others would agree with your line of thinking.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


I would also like to see, since defending from a tyrannical government is the prime reason apparently, how would those hand guns and semi automatics help against everything the Gov. has at it's disposal?

If SHTF, I don't think any soldier of the government will go hand to hand or even close combat with the citizens. It's all done remotely these days. Drones, bombs etc.

I don't think you need guns to defend from the government. Critical mass is enough. If enough people start marching towards the capitol...while foaming at the mouth...let's say just one of your cities...imagine a million, or two million people? You can not stop that force once it gets rolling.

Unless there's a critical mass, than your gun won't matter, because you would be in a localized minority that decided to rebel. You would most probably die...like the Waco...

So guns wont help you...critical mass is crucial.

Guns are a deterrent. Whether the assailant is a common thief,rapists,murderer,or a GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.PolPot,Mao,Hitler,etc.Mass gun confiscation is always,ALWAYS followed by a massacre.And do you think that gang banger with a 20 round clip will turn in his weapon? What if all a legal citizen was allowed was a single shot .22? Do you think you could protect yourself from a home invasion by a group of 3 home invaders armed with 20 round clips with a single shot weapon? Of any caliber? Think that scenario never could happen?

www.wzzm13.com...

Detectives believe someone attempted to break into several homes on the street that night including the neighbor's home. Footprints led from the neighbor's home to the Bowman's home, where a back door window was found broken.

www.wishtv.com...

www.ktvu.com...

And I don't know about your area but the cops here are 20 minutes away. Gun bans will never work. Only law abiding citizens would follow them. The criminals would think it was Christmas everyday.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


BUT...

I need Hand Grenades to get rid of the Fire Ants in my back yard.

I need Landmines for the Gopher problem on my front lawn.

I need a Thermonuclear bomb under my floorboards to teach those pesky Termites a lesson.

reply to post by ohioriver


But why would there be a massacre??

Didn't you vote for this government? Didn't you choose your president? Don't you live in a most beautiful, most free, most democratic society since known history?

Originally posted by buster2010
Oh look another anti gun whine fest. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and many others would agree with your line of thinking.

And.... Reductio Ad Hitlerum.

I agree with the OP, the 2nd Amendment is a ridiculous "excuse" for legal assault weapons. There is no reason for a civilized society to have legal high powered weapons like the one used at Sandy Hook. Hell, we have more regulation on what kind of plumbing we put in our houses or paint on our walls than we do on guns. The underlying reason for the determination of gun "enthusiasts" seems to be that there is a potential (seemingly growing daily) that TYRANNY is around the corner and we must be prepared to protect ourselves from evil. Meanwhile, 20 kids get gunned down in their elementary school. As a society we are literally sacrificing children to the idea that there potentially might be something bad in the future we need to protect ourselves against. Guess what, there is something bad RIGHT NOW that we need to protect ourselves against... the ease and availabilty of weapons that can put 3 to 11 bullets in 20 kids in less than 5 minutes.

I think the pro-gun crowd should get away from arguments that start with "if you ban assualt weapons, then what's next, my hunting rifle?" or "knives and box cutters can kill people too." These arguments simply delay a real conversation and are the equivalent to hippies arguing to kill an industry over a spotted owl. Everyone sees how dumb those arguments are. Is it too much to ask for this country to discuss the regulation of assault weapons? In my opinion, if that conversation isn't had soon, then when the next school shooting happens, or the one after that or the one after, then the majority of Americans will have had enough. The gun nuts are a minority and eventually the rest of us will put our voting block together and ban guns outright in a European style (and live with the civil war like consequences) and when it's all said and done someone WILL be coming for your guns, but you will have caused that yourself by refusing to engage in a reasonable debate on the reasonable concept of regulating assault weapons. Wouldn't it be better to regulate the extreme stuff now rather than lose all your guns eventually because you're too hard headed to listen?

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Good question OP.

But you will not get a decent reply.

Hypocrisy has no bound!

Yet another anti-gun/2nd amendment thread

Originally posted by ohioriver
And I don't know about your area but the cops here are 20 minutes away. Gun bans will never work. Only law abiding citizens would follow them. The criminals would think it was Christmas everyday.

What about gun regulations? What about not banning ALL GUNS (which I've heard no one actually come out in favor of) but tighter restrictions on weapons used in the most violent of crimes? Making it *harder* to get the types of guns that cause the most devestation would surely not effect a person's ability to protect themselves with legal guns.

Your arguing with a straw man. No real legislation would ever be put forward for banning ALL GUNS. Now, how do you feel about banning semi-automatic military style weapons like the Bushmaster that Lanza used and other guns in that "category". Could we start there?

Originally posted by buster2010
Oh look another anti gun whine fest. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and many others would agree with your line of thinking.

Luckily they don't run your country though, do they? Your paranoia is restricting your common sense, it's a very bad argument that's always thrown around by pro-gun people, like most the other arguments.

OP, the people that you're arguing against have difficulty seeing (and using) logic, they're too focused on their "freedom" and precious constitution. You're just going to get stupid replies.

I think it's mostly fuelled by government conspiracies, which isn't a valid argument.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Lets make this cut and dry shall we!

I, along with the American public am requesting the current Bans and Regulations of firearms in the United States of America be deemed unconstitutional and forfeit their rulings. This is to include and not limited to all “class 3” NFA items (SBR, Full Auto, AP Rounds, Suppressors, Machine guns and destructive devices). This petition is in regards to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights constituted in the Constitution of the United States in 1791. The second amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
Specifically the later of the bill:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As noted in plain English the amendment addresses that the “people” = American Citizens, have the right to keep and Bear = Own/Carry/Transport, and that RIGHT shall NOT be INFRINGED upon.
Infringed = To encroach on someone or something.
And,
Encroach = To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.
The current Legislation/Bans and proposed future bans, regulation and legislation encroach on the rights of the American citizen by definition and therefore are deemed by definition both illegal and unconstitutional. Any further legislation is unconstitutional and is equal to treason under the oath of office in which all representatives of the American people take upon entering office. That oath is as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. “
This oath is sworn in at all public offices since 1884. Any legislation or vote for legislation against the amendments of the bill of rights by definition has broken this sacred oath and is in fact an act of treason.
Treason = Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign/A betrayal of trust or confidence.
This petition is requesting in plain English that the current bans be lifted immediately and that any further bans be constituted as illegal and unconstitutional. It is not requesting that representatives be tried for treason but rather any law or legislation or regulation that infringes or encroaches on the rights of the American Citizen as published by the bill of rights and the constitution be forfeit and nullified. This would include but not limited to (tax stamps, Assault weapons ban, Ammunition bans, Concealed Carry laws, Destructive Devices ban, Machine gun ban, and any other law, regulation or legislation which encroaches on the right of an American citizen to freely and willfully own a firearm or other device).


**This petition is based on the text and not any one person’s beliefs or opinion. No ideology is being interjected into the 2nd amendment but rather the meaning and definition are being extracted by form of Exegesis.
Exegesis = Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.


Regardless of what you believe the fact remains the same the amendment was written in a way for the American citizen to own "Arms = weaponry" of any kind. The amendment was left open ended on purpose when defining ARMS... the fore fathers knew that the amendment would have to grow with the country as times would change and so would culture and technology. The forefathers showed foresight knowing that what was used to win back then may not be relevant in the future. They knew military tactics would change and that life in general would not be the same.

The only problem people have with the second amendment is when they interject their own belief systems into it. then questions like : why do you need full auto or AP rounds come into question. To answer that you would have to know military strategy and the concepts of battle field warfare...

Anyone who has spent any time on the battle field whether it be foreign or domestic knows that firepower and the rate of firepower put down range dictates the pace, momentum and overall outcome of the skirmish.

When the second amendment was put in place it was a safeguard against a tyrannical government that was in place that was stripping the freedoms of a new nation and its people.

Continued....

Originally posted by buster2010
Oh look another anti gun whine fest. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and many others would agree with your line of thinking.

Hitler was actually all for the German public being armed.

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by ohioriver
And I don't know about your area but the cops here are 20 minutes away. Gun bans will never work. Only law abiding citizens would follow them. The criminals would think it was Christmas everyday.

What about gun regulations? What about not banning ALL GUNS (which I've heard no one actually come out in favor of) but tighter restrictions on weapons used in the most violent of crimes? Making it *harder* to get the types of guns that cause the most devestation would surely not effect a person's ability to protect themselves with legal guns.

Your arguing with a straw man. No real legislation would ever be put forward for banning ALL GUNS. Now, how do you feel about banning semi-automatic military style weapons like the Bushmaster that Lanza used and other guns in that "category". Could we start there?

Better yet, Why not ban the real cause Adam Lanza went off the deep end? SSRI's Guns dont commit crimes, people do. And again, do you really think the criminals will turn in their AR15's? They are already criminals they aren't worried about breaking the laws.

continued from above:

When the second amendment was put in place it was a safeguard against a tyrannical government that was in place that was stripping the freedoms of a new nation and its people.

Now we hear of a police state. Riot police entering peaceful protests and using questionable force on unarmed citizens... Firepower is dictating the flow of that skirmish. If 10 or more of the protestors had "Real" assualt rifles and not semi autos. the police would have to rethink and actually have to deal with the protestors rather than run them over. It is not the governments job to police firearms that is the the job of the people and the manufacturers moral obligation.

On to the ideology that the OP posted about fleets of attack helicopters and WMD's... Do you know how much a jet costs? do you know how much chemical weapons or a fleet of "attack helicopters cost? DO YOU?!?!?!

I say you dont because you wouldnt be making that argument if you did! 1 Cobra attack helicopter costs several millions of dollars and requires a full time team to do maintenance on it every time it flies... its not like your bmw that comes with 5 years free maintenance... Then your not counting in fuel which those suckers suck down! thats several thousands of dollars a flight. then you have ammunition which would count into the six figures to fully arm one helicopter one time. Dont forget you have to pay the maintenance team and a pilot + gunner... there goes another six figure budget!!! 1 attack helicopter let alone a fleet is un godly expensive and that is the reason why our military budget is sooo damn high!!!

WMD's please tell me you know how much those cost and you know how to get them because the argument your making is ridiculous!

The point stand the 2nd amendment was written in a way to protect the people from tyrannical government plain and simple. If you have a problem with that I suggest you not ever live in the united states. Regardless of the argument outside of what the amendment says is just a distraction from the real issue at hand!

A freedom given in 1791 is being encroached upon and slowly stripped from the american citizen and it has to stop! the treason against the constitution and the american people has to stop!!!

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ohioriver

 

But why would there be a massacre??

Didn't you vote for this government? Didn't you choose your president? Don't you live in a most beautiful, most free, most democratic society since known history?

"Don't you live in a most beautiful, most free, most democratic society since known history?"

That sarcastic line right there says it all. Even the gun grabbers, subconsciously realize what happens when guns are banned.