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

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by bjax9er
if the founding fathers were alive today, they would have started shooting already, with their assault rifles...

Shooting at whom exactly?

dem dere librullz and commie musrats

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

I confronted the point in my post if you read the whole thing you would know that. I will restate it for you:

The 2nd amendment was left open ended for a reason! the forefathers knew that the country would grow and change and that to protect the citizens the amendment should be left open to all arms! They did not know exactly what would be used in warfare today but they did understand that a system of checks and balances was necessary for tyrranical government and people in power to be kept in check!

I understand what you are saying, and I don't agree with it. No need to restate it. Sorry if that tracks as bringing my "personal beliefs" into the debate. My personl belief is that you are wrong. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong, and your understanding of the checks and balances of your governement is wrong.

There is no evidence that the framing fathers left the 2nd Amendment "open ended" because they wished to protect the rights of future people to own helicopters. The framers built the constitution on the knowledge they had of the time in which they lived. In other respects the constitution has grown and served us well as a guide for modern issues (i.e. sufferage, civil rights...) However, on this one point you seem to want to interpret an 18th century document as literal, just as the evangelical Christians chose to take literal the words of an ancient philosophical text.

As you say, the framers understood the need for checks and balances, but as any high school level civics course will tell you, the 2nd Amendment isn't an integral part of our government's "checks and balances" system. It's a left over from the time of muskets and militias and carries no real weight for checking power in the modern age. What's much more important, and what was much more radical at the time, is the democratic system with three equal branches of government that is elected by the people. The clever balance of Judicial/Executive/Legislative is what is protecting your rights, not the fact you can own a machine gun.

I urge you to read the other parts of the constitution and understand better how to protect your rights beyond that one amendment that carries no weight some 230 years later.

Its funny that you say that because I dissected the amendment down to the definition. I used the most accurate form of study of text used by historians and is the standard when analyzing written documents. Then I posted the thoughts and quotes of the founding fathers who authored it stating the facts I laid before you. Regardless of what YOU THINK. The facts have been laid out and displayed. The intentions of the founding fathers quoted right in front of you. The fact that you cannot accept (not just that you are wrong) but rather the American people have the right to arms (regardless of what anyone believes) is a sign of immaturity.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." — Thomas Jefferson

There is your checks and balances. This checks and balance does not refer to within the government but between the government and its people.

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
— Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin

I chose Liberty for the American people!

Wow. Just wow. OK, how about we put the shoe on the other foot.Let me ask you a question. Did you support or oppose SOPA and PIPA? How about Banning Islam or Catholics? Put your restrictions on any other Item in the bill of rights and see how it sounds. The Second amendment is the part of the Constitution and bill of rights that gives the back bone to the rest of them. I always find it ironic that people who use the internet, men and women that love the right to say as they wish, move when and where they like and not be told whet to eat, think our how to act will try to infringe others rights to carry guns.

Now I don't know if trouble is right around the corner, but the way you talk, you act like it is impossible. Last time I checked, there were tyrannical Governments all over the world. It can happen anywhere. Do you think your attitude and free spirit would go over well in China, North Korea, Burma, Syria, Darfur, ect.? I doubt it.
Bill of Rights
Now lets look at how the constitution is set up in context :
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

In other words" Lets make some rules in case the government tries to overstep things."

All of the amendments are basically laws that the government has to follow, things they cant do. Restrictions on the governments powers.

Now, who is the man with the badge and the gun who tries to tell you what you can or can not write on the internet going to listen to, a mob armed with good intentions and righteous anger, or a mob with all that, and arms to drive the point home.

Its all a joke for you until the rights you support are being taken away. then I want to know how you feel about the situation. I really cant wait for the " Hurtful words and phrases ban of 2020." or "Government bans criticism of pres and congress, says has no use."

And If you want to protect children, tell congress and the senate you demand tougher sentences for violent criminals, any crime that a gun is involved in demands a life sentence. And better mental health programs. You can make all the damn laws you like, but criminals don't follow them and crazy people are not aware of them.

reply to post by steel49


EXACTLY!

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." — Thomas Jefferson

There is your checks and balances. This checks and balance does not refer to within the government but between the government and its people.

If you wish to fight against the American government, then there are a few groups out there for you to join. Here's a couple:-

al-Qaeda

Taliban

I don't have any contact details but I'm sure you can Google them, look them up in the Yellow Pages or even call Directory Assistance.

reply to post by steel49


I have no idea what your post has to do with my question.

Only one member(APOCALYPSE) has had the decency to respond to what I've actually said about arms and weaponry outside of guns.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." — Thomas Jefferson

There is your checks and balances. This checks and balance does not refer to within the government but between the government and its people.

If you wish to fight against the American government, then there are a few groups out there for you to join. Here's a couple:-

al-Qaeda

Taliban

I don't have any contact details but I'm sure you can Google them, look them up in the Yellow Pages or even call Directory Assistance.

Is that who you support? The government? Cause I'm for "We the People" . Equating someone with al qaeda for quoting Jefferson, that's kind of ridiculous.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." — Thomas Jefferson

There is your checks and balances. This checks and balance does not refer to within the government but between the government and its people.

If you wish to fight against the American government, then there are a few groups out there for you to join. Here's a couple:-

al-Qaeda

Taliban

I don't have any contact details but I'm sure you can Google them, look them up in the Yellow Pages or even call Directory Assistance.

Idiocracy... Plain and Simple

reply to post by GrandStrategy

OK....
My point is if you restrict what the people can carry and don't restrict the government, then it undermines the spirit of the guarantee Against tyrannic imposition of other regulations. Its like saying you still have the first amendment, but only the government can say "if" and "or" and a bunch of other words . Understand now?

Only like 2 people came close to answering the question..

rest are just.. "2nd...rights..pew pew....merica!"

Answer the OP's question instead of bringing in strawmen...

"Why do you stop at Assault Rifles? why not a rocket launcher? it will be very effective against foreign invaders and tyrannical governments, so why not!?"

Originally posted by luciddream
Only like 2 people came close to answering the question..

rest are just.. "2nd...rights..pew pew....merica!"

Answer the OP's question instead of bringing in strawmen...

"Why do you stop at Assault Rifles? why not a rocket launcher? it will be very effective against foreign invaders and tyrannical governments, so why not!?"

Like I mentioned before the government has no place to regulate the sale of ARMS to American citizens... it is the Job of the american people and the moral obligation of manufacturers that the items do not fall into the wrong hands.

I laugh at statements like yours in what and how the forefathers would think or do in todays world. It is purely speculation and never a part of any argument. It is a non-sequiter(putting facts with speculation presented as fact in order to get people to believe all is fact).

I don't need to own all the things you have listed taking up space in my garage and basement, it is just not feasible nor desired by me. In a Civil war situation they are easily accessible and ownership laws mean nothing. With a firearm, I have the ability to take what I need, in order to accomplish the goal, from those that have them. Without a firearm the probability of being able to acquire these items is much less. In example, a hand gun used properly can obtain a more powerful weapon which it turn can can acquire a more powerful weapon and so on and so forth. Therefore by not allowing common man to own such weapons makes my job easier in obtaining them if the thought process and the carry out of a mission is well planned.

reply to post by luciddream


Why not indeed? I would if I was allowed. Is that what you want to hear? that I want a rocket launcher? We are actually supposed to be able to, in all rights. the people are supposed to be able to keep the same weapons as the government. if you want to get even more technical, those are the peoples weapons.

Originally posted by luciddream
Only like 2 people came close to answering the question..

rest are just.. "2nd...rights..pew pew....merica!"

Answer the OP's question instead of bringing in strawmen...

"Why do you stop at Assault Rifles? why not a rocket launcher? it will be very effective against foreign invaders and tyrannical governments, so why not!?"

They can't answer the OPs question without Strawman arguments because there are no none Strawman arguments.

My first post in this thread was sarcastic. Nobody needs those armaments for pest control.

If I lived in a lake front property I would not need a gun boat to protect myself from pirates.

And nobody needs an Assault Rifle with a twenty round clip to protect against home invasion.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by luciddream
Only like 2 people came close to answering the question..

rest are just.. "2nd...rights..pew pew....merica!"

Answer the OP's question instead of bringing in strawmen...

"Why do you stop at Assault Rifles? why not a rocket launcher? it will be very effective against foreign invaders and tyrannical governments, so why not!?"

They can't answer the OPs question without Strawman arguments because there are no none Strawman arguments.

My first post in this thread was sarcastic. Nobody needs those armaments for pest control.

If I lived in a lake front property I would not need a gun boat to protect myself from pirates.

And nobody needs an Assault Rifle with a twenty round clip to protect against home invasion.

I answered your post and then some. The argument is not what you need but what is granted by the constitution. You bring in the argument of what is needed to label and brand those who fight for the right as "gun crazed maniacs" which is what the media and others so often label pro constitutionalists as. If any other amendment was being encroached on as much as the second amendment I would be there arguing to the full extent of my being for American's rights. This is my country and my liberties and I will fight for them no matter how rediculous you or others may think they are. The right for the american people to own arms is essential to ensuring our freedoms from forces both domestic and abroad. Regardless to what you think or believe that is the right given to the people laid out in plain simple english to the american people.

Argument over! You cannot refute that fact! Only argue over what would be deemed in your eyes as acceptable fire power for defense.... ever heard the saying: "dont bring a knife to a gun fight!" same principal applies here. The government has FA weapons and armor piercing rounds, rocket launchers and tanks, helicopters and jets. If they want your land or your property a bolt action or handgun wont stop them. You essentially brought a fork to a gun fight!

reply to post by BritofTexas


What part of his question did I not answer? Nobody needs a assault rifle? Tell that to the Korean American store owners in LA during the riots that were defending their family and property against mobs. The same goes for Katrina victims, doing the same thing. Denying history does not invalidate the truth of the matter. Crazy crap happens in this country from time to time. And those people NEEDED assault rifles at that time. I support the right to defend your self. by any means necessary. this isn't even a right given by the bill of rights. its a natural right. Every living being has the right to preserve their life. Now let me ask you a question. What makes a group of individuals collected under one name, "government" more trustworthy with these weapons then the average law biding individual?

These gun control threads are ridiculous troll bait as much as the atheist/theist threads are. The pro-gun advocates are no more going to convince the gun-control advocates about our rights being eaten away than a Christian convincing an atheist there's a god. And the gun-control supporters are no more going to convince the gun owners to disarm than an atheist trying to get a theist to think with reason and logic.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
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.

I would say over ten years in Afghanistan fighting " cave dwellers" Paints a different picture of what our pistols and assault rifles are capable of against the US military.

Your point has already been made in countless other threads.
Keep on beating the dead horse.

Its not called the Bill of Needs.
Its called the Bill of Rights.
Stop being so whiny.