RE: 2nd amendment discussion.

RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:26:16 PM)
Sorry to hear that Mike ... it is tough to lose a loving gift from God...or if you please mother nature. Butch

Owner59 -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub 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 The intent seems obvious to me...not to protect the people from the government but so the people can defend the government when necessary. Yup... There`s no evidence that the FFs wanted the government that they just suffered un-beleivable hardships to secure, to be overthrown by a mob,a militia,a state or even a group of states. They for sure wanted people to be able to defend themselves,especially from each other. Only the paranoid,government-is-bad types think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that a mob could over throw our government, if it didn`t do what they wanted.

slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:31:54 PM)
Thanks Butch,I don't know how I wake up to tomorrow, brush my teeth...and have a cup of coffee...the coffee always had to wait till after I walked her.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:33:07 PM)
Sorry for your loss, slve.

slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:39:25 PM)
Thanks...[:)]

Termyn8or -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:59:47 PM)
UFR "Only the paranoid,government-is-bad types think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that a mob could over throw our government, if it didn`t do what they wanted." Not a mob, a large group of the population who believe that it is time to alter or abolish the government as referred to in the founding documents. If we can communicate, which would be by the right of assembly, we could discuss plans to overthrow this government, which is completely lawful, period. This would be then carried out by the second, not the fiftieth, but the second amendment. Our arms. What did you think "alter or abolish" meant ? What do you think redress of our greivances means ? Voting ? Bullfuckingshit and you know it. And finally, are you dumb enough to think that the government operates in the best interest of the People ? Well if not that is EXACTLY what the founding Fathers referred to when crafting these documents, and something that people are forgetting. The problem is that quite a few are forgetting on purpose. T^T

StrangerThan -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 11:02:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Thanks guys,it has been a real interesting discussion with few( if any,I'm having a tough night here...had to put down my dog,sort of why I disappeared ...) discordant notes. Nice job to all. Sorry to hear that Mike. Humanity could learn a lot from the canine world. They always love you and are always happy to see you.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 11:55:58 PM)
Oh Dear lord Mike I'm so sorry to hear that. I have no idea what to say, I'm sorry.

Termyn8or -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 1:33:53 AM)
Sorry for your loss. A dog can be better than a person at times so.... But "Well that is the question in a nutshell....at this point in time do you actually believ it is your guns that guarantee your freedoms? " YES. Of course it would be foolish to think that we could storm DC with small arms and take them out. That would be ridiculous. But we can keep them from coming for us. When neighborhoods in the city band together and are armed, and collectively decide they are against the government, that means that they are in control Now let me explain that, they cannot come in and arrest anyone, turn off any power or any utilities, confiscate any property or anything else because they are afraid of getting shot. The majority becomes quite important because they have no idea which house to bust, the bullets come from a different one every time. People do not even drive in and out of the hood, they sneak around to other areas where they park their cars and whatever. Everyone has a cellphone and wireless internet, there are no wires to cut. To cut off water or electricity would be a difficult thing in an urban area. And then you start traveling, you make calls to the police in any area and when they come, be up at a really good vantage point and kill one of them. Let the other one go to tell the others, and GTFO of there ASAP. Keep doing it with a new phone every time. Steal them if necessary. Then they will not want to come out on calls. Then we could have a civil fucking war if we wanted and the cops would just not show up. They would say "Someone come in and file a report next Monday". That is the breakdown of law and order, at least in the conventional sense and therefore the ending of a regime. You can't govern a country with a shitload of areas in the country you can't govern. Their only choice is to make problems and then it's going to be hard to keep the military together, even the police. Then we have a situation as depicted in The Turner Diaries in which the corruption in the government itself, at the lower levels, proves to be a big problem for tham. They can't trust anyone. What's more many true patriots will go against them as well. That is the factor that they haven't considered, i.e. our ace in the hole. Serves em fucking right. T^T

atursvcMaam -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 5:45:40 AM)
in an effort to regulate individuall gun ownership all the government would have to do is 1 to make it more complicated to buy a gun, including background checks, cool down periods etcetera, Make it seem as if it is a big deal and a privilege to own a gun. They are mostly there. This frog is feeling the water warm up. Next step is to mimimize the types and numbers of weapons a person can own. (Does this frog see a bubble?) A fair number of people would turn in most of their own arsenal if guns were made illegal and the threat of search and arrest were involved. (More bubbles) If the government wants asssted compliance put up a reward for personal guns turned in, then watch the water boil as rewards get offered for turning in neighbors friends and family. I trust people's general nature to obey the law, but am concerned that the lawmakers feel above it all. The frog reference is for how one cooks a frog or a lobster, put it in a pan with cold water and turn ;up the heat underneath. If you throw a frog in hot water it will jump out, if you slowly warm it up, the frog will not notice until it is too late.

lovmuffin -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 7:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I thought this amendment was written because the government had no way to raise money to support a large standing army. Unless I am mistaken most early wars and skirmishes were fought with state and local militia who were armed with personal weapons. In order to call on these forces in the future they needed to be sure the arms would be available to the citizenry. Otherwise not to protect the citizens from the government but to protect the union from outside forces....on the cheap Exactly. This interpretation is really very obvious from the wording. 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. There are two clauses; the first, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", lays out the reason for the second clause, and this clearly says the same thing as "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state". Now since the militia was self armed in those days, they wanted to make sure that there would be plenty of guns available. You're both way out there on that. The key point of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People seem to interpret the intent from the militia clause but it is a clause, specifically a dependent clause followed by another dependent clause witch of course depends on the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Here is what some of the founders said about the second amendment. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html And a bit on the second amendment is a collective right BS http://www.truthalert.net/Top%20Five%20Baseless%20and%20Subversive%20Arguments%20Against%20the%20Second%20Amendment.htm

Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 8:32:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well that is the question in a nutshell....at this point in time do you actually believ it is your guns that guarantee your freedoms? I for one do not subscribe to that belief.nor do I think anyone who takes the time to qreason it out can actually believe that. Modern society has far too many heinous weapons at it's disposal for one to feel that his collection of small arms,no matter how extensive ,is the basis for his freedoms. Guns are only tools, without the will to use the tools there is no protection no guarantee. It is the will of the people plus having the tools to get the job done that creates the guarantee not strictly the tools they use. Either one can be removed, case in point england. All they have the power to do is whine piss and moan and the gubafia can do what it wants, look at the recent events. Now how would you like to be a politician in the middle of a revolution knowing that someone can snipe you from over a mile away? Granted they may have nukes and biology if they are willing to kill off their relatives in the process.

Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 8:42:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Yup... There`s no evidence that the FFs wanted the government that they just suffered un-beleivable hardships to secure, to be overthrown by a mob,a militia,a state or even a group of states. They for sure wanted people to be able to defend themselves,especially from each other. Only the paranoid,government-is-bad types think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that a mob could over throw our government, if it didn`t do what they wanted. Nice play; the drama queen card! It would be next to insanity to label the huge number of populous that it would take to overthrow a gubafia the size of this one a "mob". The very word government means control so if you classify those who neither want need or consent to gubafia control "paranoid,government-is-bad" then you and your ilk in the same context would appropriately be classified as "pronoid, co-dependent-gubafia-is-good-slaves"

slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 12:09:59 PM)
I don't mean to derail my own thread but thank you ST,Termy and Hannah....I woke up feeling so damm empty,the niece and nephew crying and all....this not being my first rodeo and knowing that the only way to fill the hole was to take another into my heart.Not a replacement ,but another...off to the shelter we went....and we came homw with a new rescue.A lab/ retriever mix about 8 months old and black as night( snuggles was a blondie) this one will be called Midnight....I think [:)]

popeye1250 -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 6:31:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Thanks guys,it has been a real interesting discussion with few( if any,I'm having a tough night here...had to put down my dog,sort of why I disappeared ...) discordant notes. Nice job to all. Mike, sorry for the loss of your beloved pet.

slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 7:08:39 PM)
Thanks Pops...

atursvcMaam -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 8:56:15 PM)
quote: Only the paranoid,government-is-bad types think the 2nd amendment was put in place so that a mob could over throw our government, if it didn`t do what they wanted. Paranoid government is bad indeed. Why on earth is one of the most powerful govenments on earth scared of my six shooter or my 30.06. slv, i am sorry for the loss of your dog.

hlen5 -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 9:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While driving home earlier I was behind a pick-up truck which had stenciled in the rear window..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That got me to thinking,the founding fathers ,having just fought a revolution to secure their liberties and having no desire to subject the citizenry to despotic rule in the future iserted this clause as a hedge against despotic government.Rightly so...for their times. This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ? In today's environment...with the forces of government having at their disposal all sorts of modern and fearful weapons....can we truly say that an armed citizenry gives the government pause in any attempt to abridge our rights? Opinions please.....as I said,I am not looking for a fight here,just a discussion. I've only read the OP. I would say no. The local citizenry has no effective defense or capabilities for "bunker-busting" bombs. Assault weapons are banned for the average citizen. EFSpelling

FatDomDaddy -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 10:54:33 PM)
FR... Why is this so hard to understand... The United States of American decided that their citizenry would be allowed to arm themselves but the Government reserved the right to regulate? It seems simple enough.

Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/20/2011 11:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u While driving home earlier I was behind a pick-up truck which had stenciled in the rear window..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That got me to thinking,the founding fathers ,having just fought a revolution to secure their liberties and having no desire to subject the citizenry to despotic rule in the future iserted this clause as a hedge against despotic government.Rightly so...for their times. This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ? In today's environment...with the forces of government having at their disposal all sorts of modern and fearful weapons....can we truly say that an armed citizenry gives the government pause in any attempt to abridge our rights? Opinions please.....as I said,I am not looking for a fight here,just a discussion. I've only read the OP. I would say no. The local citizenry has no effective defense or capabilities for "bunker-busting" bombs. Assault weapons are banned for the average citizen. EFSpelling every kitchen on the planet has the material to make bombs if you know how LOL bunker busting bombs? I dont think so. nukes maybe. do you have any idea how much damage a concerted coordinated effort would do if the amican people got pissed and decided to start taking out gub shit, do you have any remote idea how much damage and huge number of lives that would take? Thats if the gubbers would even shoot back against mom and pop and sonny and sis? Now days? It would be a blood bath that would make the civil war look like a training camp accident and billion dollar buildings would be leveled in minutes. Its simply impossible to ban every damn thing that goes boom.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125