Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[Nakosis]

And you think small Calibre firearms are an effective defence?

I've no idea what opportunities may present themselves in a given situation. It'd be up to each individual at the time of confrontation to decide whether to defend their freedom or surrender it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I've no idea what opportunities may present themselves in a given situation. It'd be up to each individual at the time of confrontation to decide whether to defend their freedom or surrender it.

So, no. Gotcha.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

According to the confused rationale of Heller, the Second Amendment was an attempt to codify a person's right of self-defense in the home, more specifically the right to use a handgun for purposes of self-defense in the home, which the Court claimed is an "ancient" right. Is the alleged right of self-defense in the home by use a handgun not a "human right"?

Why does defense of the home necessitate a gun? Or self defense at all? There are many ways to defend ones self and home, without the use of guns.

 

[averageJOE]

Are they more are less able to defend their freedom if it comes to that?

The idea of having an armed citizenship, as I understand it, is so the individual retains the ability to defend their freedom. Even from their own government.

I think you can understand the reasoning of the founding father having just had to go to war with their own government.

One's freedom can only continue to exist so long as one is capable of defending it. Once you can no longer defend your freedom it can be taken from you at any time.

Except you DON'T have the "right" to defend your freedom from government. Don't believe me? Try using a gun to defend your home, family, and freedom from police who are trying to enter your house illegally. You'd be gunned down and the entire country would be made to believe it was your fault.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except you DON'T have the "right" to defend your freedom from government. Don't believe me? Try using a gun to defend your home, family, and freedom from police who are trying to enter your house illegally. You'd be gunned down and the entire country would be made to believe it was your fault.

The right to defense from government doesn't work on that scale due to lack of support.
Only if armed resistance reached a massively widespread scale would it become recognized.
Think of it as a rarely available right which comes & goes with the times.

As I recall, I started a thread to consider whether government would recognize our
right to defend ourselves if assaulted by a cop. Let's say a traffic cop rapes a gal
who's pulled over. Must she submit to it, or is she entitled to use deadly force?
What makes it murkey is that the courts give far more credence to cops, & evidence
of his crime would be likely lacking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's a hypothetical scenario.......

Except that the entire structure of a country impacts on the likelihood of needing weapons for defence against the government.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've no idea what opportunities may present themselves in a given situation. It'd be up to each individual at the time of confrontation to decide whether to defend their freedom or surrender it.

Yeah, but that holds true regardless of having an AR-15 stashed in the sunroom.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are they more are less able to defend their freedom if it comes to that?

The idea of having an armed citizenship, as I understand it, is so the individual retains the ability to defend their freedom. Even from their own government.

I think you can understand the reasoning of the founding father having just had to go to war with their own government.

One's freedom can only continue to exist so long as one is capable of defending it. Once you can no longer defend your freedom it can be taken from you at any time.

Lol. That argument is completely stupid considering the weaponry the military and police have. Your stupid AR-15 won't protect you from a drone strike. Try and take on the government like a ******. Enjoy that Hellfire missile up your ***. So if you're going to use that argument, the Second Amendment is outdated and useless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol. That argument is completely stupid considering the weaponry the military and police have. Your stupid AR-15 won't protect you from a drone strike. Try and take on the government like a ******. Enjoy that Hellfire missile up your ***. So if you're going to use that argument, the Second Amendment is outdated and useless.

The Second Amendment became outdated and useless - at least in terms of its original purpose - when slavery was abolished.

The main reason for the Second Amendment was to reassure the Southern, slave-holding states that the Northern states wouldn't try to make slavery untenable by trying to disarm the militias that were used to capture runaway slaves and to put down slave revolts.

 

[Mister Emu]

The main reason for the Second Amendment was to reassure the Southern, slave-holding states that the Northern states wouldn't try to make slavery untenable by trying to disarm the militias that were used to capture runaway slaves and to put down slave revolts.

That's a new one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a new one.

Just because you didn't hear it before doesn't make it new.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a new one.

Nah, anti-gun types claim this one all the time.
When you can't win an argument with reason,
paint the opposition as racist.

The 2nd Amendment has broad origins, which only include the slave holding south.
Even English common law right to self defense was a basis.
Ref....
Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


Speaking of race, I ran across something interesting.
FWIW.....
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The Second Amendment became outdated and useless - at least in terms of its original purpose - when slavery was abolished.

The main reason for the Second Amendment was to reassure the Southern, slave-holding states that the Northern states wouldn't try to make slavery untenable by trying to disarm the militias that were used to capture runaway slaves and to put down slave revolts.

Just because you didn't hear it before doesn't make it new.

If it is not new then you should have no problem in finding and citing some late 18th century writings to support your beliefs. After all, there was a great deal being written on the subject of what became the Second Amendment when the Constitution was being put together. Surely there must at the least be some writings by Northerners opposing the Southern view.

If you cannot find any supporting material, then perhaps you can come up with some support from that era that militias were in fact being formed to recapture runaway slaves. If you cannot come up with either of those, then why do you believe it is true? What is your source and what is their track record on claims about history that can actually be supported with historic materials?

 

[Mister Emu]

Just because you didn't hear it before doesn't make it new.

That is a possibility.

Google search trends for "2nd amendment and slavery" seems to put it as a topic starting about 2013(after digging into that date, a popular left wing radio host wrote an article in 2013). Which I would call new.

 

[dfnj]

This is a question for those who think gun ownership is an important human right.

Do you think people who live in other countries (ie Canada, Britton, France etc) are less free? Do you think it is an injustice that in Canada gun ownership is a privilege? Or is this a question that has never occurred to you?

And is having guns legal really going to stop the government from abusing power? How is having an AR-15 going to stop F15s from blowing up your house?

 

[Curious George]

This is a question for those who think gun ownership is an important human right.

Do you think people who live in other countries (ie Canada, Britton, France etc) are less free? Do you think it is an injustice that in Canada gun ownership is a privilege? Or is this a question that has never occurred to you?

Yes, I believe that they are less free in this respect and also acknowledge that they may have more freedom in other respects. I tend not to think of liberty as a urinating contest but as something that should be reasonably protected.

 

[Revoltingest]

And is having guns legal really going to stop the government from abusing power? How is having an AR-15 going to stop F15s from blowing up your house?

Posing an absurd scenario doesn't defeat the AR15's usefulness.
If small arms had no value, then armies around the world would
abandon them in favor of planes, tanks, missiles, etc.
But they don't, do they? Small arms play a role in many modern
conflicts, eg, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel.

 

[fantome profane]

I guess a good follow up question at this point would be “should the US invade Canada to liberate the poor Canucks from their oppression and bring them the freedom of firearms?”.

 

[dfnj]

Posing an absurd scenario doesn't defeat the AR15's usefulness.
If small arms had no value, then armies around the world would
abandon them in favor of planes, tanks, missiles, etc.
But they don't, do they? Small arms play a role in many modern
conflicts, eg, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel.

So we should have no regulations at all? Why are stinger missiles illegal? If stinger missiles are illegal than why not make AR-15s illegal for the same reasons?

 

[Revoltingest]

So we should have no regulations at all?

Perhaps you missed it.
I've proposed a whole bunch of additional regulations to curb violence.