The 2nd Amendment

[LuisDantas]

I wasn't advocating war with Uncle Sam
Merely attempting to point out our founding fathers understood government can become oppressive and the lack of firearm would render the population helpless.

That was their understanding over 200 years ago, yes. At a time when their ideas were strongly influenced by their recent war against the British for Independence. And firearms were far less destructive then they are now. And there was not even speculative fiction about the kind of armament that the government has these days.

The common defense is not defense of the government.

Not always, of course. Yet at the same time, actually planning for armed resistance against the very government one elects is not necessarily a sound or sane idea.

That's what the British thought.

They were wrong.

They revised many things since, as well. Generally to their betterment.

I'm willing to bet that so would your founding fathers.

 

[Thief]

That was their understanding over 200 years ago, yes. At a time when their ideas were strongly influenced by their recent war against the British for Independence. And firearms were far less destructive then they are now. And there was not even speculative fiction about the kind of armament that the government has these days.





Not always, of course. Yet at the same time, actually planning for armed resistance against the very government one elects is not necessarily a sound or sane idea.




They revised many things since, as well. Generally to their betterment.

I'm willing to bet that so would your founding fathers.

Our founding fathers would be apalled the condition of this country.
They might instigate another revolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Our founding fathers would be apalled the condition of this country.
They might instigate another revolution.

And they might well begin by calling for a ban on civilian ownnership of rifles of all kinds, from what I know of them.

 

[Thief]

And they might well begin by calling for a ban on civilian ownnership of rifles of all kinds, from what I know of them.

Pray tell....

 

[LuisDantas]

Really, I just can't figure otherwise. Do you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Our founding fathers would be apalled the condition of this country.

More likely they'd be appalled at how people mindlessly claim to speak for them and regularly summon them in a trite and banal manner.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's a matter of opinion.
There are calls to give up the right to own guns, the type of which will vary depending upon who is doing the calling.
Just last week, I posted links about Democrats who wanted to ban all semi-autos. Until the courts ruled otherwise, DC
residents couldn't have handguns. So the threat of eroding gun rights strikes me as very real. So vigilance is needed.

I'd need more on DC. Was it the DC Council that banned guns or was it the federal govt. There's a difference because as I've said before....we have many states that have banned combat weapons. And let's be clear...there is no proposal from the federal govt. to take away your guns or ban a vast majority of guns one would use for hunting or self/home protection. Again..many states have banned guns and it isn't an issue......You have the right to bear arms but nothing there says the governments (local or federal) would be violating the 2nd. Amendment by banning/restricting combat weapons or any other "weapon" one may feel as though he has a right to (rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tanks etc.).

 

[Thief]

More likely they'd be appalled at how people mindlessly claim to speak for them and regularly summon them in a trite and banal manner.

So our departure from British rule....dealt by ball and powder was.....
trite and banal?

 

[Thief]

I'd need more on DC. Was it the DC Council that banned guns or was it the federal govt. There's a difference because as I've said before....we have many states that have banned combat weapons. And let's be clear...there is no proposal from the federal govt. to take away your guns or ban a vast majority of guns one would use for hunting or selfe/home protection. Again..many states have banned guns and it isn't an issue......You have the right to bear arms but nothing there says the governments (local or federal) would be violating the 2nd. Amendment by banning/restricting combat weapons or any other "weapon" one may feel as though he has a right to (rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tanks etc.).

And where do you want to draw the line?
Ball and powder...I suppose?

 

[McBell]

More likely they'd be appalled at how people mindlessly claim to speak for them and regularly summon them in a trite and banal manner.

I have to agree.

The whole world is completely different now than it was way back then.

 

[McBell]

So our departure from British rule....dealt by ball and powder was.....
trite and banal?

what does this have to do with what you quoted?

Seeing as the "trite and banal" comment was about your bringing them into the discussion and attempting to speak for them....

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So our departure from British rule....dealt by ball and powder was.....
trite and banal?

Okay, so they'd also be appalled at your reading comprehension.

 

[Thief]

what does this have to do with what you quoted?

Seeing as the "trite and banal" comment was about your bringing them into the discussion and attempting to speak for them....

And this is a rebuttal?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And where do you want to draw the line?
Ball and powder...I suppose?

The line is ever moving.....as it should...

 

[Thief]

The line is ever moving.....as it should...

AGREED!.....I want my tank!

 

[McBell]

And this is a rebuttal?

rebuttal?
No, it is a question.

The first clue being it having a question mark at the end.

Now given your pattern of denial and avoidance, I see that you are going to do so here as well.

Why not just fly on home now and claim your victory?

 

[Thief]

rebuttal?
No, it is a question.

The first clue being it having a question mark at the end.

Now given your pattern of denial and avoidance, I see that you are going to do so here as well.

Why not just fly on home now and claim your victory?

And by your pattern I see you are trolling.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd need more on DC. Was it the DC Council that banned guns or was it the federal govt. There's a difference because as I've said before....we have many states that have banned combat weapons. And let's be clear...there is no proposal from the federal govt. to take away your guns or ban a vast majority of guns one would use for hunting or self/home protection. Again..many states have banned guns and it isn't an issue......You have the right to bear arms but nothing there says the governments (local or federal) would be violating the 2nd. Amendment by banning/restricting combat weapons or any other "weapon" one may feel as though he has a right to (rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tanks etc.).

Some info for ya.....
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To restrict combat weapons can be a reasonable step.
To ban them would fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment, since the arms borne by the militia would be combat weapons.
One could even argue than non-combat weapons aren't protected, since they don't serve the function covered in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bicker]

The presumption that a citizen or group of citizens has any right to take action against other citizens or the government, without the assent of the majority of the citizens, is nothing less than self-serving nonsense. That entity that ascertains and reflects the manner of assent of the citizens is called the government, not the NRA, not Joe's shootin' buddies, not the Reicht-wing Yahoos Army. The founders opposed non-representative government. It is non-representative government that people needed to be protected from, not representative government. Lame rationalizations don't justify placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government.

 

[Thief]

The presumption that a citizen or group of citizens has any right to take action against other citizens or the government, without the assent of the majority of the citizens, is nothing less than self-serving nonsense. That entity that ascertains and reflects the manner of assent of the citizens is called the government, not the NRA, not Joe's shootin' buddies, not the Reicht-wing Yahoos Army. The founders opposed non-representative government. It is non-representative government that people needed to be protected from, not representative government. Lame rationalizations don't justify placing one's own arrogant desire to get one's way by violent force above the rule of law, as per the dictates of a democratically-elected, representative government.

The revolutionists that fought the British were a minority.