The 2nd Amendment

[tumbleweed41]

My right to own weapons should be no more sacred than my rights to own pop tarts. Neither should warrant a unique constitutional amendment and neither should be unjustifiable infringed upon.

Are you saying they're coming to take our PopTarts!!



But seriously, I see what you are saying. The "rights" I suggested were more of an appeasement to the radicals who fear that the "gubment is gonna take away all our guns!"

I favor the Australian regulations concerning firearms myself.

 

[Skwim]

My right to own weapons should be no more sacred than my rights to own pop tarts. Neither should warrant a unique constitutional amendment and neither should be unjustifiable infringed upon.

Agreed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "rights" I suggested were more of an appeasement to the radicals who fear ...

Perhaps the reflex to appease right wing radicals is part of the problem.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps the reflex to appease right wing radicals is part of the problem.

It's curious that they can fixate on anything in the Constitution.

Focus on the 2nd amendment while ignoring the rest of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

What sort of weaponry would you have needed to have kept habeas corpus from being compromised?

Unknown. But at the time it was an issue, people were otherwise occupied, & didn't revolt over it.

Well, if enough of the military's on your side, then why the need for guns of your own?

I'd expect such a scenario to be more complex than just everyone deciding how to proceed & then it's done. Perhaps that's how it's
done in Canuckistan, where everyone is orderly & compliant. One possible scenario is that gov would behave badly, the masses
would rebel, the gov would send in the army to quell them, but soldiers would be loathe to fire upon citizens with a sympathetic cause.

Do you bring your own Bible to church?

Bring my what to what?
This heathen is unfamiliar with those words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unknown. But at the time it was an issue, people were otherwise occupied, & didn't revolt over it.

So the value of firearms as a check on tyranny is dependent on that armed citizenry not being distracted by other issues?

I'd expect such a scenario to be more complex than just everyone deciding how to proceed & then it's done. Perhaps that's how it's
done in Canuckistan, where everyone is orderly & compliant. One possible scenario is that gov would behave badly, the masses
would rebel, the gov would send in the army to quell them, but they'd be loathe to fire upon those with a sympathetic cause.

And they would be less loathe to fire upon them if they were unarmed?

Bring my what to what?
This heathen is unfamiliar with those words.

It's a figure of speech.

I'll translate for you: do you bring your own beer to the bar?

 

[Revoltingest]

So the value of firearms as a check on tyranny is dependent on that armed citizenry not being distracted by other issues?

It's a rather unpredictable affair.
Isn't that to be expected?

And they would be less loathe to fire upon them if they were unarmed?

I'd expect so, but the people might be less likely to revolt in the first place.

It's a figure of speech.
I'll translate for you: do you bring your own beer to the bar?

Oh, that would be most rude!
But if I catch your drift, it seems a better idea to become armed before a conflict rather than during it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'll translate for you: do you bring your own beer to the bar?

Considering at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it was expected the militia were to supply their own weapons, this is a good analogy.

Our military's weaponry is provided for these days.

(Although there are some dry counties where one is expected to bring their own beer into the bar, keep it under the table, and buy 3 dollar plastic cups to drink it from. )

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a rather unpredictable affair.
Isn't that to be expected?

So you do agree that the 2nd Amendment's value as a check on tyranny is unpredictable and has, at best, a spotty record of actually being effective at protecting other freedoms?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you do agree that the 2nd Amendment's value as a check on tyranny is unpredictable and has, at best, a spotty record of actually being effective at protecting other freedoms?

Yeah, that about sums it up.
Does this trouble you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, that about sums it up.
Does this trouble you?

No, but I do think it means that the unreliability of the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose should be factored into the evaluation of its harm versus its benefit.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I do think it means that the unreliability of the 2nd amendment for its intended purpose should be factored into the evaluation of its harm versus its benefit.

No argument here.
What has this thread come to!?!?!

 

[Tarheeler]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

I think that it is antiquated as written, but the principle is still sound.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lets get down to the whole point here. The government works for the people. We are not the governments subjects under their rule. The power is given to the people not the government.

There is a reason why guns where in the second amendment. Because our right to bear arms was only secondary to freedom of speech and religion.

If you don't like free speech, religion, and guns, get your friggin butt out of this country!

 

[bicker]

I think the intent of the Amendment often gets lost (hidden by partisans seeking to rationalize their illegitimate assertions of personal sovereignty or sense of entitlement of mastery over their neighbors and society-in-general). The reality is that freedom of speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), freedom of religious practice (polygamy) and freedom of the press (publication of top secret national security documents) are all rightfully limited - "well-regulated" if you will. The remaining rights granted by society also naturally should be.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you do agree that the 2nd Amendment's value as a check on tyranny is unpredictable and has, at best, a spotty record of actually being effective at protecting other freedoms?

Unless one imagines free access to destroyers, tanks, missiles, jets, bombers, etc., etc., the idea of the 2nd Amendment as a check on the most powerful military in the world is a pitiful, moronic joke.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless one imagines free access to destroyers, tanks, missiles, jets, bombers, etc., etc., the idea of the 2nd Amendment as a check on the most powerful military in the world is a pitiful, moronic joke.

You just might want to understand the variety of possibilities for how a revolution might proceed before using such language.
Military might is an unwieldy thing when the enemy is in every other house.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Relevant excerpts from a previous post...

...the primary purpose of the second amendment has always been to have, at least, the credible capability of, shall we say... watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants; the deterrent, if you will, the final 'check and balance,' the last bastion of the republic.

Oh, sure. You could do all kinds of things. You could ban rifle, shotgun, etc. sales to anyone without a hunting license. Dumb; but you could do it. Then only the people who buy guns illegally have the... oh, wait. ****!

You can even ban body armor, but if we were seriously interested in upholding that idea - that citizens could, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government by voting with their bullets, as it were, we need body armor to have a snowball's chance in hell.

I support a 'fundamentalist interpretation' of the second amendment on the principle of that credible deterrent. But I fear that in the modern and future military scenario, the weapons and tactics of the tyrants, if indeed there are or will be tyrants, will be so advanced that people, most of them untrained and poorly organized, will be able to mount any kind of effective armed resistance

For this reason, I am supporting a new initiative to improve the average citizen's fighting capabilities. This will involve biotechnology and body enhancements. Specifically, we plan to amputate our participants' arms, replacing them with donor limbs from cooperative grizzlies and brown bears. For brown people or potential communists or hail fellows well-met from Michigan's assorted militias, maybe koalas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You just might want to understand the variety of possibilities for how a revolution might proceed before using such language.

Nonsense. Cautionary tales from the ludicrous-fringe notwithstanding, democratic society is far more threatened by paranoid stormfront militias that wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment and ignore the rest.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In what way?

I'm thinking of the second part of that amendment that gives it's citizens the right to bear arms. That's the part I think is important. For me, the amendment gave me the ability to purchase my gun..use it at the range and have for home protection. A caveat of it allows my friend to have his which I've used for hunting. The first part of the amendment, while it is law, I don't think it applies in this day and time.