The 2nd Amendment

[BBTimeless]

Review the history of Fance and Russia.
Weapons of choice...guillotines and pitchforks.

With current choice so much more effective.....

Our own country was secured against a government thought to be 'incontrol'.
Period weapon....rifles.

Yes, it was an even playing field. As of today, they have a multi-billion dollar arsenal at their disposal. You have a couple grand in a pistol or two and a few rifles. Best of luck mate, don't be disappointed if I don't join you.

You mentioned economic and cyber controls.....
No free minded able Americans?

Not when a very large percentage of our financial assets is tied into a cyber network.

History repeats.
It's just a matter of time.

As a historian, I assure you, it does not. Some events may be similar, but to say that events repeat themselves is completely false. No two substantial events have mirrored themselves in their entirety. There are social, economical, and political differences that makes each historical event unique.

 

[Thief]

Yes, it was an even playing field. As of today, they have a multi-billion dollar arsenal at their disposal. You have a couple grand in a pistol or two and a few rifles. Best of luck mate, don't be disappointed if I don't join you.


Not when a very large percentage of our financial assets is tied into a cyber network.


As a historian, I assure you, it does not. Some events may be similar, but to say that events repeat themselves is completely false. No two substantial events have mirrored themselves in their entirety. There are social, economical, and political differences that makes each historical event unique.

We are worlds apart.
I believe authority fails....repeatedly.

In each occasion being well armed is a good thing.

 

[dawny0826]

And I "freaking" get your point, but comparing the lethality of an everyday house-hold pen to the lethality of a gun is a silly comparison.

It doesn't matter whether or not a gun has greater potential for damage if that's what you're getting at. A gun sitting on a counter is no more dangerous than a pen, if it's not being utilized. A pen can be every bit as lethal if utilized with the intent to be lethal.

It's not a ridiculous comparison when you evaluate intention and the fact that objects do not have the ability to determine their own lethality. Regardless of a gun's potential for harm, it's rendered harmless unless a human being decides to use it to inflict harm upon another.

It has been proven in other nations that have such legislation...

Did these other nation's have a consitutional right to bear arms beforehand and can you provide statistical comparisons - before and after the changes in law?

American crime has much to do with specific psychological and socio economical factors that need to be considered. As such, I can't buy that gun control would do much to change a lot of the crime we see in the US. It's laughable to me that people actually believe that criminals wouldn't have access to guns.

You also can't knife someone 20 yards away. It would also be more difficult to carry out mass-murders with a knife. Again, a silly comparison.

I think you knew good and well what my point was.

But, I'll play into your scenario. You assume that gun restrictions will eradictate such mass murder scenarios and I'm telling you that you are damn wrong. What it will do is ensure that the person who would otherwise be lawfully packing wouldn't be and couldn't take out the ******* who was attempting mass murder from 20 yards away.

It's all in perspective.

To own a motor vehicle you need to have a license. Also, to use a vehicle as a weapon would assume injury to the driver, making it less likely to be used as a weapon. Sharp and pointed objects, of course, should always be kept away from children. Stairs and balconies are essential to many home structures and offer vantage points that are visually appealing, that is, they are not specifically designed to cause damage. Poison is used in pest control and requires more knowledge/equipment to effectively be used in causing harm to others in large numbers. Also, poisons that are, in themselves, designed to kill people (usually to be used by the military) are not accessible. Next?

If I had a gun in my home, it's purpose wouldn't be to cause harm to another. I would hope to never have to use it. It's primary purpose would be as an insurance...for protection.

Again, this is all a matter of perspective.

A plethora of objects and equipment could be used to harm other people. PEOPLE have to actually utilize such objects or equipment with the intent to harm.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

It doesn't matter whether or not a gun has greater potential for damage if that's what you're getting at. A gun sitting on a counter is no more dangerous than a pen, if it's not being utilized. A pen can be every bit as lethal if utilized with the intent to be lethal.

Really? A button sitting on a desk that triggers the launch of a nuclear weapon targeted at new york is no more dangerous then a pen if its not utilized... So clearly we should all have access to apache helicopters and nuclear weapons because its not more dangerous than a pen!

Your argument is silly and lazy.

Unexpected from you. Think about what your are saying. Would you leave a 4 year old alone with a pen or a loaded gun?

Its a strawman argument and I don't know why you are pursuing this argument. The same day as Sandy Hook a madman in china attacked a dozen or so school children with a knife and they all lived and saw their parents despite being stabbed. The ones shot with bullets designed to put holes the size of tea cups in flesh all died... Imagine that right?

Imagine if the Sandy hook guy showed up at his moms place and murdered her with an assault coffee cup and then went to the school and broke the door with his assault coffee cup and proceeded to assault each 6 year old kid a dozen times or so with a coffee cup.

The rifle he used makes survival a near impossibility for kids their age.

I don't want to line by line quote you so I will try to be brief... you having an assault rifle as some type of guarantee that you can overthrow your government in the USA is a joke. They have satellites, nukes, f16s and apaches... your bushmaster assault rifle is going to tear up an elementary school of unarmed kids no problem but against our armed forces you will be slain before you knew you could pull the trigger. (And honestly what are you going to kill? The drones? the pilots are miles away) Any elite military team would slaughter most of these firearm NRA enthusiasts who pout about the second amendment as if it represents their personal right to own antiaircraft guns when signed at a time when the height of weaponry was a musket and flight and nukes didn't exist.

The idea that you could keep your assault rifle in your house for self protection has no relevance to the Sandy hook shooting. Maybe the mother felt exactly as you did until her son came and shot her and took her guns to go murder a bunch of kids. You can keep a shot gun at home or a sword but do you really need an assault rifle? If you do then do you have to keep it home? Can't you keep your weapons at a gun club or at secure location where you can still go shoot them but at place where your son cant sneak up and kill you with them and then go use them to do things you would never do?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I could never see myself taking up arms against my fellow Americans serving in the military, guard, police, whatever. The thing is, who are these people? They are our neighbors and friends.

What our impotent, well meaning, gun grabbing, flaming liberal friends do not realise is, the government is comprised of people who feel the same way as me.

If there was a nation wide upraising against taking away a fundamental right of the people, (Second Amendment) the military would be spread too thin and could not respond to everything at the same time.

It would require the use of State Police, the Reserves, additional folks like that. Basically our neighbors and friends. They could no more use force against us as the dissidents could them.

Your average reserve member would support the people defending their freedoms not take up arms against them. Basically the reserve would join in on the uprising or at least not participate.

Mass military members would refuse such an order as would the local police.

What would the gun grabbers do then?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Take away the gun issue for a moment and think of a different scenario.

What if the government by decree decided to castrate all adult men and operate on all women so no more children could be born? Think of anything unacceptable to you that you would be willing to fight for with all your heart and be willing to die if necessary to defend.

Could you see the military supporting this action?

A takeover of the government would be from within not a battle in the streets.

It would be over so quick that the military would not even have time to be deployed much less comply.

Regime change could happen in an instant and all these fancy weapons the military has would be under the new groups control.

 

[dawny0826]

Really? A button sitting on a desk that triggers the launch of a nuclear weapon targeted at new york is no more dangerous then a pen if its not utilized... So clearly we should all have access to apache helicopters and nuclear weapons because its not more dangerous than a pen!

Okay...brace yourself. I'm going to say it.

In design and purpose, a gun is more dangerous than an ink pen (let's make it blue!).

The potential lethality of an object may be partially determined by it's purpose and design, but, it's ultimate lethality is determined by whether or not its used in a lethal manner. In that regard, a ball point pen could prove to be as dangerous as a handgun.

I acknowledge that a household in theory, is safer without a gun. But, on the flipside, you must acknowledge that the household is still at risk for tragedy, as there are a myriad of things that a human can utilize to harm or kill another, intentionally or unintentionally.

We're knee jerking as a result of recent school shootings, but, how common are these events in comparison to automobile accidents and a list of other unfortunate ways to go?

Behind the trigger is a person, each time. The auto reaction is often to restrict guns...restrict gun rights. Were guns really the problem? Guns were tools used.

Psycho Boy obviously had mental problems and was bullied in school. Why was he bullied? Why didn't anyone reach out to him? Why wasn't the gun secured? Had the gun been secured, would there have been a shooting? Were these not the REAL problems that contributed to the scenario?

I have the right to defend myself in the United States of America. I have a constitutional right to bear arms. I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights because other Americans are not able to take responsibility for their children, themselves and embrace the responsibility that comes along with having freedoms in this country.

I tire of Americans placing blame, without looking at the individual family unit and how the disintegration of strong family units contributes to a lot of the **** that we see in American society.

Criminals will get their hands on guns, regardless as to whatever type of restrictions are implemented. The government will only screw people like me and my family, who would purchase and bear arms lawfully.

Your argument is silly and lazy.

Thank you very much. I strive for perfection.:curtsy:

Unexpected from you.

I'm shamed. (Bad, Dawn!)

Its a strawman argument and I don't know why you are pursuing this argument. The same day as Sandy Hook a madman in china attacked a dozen or so school children with a knife and they all lived and saw their parents despite being stabbed. The ones shot with bullets designed to put holes the size of tea cups in flesh all died... Imagine that right?

The gun isn't the issue. The horribly disturbed ******* wielding the gun is the issue. That's why I continue to pursue this argument. I want my right to protect myself against disturbed ******** to remain intact.

Because, a madman with a knife could pose me every bit the danger that a madman with a gun could. I want the right to defend myself with a gun, if I see fit. And I don't want you or anyone else to deny me that right.

Imagine if the Sandy hook guy showed up at his moms place and murdered her with an assault coffee cup and then went to the school and broke the door with his assault coffee cup and proceeded to assault each 6 year old kid a dozen times or so with a coffee cup.

That's just stupid. (You know the mental image gives you a giggle too, so don't even.)

I don't want to line by line quote you so I will try to be brief... you having an assault rifle as some type of guarantee that you can overthrow your government in the USA is a joke. They have satellites, nukes, f16s and apaches... your bushmaster assault rifle is going to tear up an elementary school of unarmed kids no problem but against our armed forces you will be slain before you knew you could pull the trigger. (And honestly what are you going to kill? The drones? the pilots are miles away) Any elite military team would slaughter most of these firearm NRA enthusiasts who pout about the second amendment as if it represents their personal right to own antiaircraft guns when signed at a time when the height of weaponry was a musket and flight and nukes didn't exist.

You're not understanding me at all. I have no intentions at all of making any attempt to try to overthrow the government. That's not the idea. The concept is to be able to protect your family, neigbors and fellow citizens in the event of a catastrophic event to where your government was no longer as it is.

I'm thinking more in terms of a natural event that separates you from your government for a long period of time while recovering. During the chaos and uncertainty of crisis, people are going to panic and will steal, use force against others for survival - it will be insane. The people that rely on the government now and can't take care of themselves and don't prepare themselves for small scale disasters, wouldn't have a chance in hell of making it through anything catastrophic. There would be insanity on the streets and believe me, having weapons to protect your family would be a good idea.

I don't care how farfetched or ridiculous anyone may find this, if you worked for a disaster relief organization and saw how helpless people are during small scale crisis, particularly those who rely on the government for sustainment, you'd have an appreciation for this.

The idea that you could keep your assault rifle in your house for self protection has no relevance to the Sandy hook shooting.

Maybe the mother felt exactly as you did until her son came and shot her and took her guns to go murder a bunch of kids. You can keep a shot gun at home or a sword but do you really need an assault rifle? If you do then do you have to keep it home? Can't you keep your weapons at a gun club or at secure location where you can still go shoot them but at place where your son cant sneak up and kill you with them and then go use them to do things you would never do?

If a man with a gun comes into my house to rape and kill me, what good will my gun do me, if it's locked up at a gun club? Seriously.

 

[Falvlun]

Regime change could happen in an instant and all these fancy weapons the military has would be under the new groups control.

Interesting. I come to the opposite conclusion. If the order is that reprehensible, and normal people rebelled against it, meaning, the people in the military rebelled against it too, how exactly would the new group get control of the military, just like that? Isn't it more likely, that the military would do a coup and just take over the new group? And even if the new group got "control" of the military, meaning, replaced all the higher ups with their own guys, they still would need people to run the place and secure all the munitions, which, if the military is against them, would be a basically impossible scenario.

 

[BBTimeless]

I could never see myself taking up arms against my fellow Americans serving in the military, guard, police, whatever. The thing is, who are these people? They are our neighbors and friends.

What our impotent, well meaning, gun grabbing, flaming liberal friends do not realise is, the government is comprised of people who feel the same way as me.

If there was a nation wide upraising against taking away a fundamental right of the people, (Second Amendment) the military would be spread too thin and could not respond to everything at the same time.

It would require the use of State Police, the Reserves, additional folks like that. Basically our neighbors and friends. They could no more use force against us as the dissidents could them.

Your average reserve member would support the people defending their freedoms not take up arms against them. Basically the reserve would join in on the uprising or at least not participate.

Mass military members would refuse such an order as would the local police.

What would the gun grabbers do then?

It could play out like that until the first shot is fired. It is difficult to theorize what could happen, but your scenario is just as plausible as mine. Granted.

 

[BBTimeless]

Interesting. I come to the opposite conclusion. If the order is that reprehensible, and normal people rebelled against it, meaning, the people in the military rebelled against it too, how exactly would the new group get control of the military, just like that? Isn't it more likely, that the military would do a coup and just take over the new group? And even if the new group got "control" of the military, meaning, replaced all the higher ups with their own guys, they still would need people to run the place and secure all the munitions, which, if the military is against them, would be a basically impossible scenario.

Another good point. :yes:

 

[BBTimeless]

It doesn't matter whether or not a gun has greater potential for damage if that's what you're getting at. A gun sitting on a counter is no more dangerous than a pen, if it's not being utilized. A pen can be every bit as lethal if utilized with the intent to be lethal.

It's not a ridiculous comparison when you evaluate intention and the fact that objects do not have the ability to determine their own lethality. Regardless of a gun's potential for harm, it's rendered harmless unless a human being decides to use it to inflict harm upon another.

I cannot believe you are sticking to this insane argument... By this logic I should be able to check out grenande launchers, land mines, and a tank. After all, if they aren't utilized with the intent to be lethal they are harmless... right?

Did these other nation's have a consitutional right to bear arms beforehand and can you provide statistical comparisons - before and after the changes in law?

American crime has much to do with specific psychological and socio economical factors that need to be considered. As such, I can't buy that gun control would do much to change a lot of the crime we see in the US. It's laughable to me that people actually believe that criminals wouldn't have access to guns.

True, the American way of life is too ingrained to go back now. I will agree with that, all of my talk of a complete disarmament is purely hypothetical.

I think you knew good and well what my point was.

But, I'll play into your scenario. You assume that gun restrictions will eradictate such mass murder scenarios and I'm telling you that you are damn wrong. What it will do is ensure that the person who would otherwise be lawfully packing wouldn't be and couldn't take out the ******* who was attempting mass murder from 20 yards away.

It's all in perspective.

If we had a officer in schools and some nut job decided to use a kitchen knife to try to take out kids, he could pull out his lawfully issued firearm and shoot him. You know, being a police officer with the only firearm in the fight would have a distinct advantage.

If I had a gun in my home, it's purpose wouldn't be to cause harm to another. I would hope to never have to use it. It's primary purpose would be as an insurance...for protection.

Again, this is all a matter of perspective.

I believe you. But that isn't every individuals intentions when they purchase a firearm.

A plethora of objects and equipment could be used to harm other people. PEOPLE have to actually utilize such objects or equipment with the intent to harm.

True, but a 9 year old can use a gun to kill someone. That is their sole purpose, to destroy.

 

[dawny0826]

BBTimeless, read my last post.

 

[Falvlun]

In regards to pop-tarts, to be fair, there is not much expectation that a government would want to ban them. There is a reasonable expectation that governments will want to ban guns, whether through altruistic or nefarious motivations.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I could never see myself taking up arms against my fellow Americans serving in the military, guard, police, whatever. The thing is, who are these people? They are our neighbors and friends.

What our impotent, well meaning, gun grabbing, flaming liberal friends do not realise is, the government is comprised of people who feel the same way as me.

If there was a nation wide upraising against taking away a fundamental right of the people, (Second Amendment) the military would be spread too thin and could not respond to everything at the same time.

It would require the use of State Police, the Reserves, additional folks like that. Basically our neighbors and friends. They could no more use force against us as the dissidents could them.

Your average reserve member would support the people defending their freedoms not take up arms against them. Basically the reserve would join in on the uprising or at least not participate.

Mass military members would refuse such an order as would the local police.

What would the gun grabbers do then?

If this really were to happen, then the United States of America would collapse.

That we have such a significant minority of people in this nation that seem to have no problem bringing this about should be of great concern to us. I seriously question whether people like that deserve to own ANY guns, even a hunting rifle.

 

[Thief]

If this really were to happen, then the United States of America would collapse.

That we have such a significant minority of people in this nation that seem to have no problem bringing this about should be of great concern to us. I seriously question whether people like that deserve to own ANY guns, even a hunting rifle.

It was a minority number of revolutionists that freed this country from the British.
Had they not owned rifles we would be paying really steep tea taxes.

I sense a renewal of freedom at hand.

As with France and Russia economic trends bring historical events.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..... is not a principle.
It is prelude to uprising.

Who do Americans trust?
What ever is at hand?

Is it not common to say?.....
'They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.'

 

[BBTimeless]

It was a minority number of revolutionists that freed this country from the British.
Had they not owned rifles we would be paying really steep tea taxes.

I sense a renewal of freedom at hand.

As with France and Russia economic trends bring historical events.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..... is not a principle.
It is prelude to uprising.

Who do Americans trust?
What ever is at hand?

Is it not common to say?.....
'They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand.'

Oh yes, a renewal of freedom. Yes, that is what this is. A second American Revolution. I mean, do you hear yourself? Do you even read your own posts? Comparing our current situation to 18th century america is absurd.

 

[Thief]

Oh yes, a renewal of freedom. Yes, that is what this is. A second American Revolution. I mean, do you hear yourself? Do you even read your own posts? Comparing our current situation to 18th century america is absurd.

Not at all.

Recent speeches made by economic experts have shown what happens when people are oppressed, overworked, underpaid and deprived of economic equalities.

Rebellion is common.
Check American history is the previous century.

 

[BBTimeless]

Not at all.

Recent speeches made by economic experts have shown what happens when people are oppressed, overworked, underpaid and deprived of economic equalities.

Rebellion is common.
Check American history is the previous century.

Yes, and to rebel would be stupid. What good would come of it? Some people would probably get killed, the government might collapse and then what? Let me guess, you rebuild a country with a representative form of government, you draw up a bill of rights and then- wait... wait a minute...

 

[Thief]

Yes, and to rebel would be stupid. What good would come of it? Some people would probably get killed, the government might collapse and then what? Let me guess, you rebuild a country with a representative form of government, you draw up a bill of rights and then- wait... wait a minute...

Your shallow assessment is keeping us waiting?

Are you about to say something clever?

 

[BBTimeless]

Your shallow assessment is keeping us waiting?

Are you about to say something clever?

I am simply illustrating how insane of an idea it would be for a physical rebellion due to the perceived limiting of "freedoms". To compare the militia of 1775 and their rifles going up against the British and our NRA/militia farmers and their rifles going up against the US of A is a very inaccurate comparison.