The 2nd Amendment

[Thief]

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.

Similar arms against similar arms.

Or do you object to the procurement of such arms?

 

[BBTimeless]

Similar arms against similar arms.

Or do you object to the procurement of such arms?

The arms are not similar, as they were in the 18th century, that is why the comparison is not accurate.

 

[Thief]

The arms are not similar, as they were in the 18th century, that is why the comparison is not accurate.

The revolution was fought ball and powder....each to his own.

If such things reoccur it will be cartridge to cartridge.
The winner holds the greatest ability to deliver the round...abundantly.

If the population is rendered lesser arms....oppression becomes emminent.
Check governments of such practice and law of such countries.
Do you want to live as they do?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.'

What is this I don't even...

 

[BBTimeless]

The revolution was fought ball and powder....each to his own.

If such things reoccur it will be cartridge to cartridge.
The winner holds the greatest ability to deliver the round...abundantly.

If the population is rendered lesser arms....oppression becomes emminent.
Check governments of such practice and law of such countries.
Do you want to live as they do?

I have already addressed that if it ever came to a physical revolution/civil war, that it would be a lost cause. To answer your question, Canada doesn't seem all that tyrannical, does it? Are their citizens oppressed? By God man, what are you waiting for! Quick! Arm those canucks and show them what true freedom is!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

[youtube]0yXGThWEDVo[/youtube]

 

[Thief]

I have already addressed that if it ever came to a physical revolution/civil war, that it would be a lost cause. To answer your question, Canada doesn't seem all that tyrannical, does it? Are their citizens oppressed? By God man, what are you waiting for! Quick! Arm those canucks and show them what true freedom is!

A recent post I saw somewhere (not sure if it it was here at this forum)was written by a Canadian....
American gun laws are AWESOME!
So he says.

He sees guns laws in Canada as oppressive.

 

[BBTimeless]

A recent post I saw somewhere (not sure if it it was here at this forum)was written by a Canadian....
American gun laws are AWESOME!
So he says.

He sees guns laws in Canada as oppressive.

You mean to tell me... one man thinks something is oppressive? If I had a dollar for every whack job that ranted about America being oppressive I could have retired at age 15. I do not find it hard to believe that some people in Canada feel the same about their laws. The point is, they are not an oppressed populace and neither are we.

 

[Thief]

You mean to tell me... one man thinks something is oppressive? If I had a dollar for every whack job that ranted about America being oppressive I could have retired at age 15. I do not find it hard to believe that some people in Canada feel the same about their laws. The point is, they are not an oppressed populace and neither are we.

You're skipping....
Check our own economic history and how oppressed people respond.

Check France and Russian histroy likewise.

Check the cause for the revolution that freed this country.

History repeats.

Next round is pending.
(rounds as in lead)

And I suspect this is what really frightens people.
People react when oppressed.
People react when depressed.
People react.

But gun laws won't effect or resovle.

If anything the presence of the gun will restore balance more quickly than not.

 

[BBTimeless]

You're skipping....
Check our own economic history and how oppressed people respond.

Check France and Russian histroy likewise.

Check the cause for the revolution that freed this country.

History repeats.

Next round is pending.
(rounds as in lead)

And I suspect this is what really frightens people.
People react when oppressed.
People react when depressed.
People react.

But gun laws won't effect or resovle.

If anything the presence of the gun will restore balance more quickly than not.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You would think it would be simple to see how many gun deaths we had before the Clinton assault weapons ban, then after and then again when Bush repealed it.

 

[bicker]

Does it? The second amendment says nothing about defending life and property. It seems to be entirely about national security and overthrowing governments to me.

First, it doesn't. At best, you can say that it talks about states (those that regulate the mentioned "well-regulated militia") being able to defend themselves against federal government take-over. Second, that aspect was effectively superseded by the Fourteen Amendment. What's left is what's needed - what's needed is personal protection - that's all the Second Amendment actually does in society's interest, now.

 

[bicker]

Personally I interpret this as individual rights. People involved in the militia actually owned their guns to my knowledge. I think there was foresight regarding the ownership of personal arms.

... so that those people could serve in the militia.

Stopping the thought half-way through only leads to a half-way understanding.

Or the Slippery Slope fallacy?

Indeed, it has been used very effectively by the NRA and others to justify opposition to all manner of reasonable regulation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Indeed, it has been used very effectively by the NRA and others to justify opposition to all manner of reasonable regulation.

A free person is regulated as little as possible.

 

[bicker]

A conscientious person is regulated as little as is possible, because a conscientious person is already doing nothing that needs to be regulated.

A "free", non-conscientious person is a menace of self-centered self-absorption.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is a fallacy to believe you can regulate a madman.

 

[bicker]

It is a fallacy to believe that regulation cannot reduce the risks posed by madmen.

 

[LuisDantas]

For that matter, it is a fallacy to assume that the ready availability and strong social acceptance of weapons with little to no purpose other than efficient killing and maiming of other human beings plays no significant role in making people dangerously unbalanced in the first place.

There are those who believe that violence in videogames is dangerous to society. But having an uncle or cousin talking casually about acquiring a submachine gun or semi-auto beats joystick maneuvers and seeing screen dots blink bright red any time.

It doesn't help that one of the main arguments for having firearms in the hands of civilians is the desire to have the means to fight their own government.

 

[Reverend Rick]

For that matter, it is a fallacy to assume that the ready availability and strong social acceptance of weapons with little to no purpose other than efficient killing and maiming of other human beings plays no significant role in making people dangerously unbalanced in the first place.

Thats it in a nut shell, you think these murderers, robbers, and rapist don't deserve to be gunned down like the dogs they are right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thats it in a nut shell, you think these murderers, robbers, and rapist don't deserve to be gunned down like the dogs they are right?

Adam Lanza wasn't a dog. Nor were the Colombine kids. Even the true bad apples would be far less dangerous if you had less of a heat culture.