Hillary: Second Amendment ‘Is Subject To Reasonable Regulation’

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: uncommitted
It is not bleeding obvious to everybody, even to people who should know. A friend of mine who is a state trooper believes you only have the rights that are given to you by the government. This erroneous view is more common than you could imagine here. The only thing most people could tell you about the Constitution is there is something called the first amendment that grants the freedom of speech and the second granting the right to own a gun.

Totally agreed, however, the law is actually stating what you cannot do - and the law is ultimately set by the government is it not? Your first amendment grants freedom of speech, but allows you to be sued/prosecuted if you abuse that right, the 2nd allows you to possess a gun within the restrictions set out in law.

a reply to: superman2012

Allow me to spell it out for you. An insurgency has numerous advantages.. An insurgency in a home country fighting against a home army has even more. One, they blend in with all other citizens, so distinguishing them is much more difficult than distinguishing soldiers in uniform from the populace.

Two, The more restrictions put on the populace to find and destroy said insurgency creates more animosity amongst the population and creates MORE insurgents.

Three, armies have to struggle with facing their own neighbors, friends and family when ordered to do so, not to mention that they ALL swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC, not to blindly follow orders.

This creates discord amongst the ranks and often leads to defections and portions of the army to fight as freedom fighters.

Four, people fighting for their freedom, liberty and lives are MUCH more vehement than those fighting for a pay check.

So, the short answer to your question is, yes, the citizens, many of whom are battle hardened vets with more experience in their pinkies than most 18 year old bernie supporters who just enlisted, WILL fight harder, smarter and better than the military which has been mete out in other insurgencies as was pointed out to you.

Jaden

a reply to: uncommitted

Sorry, no, not when the second amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they want to be able to infringe on that right, then an amendment allowing those laws to be put in place needs to be made. Any law infringing on it otherwise is an illegal invalid law.

Jaden

Hey DEMOCRATS after you achieve that elusive life goal of making $15 an hour come get some..

We know who you democrats are IN REAL LIFE. You are not taking anything.

The anti-gun advocates are immensely blind to an obvious fact.
Making something illegal will never extinguish it's use.
If it did then illegal drugs would never earn billions of dollars
every year

If they made owning guns a crime, it would NOT extinguish it's use...PERIOD

Some people (useful idiots) have no foresight beyond media driven propaganda.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: superman2012

Which part is failed?
People protested and exposed the surveillance state to the extent the patriot act was debated in congress and some reforms were made.
As much as some people dislike what he did, Snowden and others like him expose where citizen rights and govt oppression meet.
People protest every time any gun control is suggested.

As long as people resist govt oppression how is there a fail?

Lives less restricted by government.

If you know of a place in the US where you can live free on the land, take as much water as you want, farm whatever you want to grow, raise whatever animals you want, etc, etc, etc, let me know.

I don't know why people cause such a big stink over weapons when your right to live free is gone.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Allow me to spell it out for you. An insurgency has numerous advantages.. An insurgency in a home country fighting against a home army has even more. One, they blend in with all other citizens, so distinguishing them is much more difficult than distinguishing soldiers in uniform from the populace.

There is a reason why people wear uniforms, to distinguish themselves from regular people.

Two, The more restrictions put on the populace to find and destroy said insurgency creates more animosity amongst the population and creates MORE insurgents.

Sure, as long as they don't cut the power, the food supply, the water supply, etc. Who do you think runs and owns everything you use? Roads, waterworks, sewer, power, phone, etc, etc.

Three, armies have to struggle with facing their own neighbors, friends and family when ordered to do so, not to mention that they ALL swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC, not to blindly follow orders.

You really think they'll order someone from Denver to start sniffing out people in Denver? I'm no military strategist, but that would be the most stupid thing to do. What do you think someone in uniform, sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic would do when you are labelled as a domestic terrorist? They will follow orders.

This creates discord amongst the ranks and often leads to defections and portions of the army to fight as freedom fighters.

Too many movies. What happens to defectors?

Four, people fighting for their freedom, liberty and lives are MUCH more vehement than those fighting for a pay check.

That's why they've been training to fight terrorists, both foreign and domestic. You already have people joining the armed forces willing to risk their life for their country. Why do you think they would fight less passionately because it would be on American soil? Too many movies.

So, the short answer to your question is, yes, the citizens, many of whom are battle hardened vets with more experience in their pinkies than most 18 year old bernie supporters who just enlisted, WILL fight harder, smarter and better than the military which has been mete out in other insurgencies as was pointed out to you.

Old vets with hunting rifles and over the counter weapons vs the armed forces with the backing of the biggest military spender in the world and the latest in weaponry with the support of their allies. Hmmm...seems like a no brainer to me, but I haven't watched Rambo in awhile...

originally posted by: MrBlaq
The anti-gun advocates are immensely blind to an obvious fact.
Making something illegal will never extinguish it's use.
If it did then illegal drugs would never earn billions of dollars
every year

If they made owning guns a crime, it would NOT extinguish it's use...PERIOD

Some people (useful idiots) have no foresight beyond media driven propaganda.

And some people can't take the easy equation and make sense of it.

More guns equals more gun violence, just as, more pools equal more drownings.

a reply to: superman2012

You know, there's much more to an insurrection than watching Rambo.

Instead of trotting out tired reasoning, you might try actually studying successful insurgencies in a historical context.

There have been many of them.

a reply to: superman2012

Nope but MAYBE you should ...



What you’ll see in the rebellion
WRITTEN BY: BOB - DEC• 28•12
Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

a reply to: cavtrooper7
Sounds like a good movie!

Unfortunately, everyone can write as much fiction as they want and guesswork but no one will really ever know unless it comes down to it. I know there is very high machismo on ATS from some here, but, in reality, people have families. If the government came to my door and demanded my gun because a new law was in place, I would rather let it go than risk jail time, and/or the safety and well being of my family. That's just my priorities though.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: superman2012

You know, there's much more to an insurrection than watching Rambo.

Instead of trotting out tired reasoning, you might try actually studying successful insurgencies in a historical context.

There have been many of them.

Cool. Please direct me to some where the average citizens raised up and won against one of the most well trained, well stocked and highly funded military. I would like to read about that. Sounds interesting.

Edit: Preferably one in the near present with weapons and tactics somewhat resembling todays situations.

a reply to: stosh64

Seems reasonable, to me

that every time a politico says something negative or restrictive about the 2nd Amendment

they should pull another of their armed guards away from them . . . or subtract another hour or 3-4 hours in a day of protection.

a reply to: superman2012

Has the on-going fighting in Afghanistan escaped your notice? In my lifetime, Vietnam comes to mind as well. Let's go to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. On going revolutions in Africa.

Historically? The Peninsula campaign during the Napoleonic Wars in Spain. Most any place Rome invaded...Britain, Palestine, and Germania.

An insurrection, or Civil War here in the U.S. is something to be avoided at most any cost, not any cost, but most. You honestly believe that several million torqued off folks couldn't, with a little effort, make things difficult for a federal govt as incompetent as this one?

Revolutionaries, 'cause that's what they'll be, hide among the masses. All the drones in the world will have a bit of a problem weeding them out. All the wire taps in the world won't do any good if the insurgents don't use electronic media. The conclusion of an insurrection is hardly as forgone a conclusion as so many of you seem to think.

Why do you think the govt. spends so much time and money on trying to prevent just such an occurrence? 'cause the govt. doesn't always win.

originally posted by: seagull
cause the govt. doesn't always win.

I am hard pressed to find an instance where, in the final outcome, it did win.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So am I.

Even if by some chance they do, the methods they will be forced to employ will render it unrecognizable.

Especially a republic. To combat an insurrection, all manner of civil liberties would disappear, never to be seen again, in all likelihood.

Good on Hilary, hopefully this will be the start of great change in America. Positive change.

Here's to hoping we the people make the right decision and vote against paranoia and violence. Vote Hilary!

a reply to: seagull
The saddest part of this whole thing are the Americans who are begging them to take our rights. It boggles the mind.
Fat, fed, and stupid. The New 'Merica.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: seagull
The saddest part of this whole thing are the Americans who are begging them to take our rights. It boggles the mind.
Fat, fed, and stupid. The New 'Merica.

Oh sorry, do you want everyone to tow the same line right?
No-one question anything.
No-one step out of line.

Sounds like you want a different type of America and its not a pleasant one.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: uncommitted

Sorry, no, not when the second amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they want to be able to infringe on that right, then an amendment allowing those laws to be put in place needs to be made. Any law infringing on it otherwise is an illegal invalid law.

Jaden

There are already laws in place that although they restricted some people from owning guns, and where guns could be held, they do not infringe the 2nd amendment. You'll find those laws in the link I provided in previous posts in this thread. If you really want to be pedantic, it's to not infringe the right of individuals to bear arms as part of a militia, that seems to be treated like the small print by a lot of people.