The 2nd Amendment is a JOKE - The hypocrisy of gun owners!

I will quote a founding father and his belief on the 2nd amendment:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin (on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
— James Madison (attributed to Madison, by his contemporaries)

Sounds like the forefathers knew exactly what would happen and their foresight was dead on with the current encroachment on our freedoms! Support the constitution! not politicians and their misguided ideologies!

Have you ever heard of MAD. mutually assured destruction. It is a check and balance. Or a mexican standoff the poor mans version. It keeps those cowardly thieves and what have you at bay. This is a violent world in some places more than others. In the suburb where I live there is 30000 gun owners. I don't have a gun so when the SHTF who is going to be at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by ohioriver

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by ohioriver
And I don't know about your area but the cops here are 20 minutes away. Gun bans will never work. Only law abiding citizens would follow them. The criminals would think it was Christmas everyday.

What about gun regulations? What about not banning ALL GUNS (which I've heard no one actually come out in favor of) but tighter restrictions on weapons used in the most violent of crimes? Making it *harder* to get the types of guns that cause the most devestation would surely not effect a person's ability to protect themselves with legal guns.

Your arguing with a straw man. No real legislation would ever be put forward for banning ALL GUNS. Now, how do you feel about banning semi-automatic military style weapons like the Bushmaster that Lanza used and other guns in that "category". Could we start there?

Better yet, Why not ban the real cause Adam Lanza went off the deep end? SSRI's Guns dont commit crimes, people do. And again, do you really think the criminals will turn in their AR15's? They are already criminals they aren't worried about breaking the laws.

No I don't think criminals will turn in their AR-15s, but I think banning them will put less AR-15s on the streets for criminals to have access to. As law enforcement goes about their routine business and criminals live out their short life-spans, eventually you have less weapons of that class on the street. It's a start at least.

You're all ignoring the point, which is what I expected to happen.

What I am saying is, in what way is high powered gun ownership any more valid than a right to posses a rocket launcher. They're both a type of arms, aren't they? How can you cry from the roof tops that it's your right to have assault rifles, but be perfectly happy for laws restricting rocket launchers.

Cannons and war ships were privately owned and possessed by militias back then. Used in the civil war for example, so i'm sure that if around today the people who wrote the constitution would be just as favourable towards ownership of the weapons I'm referencing as they would your assault rifles.

We're all drawing lines in the sand on what we think is excessive, gun nuts are just drawing the line in a different place , but you still draw it, you still don't want the muslim down the street arming up with surface-to-air weaponry

reply to post by GrandStrategy




Heres a couple of reasons why the 2nd amendment isn't a joke.

reply to post by APOCOLYPSE DAWN


You obviously missed the point of the OP. He's saying that technological advancement has undermined the 2nd Amendment already. The evolution of society has put us beyond the point that the 2nd Amendment even makes sense anymore and now it's being used an excuse for gun-pervs. Of course he is not saying attack helicopters are a viable option... he's saying that in order for the 2nd Amendment to apply today you would have to be able to afford attack helicopters. You can't. There fore the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to stop being the foundation of your gun arguments.

I find it ironic that those who throw around the word "treason" and "constitution" are also the ones that most vocally advocate using violence against our legally elected government. From my perspective, the majority of Americans have voted and chosen the path we are on, which inevitably will include stronger gun regulation, and if you cannot live with that, then it is YOU sir who should find somewhere else to live.

How come I get the impression that since all of your other arguments have failed miserably that you and your bosses went in to a dark room and wrote up a new script to use? It sucks worse than the other arguments to be honest.



I'm going to stop feeding you people - I wouldn't want you to grow so large that you terrorize Norway.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
You obviously missed the point of the OP.

..because it was so intellectual?

...you would have to be able to afford attack helicopters. You can't. There fore the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to stop being the foundation of your gun arguments.

I might have a response for this one once I calm down and stop laughing.

Attack helic...

Jesus, where do you people get your education?

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ohioriver

 

But why would there be a massacre??

Didn't you vote for this government? Didn't you choose your president? Don't you live in a most beautiful, most free, most democratic society since known history?

The USA, despite the arrogant fallacies, is far from being the most free and democratic society. It's just that Americans (not all of course) never shut up about their freedom.

Just saying.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
reply to post by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

 

You obviously missed the point of the OP. He's saying that technological advancement has undermined the 2nd Amendment already. The evolution of society has put us beyond the point that the 2nd Amendment even makes sense anymore and now it's being used an excuse for gun-pervs. Of course he is not saying attack helicopters are a viable option... he's saying that in order for the 2nd Amendment to apply today you would have to be able to afford attack helicopters. You can't. There fore the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to stop being the foundation of your gun arguments.

I find it ironic that those who throw around the word "treason" and "constitution" are also the ones that most vocally advocate using violence against our legally elected government. From my perspective, the majority of Americans have voted and chosen the path we are on, which inevitably will include stronger gun regulation, and if you cannot live with that, then it is YOU sir who should find somewhere else to live.

I confronted the point in my post if you read the whole thing you would know that. I will restate it for you:

The 2nd amendment was left open ended for a reason! the forefathers knew that the country would grow and change and that to protect the citizens the amendment should be left open to all arms! They did not know exactly what would be used in warfare today but they did understand that a system of checks and balances was necessary for tyrranical government and people in power to be kept in check!

I said nothing towards violence in fact in my post I advocated against it. If you could use your reading comprehension skills to see that I wrote that they have committed treason against the people and the constitution but that they should not be tried for it... Again you fail to see the point of the 2nd amendment even with it dissected logically by definition and when the thoughts of the forefathers who created this amendments thoughts and quotes are posted directly in front of you. DENY IGNORANCE. Leave your personal beliefs out of the argument and speak toward what the text says and the intentions of the text not your personal beliefs.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
You're all ignoring the point, which is what I expected to happen.

What I am saying is, in what way is high powered gun ownership any more valid than a right to posses a rocket launcher. They're both a type of arms, aren't they? How can you cry from the roof tops that it's your right to have assault rifles, but be perfectly happy for laws restricting rocket launchers.

Cannons and war ships were privately owned and possessed by militias back then. Used in the civil war for example, so i'm sure that if around today the people who wrote the constitution would be just as favourable towards ownership of the weapons I'm referencing as they would your assault rifles.

We're all drawing lines in the sand on what we think is excessive, gun nuts are just drawing the line in a different place , but you still draw it, you still don't want the muslim down the street arming up with surface-to-air weaponry

I think your missing the point... In my post I referred to all arms not just rifles... Again it is the responsibility of the american people and the moral obligation of manufacturers to control the flow of firearms. NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!!

There is no encroachment if a company says hey for you to own a rocket launcher we want to make sure you wont use it on civilians. here are a few tests if you pass you can buy if not good luck... That is the right of the company. If the people want to punish the company for their arms being used in murders and crime I bet you will find that the companies will make it harder for criminals to get their products. The point is the GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE IN REGULATION OF ARMS!!! IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TREASON against the OATH OF OFFICE!

Originally posted by SKMDC1
reply to post by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

 

You obviously missed the point of the OP. He's saying that technological advancement has undermined the 2nd Amendment already. The evolution of society has put us beyond the point that the 2nd Amendment even makes sense anymore and now it's being used an excuse for gun-pervs.

No, the technological advancements have allowed gun owners to acquire weapons which may help them defend themselves against a foreign invader, their own government or simply a baseball weilding home invader. One thing you people don't understand is that criminals do not care about gun laws. They will use them regardless and the evidence suggests that criminals are more scared of an armed civilian than a police officer.

I find it ironic that those who throw around the word "treason" and "constitution" are also the ones that most vocally advocate using violence against our legally elected government.

Who are you talking about because I don't see anyone promoting violence against the US government. Self defense is not promoting violence against anyone.

From my perspective, the majority of Americans have voted and chosen the path we are on, which inevitably will include stronger gun regulation, and if you cannot live with that, then it is YOU sir who should find somewhere else to live.

Well I got news for you. One thing I have noticed about the USA is after every massacre gun sales go through the roof. That should tell you that citizens want their weapons I suggest if you don't like it, maybe you should find somewhere else to live because the only way people will give up their guns is if they die using them to defend their rights...

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

I confronted the point in my post if you read the whole thing you would know that. I will restate it for you:

The 2nd amendment was left open ended for a reason! the forefathers knew that the country would grow and change and that to protect the citizens the amendment should be left open to all arms! They did not know exactly what would be used in warfare today but they did understand that a system of checks and balances was necessary for tyrranical government and people in power to be kept in check!

I understand what you are saying, and I don't agree with it. No need to restate it. Sorry if that tracks as bringing my "personal beliefs" into the debate. My personl belief is that you are wrong. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is wrong, and your understanding of the checks and balances of your governement is wrong.

There is no evidence that the framing fathers left the 2nd Amendment "open ended" because they wished to protect the rights of future people to own helicopters. The framers built the constitution on the knowledge they had of the time in which they lived. In other respects the constitution has grown and served us well as a guide for modern issues (i.e. sufferage, civil rights...) However, on this one point you seem to want to interpret an 18th century document as literal, just as the evangelical Christians chose to take literal the words of an ancient philosophical text.

As you say, the framers understood the need for checks and balances, but as any high school level civics course will tell you, the 2nd Amendment isn't an integral part of our government's "checks and balances" system. It's a left over from the time of muskets and militias and carries no real weight for checking power in the modern age. What's much more important, and what was much more radical at the time, is the democratic system with three equal branches of government that is elected by the people. The clever balance of Judicial/Executive/Legislative is what is protecting your rights, not the fact you can own a machine gun.

I urge you to read the other parts of the constitution and understand better how to protect your rights beyond that one amendment that carries no weight some 230 years later.

Originally posted by SKMDC1


What about gun regulations? What about not banning ALL GUNS (which I've heard no one actually come out in favor of) but tighter restrictions on weapons used in the most violent of crimes? Making it *harder* to get the types of guns that cause the most devestation would surely not effect a person's ability to protect themselves with legal guns.

Your arguing with a straw man. No real legislation would ever be put forward for banning ALL GUNS. Now, how do you feel about banning semi-automatic military style weapons like the Bushmaster that Lanza used and other guns in that "category". Could we start there?

The most violent crimes?
Isnt murder the most violent of all crimes?

Got news for you.....devastation exists in the eyes of anyone who has ever lost a loved one. This goes well above and beyond guns, knives, lamp cords, rocks, chainsaws, etc.

Educate yourself on how many murders take place with objects other than guns. And how many murders take place with assault rifles compared to regular handguns.

Do you know what the common denominator is with ALL murders?
I'll give you a hint....its NOT the object.

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
You're all ignoring the point, which is what I expected to happen.

What I am saying is, in what way is high powered gun ownership any more valid than a right to posses a rocket launcher. They're both a type of arms, aren't they? How can you cry from the roof tops that it's your right to have assault rifles, but be perfectly happy for laws restricting rocket launchers.

Cannons and war ships were privately owned and possessed by militias back then. Used in the civil war for example, so i'm sure that if around today the people who wrote the constitution would be just as favourable towards ownership of the weapons I'm referencing as they would your assault rifles.

We're all drawing lines in the sand on what we think is excessive, gun nuts are just drawing the line in a different place , but you still draw it, you still don't want the muslim down the street arming up with surface-to-air weaponry

I think your missing the point... In my post I referred to all arms not just rifles... Again it is the responsibility of the american people and the moral obligation of manufacturers to control the flow of firearms. NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!!

There is no encroachment if a company says hey for you to own a rocket launcher we want to make sure you wont use it on civilians. here are a few tests if you pass you can buy if not good luck... That is the right of the company. If the people want to punish the company for their arms being used in murders and crime I bet you will find that the companies will make it harder for criminals to get their products. The point is the GOVERNMENT HAS NO PLACE IN REGULATION OF ARMS!!! IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TREASON against the OATH OF OFFICE!

The government has no place regulating the sale of rocket launchers?

You have my respect for not being a hypocrite like most members with a double standard in regards to weaponry. I'll be up front with you, I don't even have an argument left. I don't know what I could possibly say to someone who thinks government shouldn't be regulating rocket launchers

Originally posted by ararisq
How come I get the impression that since all of your other arguments have failed miserably that you and your bosses went in to a dark room and wrote up a new script to use? It sucks worse than the other arguments to be honest.

I'm going to stop feeding you people - I wouldn't want you to grow so large that you terrorize Norway.

Could you please stop doing that. It's starting to piss me off being accused of being some secret government agent every thread. It's rude and immature.

play the ball not the man

if the founding fathers were alive today, they would have started shooting already, with their assault rifles...

Originally posted by bjax9er
if the founding fathers were alive today, they would have started shooting already, with their assault rifles...

Shooting at whom exactly?

Originally posted by bjax9er
if the founding fathers were alive today, they would have started shooting already, with their assault rifles...

But they wouldn't use drones, rocket launchers and AH-64 Apaches? They'd draw the line at assault rifles? I don't believe that.