Why the 2nd amendment matters

^this app is garbage. I just wanted to post, not quote you. Phone Post 3.0

No reasoning with antigunners either. I own guns but dont consider myself a gun nut. OP makes a very valid point to educate the farang here on the OG. Phone Post 3.0

There isn't a fantasy about armed insurrection. My point was mostly philosophical. Guns keep the playing field level and both sides playing by the rules.

On a practical level it doesn't come into play much. But it's critical to establishing the relationship between the government and the governed Phone Post 3.0

ThePundit - Phone Post 3.0
That's the point dumbass - the US will never have a tyrant because of our armed citizenry.

OP put all the truth for pro gun in less than 15 sentences. Phone Post 3.0

They're trying to tell me how many bullets can leave my assault rifle per second!! 1776 will commence again! South will rise!! Yeeeeeyeee! Phone Post 3.0

Too bad the majority of people on this planet have no common sense or critical thinking skills.

Any adult with average intelligence should know exactly why the 2nd amendment is important. Anybody against it needs a history lesson.

Thinking that the other side is comprised completely of idiots and extremists is easy and convenient, but it doesn't help with meaningful discussion.

If you turn the gun debate to a macro level, I think it makes sense. It's analogous to nations maintaining militaries. If your country and mine are allies, partners if you will, we both have militaries. If you have an army and I don't, I'm a vassal at best, conquered at worst.

In the US we have established a system where we have designated civil servants through the process of election to take on the job of operating the country, but in the end they work for us. We did not select rulers to govern us by divine fiat.

Part of that compact is for us to maintain our end of the bargain and neither surrender our power nor our attention. This system of ours practically requires that we care and that we are engaged with our employees and partners in government Phone Post 3.0

Mark1 -
luctaro - The whole "its in case of Civil War" talk always goes down the toilet when one suggests not giving guns to mentally ill people, or background checks to ensure people with violent behavior history dont get one, and you all reply with NOOOOO IS MY RIGHT FREEEEEDDOOOOOM LET ME BANG BROOOO
Correct.

If you are pro 2nd amendment, pro-gun, and you aren't in favor of stronger background checks and better support for mental illness, you are just being a selfish asshole.

Mark Phone Post 3.0
I tend to believe most rational people believe more needs to be done on the mental health side of things. Having a family member in the system I can tell you its unbelieveable how shitty and poorly funded programs are. It seems this issue, alomg with our pill popping society, is rarely championed by either party. Dont know what else can be done if more money isnt allocated at the state and federal levels. Not sure what you mean by more stringent background checks? What specifically should be added to that process? Phone Post 3.0

banco -
nottheface - So I often see foreign posters ask why are guns so important to Americans. While I don't speak for any Americans other than myself, this is how I see it.

In a land where the government is ostensibly "for the people, by the people" the governed enter into a voluntary relationship with the government to ensure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare and provide for the common defense. That only holds true of the power disparity can be kept in check to a degree and the governed have the ability to "opt out."

The threat of force needs to exist for the discussion to remain one of equals. Otherwise look at Roman history to see how an armed party can become king makers and essentially end discussion once they want to stop humoring the unarmed party. If you have a sword and I don't, you only need to respect me in a discussion until you stop feeling like it. It changes from a conversation between adults to one between and adult and a child.

As for the point that's often made that small arms aren't going to topple the US government, that is also correct. But as the last decade and a half in the Middle East has shown, an armed population that doesn't want to be governed can be a nightmare even for modern armies. And that's the point. The armed citizenry don't have to "win" they just have to have the ability to make it hurt enough that a governing body decides it's better for everyone to play by the rules, use rule of law, and respect the citizens. Threat of force doesn't have to be great enough to win. It just has to be great enough that war costs too much and diplomacy remains the more attractive and viable option. Phone Post 3.0

Not sure how closely you've been following the goings on in the middle east but there's a reason Iraqis made such heavy use of IEDs against US troops. Same reason the Palestinians made such heavy use of suicide bombings or the same reason the IRA avoided getting into gunfights with the British Army.

Even if you are equipped with assault rifles a bunch of yokels isn't going to do much of anything against a mildly competent modern army.

If people are serious about the second amendment being a brake against tyranny they should be for making c4 etc. legal.
"Even if you are equipped with assault rifles a bunch of yokels isn't going to do much of anything against a mildly competent modern army"

Your way off in assuming this. A couple of guys armed with rifles firing from a concealed position can stop an entire platoon in its tracks.

We see it currently in Afghanistan. Taliban taking potshots at troops on foot patrol from the side of a mountain. That Taliban fighter will be lucky if he even wounds somebody laying off some short bursts at distance.

But the real strategic victory is the incredible amount of resources and ordnance that will be deployed to just get those one or two guy. Thousands of rounds of machine gun fire, mortars, rockets, resupply air drops, maybe drone surveillance, then eventually calling in air support with a guided bomb or possibly bringing in attack choppers.

And all of these resources and effort could be for nothing if the shooters simply retreats from there position. That military operation could easily expend a million dollars in ordanance, diesel, jet fuel, weapon/vehicle repairs, medical treatment, consumables, etc. not including all the other resources used by the command and support units. Just few determined men with some rifle and couple clips can easily draw larger units into intermittent skirmishes which history has shown to be unsustainable in the long term. Phone Post 3.0

MDGist and Information, the other side of this is that that police are underpaid public servants who put their lives on the line. Armored vehicles, assault rifles, army helmets etc may seem extreme to observers in other countries but many here believe that the militarization of police depts is a necessary and proportionate threat to the risks faced by these men and women. Phone Post 3.0

Information, when I have time Ill reply to you point by point, but let me ask you something about your first post:

"call us gun nuts, call us idiots, call us anything you want-- the only way you'll confiscate our guns is by kicking in our doors and seizing them."

I'm yet to see any lawmaker call for a gun ban in America. Only regulation. Pretty sh*t regulation I might add. So who are you so afraid of?

Who is coming for you? Is it me? Is it the horrendous biblical evil you call the Left? Is it Obama? Is it ISIS?

Who?

I just asked the question because you react like you need to barricade your house right now. I didnt listen to Obama's speech. He angling for a massive gun seizure of any sorts? You scared, homie? xD

The reason Im not replying to your earlier post is because its long as F and you linked a couple stuff I want to read first.

"Aristocrats have always been uncomfortable with an armed peasantry."

Im confused. I thought the biblical evil was the left? The money people are on the left or the right? Who do Romney's 47% vote for? The Aristocracy?

What insulted you now? The "You scared, homie? xD" joke?. Thats rather sensitive.

Information - It's oddly pathetic.

"What politicians are calling for a ban or confiscation!?!?"

Names politicians calling for bans or confiscations

"What, you scared homie?!?! HAHAHA!"

Here's an insult: Go fuck yourself you tiny dick gun barrel sucking wanger!

Here's a joke: You scared homie? XD

Spot the difference? I would think gun loving folk would be more thick-skinned.

I'm not for a ban on guns, but to say the reason to have them is to keep the government in check is a bit ludicrous. The politicians and top one percent have been rigging the system in their favor for thirty years and having an armed populous hasn't done shit but get innocent people killed. Phone Post 3.0

“If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

- Dianne Feinstein

I'm not saying everyone on the anti-gun side of the fence is looking for a complete ban. But it's dishonest to say that the element doesn't exist. Phone Post 3.0

John Lee Pettimore - I'm not for a ban on guns, but to say the reason to have them is to keep the government in check is a bit ludicrous. The politicians and top one percent have been rigging the system in their favor for thirty years and having an armed populous hasn't done shit but get innocent people killed. Phone Post 3.0

So you say. But if it weren't for that Glock on the night-stand, Comrade Obama would, as we speak, be ramming Canadian-style health insurance down the throats of the American people.

Obama trembles in fear, thinking about the armed citizens of the OG and their barely restrained fury.

Ahren_nhb - 


Only soldiers and police should have guns.




Pretty shitty to compare American soldiers and police to the SS.

Surprised no one has mentioned the looming race war. Phone Post 3.0

For Information's first quote:
Q) "What, exactly, do you propose?"

Luctaro)That a psychiatrist writes a note saying this guy can own a gun. That's basically it.

Now, you can make it 2/3 psychiatrists if you are afraid of a 1 and out policy. You can automatically exclude people with criminal records, and temporarily, people accused with criminal charges, etc etc.
You can even have a set cost for the visits to make sure the psychiatrists dont overcharge you for the consults or demand extra consults etc.

But that's the gist of it basically.



Info:"What you're talking about is stupid."

Luctaro)I do not think it is, but Im willing to consider an alternative that makes sure the person that is getting the weapon isnt deranged.

The core of the issue is not to deny weapons, is to deny weapons to insane people. Or people that look like they're about to act on their deep seeded hates.



info)"And as for a "deathwish"...
What does that even mean? You sound like a 12 year old who just saw Lethal Weapon and is now talking about how badass Riggs was because he had crazy eyes and jumped off a building with someone. Grow up. "

Luctaro)I dont even know what you're talking about. WHo's Riggs? Bruce Willis? The bad guy? Pick a movie from this century, please.

BTW what I mean with people with a deathwish was, obviously, people with a deathwish. Like the ones that end up in a suicide by cops scenario. Im sure many of them have all sort of problems. Problems a psychiatrist would be able to pick up on. And then his access to weapons gets denied.


Info)The Oregon shooter's comments on the notoriety obtained by mass murderers. His comments-- essentially that the murderers are nobodies until they murder and then everyone knows who they are-- are implicit critiques of how the media conducts itself in the wakes of these shootings.

Luctaro) This is correct. And in the same article about that comment you can see hoe his mother use to go door to door about not annoying him because he was dealing with "mental issues".

http://time.com/4059136/oregon-shooter-ucc-chris-harper-mercer/

So as you can see, you have 2 NON_EXCLUSIVE moves to make.
1-Try and give as little coverage as possible to the actual murderers.
2-Try and not give multiple guns to someone who's mother has to ask the neighbors to keep it low because his son is wacko in the head.



info)"Are you going to call for the imposition of restrictions on the 1st Amendment, too?"

No, Im not religious you see? I wouldnt ask to put that the Earth is 6000 years old in textbooks either. But Im sure you are going somewhere with that question so develop your thoughts on it please.



info)"Your terrified, almost frantic, about the idea that there is a large segment of the population who refuse to cower before your insistence that you know how things should be in America."

Luctaro) lolwut. Im not the one talking about the gov coming over and kicking in my doors and seizing my guns. Yet Im the one terrified? You sure is not the other way around? You scared homie? xD



info)"Oh, and are you actually claiming that the Left isn't in favor of confiscation?"

Not anymore, since you posted Cuoma and that old lady as proof. I'm certainly not.

But I am for redirecting all the resources the gov puts on the War on Drugs and use it to hunt down the bazillion weapons circling the black markets. Didnt Obama give some weapons himself to mexican gangs? Chase those guys.

**
This was long.
I bet no one reads it.