Why the 2nd amendment matters

Ahren_nhb - 

Who said anything about American soldiers or police? That's pretty presumptive of you.

 

Presumptive?  This is a thread about the second amendment.  That’s American, in case there was any confusion.

 

Ahren_nhb - 
Curtis_E_Bare - 
Ahren_nhb - 

Who said anything about American soldiers or police? That's pretty presumptive of you.

 

Presumptive?  This is a thread about the second amendment.  That’s the American, in case there was any confusion.

 


The American people and their right to arms.

Now point out where I have posted anything about the US military or police.


I'll wait.



You are either a) comparing US police and soldiers to Nazis or b) posting material unrelated to the topic at hand.  Is this your first attempt at a debate?

emu67 -
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
If that's what you believe, you're an idiot! Phone Post 3.0

Information - No one will read it because it's gibberish.

So you wont reply to any of it?

Allllrighty then.

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.

Not sure if you followed the war in afghanistan, but you're dead wrong about a bunch of yokels not being able to do anything against a modern military.

A bunch of yokels made both the USSR and USA realize the cost of war with said yokels was much higher than they thought and ultimately not worth it.

Information - 
luctaro - 
Information - No one will read it because it's gibberish.

So you wont reply to any of it?

Allllrighty then.

How could I? It looks like you attempted to type it in Morse Code and halfway through just said, "Fuck it."

Seriously. See how I put my points in a legible format? Think you could try and do the same?

info)"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.

^^Was that in Morse Code?

Stan Wang -
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
Lol 30 years?! Was this a joke post? Phone Post 3.0
Obviously it's been happening for a lot longer but it's gotten worse since the late 70's early 80's Phone Post 3.0

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

Small arms aren't going to topple the government...

Give it 10 or 20 years. The military will be nothing but dykes, trannies, illegals, and incompetent high school dropouts. All the tech in the world won't save that lot from a few farm boys with hunting rifles.

Curtis_E_Bare - 
Ahren_nhb - 
Curtis_E_Bare - 
Ahren_nhb - 

Who said anything about American soldiers or police? That's pretty presumptive of you.

 

Presumptive?  This is a thread about the second amendment.  That’s the American, in case there was any confusion.

 


The American people and their right to arms.

Now point out where I have posted anything about the US military or police.


I'll wait.



You are either a) comparing US police and soldiers to Nazis or b) posting material unrelated to the topic at hand.  Is this your first attempt at a debate?

Relevant to compare US forces in this way. The government is actively trying to turn military and police forces in the US into a bunch of "kill whitey" brainwashed tards.

->Not being able to properly quote in this crappy forum is different than being young. Maybe you have extra features because you are blue.

->Im not a psychiatrist/psychologist. I would let them as a group/association decide on that. They are far more experienced than me on what kind of behavior is dangerous enough.

Im sure such a measure would get hashed out in public forums before actually being implemented, so that some form of national consensus is achieved.

->I may be 15(Im not) but I certainly dont go around pretending you take your stances from a movie you watched.

->Let me quote myself: "Im sure many of them have all sort of problems. Problems a psychiatrist would be able to pick up on."

As you can see I didnt imply having a deathwish was a specific ailment, but a syntom of a problem a psychiatrist might be able to pick up on.

->The psyquiatrist will do what they consider necessary. But I doubt that includes anything other than interviewing someone for a couple of hours. If his mom could tell for a while he had mental issues, Im sure a professional could as well.

->You asked If I was going to impose restrictions in the 1st amendment too. The answer to that is no.

->I'm yet to see how any of this terrifies me, as you continue to say. It doesnt affect my life in any way. Im literally spending my time in the off-topic section of an MMA forum waiting for the PPV to start. kinda lame, but C'est la vie.

->Dont you remember a mess a few years ago where Obama's administration gave tagged weapons to the cartels? Arm trafficking. Im saying go after those guys, so once a proper secure way of acquiring guns is established, wackos cant just by-pass it by buying it on the internet.

Because if you do all that I'm proposing yet you can still get a gun as easy as a burrito from some compadres, it is all worthless.

I can respect the intention of the second amendment but a tyrannical government in a developed country in the 21st century wouldn't necessarily look like a foreign army marching through the streets. We should be more afraid of a Brave New World/1984 where discourse is progressively shut down and civil liberties eroded. Acting violently against the state in that environment would just create a pretext for further erosion of liberties.

I don't agree with the way that Edward Snowden released the information he had, but something like that is way more of a threat to the state than small arms. Phone Post 3.0

Well, what can I say? I tried to illustrate a point but evidently can't get through the rhetoric and knee jerk reactions.

I'm not talking about toppling the government or even trying. It should never come to that. It does mean that a sitting government would need to think twice before it simply said "nope" when it was voted out of power. That there are teeth behind the rules and underlying assumptions that make our system work. Because it's not just wishful thinking. It's an armed populace declaring "we the people agree to be governed by you so long as these rules are upheld and you agree to govern in this fashion." Phone Post 3.0

nottheface - Well, what can I say? I tried to illustrate a point but evidently can't get through the rhetoric and knee jerk reactions.

I'm not talking about toppling the government or even trying. It should never come to that. It does mean that a sitting government would need to think twice before it simply said "nope" when it was voted out of power. That there are teeth behind the rules and underlying assumptions that make our system work. Because it's not just wishful thinking. It's an armed populace declaring "we the people agree to be governed by you so long as these rules are upheld and you agree to govern in this fashion." Phone Post 3.0


Can you conceive of any opinion other than your own that you would not dismiss as "rhetoric and knee jerk reactions"?

Everyone forgets that the soldiers u will be forcing to seize and take over the "gun nuts" are our brothers and sisters and many beleive in the right to have a gun. The takeover would not go nearly as smoothly as the left thinks. Phone Post 3.0

Characterizing the potential of the 2nd Amendment solely in terms of a direct, head-to-head, full-scale war between a populace & its military denies the entirety of recorded history. That is not how government conflict starts.

Individual politicians & power brokers VERY much care about their safety & how they're perceived by an armed citizenry.

Thacommish - 
BarkLikeADog - Characterizing the potential of the 2nd Amendment solely in terms of a direct, head-to-head, full-scale war between a populace & its military denies the entirety of recorded history. That is not how government conflict starts.

Individual politicians & power brokers VERY much care about their safety & how they're perceived by an armed citizenry.

They didnt have nukes, laser guided missiles, etc. in history.

Armies replaced by buttons.

Buttons that need to be pushed by 1 guy, not an army.

you're sayin' the US is gonna nuke the US? Derp.

My argument is the exact opposite of the tangent you're on.

luctaro -
Information - At this point I don't think the Left really understands what they are pushing at.

This is non-negotiable for a large part of the US. 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.

Then we'll test whether the Left's derision for the idea that guns can be used to defend against a tyrannical government in the US is justified or not.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about.

One side says "hey how about we check if you have a mental illness or a deathwish before we give you free access to guns".

And your reply to that is "OMG THE LEFT WANTS TO CONFISCATE MY GUNS WELL LET THEM COME ILL SHOOT THEM FOR WANTING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!!!!!!"
Perhaps because the Left has already shown it's hand. The Left wants a ban... It's hardly a secret. Most gun owners would be more than willing to have background checks on every gun transaction, but everytime gun owners give an inch, gun grabbers try to take a mile. So now gun owners dig their heels in and refuse to give any ground.

It's really isn't a recipe for compromise. Phone Post 3.0

People think that, if guns are taken away from legal gun holders, they will have nothing to fear. Except from criminals. Who they are still afraid of now.

So taking guns from legal gun owners would pretty much change nothing. Phone Post 3.0

luctaro - 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?
Fienstien, Pelosi, Boxer, and several others have stated that if they could get it passed they'd do a full ban and confiscation... It's on record if you care to look it up. Phone Post 3.0