The Second Amendment

[Aldebaran]

As for being armed to protect yourself from the government. Well lets see the government has helicopters that shoot exploding round and missiles, tanks, atomic bombs, fighter jets. Trained military personal. I hate to break it to you...but average armed citizen is not gonna win that fight sorry.

I've heard this argument being made in the past, and it came to mind when it was claimed that the Taliban (with it's run-down trucks, motorcycles, beat-up AKs, illiterate members) defeated not only the Soviet army, but now the American military. Now, unless the American military is going to use atomic bombs against American citizens on American soil, the American public with 400 million firearms actually has influence over a government if it should turn tyrannical.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I've heard this argument being made in the past, and it came to mind when it was claimed that the Taliban (with it's run-down trucks, motorcycles, beat-up AKs, illiterate members) defeated not only the Soviet army, but now the American military. Now, unless the American military is going to use atomic bombs against American citizens on American soil, the American public with 400 million firearms actually has influence over a government if it should turn tyrannical.

Even when Biden said it a few months ago it was a stupid comment if you look at military history from ancient times like Masada, to partisans vs. the Nazis, to the Vietcong, to the Mujahedeen of the last 4 decades. But of course these people are not consistent or logical with their arguments seeing how they are also deathly afraid of "right wing" militias when they are not gaslighting us that asymmetrical warfare is not affective.

 

[Fantine]

That's because it wasn't until about then that government started becoming more intrusive. The crime bill of 1994 was quite the wake-up call that government would actually ban entire classes of firearms based on what they look like if they had the chance. The current regime has shown us that it is willing shut down society when they have the chance. People are waking up and seeing their firearms as more than sporting equipment when criminals are let out on the streets and excuses are made for their behavior.

There are plenty of successful societies, happier than ours, that have completely banned guns--snd the 1994 crime bill reduced crime by 23%.

 

[Fantine]

I've heard this argument being made in the past, and it came to mind when it was claimed that the Taliban (with it's run-down trucks, motorcycles, beat-up AKs, illiterate members) defeated not only the Soviet army, but now the American military. Now, unless the American military is going to use atomic bombs against American citizens on American soil, the American public with 400 million firearms actually has influence over a government if it should turn tyrannical.

Only problem is that what the right wing calls "tyranny" is actually justice, equality. Inclusivity, clean air and water, universal health care, fair wages, less poverty....and the rest of us don't want you to prevent it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There are plenty of successful societies, happier than ours, that have completely banned guns--snd the 1994 crime bill reduced crime by 23%.

I know! Why don't you guys move to them and stop trying to screw up our last bastion of freedom.

 

[Aldebaran]

There are plenty of successful societies, happier than ours, that have completely banned guns--snd the 1994 crime bill reduced crime by 23%.

It didn't do anything at all concerning which types of guns were used in crimes, which was evidence that banning "assault weapons" was ineffective.

 

[Aldebaran]

Only problem is that what the right wing calls "tyranny" is actually justice, equality. Inclusivity, clean air and water, universal health care, fair wages, less poverty....and the rest of us don't want you to prevent it.

Forcing landowners to allow squatters to live rent free on their property until it gets foreclosed on, forcing businesses to stay closed until bankrupt, not allowing people to participate in society based on experimental vaccination participation, devaluing the currency by endless spending by government, joining social media companies to silence critics, teaching children that they are superior/inferior to others in society based on their skin color....

Where's that "equality and inclusivity" again?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Only problem is that what the right wing calls "tyranny" is actually justice, equality. Inclusivity, clean air and water, universal health care, fair wages, less poverty....and the rest of us don't want you to prevent it.

Heard that argument before, too. Call tyranny what you want, when freedom is gone for the 'better good', it is still tyranny.

 

[Fantine]

I know! Why don't you guys move to them and stop trying to screw up our last bastion of freedom.

The freedom to kill one another without accountability? Isn't that where stand your ground laws lead?

My belief is that carrying a weapon everywhere, looking behind your back for danger, living in fear of attack, is a bit of an internal hell that would be better addressed with therapy.

I acknowledge that there are certain situations where it is necessary. My friend's father owned a liquor store in a large city that closed after dark--fir example.

 

[FenderTL5]

..the construction of the sentence goes something like this, "Since it is necessary to have a military, the public should also bear arms as a defense against a tyrannical government."

Nonsense. That is almost an exact opposite of what the first phrase means. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.." was written at a time when the United States did not have a standing army. period. The citizens were the army. It was necessary for the citizens to be armed to provide the "security of the state (government)," not stand in opposition to it.

I support 2nd Amendment rights and private gun ownership, I don't think twisting the language as you have done is helpful in the discussion. ymmv

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You make a law saying you study how to use a gun, use proper gun safety and operations you get licensed. You pass a criminal and metal background check. You are responsible for your gun. Your kid kills someone you go jail. And only licensed sellers sale guns. But they would have enforce it, and the punishment for breaking that law has to be harsh. 10 years know parole. But your right the PC police would have a problem with that lol

If you are responsible for your gun, your kid won't have access to it unless he steals your key
to the gun safe and trigger lock. If your kid does steal your key and takes the gun without
your authorization, you will not be charge with the crime.

You presenting a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist among law abiding citizens.

Even Lanza in Connecticut, who stole his mother's key to her gun safe, then killed her with her own
gun before killing 21 children and himself is alone to blame.

In this life, there is no 100% safety. Life is a risk and those who try to eliminate every
possible scenario will end up destroying the liberty of others.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I've heard this argument being made in the past, and it came to mind when it was claimed that the Taliban (with it's run-down trucks, motorcycles, beat-up AKs, illiterate members) defeated not only the Soviet army, but now the American military. Now, unless the American military is going to use atomic bombs against American citizens on American soil, the American public with 400 million firearms actually has influence over a government if it should turn tyrannical.

Don't look at the Taliban, but the rebels in Syria who tried to rebel against the Assad Government.
He used chemical weapons and other means and eventually destroyed the rebel groups. However,
in the process many innocent children, women and men were killed and the cities were destroyed.

The US government would be ten times worse if a rebel group started to become successful.

Armed citizens with rifles and handguns will not defeat the US Military forces.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The freedom to kill one another without accountability?

You really don't know things at all. Even in the most justifiable killing it is never without consequence since liberals like you will side with "the victim" regardless of the circumstances and look to prosecute, forcing even an innocent person to often pay a lot of money for a lawyer to defend themselves in court.

I also can say the opposite of the Run away laws, aka "Duty to Retreat" laws. You guys have given criminals more rights to rob and burglarize than law abiding citizens and encourage criminals to be more bold in making crime their means of support.

It's funny how so many of the Trevon Martin type incidents set the tone for these discussions, and that is so unlike how things usually are. The Fact that George Zimmer followed that guy around etc. But even in that case Trevon actually innated the attack that was something he didn't have to do even if he felt insulted or creeped out by the guy following him from a distance. And by the way that is often true with other incidents like people looking to break into other peoples houses etc.

It's funny the talk against Kyle Rittenhouse for that big shooting last year. Forgetting who was attacking who, not to mention other circumstantial things like attacking him for putting out the dumpster fire. Why were these people so intent on pushing a burning dumpster into a gas station? Were they looking to blow up the place and spread more fire throughout the city? I think so, and the actual criminal background of these people also stands out, these were not nice people who were victims of Rittenhouse but inept thugs. But ironically, while this incident is largely framed as a mass shooting type incident in the news, Kyle actually largely was mostly trying to run away and evade that mob of liberal arsonists, aka "mostly peaceful protestors".


It's also funny (aka absurd) that one police shooting from over a year ago, where the man went out of his way to go to his vehicle to get a knife. People second guessed why the police shot him dead. e.g.- "He only had a knife" or seconded Biden's suggestion "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg"? not realizing that this is much more difficult to do than shooting center mass, especially since life is not like a video game like Fallout 1-4 (where you can stop time and place your shots with a high degree of accuracy). Besides this they fail to realize that a knife is legally considered a "lethal weapon" and a person who knows how to use it, or at least gets lucky with their swing can kill swiftly if they hit an artery.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The freedom to kill one another without accountability? Isn't that where stand your ground laws lead?

My belief is that carrying a weapon everywhere, looking behind your back for danger, living in fear of attack, is a bit of an internal hell that would be better addressed with therapy.

I acknowledge that there are certain situations where it is necessary. My friend's father owned a liquor store in a large city that closed after dark--fir example.

NO! that is not where stand-your-ground laws lead! How ludicrous! It leads to respect of the individual and of the rights of the individual. It helps mitigate the habit, method and means of crime.

My belief is that carrying a weapon [pretty much] everywhere means I don't have to look behind my back for danger, and don't need to fear attack.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

NO! that is not where stand your ground laws lead! How ludicrous! It leads to respect of the individual and of the rights of the individual.

My belief is that carrying a weapon [pretty much] everywhere means I don't have to look behind my back for danger, and don't need to fear attack.

The problem for me is knowing that such paranoid people would be the one's
to carry a firearm where ever they go. Seems like the wrong kind of people
we'd want having a gun.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you are responsible for your gun, your kid won't have access to it unless he steals your key
to the gun safe and trigger lock. If your kid does steal your key and takes the gun without
your authorization, you will not be charge with the crime.

You presenting a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist among law abiding citizens.

Even Lanza in Connecticut, who stole his mother's key to her gun safe, then killed her with her own
gun before killing 21 children and himself is alone to blame.

In this life, there is no 100% safety. Life is a risk and those who try to eliminate every
possible scenario will end up destroying the liberty of others.

And that is the point!

The existing gun laws are not being enforced. So why take the guns? Enforce the laws!

This is a constant, almost humorous, thing I see with politicians: Electricians see no difficulty with wiring a light switch —they do it all the time. Cooks consider it no big deal to fix a meal. Rich people think it should be simple for a poor person to move to a place they can get decent work. Real Estate agents think life is all about buying and selling. Those who make apps think the world can hardly wait for their next product. —But politicians are the worst; they are combined Lawyers, Accountants, Activists, Salesmen. They don't understand why people can't do what corporate CEO's do; they think anybody's life is all about the money; they think everyone has time on their hands to deal with the numbers —in fact, they think it is enjoyable to most people!; they think life is all about them; they think everyone else is like they are; they see laws are a dime a dozen, and not merely a fact of life, but a way to accomplish an agenda and to be ignored if they don't fit the agenda. They would much rather make a new law than to enforce what is already on the books.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem for me is knowing that such paranoid people would be the one's
to carry a firearm where ever they go. Seems like the wrong kind of people
we'd want having a gun.

What paranoid people? Who's the one expressing paranoid feelings here? I don't fear other common citizens who carry weapons. It is not the criminals who carry weapons to deter crime.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What paranoid people? Who's the one expressing paranoid feelings here? I don't fear other common citizens who carry weapons. It is not the criminals who carry weapons to deter crime.

If you feel it's necessary to be armed whenever you leave the house, unless your a cop
or other security type person, you're probably difunctionally paranoid.

 

[Fantine]

NO! that is not where stand-your-ground laws lead! How ludicrous! It leads to respect of the individual and of the rights of the individual. It helps mitigate the habit, method and means of crime.

My belief is that carrying a weapon [pretty much] everywhere means I don't have to look behind my back for danger, and don't need to fear attack.

Why do you expect attack? If our society is so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack wherever you go there us a systemic problem that needs to be addressed--and too many armed people are contributing to that problem.

Blacks are the targets in stand your ground cases 11 times more than whites, extending the systemic racism in our justice system to civilian vigilantes.

How many crimes (or to be more accurate, suspected crimes) require shooting to kill? Do you shoot to kill someone who is stealing your TV? We live in a sick, sick society.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

How many crimes (or to be more accurate, suspected crimes) require shooting to kill? Do you shoot to kill someone who is stealing your TV? We live in a sick, sick society.

just breaking into my house is cause to shoot someone. Hopefully, they’ll never make it to the tv in the first place.