RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirstQuaker -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:35:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



But see that is my point we as a populace today have much more effective means at our disposal to resist despotic rule than firearms....a free press,the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas( the Internet ) so with that being said can the argument still be made that an armed society keeps government in check?


Every time a republican government has removed these training wheels in recorded history things went south really quickly.

Remember the Greek States (that were not in anarchy or Tryanny) and Roman republic had militia (indeed the word comes to us from Rome) when they started, and when this "universal conscription" fell by the wayside so did their republics, either by decay and being trounced by their neighbors, or by turning into something else, usually some form of tyranny. The Italian city-states off the Renaissance period had some examples of this process also.

But the moral seems to be that without some external moral conscience standing by and sparingly and rarely applied by the plebes, a government tends to forget its role.

So are you feeling lucky?



searching4mysir -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:36:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



But see that is my point we as a populace today have much more effective means at our disposal to resist despotic rule than firearms....a free press,the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas( the Internet ) so with that being said can the argument still be made that an armed society keeps government in check?


It is the second amendment which protects the first amendment. Do you really think the USA has a free press right now? I sure don't, at least not within mainstream media.

Additionally, I find it interesting that those states with the strictest gun control laws have the most homicide by firearms (per capita) while those states with the laxest gun control laws have the least homicide by firearms (per capita).



lovmuffin -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:41:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



But see that is my point we as a populace today have much more effective means at our disposal to resist despotic rule than firearms....a free press,the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas( the Internet ) so with that being said can the argument still be made that an armed society keeps government in check?



So as the the guns go then the means to defend the other effective freedoms at our disposal can go after it.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:45:37 PM)

Well that is the question in a nutshell....at this point in time do you actually believ it is your guns that guarantee your freedoms?
I for one do not subscribe to that belief.nor do I think anyone who takes the time to qreason it out can actually believe that.
Modern society has far too many heinous weapons at it's disposal for one to feel that his collection of small arms,no matter how extensive ,is the basis for his freedoms.



DomKen -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 3:01:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

DomKen simply because the whiskey rebellion was suppressed does not negate the fact that an armed populace was indeed a hedge against despotic rule.
Simply put the whiskey rebellion did not enjoy populist support so it never stood a chance.

You need to study history some more. The rebellion was locally very popular, most farmers in the area depended on the whiskey distillers buying their grain. The support only withered when word that Washington was mustering an army got to them.

Washington, who obviously both knew the intent of the 2nd and the other Founders opinions, was completely willing to march an army into western PA to force distillers to pay taxes, no matter the opinions of the people.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 3:09:30 PM)

"locally very popular".... But it did not have widespread popularity,had it such popularity the question would have been from where could Washington have raised that army from.Where would his support have come from ?



mnottertail -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 3:15:14 PM)

I have some agreement with that. The states rights debate heated up again vis a vis slavery.

A fellow by the name of Lincoln, enforced the ultimate: dominion, sovereignty, dominion, hegemony; whatever you want to call it, of the federal government's authority in such a way that were he to come back and visit us today, he; as well as his cohort, would not recognize the republican party today........and they would start a civil war with that party as traitors.



Termyn8or -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 4:35:22 PM)

"The 2nd Amendment never was intended to let the civilian population defend itself against the government."

Absolutely and positively incorrect, and don't even bother arguing here, there is no point. The second was SPECIFICALLY written for that purpose, case closed no matter what your contemporary assholes say. The words speak for themselves, "being necessary to the security of a free state (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't care about any arguments about the grammar or the words or even if it is the law of the land now. You will know my views when the shit hits the fan because I will keep and bear arms and you will not.

And your precious fucking government is the fucking problem and we all know it.

You watch.

T^T



kdsub -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 4:38:55 PM)

I thought this amendment was written because the government had no way to raise money to support a large standing army. Unless I am mistaken most early wars and skirmishes were fought with state and local militia who were armed with personal weapons.

In order to call on these forces in the future they needed to be sure the arms would be available to the citizenry. Otherwise not to protect the citizens from the government but to protect the union from outside forces....on the cheap

Butch



kdsub -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 4:53:07 PM)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The intent seems obvious to me...not to protect the people from the government but so the people can defend the government when necessary.



atursvcMaam -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 4:59:04 PM)

It is probably in everyone's best interest to keep and bear arms freely. Just a note or 2. Since we, as a nation, started shooting back, there has not been a whole lot of terrorist action in the US(activity, perhaps, but no contact) shooting tends to make folks keep their heads down.
I would go as far as to say that registering weapons is unwise, as it gives a perspective enemy a list of who to watch out for. If the list is long enough that is not a big problem, but can create a concern (See a movie called Red Dawn. Not a documentary, but a group of possibilities and potential.)
I don't know if i would want my ex, or some of my neighbors to stockpile nukes or nbc weapons or anything, but i have little objection to a personal protection device that isn't aimed at me.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 5:08:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

DomKen simply because the whiskey rebellion was suppressed does not negate the fact that an armed populace was indeed a hedge against despotic rule.
Simply put the whiskey rebellion did not enjoy populist support so it never stood a chance.

You need to study history some more. The rebellion was locally very popular, most farmers in the area depended on the whiskey distillers buying their grain. The support only withered when word that Washington was mustering an army got to them.

Washington, who obviously both knew the intent of the 2nd and the other Founders opinions, was completely willing to march an army into western PA to force distillers to pay taxes, no matter the opinions of the people.


Yet... most of the population in the area were allowed to keep there arms. In fact, only twenty-four men were even arrested, only ten ever stood trail and only TWO were convicted and Washington PARDONED them!

The Second Amendment demands the citizen militia be not just regulated but well regulated. But it then clearly and unequivocally insures the people of the United States their inalienable to bear arms.



Termyn8or -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 5:30:29 PM)

Regulated yes, but NOT by the government.

T^T



popeye1250 -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 6:17:28 PM)

There's a lot wrong here.
It assumes that 4 million of our fellow citizens are going to "obey orders" and turn on the rest of us just because they're in the military and some beaurocrat told them to. That leaves about 311 million of us for them to try to deal with!
("Godammit MOM!" "If you don't hand over that shotgun and pistol I'm going to have to shoot you!" "President's orders!"
("Did you ever get such an order directly from Michael Corleone?")
Also, if it came to*that point* the officers would tell the troops to "stand down" and one of them would probably visit the white house with a pistol.
(Was it Caligula who was lead into a tunnel and killed by his own guards?)
Thomas Jefferson was right about governments lasting only about 20 years and then you get rid of them.
The city where I grew up had 40,000 people and only 80 cops! Can you imagine being a cop and ordered to go door to door seizing guns?
You wouldn't make it halfway through your shift!




HeatherMcLeather -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 7:11:26 PM)

quote:

I thought this amendment was written because the government had no way to raise money to support a large standing army. Unless I am mistaken most early wars and skirmishes were fought with state and local militia who were armed with personal weapons.

In order to call on these forces in the future they needed to be sure the arms would be available to the citizenry. Otherwise not to protect the citizens from the government but to protect the union from outside forces....on the cheap
Exactly. This interpretation is really very obvious from the wording.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are two clauses; the first, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", lays out the reason for the second clause, and this clearly says the same thing as "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state". Now since the militia was self armed in those days, they wanted to make sure that there would be plenty of guns available.



TreasureKY -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 7:14:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

But see that is my point we as a populace today have much more effective means at our disposal to resist despotic rule than firearms....a free press,the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas( the Internet ) so with that being said can the argument still be made that an armed society keeps government in check?


Yes.

They also come in handy to help keep those things like a free press and the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas (the Internet)... free.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 7:29:08 PM)

quote:

Regulated yes, but NOT by the government.
The government can regulate the militia, and in that context can require registering all weapons, and can make a whole lot of regulations as long as they don't interfere with your ability to own and carry weapons.

The more I think about it, the more I see a major problem with many interpretations used in arguments. The wording doesn't specify what constitutes "arms". Now this could be considered as meaning a wide open anything goes, here's your rocket launcher sir situation. Or, conversely it could be seen as allowing the government to make whatever limitations it wants as to what sort of arms are allowed. It says "infringed" which means countered or prevented, it doesn't say "abridged" <limited or lessened>, so the wording does seem to allow for limitations as to what sort of arms you are allowed to have, as long as you're allowed to have and carry them.



Termyn8or -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 9:24:41 PM)

"The government can regulate the militia, and in that context can require registering all weapons, and can make a whole lot of regulations as long as they don't interfere with your ability to own and carry weapons. "

Look at the context. You have the first. the first is that you can assemble and PLOT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. The second is what you use after the plot is figured out. The founders of this country never expected it to stand this long, they were true revolutionaries and figured there would be one every so often. They liked the idea of fresh government because they knew if it stood too long it would get like what we have now.

I may be a switch, but there are things in life that are different. Point a gun at my head and I will laugh at you, because to be under control that way is death to me, I would say " You gonna use that fucking thing or is this show and tell ? ". I have never met a Woman who could understand the concept of dying before capitulating and that, I believe is one of the reasons we gave Blacks the vote before Women in this country. Good choice.

Are my views archaic ? Obviously, but think of this, when these archaic views prevailed this country and the world in general experienced an unprecendented time of growth in many areas, political, scientific as well as sociologically. The only problem is that change went too far. Now we have what we have, and I think this has been brought up so I will pre apologize for it, but you are too young to know. You were born into a time when it was already all fucked up. Things were very different, and while it does not detract from ones intelligence or anything, the experience simply is not there.

I would give alot to have been born in an earlier time. Of course considering it carefully I would have probably been drafted. But times are not getting better at all. There is no substance. It wasn't the white picket fence, it was people. Worth. People didn't need banks, banks needed people. People didn't fear the government, the government feared the people. And the word People when used to refer to the people at large, "the population" , was capitalised. And rightly so.

I miss what little bit of a truly free society I did see, you saw nothing. Life was worth living, people didn't sue each other they got into a fight, and when it was over it was over. A fender bender was taken care of on payday. When you heard gunshots you would go to your neighbor and tell him to keep it quiet, but he would retort that these critters only come out at night. Then you would both agree that it was a shame that firearm silencers were illegal. Then next Saturday you would stop over his barbeque and bum a beer.

When I look back at how much things changed just during my lifetime, I want to go back. Not long before kids used to take rifles to show and tell at school literally. There was no shooting in the classroom allowed. Try that and you got the paddle, and then you got your ass whupped again when you got home. The Columbine shooter would've thought twice. Nobody even thought of killing each other. Many people carried iron. They didn't shoot each other over parking spaces. But nobody would try to rob anyone beause they knew it was fucking dangerous.

The cops wouldn't roust people unwarrantedly because they knew that they could incur the wrath of the neighborhood. And that neighborhood was full of guns. That kept them in check and you didn't have videos like those of people getting arrested for taking videos of police actions. Those actions didn't occur because the cops knew that the neighbors were not coming out with cameras, but with guns.

That's the fucking difference. I wish I was there for more of it. When I was born was when it was just getting bad. What my elders told me about the old days stuck, I listened and I remembered. I know this whole thing is going wrong. The government is supposed to work for us and all of you people have forgotten that. And when you haven't you think the government's job is to pick my pocket and give the money to you.

This is not my country. Neither is Canada. I have no country. Watch an episode of Gunsmoke to see where I belong, in fact where we all belong. Europe has been Kollared for so long they have forgotten what it was like, and in the US, the last outpost, those who remember are dying off of old age.

The world has changed and it is no longer a suitable environment for my kind. Like a dinosaur. When I die I will bid you all a farewell, but I will not be sad.

T^T



StrangerThan -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:04:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Thanks Stranger, but the question was:
quote:

This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ?


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



I think the answer is clearly that it is not realistically served



What I think is clear is that if semisweet runs around brandishing her .38 or her shotgun, sweet will be hunted to the ground and shot like a dog. You and mike are both correct that the ability of our government to wage war on the individual or groups of individuals is unprecedented and far beyond anything the framers could imagine. Realistically, if you have enough people, rebellion can be achieved whether you sit in parks or carry pitchforks or carry shotguns.

Our government functions because we comply and behave, not because we have weapons. In any rebellion or revolution, populations are divided. Some stick with the old. Some go with the new. Between them can exist as much conflict as between rebels and government. Mike's scenario incorporates some future despotic ruler and asks the question, does an armed populace affect the ability to oppress or suppress that population? The answer to that is clearly, yes. It doesn't take a debate to see that. We have armed populations in direct conflict with governments in many places in the world, and in fact have armed segments in conflict with US troops in a couple of places in the world where the arms borne are for the most part, small arms.

Are they vastly outgunned, and overwhelmed? Absolutely. Yet no one can claim the fact they had weapons made no difference to invading troops. News and opinion has been overflowing with the idea that the key to winning was to change minds and enlist more segments of the population on our side than were or are opposed to us. You can argue that we have achieved what we achieved in terms of violent conflict because not enough people were armed and intent on resistance. It is the simple question of is it easier to march through a country where tens of thousands of weapons are trained on you, or millions of them. Saying there is no difference because your force is superior isn't realistic.

I'm not saying that armed resistance is the most effective way of standing against a government. I am saying, however, that recent events, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all demonstrate that an armed population presents a more difficult proposition when it comes to those who would control them.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 10:14:20 PM)

Thanks guys,it has been a real interesting discussion with few( if any,I'm having a tough night here...had to put down my dog,sort of why I disappeared ...) discordant notes.
Nice job to all.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875