RancidSumo
Member
I am just wondering what is going to happen should the SCOTUS rule against it being an individual right. Will it bring about the uprising that some people on this board talk about of will people just sit there and take it?
Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable?
- Thread starter chieftain
- Start date
- Status
Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia is put in the hands of congress?
-Patrick Henry June 5, 1788
The above quote was from a speech opposing the constitution. There is a reason people oppose(d) standing armies.
Well, it's a little too late to oppose standing armies now, is it? We can't fight that superior hardware and I'm not going to get into a discussion over how the police/military wouldn't fire on innocent civilians and/or obeying an unlawful order. No matter what, we'd still be in a world of hurt either way. All the ARs/AKs/.50 BMG, whatever are no match for what the military has to offer.
What, no Red Dawn freedom fighter reference yet?
What, no Red Dawn freedom fighter reference yet?
RancidSumo
Member
Well I have a hard time seeing myself actually going to "war" with the government but I know that I definetly wouldn't give them any of my guns.
sacp81170a
Member
Way to duck the point. Technology advances. I have a perfect right to access the Internet in that, if I can pay for it, someone will sell me the access in the free market unfettered by the need to get permission from the government. It's called prior restraint. The TV station itself has an obligation to abide by FCC broadcast rules. Those rules are much looser on the cable networks, but at any rate, none of the speech on the TV news is pre-approved by a government bureaucrat, nor should it be. It's a free marketplace of ideas within the boundaries of legal regulations against misbehavior, but opinion cannot be restrained.
When's the last time you had to get a permit and a background check to get Internet access? Hmmm?
As to your argument about nukes and poison gas - I've hashed this over several times and the main arguments go thusly:
Nukes are inherently dangerous. They, in and of themselves by their simple existence pose a threat to life, health and property whether they are actually used or not. Much like you wouldn't want your neighbor to store radioactive material in his basement, you wouldn't want him storing nukes there simply because of the potential for them to cause harm by being there.
The same argument applies to poison gas, or to an airborne ebola that he wants to keep in his refrigerator. His right to keep these weapons infringes on everyone else's right to life and happiness.
If he has a safe full of guns in his basement, as long as he doesn't break the law by using them in a crime, they can happily rust away causing no harm whatsoever. There is a qualitative difference between the two classes of weapons as well as a quantitative difference.
The straw man arguments you're using have been tried many, many times.
RancidSumo said:
Really? What would you do if they come door to door, armed to the teeth, wearing body armor with armored vehicles mounted with crew served weapons as backup? Would you resist? If so, you'd be dead. Look at the Katrina aftermath and subsequent confiscation. Don't think it can't happen again even thought "they" say it won't.
RancidSumo
Member
Well, I don't have any guns to give them.
RancidSumo
Member
If that day ever comes, we will see about that.
R127
Member
People who think they won't be able to win against a professional military by squaring off against tanks, helicopters and jets in direct open combat are probably right.
In real terms it is highly doubtful there will be a citizens' revolt any time soon. Much more likely is that some cities, states or political parties will use the government assets they control to break away as the feds lose their power. From the other end of the spectrum gangs will give rise to petty warlords in areas where a power vacuum exists. It is not unlikely to that we will see Mexico annex portions of the US that are predominantly populated by Mexicans anyway.
In real terms it is highly doubtful there will be a citizens' revolt any time soon. Much more likely is that some cities, states or political parties will use the government assets they control to break away as the feds lose their power. From the other end of the spectrum gangs will give rise to petty warlords in areas where a power vacuum exists. It is not unlikely to that we will see Mexico annex portions of the US that are predominantly populated by Mexicans anyway.
RancidSumo, I see three options.
1) You peacefully turn them over and go on your merry way.
2) You resist without physical force, get arrested, and they confiscate them anyway. Got a great big honkin' safe? Well, enjoy some major house damage when they rip it out.
3) You resist with physical/lethal force and you, and potentially, your family will be killed. They still confiscate them after the fact anyway.
and, furthermore...
If #2 or 3 comes to pass and your neighbor sees you go through all that he might just say, "eff that, here ya go. I ain't getting my azz shot off like RancidSumo did."
1) You peacefully turn them over and go on your merry way.
2) You resist without physical force, get arrested, and they confiscate them anyway. Got a great big honkin' safe? Well, enjoy some major house damage when they rip it out.
3) You resist with physical/lethal force and you, and potentially, your family will be killed. They still confiscate them after the fact anyway.
and, furthermore...
If #2 or 3 comes to pass and your neighbor sees you go through all that he might just say, "eff that, here ya go. I ain't getting my azz shot off like RancidSumo did."
you do realize how quickly the thin line that keeps guns out of such specification can be removed, right? I mean, look what happened to anything that fires in succession when you hold the trigger down, or explosive devices. Gun rights have been against the ropes for 70 years now, and its just now got a bit better after 2004. Only a -bit-, no less. Despite how low-risk guns are compared to storing gasoline for your mower, the fact that they are designed precisely to kill or inflict crippling or lethal damage to living things (namely, us--dont give me that 'but you can kill someone with a bowl of ice cream' folley of an argument), regardless of how you use it, politicians, people, etc. will always try and find a way to try and take them from us--whether it's for advancing their power or because of a mass conversion to a utopian socialist fairy-tale world.
also, I doubt Mexico will get anything. Anything like what you described will give us an actual reason to care about getting rid of all of the illegal immigrants in the Southwest, something we should be doing anyway.
And yea, remember that federal power is held up by states. All they have to do is say "no" and the fed won't be able to do a thing about it but bend to the will of the majority, leave guns alone, and go back about their usual business. Let's just keep hoping that most of the states dont change their minds.
This is one of the common arguments I hear from people that feel the 2nd amendment as a means to overthrow a corrupt US government is outdated and no longer applicable. It also is completely false. The US military has great technology and can flatten anything, but modern conflicts go much deeper than that. You can't destroy everything in a 15 mile radius because there are bad guys there. When you lose the ability to do to that and the bad guys blend into the good guys, things get much harder and less decisive. You only need to look at Iraq and see how things are going despite great technology and amazing commitment and work from our soldiers. Today's revolution would't be about a battle field and facing off against a regiment of redcoats or forming a rebel compound or forming the rebel alamo for a fortified hold out to the end.
To me its largely irrelevant anyway because I feel like the society that stays armed seldom has to use those arms but if the unthinkable ever happened and it got to that point, I don't see any reason to believe it would be the lost cause you seem to think it would be.
Why and by who? The realistic view is that the mexicans here left mexico because it sucked, usually economically at least. I doubt many of them would want to return to the situation they were wanting to escape. Even if you take the view that mexicans are nothing but mooches, what is the motivation to split off the gravy train that is the US compared to mexico?
R127
Member
Yeah, that and if you think modern warfare has anything to do with killing all the other side's guys you're way behind the curve. That's like, so, 18th century.
Those illegal immigrants aren't going anywhere though. The only thing going on with with illegal immigration is more and faster. Now they're sending our border patrol to Iraq on top of everything else. So no military and no border patrol gaurding our borders and lots of free handouts and entitlements once they make it to our side of the border.
This is another reason why we had a second ammendment. No, not so we could shoot all the illegals but so the local militias could keep these sorts of problems under control, similar to what the Minute Men have been trying to do. Except our knucklehead government on one hand refuses to use its resources to stop the problem and on the other hand refuses to let the citizens do anything about it either so unless you want to go into the so-called justice system meatgrinder you're limited to just standing around and trying to look scary or calling the one or two border patrol guys who might still be in the country and on duty that day.
Those illegal immigrants aren't going anywhere though. The only thing going on with with illegal immigration is more and faster. Now they're sending our border patrol to Iraq on top of everything else. So no military and no border patrol gaurding our borders and lots of free handouts and entitlements once they make it to our side of the border.
This is another reason why we had a second ammendment. No, not so we could shoot all the illegals but so the local militias could keep these sorts of problems under control, similar to what the Minute Men have been trying to do. Except our knucklehead government on one hand refuses to use its resources to stop the problem and on the other hand refuses to let the citizens do anything about it either so unless you want to go into the so-called justice system meatgrinder you're limited to just standing around and trying to look scary or calling the one or two border patrol guys who might still be in the country and on duty that day.
R127
Member
If you want to get specific spend some time in their world.
http://www.nclr.org/
http://www.nationalmecha.org/
http://www.aztlan.net/
I liked Russia's idea against illegal immigration: they shot you.
I liked how Burma protected their rainforests against people sneaking in to trap severely endangered animals as food: they shot you.
I liked how Japan dealt with anyone trying to enter and/or leave the country for most of their history: they shot you (or decapitated you, since they didnt have guns for quite awhile)
man, such simpler times...
I liked how Burma protected their rainforests against people sneaking in to trap severely endangered animals as food: they shot you.
I liked how Japan dealt with anyone trying to enter and/or leave the country for most of their history: they shot you (or decapitated you, since they didnt have guns for quite awhile)
man, such simpler times...
Soybomb, that's completely different. If "los persanos de meh-hee-co" want into the US, they can do it legally and NOT get shot. The problem is they can do it much easier the illegal way and still NOT get shot for it. At least with the Berlin Wall, people knew what they were dealing with and, right or wrong, armed border presence combined with "Achtung! Zee paperz pleez, jetzt!" You were given a chance and no comply while still trying to cross? You got shot. Call me a xenophobe, but I'd REALLY like to see that instituted along our southern border. If it becomes a problem later on in the north, same thing.
I think I just don't like the idea of it being a two way street. What can effectively keep people out, can also keep people in. I don't think a border wall could effectively keep people out anyway, but thats not really relevant. After hearing the stories of, in this case, koreans that had to risk death to sneak across the border to get to freedom in south korea I find that I have a really hard time warming up to iron fist border policies. The same goes for the Berlin wall and keeping East Germans from leaving. Perhaps the idea of the iron curtain is no longer fresh in the minds of people. I'm not sure thats the sort of thing we should be admiring if we're as freedom loving of a people as we say we are.
It isn't a two way street. US citizens are NOT being oppressed enough or living in crappy enough conditions to actually want to immigrate to Mexico. Sorry, but if Mexicans want to come to the US, do it LEGALLY! Don't steal services from US Citizen taxpayers, which very well may include your legal brethren from Mexico. I have a family member who married a legal citizen who migrated from Mexico and he absolutely HATES his countrymen that come here illegally. They're stealing from him as well. 
R127
Member
Shooting them is not necessary or desirable. They aren't vermin, they're illegal immigrants. Have manned checkpoints on the roads. If they don't have the proper credentials to pass then have them do a little u-turn. Instead of occupying those dangerous enemy countries like Spain, England, Germany and Japan we could better put those resources to work by putting military or border patrol personell on our actual border in areas where crossings are common/possible that aren't on roads with checkpoints. Round'em up, put them in a holding area and send them home when you get a busload. Plus put an end to all the freebies and handouts too. If la migra or other law enforcement entities catch somebody have them sent to the holding areas to be shipped out with the rest as they are caught.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Seems to be everyone's problem is actually with socialist wealth-transfer programs paid for by their own money, (money taken through force or threat thereof.) Funny, I have a problem with that, too. The problem isn't the immigrants, legal or not. It's the very fact that such socialist wealth-transfer programs exist in the first place. Get "charity" out of the scaly claws of government and back into the hands of individuals, local communities and churches. They actually have some incentive to make sure their recipients aren't wasting the benefits they receive.
Let the immigrants come, documented or not. As long as they're peaceful, they're great for the economy. The economy isn't some static pie that everyone has to fight over to get a piece. It's a dynamic system of economic relationships from which everyone benefits.
People complained (for racist reasons, just like now) about "Them Italians/Germans/Bohemians/Irish/Greeks/You Name Its comin' over here and takin' American jobs" all throughout the mid 1800's to the 1920's. Yes, wages dropped because of the huge influx, but only temporarily. And during that time, the standard of living grew 7% annually.
Again, let them come, documented or not.
-Sans Authoritas
Let the immigrants come, documented or not. As long as they're peaceful, they're great for the economy. The economy isn't some static pie that everyone has to fight over to get a piece. It's a dynamic system of economic relationships from which everyone benefits.
People complained (for racist reasons, just like now) about "Them Italians/Germans/Bohemians/Irish/Greeks/You Name Its comin' over here and takin' American jobs" all throughout the mid 1800's to the 1920's. Yes, wages dropped because of the huge influx, but only temporarily. And during that time, the standard of living grew 7% annually.
Again, let them come, documented or not.
-Sans Authoritas
Richbaker
Member
Quote"
Gun Rights? Rights of Life and Liberty sure, but gun rights?
Right to self-defense, but the right to bear arms? So people had gun rights before there were guns?
If if was the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have had to include it. I support the 2nd Amendment and RKBA but it's more than foolish to think the right to own/carry a gun is a god given right.
In fact the framers weren't concerned even about individual self-defense, but were taking care of the citizens against an oppressive government.
Neither the SCOTUS or Congress or the president could ever overturn it. It would take a vote by the people.
Flame me if you want, but recognize it for what it really is. The only way we're going to continue to have this Constutional right is to see it for what it is, and defend it in court and in political elections"
It says "ARMS", not guns......look the definition of "Arms" up...Guns are Arms!
Gun Rights? Rights of Life and Liberty sure, but gun rights?
Right to self-defense, but the right to bear arms? So people had gun rights before there were guns?
If if was the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have had to include it. I support the 2nd Amendment and RKBA but it's more than foolish to think the right to own/carry a gun is a god given right.
In fact the framers weren't concerned even about individual self-defense, but were taking care of the citizens against an oppressive government.
Neither the SCOTUS or Congress or the president could ever overturn it. It would take a vote by the people.
Flame me if you want, but recognize it for what it really is. The only way we're going to continue to have this Constutional right is to see it for what it is, and defend it in court and in political elections"
It says "ARMS", not guns......look the definition of "Arms" up...Guns are Arms!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
