Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[JFtheGR8]

It's a constitutional right period, end of the discussion. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't people get? I don't need facts or statistics to back up my position according to that wording.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Gato Montés]

I went along with this thread when it started, left, then found it to balloon to 16 pages! I have better things to do than read this novel, but I hope someone down the line, and this is directed at you Timmy, suggested taking an introductory firearms class and get some hands on experience.

Scared of em you say? So was I, but there came a time where I realized that our ability to posses firearms was very unique in the world we live in, and not wanting to ever pass on a new experience I gave it a go.

To really understand a complex issue such as private ownership of firearms you're going to have to travel into the belly of the beast, so to speak. Not only will you get a REAL understanding of the true capabilities of firearms vs myth, you'll also assuredly get some first hand experiences with those who see firearms as part of their culture rather than some regurgitated analytical piece on some know nothing media outlet.

"My definition of a man’s man is a man who knows gun safety"- Kurt Vonnegut

 

[Certaindeaf]

The second amendment ensures the first. pretty simple

 

[PedalBiker]

I've been around guns for 40 years. I'm still scared of them.


I've been around circular saws for 40 years, I'm scared of them too. My uncle nearly cut his hand off - he wasn't scared enough, but he is NOW.


I ride a bike for about 3000 miles per year - I'm scared of semi trucks and cars and big-loud pickup trucks.


I'm still scared of heights, even just putting up the Christmas lights on the roof gives me white knuckles.

Fear is natural, but we are thinking beings, we can control our fears.

 

[browneu]

Timmy, its not enough for you to say you don't buy 30 rounds for defense. Tell us why and tell us how having fewer rounds gives you a tactical advantage over an attacker.



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[4v50 Gary]

Several people here have made some very strong arguments here, and what impresses me even more, they're backed them up with facts. I don't buy the tyranny argument. I think I know enough about history, politics, and systems of government to discount that (I was a political science major.) I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

Timmy4 - Have you looked at Benjamin Roth's book like I suggested? If you didn't, you will learn of the Bonus Marchers. These were WW I doughboys, veterans now, who wanted the bonus promised to them for their service overseas during WW I. They camped out in Washington in hopes of persuading Congress. Think of it as a 1932 "Occupy Washington" movement. The Army attacked them with tear gas, tanks, cavalry and machineguns. Many were killed. While the body count was much less than Tiananmen Square, doesn't the event sound like the actions of a Third World tinpot dictator?

Let's fast forward to today. Have you looked into the Patriot Act that was extended by our current president and have you looked up the NDAA that was signed into law on New Year's Eve, 2011? Look at what "authority" it gives the government. Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment along with the Writ of Habeus Corpus are effectively gutted. I could go on, but I want you to research these two acts yourself. It will be a lot more convincing than if I were to tell you.

If you haven't had time, listen to that interview of Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush (I). I posted a link earlier in this thread.

 

[timmy4]

I want to clarify something: When I wrote that I didn't buy the tyranny argument, that does not mean that I don't recognize that tyranny can't occur. You mention the Bonus Marchers, and Japanese Internment, and there are plenty of other examples in this country. (I don't think Ruby Ridge is one of them, but that's a personal opinion.)

What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis.

Sometimes humor is the best way to demonstrate why people might think a particular position is absurd. Please read the following Onion article. It may offend some of you, but it really does represent what a lot of the public think about those who stridently hold your opinions about tyranny and private gun ownership:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

 

[Certaindeaf]

.What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis..

True, a tactical nuclear strike trumps a single-shot shotgun. But that would be mutual/national suicide.

 

[hso]

timmy,

You've agreed that the 2A works on the micro level, correct?

I believe that it may justify the 2nd Amendment on a micro level, but I already was willing to accept that argument. I want to stress that I am a believer in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[NickEllis]

What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way.

Do you also deny that private gun ownership can deter tyranny on a local level? Ala, The Battle of Athens, TN, etc.? You said "deter tyranny in any way", after all.

Most interaction with persons of power will come on local levels, not on federal levels. The consent of the governed is equally important here. And there will likely NOT be "black helicopters and tanks" in the mix.

 

[meanmrmustard]

True, a tactical nuclear strike trumps a single-shot shotgun. But that would be mutual/national suicide.

Yup. No way you're launching thermonuclear weaponry on your own soil without a ridiculous amount of collateral damage.

Also, you'd most likely see the Lefties take up arms to take the Capitol back, or what's left of it.

 

[timmy4]

timmy,

You've agreed that the 2A works on the micro level, correct?

What I wrote is that the Battle of Athens example may justify your "original intent" argument of the 2nd Amendment- that private gun ownership could be necessary for more than home defense, in order to combat tyranny on a local level- though not on a macro level. I am not at all sure of even this, however. Part of me remains really skeptical.

For example, someone brought up the Japanese internment. That took place, for the most part, in California, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Japanese were allowed to own guns, and some of them did. Suppose the ones that did had chosen to fight the authorities? The result wouldn't have been some form of resistance; it would have been a massacre.

 

[timmy4]

Do you also deny that private gun ownership can deter tyranny on a local level? Ala, The Battle of Athens, TN, etc.? You said "deter tyranny in any way", after all.

Most interaction with persons of power will come on local levels, not on federal levels. The consent of the governed is equally important here. And there will likely NOT be "black helicopters and tanks" in the mix.

What I DON'T want is for a private gun owner or owners to misinterpret proper government authority as tyranny. That's what the Confederacy did. They hated the results of an election, so they went to war with the United States. Bad move.

 

[Certaindeaf]

.Suppose the ones that did had chosen to fight the authorities? The result wouldn't have been some form of resistance; it would have been a massacre.

 

[timmy4]

Sir, I know that I am late to this discussion, but would like to add this point to the discussion.

I took an oath not too many years ago to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

My fathers on both sides of my family have bled and some died in places like Luzon, Normandy, the Chosin Reservoir, or Hue, and patrolled miserable outposts in Europe and Asia. They did this for the safety and interests of our nation, but all ultimately to secure for everyone who can call themselves an American the God-given rights enshrined by the Constitution. I have left too many fellow soldiers in Afghanistan to believe that the rights they died to protect can be legislated away by a political hack.

Thank you for your service. You and your family fought, not just for your freedoms, but for mine as well, including my right to disagree with you. I'm grateful.

 

[timmy4]

Yes, and most of the native American rebellions ended up in exactly that: massacres.

 

[splattergun]

I want to clarify something: When I wrote that I didn't buy the tyranny argument, that does not mean that I don't recognize that tyranny can't occur. You mention the Bonus Marchers, and Japanese Internment, and there are plenty of other examples in this country. (I don't think Ruby Ridge is one of them, but that's a personal opinion.)

What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis.

Sometimes humor is the best way to demonstrate why people might think a particular position is absurd. Please read the following Onion article. It may offend some of you, but it really does represent what a lot of the public think about those who stridently hold your opinions about tyranny and private gun ownership:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/

The Japanese in WWII, capable of invading the mainland West coast, did not do so BECAUSE of our armed population. THey chose not to occupy Hawaii for the same reason.

Turn the questionable humor of the Onion around to your own position. What makes it alright to infringe the rights of those who would stand up in arms to protect their right to badmouth those you disagree with?

When 1 right is infringed, all rights are infringed. They are all interrelated. There is absolutely nothing between your right to free speach and restrictions upon it but the certainty that we can and will throw them down if they move to block the press. 2A protects YOU.

The Second amendment is YOUR right as much as it is ours. Just because you fear it out of misunderstanding, does not make that fact any less so. Why would you advocate the restriction of ANY of YOUR rights?

 

[meanmrmustard]

What I DON'T want is for a private gun owner or owners to misinterpret proper government authority as tyranny. That's what the Confederacy did. They hated the results of an election, so they went to war with the United States. Bad move.

False, sir. You'd have done well to pay attention in history.

Next thing you'll tell us was that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.

Southern states recognized the overshadowing of Federal government control that vastly weakened the rights of the State. History will repeat itself, as the same thing threatens us now.

This is why you're reading of uppity Sheriffs and State officials across the nation hollering "We won't enforce it." Either fight with us, or against us.

P.S. while vaguely humorous at best, the Onion article (while a farce) depicts one man with the stones to fight as a literal one man army. Although fake, it depicts the type of people 2A supporters are, unlike the sniveling cowards that bow to King Oby and his minions.

I.E. your people.

 

[berettaprofessor]

proper government authority as tyranny. That's what the Confederacy did. They hated the results of an election, so they went to war with the United States.

No, they went to war because they didn't agree with the power the Federal Government was exerting over states rights. Lincoln was a tyrant. Pick up a paperback in the history section of your local bookstore called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." It'll be an enlightening read.

 

[timmy4]

Timmy4 - Have you looked at Benjamin Roth's book like I suggested? If you didn't, you will learn of the Bonus Marchers. These were WW I doughboys, veterans now, who wanted the bonus promised to them for their service overseas during WW I. They camped out in Washington in hopes of persuading Congress. Think of it as a 1932 "Occupy Washington" movement. The Army attacked them with tear gas, tanks, cavalry and machineguns. Many were killed. While the body count was much less than Tiananmen Square, doesn't the event sound like the actions of a Third World tinpot dictator?

Let's fast forward to today. Have you looked into the Patriot Act that was extended by our current president and have you looked up the NDAA that was signed into law on New Year's Eve, 2011? Look at what "authority" it gives the government. Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment along with the Writ of Habeus Corpus are effectively gutted. I could go on, but I want you to research these two acts yourself. It will be a lot more convincing than if I were to tell you.

If you haven't had time, listen to that interview of Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush (I). I posted a link earlier in this thread.

Just a comment on the Bonus Marchers- I haven't read the book you recommended, but a great writeup on this subject is from William Manchester's epic history, The Glory and the Dream. The guy who was in charge of removing the Bonus Marchers was none other than General Douglas MacArthur.

 

[bikerdoc]

What I DON'T want is for a private gun owner or owners to misinterpret proper government authority as tyranny. That's what the Confederacy did. They hated the results of an election, so they went to war with the United States. Bad move.

Way off base my friend (and off topic also) that was state rights vs federal rights. Again your lack of historical knowledge is showing.
Stay on topic please, the 2nd amendment.

 

[timmy4]

False, sir. You'd have done well to pay attention in history.

Next thing you'll tell us was that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.

Southern states recognized the overshadowing of Federal government control that vastly weakened the rights of the State. History will repeat itself, as the same thing threatens us now.

This is why you're reading of uppity Sheriffs and State officials across the nation hollering "We won't enforce it." Either fight with us, or against us.

Well, when you use phrases like "War of Northern Aggression", I know where YOU'RE coming from.

 

[NickEllis]

It's a good theoretical question, the native American tribes: would they have preferred to have been stripped of their weapons in the first instance and collectively been herded onto reservations, or given the opportunity to fight and be massacred nevertheless?

Anyways, your point about "misinterpreting proper govt. authority as tyranny" is beside the point. Let's not obfuscate. The question at hand is "given illegitimate and tyrannical local authorities who are systematically oppressing local civil rights, can or has an armed populace resisted effectively". Earlier you have indicated that such a scenario "has never happened". Do you stand by this?

 

[pty101]

One of the biggest issues with mag capacity bans and self-defense is that the person defending themselves doesnt determine when, where or how the attack occurs. They can only respond. So if criminal gets to not only chose all the important factors in an attack, why would somebody what to also give criminals the advantage in the amount of fire (criminals having more rounds in a magazine) than the law-abiding citizen who was the victim of the attack. Since the victim is already at the disadvantage in terms of timing and location of an attack, shouldn't a person have to right to counter an attack as best they can?

So basically since a victim of an attack does not chose the timing, location, or even the duration of an attack (the attack isnt over until the criminal decides to stop), a victim should and does have to right to counter the attack with what they believe is the best method. Some people like to have a handgun with 17+ rounds, other like an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. Standard and even high capacity magazines give a victim the ability to counter an attack while eliminating other things that impair their ability to defend themselves such as reloading. If there are multiple criminals, then they this is even more important.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Yes, and most of the native American rebellions ended up in exactly that: massacres.

True. .45-70 trumps war club. that's the point