Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[DACrowe]

The Second Amendment is never going anywhere. People have the right to defend themselves and to hunt at their leisure. That does not mean they should have guns meant to inflict maximum carnage and death on other human beings. And no, I do not believe rednecks with AK-47s can stop a US government with nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22s.

It is about making it a little harder for gun violence to happen. It will always happen, but surely we can lessen the impact on the country if we would only act.

 

[Bill]

The Second Amendment is never going anywhere. People have the right to defend themselves and to hunt at their leisure. That does not mean they should have guns meant to inflict maximum carnage and death on other human beings. And no, I do not believe rednecks with AK-47s can stop a US government with nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22s.

It is about making it a little harder for gun violence to happen. It will always happen, but surely we can lessen the impact on the country if we would only act.

Do you really think that all those in charge of nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22's would just attack civilians with them indiscriminately on the mere sayso of the US Government? Where do you think all those people will live once they've bombed their homes or families? What a meager opinion you must have of those who serve.

Worry about taking care of violence, and it won't really matter what you put in front of it.

 

[wiegeabo]

The Second Amendment is never going anywhere. People have the right to defend themselves and to hunt at their leisure. That does not mean they should have guns meant to inflict maximum carnage and death on other human beings. And no, I do not believe rednecks with AK-47s can stop a US government with nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22s.

I really hate that 'argument'.

At best, it's a fallacy. At worst, it's pathetic and downright stupid.

To think that the president would order that kind of strike on US citizens on US soil. To think the military would go through with it. To think that public opinion wouldn't utterly rip both to shreds (before it happened, to boot) and everyone involved would be tossed out on their asses, if not imprisoned.

And to think that, if that happened, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't become a holy grail because the government will have proved it was always as untrustworthy as the pro-gun extremists had said. Not only would you literally have riots in the streets, gun sales would skyrocket, and gun laws would be thrown out/utterly ignored.

It would ironically be one of the best things to happen for the pro-gun side.

 

[enterthemadness]

I really hate that 'argument'.

At best, it's a fallacy. At worst, it's pathetic and downright stupid.

To think that the president would order that kind of strike on US citizens on US soil. To think the military would go through with it. To think that public opinion wouldn't utterly rip both to shreds (before it happened, to boot) and everyone involved would be tossed out on their asses, if not imprisoned.

And to think that, if that happened, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't become a holy grail because the government will have proved it was always as untrustworthy as the pro-gun extremists had said. Not only would you literally have riots in the streets, gun sales would skyrocket, and gun laws would be thrown out/utterly ignored.

It would ironically be one of the best things to happen for the pro-gun side.

You need to see Gray State Trailer on YouTube....yes, it's a NWO trailer....but well made. And is being made into a movie. It is tryign to be as realist as possible. I know in the script or info, it says mass defections happen from the military and it's still not enough. Rumor that Tim Tebow will watch the trailer tomorrow...cause his manager? A Ron Paul supporter. Gary Johnson seen the trailer as well. However....**** would have to hit the fan big time for that reality to happen...none the less, I believe they are trying to sell it as a action movie first, NWO movie second.

To save you time, RFID chips are in movie(unlikely IRL), cash is outlawed (unlikely IRL) Fed Reserve causes a monetary collapse(this one is likely to happen). The final script is apparently suppose to be awesome. If it's as great as the trailer...then wow. And these people aren't stupid, selling it as a action movie meets NWO is a great way to get it funded and happen.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I really hate that 'argument'.

At best, it's a fallacy. At worst, it's pathetic and downright stupid.

To think that the president would order that kind of strike on US citizens on US soil. To think the military would go through with it. To think that public opinion wouldn't utterly rip both to shreds (before it happened, to boot) and everyone involved would be tossed out on their asses, if not imprisoned.

And to think that, if that happened, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't become a holy grail because the government will have proved it was always as untrustworthy as the pro-gun extremists had said. Not only would you literally have riots in the streets, gun sales would skyrocket, and gun laws would be thrown out/utterly ignored.

It would ironically be one of the best things to happen for the pro-gun side.

The point isn't that it's going to happen. I don't think that the Federal government is going to use such excessive force to put someone down. The point is that for all those people who claim how the Second Amendment is there to protect us from government "tyranny" really have no chance at all and that if the government did want to act tyrannical (in the incredibly unlikely chance that happens), there really isn't anything that is going to stop them.

However if you want a comparison that uses less hyperbole "rednecks with AR-15s and AK-47s have no chance against a god damn SWAT team." Really, the whole point of the argument is to point out how completely and ridiculously absurd the argument that the gun rights lobby uses on how the Second Amendment is designed to protect us from government tyranny really is. And this is coming from someone who is very pro-gun rights and is on the complete opposite spectrum of DA. This stupid interpretation of the Second Amendment is as dumb and inaccurate as the arguments from extremists from the gun control lobby who claim that because we don't use militias anymore, therefore the Second Amendment is out of date and moot.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, I do want to remind people that the Federalists did really believe that the Second Amendment would allow the people to take down the government if it turned tyrannical. So... the gun nuts may sound crazy, but they ain't wrong. Constitutionally speaking, they win.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Well, I do want to remind people that the Federalists did really believe that the Second Amendment would allow the people to take down the government if it turned tyrannical. So... the gun nuts may sound crazy, but they ain't wrong. Constitutionally speaking, they win.

The Second Amendment was more along the lines of America's defense policy for a long time. Until World War II we didn't like having a large army during peacetime. It times of conflict during the early days we just had the locals band up in militias and instead of having to spend money on arming them, it made more sense to let them have guns and they bring their own weapons when reporting for duty. Also take into account that when the Second Amendment was ratified, civilian arms were on par with military arms.

The Founding Fathers never wanted the government to be overthrown. Hell, they even put down rebellions when the government was being tyrannical.

 

[DACrowe]

Do you really think that all those in charge of nuclear weapons, tanks and F-22's would just attack civilians with them indiscriminately on the mere sayso of the US Government? Where do you think all those people will live once they've bombed their homes or families? What a meager opinion you must have of those who serve.

Worry about taking care of violence, and it won't really matter what you put in front of it.

I think you misundrstood me.

I was talking about the crackpot conspiracy theory Alex Jones, NWO nut job crazies who all say that the guns, as pertained to the Second Amendment, are meant to protect us from a "tyrannical" government. I do not believe that bag of crazy. However, even if you do, the logic that rednecks with AKs could stand up to the US military is cray cray. End of story.

 

[wiegeabo]

Well, I do want to remind people that the Federalists did really believe that the Second Amendment would allow the people to take down the government if it turned tyrannical. So... the gun nuts may sound crazy, but they ain't wrong. Constitutionally speaking, they win.

It can still happen today.

Not with a physical overthrow. But with public opinion.

If the government is actually being tyrannical, a standoff brings the press. Which brings the possibility of exposing it. Especially if things go south.

If a President can nearly lose his job for not being able to keep it in his pants, imagine the fallout from a standoff gone bad where the government really is to blame.


(Of course, this would hopefully be a last resort after more peaceful attempts to make changes, like demonstrations, rallies, and the like.)

 

[DACrowe]

I really hate that 'argument'.

At best, it's a fallacy. At worst, it's pathetic and downright stupid.

To think that the president would order that kind of strike on US citizens on US soil. To think the military would go through with it. To think that public opinion wouldn't utterly rip both to shreds (before it happened, to boot) and everyone involved would be tossed out on their asses, if not imprisoned.

And to think that, if that happened, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't become a holy grail because the government will have proved it was always as untrustworthy as the pro-gun extremists had said. Not only would you literally have riots in the streets, gun sales would skyrocket, and gun laws would be thrown out/utterly ignored.

It would ironically be one of the best things to happen for the pro-gun side.

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

 

[DACrowe]

I really hate that 'argument'.

At best, it's a fallacy. At worst, it's pathetic and downright stupid.

To think that the president would order that kind of strike on US citizens on US soil. To think the military would go through with it. To think that public opinion wouldn't utterly rip both to shreds (before it happened, to boot) and everyone involved would be tossed out on their asses, if not imprisoned.

And to think that, if that happened, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't become a holy grail because the government will have proved it was always as untrustworthy as the pro-gun extremists had said. Not only would you literally have riots in the streets, gun sales would skyrocket, and gun laws would be thrown out/utterly ignored.

It would ironically be one of the best things to happen for the pro-gun side.

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

Yeah, but the Second Amendment was put in place just for that. So... you're gonna have to take that up with the constitution. Or Hamilton's ghost (who ironically enough died by being shot).

Though given how vague "assault weapons" is, it's kind of debatable if you can't use some for self-defense.

 

[wiegeabo]

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

1) Enjoyment (collecting, sport shooting, what have you)

2) The ability to hunt or defend oneself with them (even though not necessary, and probably not the best choice to do either)

3) There's no reason a responsible citizen shouldn't be allowed to own one.

Guess what. There are lots of assault rifles out their right now in the hands of private citizens that have never been used in a crime. Why should they, and others, be punished?

But, again, I emphasize responsible owners. I have no problem with strict regulations that make it difficult to buy them, and force owners to prove their ability to be good owners. And very stiff penalties when they don't.


Of course, if we started fixing the issues causing the gun violence in the first place, we wouldn't even need the special restrictions/regulations (standard ones would do). But that's obviously years and years (and probably years) away.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

Why should law abiding citizens not have the freedom to purchase what they want? Personally, I think that it's rather deplorable of our government to treat our citizens as potential criminals when the vast majority of people who buy assault weapons have no intention of actually hurting people with them. These people also enjoy to shoot them recreationally and collect them.

Another point is that the overwhelming vast majority of gun violence is done with guns that will never, ever get banned. And AWBs really do nothing to curb gun violence. Studies have shown that since gun violence with assault weapons accounts for such a small amount, that the effect a ban has on gun violence is extremely minimal. And things like Columbine still happened even with an AWB in place, the Sandy Hook shootings still would have happened even if the Clinton AWB was still in effect.

AWBs are nothing but talking points that really have no true substance. They're nothing more than a placebo to tackle the issue of gun violence. They're as lacking in effectiveness like the GOPs talking points on pork or the Democrats' Buffet Rule. It sounds pretty when presenting it, but in practice just brings nothing.

So why punish law abiding citizens with a law that has no real effects on gun violence?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

1) Enjoyment (collecting, sport shooting, what have you)

2) The ability to hunt or defend oneself with them (even though not necessary, and probably not the best choice to do either)

3) There's no reason a responsible citizen shouldn't be allowed to own one.

Guess what. There are lots of assault rifles out their right now in the hands of private citizens that have never been used in a crime. Why should they, and others, be punished?

But, again, I emphasize responsible owners. I have no problem with strict regulations that make it difficult to buy them, and force owners to prove their ability to be good owners. And very stiff penalties when they don't.


Of course, if we started fixing the issues causing the gun violence in the first place, we wouldn't even need the special restrictions/regulations (standard ones would do). But that's obviously years and years (and probably years) away.

They'd rather take the somewhat easy route in blaming the tool of the symptom (violence) than the root causes (poor mental healthcare, poor education, and poverty.)

 

[Super Kal]

So why do citizens need assault weapons?

first of all, that's a false assumption created by mainstream media and fear-mongers alike, who wish to take away the people's right to defend themselves, whether from a burglar, or a corrupt government official...

a semi-automatic firearm is not, i repeat, NOT a fully-automatic firearm. the only differences between the top firearm and the others are the cosmetics of the firearm. each gun fires the same way: only one bullet every time you pull the trigger


fully automatic firearms are not illegal to purchase... they are just very difficult to purchase.

~ there's a 4-6 week paperwork sent from the dealer to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or longer, depending on delays from the BATF.

~ You need your fingerprints taken by a police department, as well as two photo identifications, which will start a lengthy process of a background check.

~ you need $200 for a one time transfer tax. If one is buying more than one fully automatic weapon, this must be paid more than once.

~ your local dealer will also need you to sign an "Application for Tax Paid Transfer And Registration Of Firearm" for, known as a "form 4".

~ You must have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement (CLEO) officer that has jurisdiction over the municipality in which you live on the form 4. This could be the City Chief or the County Sheriff, for example. This is usually not a problem-- in machine gun friendly states. The form 4, CLEO signature, 2 fingerprint cards, 2 pictures, and a $200 check (your one-time transfer tax) must all be mailed to the BATF and an approved tax stamp returned before you may take possession of the gun. This may take anywhere from 2 to 5 months.

~ these fireamrs are only called as "transferable", and some states will not let an individual have the right to go through this process

all of this is completely moot, by the way... why? because fully automatic firearms are so extremely expensive, none of you on the salary you make today would be able to purchase a fully automatic firearm. the cheapest full-auto I've ever seen in my search costed well over $30,000. you think a regular citizen has that kind of money laying around the house, especially in this economy?

choose the truth next time, not a lie created solely to scare people into giving away their freedoms and rights.

 

[Super Kal]

Why should law abiding citizens not have the freedom to purchase what they want? Personally, I think that it's rather deplorable of our government to treat our citizens as potential criminals when the vast majority of people who buy assault weapons have no intention of actually hurting people with them. These people also enjoy to shoot them recreationally and collect them.

Another point is that the overwhelming vast majority of gun violence is done with guns that will never, ever get banned. And AWBs really do nothing to curb gun violence. Studies have shown that since gun violence with assault weapons accounts for such a small amount, that the effect a ban has on gun violence is extremely minimal. And things like Columbine still happened even with an AWB in place, the Sandy Hook shootings still would have happened even if the Clinton AWB was still in effect.

AWBs are nothing but talking points that really have no true substance. They're nothing more than a placebo to tackle the issue of gun violence. They're as lacking in effectiveness like the GOPs talking points on pork or the Democrats' Buffet Rule. It sounds pretty when presenting it, but in practice just brings nothing.

So why punish law abiding citizens with a law that has no real effects on gun violence?

truth spoken right here

 

[Thundercrack85]

But how far do you take that? Where do you draw the line? And non-rhetorically, do you draw a line?

I believe in a reasonable right to self-defense. Not every person having an military cache. Serious firepower should come with serious training. But it doesn't.

Why did Adam Lanza's mother need that much firepower? I have little doubt that the guy would have still found a way to kill a bunch of people, but having a semiautomatic rifle in the house sure made it a hell lot easier. This is what happens when irresponsible people are allowed to own deadly weapons.

 

[Bill]

Okay. So, you agree that the US government coming to round up guns at gun point is, indeed, a stupid fallacy.

Agreed.

So why do citizens need assault weapons? It ain't for hunting and it ain't for self-defense. Once we get rid of this conspiracy theory nonsense that leaves very little ground other than reactionary responses. That is not enough.

First, an AR15 isn't an assault weapon. It's a semi-automatic rifle. Assault rifles are full automatic. Second, AR15's shoot a varmint round, great for hunting coyotes and has been used, many times, for self-defense. Third, you've managed to reiterate your same flawed argument in the other response. I didn't misunderstand at all. You don't have much faith in those who serve in the armed forces that they would fire on civilians, but put a great deal of faith in the Government that they wouldn't give that order. I would also say that you don't understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, nor do you understand what any Government agency would have to face if it should decide to wage war on the American civilian population, a great deal of which are former veterans.

 

[The Question]

Well, I do want to remind people that the Federalists did really believe that the Second Amendment would allow the people to take down the government if it turned tyrannical. So... the gun nuts may sound crazy, but they ain't wrong. Constitutionally speaking, they win.

No, they're still wrong. Even if that is what the founders intended, times are very different. A well armed militia could have resisted a tyrannical federal government back when everyone had muskets, but now the weapons technology gap is so huge that it's a total fantasy.

 

[DACrowe]

Yeah, but the Second Amendment was put in place just for that. So... you're gonna have to take that up with the constitution. Or Hamilton's ghost (who ironically enough died by being shot).

Though given how vague "assault weapons" is, it's kind of debatable if you can't use some for self-defense.

Hamilton isn't exactly the one who was desperate for those amendments or a Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is there for that. But in the 21st century, there is no way a few nuts with guns could take on the US government and honestly the thought is paranoid jibberish from wingnuts anyways. I am not saying ban guns. Handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. should be legal for hunting and self-defense. That does not mean civilians should be able to buy guns meant for mass slaughter. There is no excuse for that.

 

[DACrowe]

Why should law abiding citizens not have the freedom to purchase what they want? Personally, I think that it's rather deplorable of our government to treat our citizens as potential criminals when the vast majority of people who buy assault weapons have no intention of actually hurting people with them. These people also enjoy to shoot them recreationally and collect them.

Another point is that the overwhelming vast majority of gun violence is done with guns that will never, ever get banned. And AWBs really do nothing to curb gun violence. Studies have shown that since gun violence with assault weapons accounts for such a small amount, that the effect a ban has on gun violence is extremely minimal. And things like Columbine still happened even with an AWB in place, the Sandy Hook shootings still would have happened even if the Clinton AWB was still in effect.

AWBs are nothing but talking points that really have no true substance. They're nothing more than a placebo to tackle the issue of gun violence. They're as lacking in effectiveness like the GOPs talking points on pork or the Democrats' Buffet Rule. It sounds pretty when presenting it, but in practice just brings nothing.

So why punish law abiding citizens with a law that has no real effects on gun violence?

The same reason civilians are not allowed to have WMDs, make bombs or own military grade vehicles.

You should not be allowed to have items that jeopardize the lives of countless other Americans. That is like saying why can't I make copious amounts of C-4?

Because it is made only for slaughter! Sorry, this libertarian reasoning is absurd in this case. If it means a few gun nuts are crying that they can only play with their rifles, hand guns and sawed off shotguns, so be it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No, they're still wrong. Even if that is what the founders intended, times are very different. A well armed militia could have resisted a tyrannical federal government back when everyone had muskets, but now the weapons technology gap is so huge that it's a total fantasy.

Right, which is why American military utterly crushed the insurgencies in Afghanistan. Oh. Wait.

How many tyrannical governments have been brought down by armed popular uprisings? I believe we have one case in progress right now in Syria.

Not that that's going to happen, since there isn't a tyrannical federal government. I'm just saying don't underestimate a well-armed populace.

 

[DACrowe]

First, an AR15 isn't an assault weapon. It's a semi-automatic rifle. Assault rifles are full automatic. Second, AR15's shoot a varmint round, great for hunting coyotes and has been used, many times, for self-defense. Third, you've managed to reiterate your same flawed argument in the other response. I didn't misunderstand at all. You don't have much faith in those who serve in the armed forces that they would fire on civilians, but put a great deal of faith in the Government that they wouldn't give that order. I would also say that you don't understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, nor do you understand what any Government agency would have to face if it should decide to wage war on the American civilian population, a great deal of which are former veterans.

I think if a rabble of hillbillies start storming a federal building with AKs that servicemen will do their duties in such a case. Do you think they will join in? And I thought you said I was the one who didn't respect the troops?

Seriously, strawman arguments on both sides ignored, if you look at history, much better armed and trained military leaders in the 1860s could not properly secede or stop a government they believed was "tyrannical" (mostly because the planter class aimlessly feared losing their slaves after the 1860 election). Why do you think a bunch of nutty militias in the backwoods of Colorado will fare better?

I believe every American has the right to protect themselves, hunt, fire for recreation if they so choose, etc. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to do it with weapons of war made for the sole purpose of mass murder. Because guess what? The mass murderers are the ones using it for its intended purpose.

 

[Kable24]

"weapons of war"