another triumph for the 2nd Amendment

[Will Robinson]

The purpose of the 2nd wasn't to guarantee successful revolution of the whole nation. It was to provide deterrence to thug like governors and the ability to defend against such a tyrant.

Cool story. How's that working out for you? You and your friend's ready to take on some battleships with your rowboats? Nice "deterrence."

Are you seriously missing the point that badly?

Here is a real world example of how deterrence worked just recently. Even when it is employed by losers against all odds for poorly justified reasons...it works.
A bunch of heavy handed federal agents went to put their boots on the neck of some rebellious rancher who was refusing to cave in to the regulations. Now regardless of whether the rancher was in the wrong, which I believe he may have been, the federal agents decided to show him the we-are-the-Feds-and-you-cant-stop-us routine to teach him a lesson. They showed up in force and began seizing his property and destroying it.
A bunch of armed citizen supporters showed up and the Feds pulled back. The Feds were always going to win the fight if it broke out, at least eventually, but the prospect of the carnage was enough to make the political leadership call off the dogs. The politicians know that they can win the fight and still lose the war. I'm pretty confident the Fed will prevail in the courtroom eventually and the rancher will lose but the over zealous thuggery was shut down with.....wait for it...

Deterrence.

Without it the Feds would have destroyed all the cattle they wanted to, they would have seized all the equipment they wanted to, etc.

Typically people rise up in protest and take up arms to prevent their dissent from being squashed by the tyrants and THEN, when some opportunistic military leader recognizes the groundswell of potential support for his efforts does he step in to claim a role in forming new leadership...

Fun Fact: You don't actually need to take up arms. The rest of your statement actually proves my point, thank you.

Completely irrelevant response to the point you challenged. Posting a recipe for banana pudding would have been no less relevant.

The 2nd Amendment was written by those armed citizen individuals who had just been there-done that! Not by some British army deserter turned revolutionary!

Are you absolutely kidding me? George Washington fought for the British Army.

I'm not kidding you. You are kidding yourself with your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Yes, he did serve in the military for the British....at one time... but he retired from their service ten years before the revolution started.
He was farming for years as a civilian before the fighting broke out and he held off for another two years after that before he, a civilian with a gun (and no role in the military), came into the fight.
That was long after the hundreds or thousands of other everyday armed citizens started the resistance. And he didn't write the Declaration or the Bill of Rights did he?

So your original point, that revolutions are only started by military defections is still wrong. And George Washington did nothing like you are trying to lead the readers of your post to believe he did!

You failed completely to refute my point, on all fronts. You failed to overcome the facts. Facts are tough like that...

[Sergeant Thorne]

The second clearly states “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms, and does not limit the usage to military service.

You made that last part up. A militia, by definition, is military service, and that is what the 2nd Amendment references -- a well-regulated militia. It's talking about these guys, not Joe Schmoe sitting on his porch with a shotgun.

Of course he made that last part up--that's a natural part of making a statement, because if you don't make it up it's not a statement--it's a quote! You are habitually wrong mistaken, Vision--when the 2nd amendment is talking about militia it's not talking about the people in general, but when it states "the rights of the people", it is in fact talking about the people. Are you people? Nowhere in there is found a restriction to military service. This is a legal document, and you can't add meaning without an amendment. It may state militia as the reason for the importance of not infringing on individual rights, but it is certain that individual rights are what is specified and protected.

[Spidey]

The second amendment gives every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms, nowhere does it state that you “must” belong to a militia to have this right.

I actually agree with most of what you said vision, up to the point where you keep repeating this dumb scenario where some citizens try to take on the military with handguns, there will never be any scenario even close to that.

The idea that there would be some sort of frontline between a bunch of armed rednecks and the American military is amusing though, but I’m sure you are limiting your imagination in a very deliberate way.

[Will Robinson]

"militia", in the context it was used in the text of the 2nd amendment, was a reference to a potential body of citizens that could come together from their homes, farms, towns, etc. to work together to repel an enemy force...either an outside entity or an internal force commanded by a tyrannical governor.

That definition/use of the word is well established in the discussions recorded between the actual authors of the 2nd amendment. And in spite of the attempts over the years to rewrite that bit of history to serve some political agenda the archives have the original documentation to prove it.
You can go read it yourselves and learn all about it.

[Spidey]

Or any other threat to “freedom”* such as a gang of thugs that want to rape your wife and kill your children.

*”necessary to the security of a free State”

Now if you don’t consider a gang of thugs a threat to freedom….well…

[vision]

I'm pretty confident the Fed will prevail in the courtroom eventually...

Great story. Totally proves nothing.

...but the over zealous thuggery was shut down...

You mean people doing their appointed jobs it zealous thuggery? The fact that they shrugged and left proves they neither zealots not thugs. Learn what words mean.

[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

You forgot part of the sentence. Do you do everything half-assed?

Now if you don’t consider a gang of thugs a threat to freedom….well…

Are those thugs employed by the federal government? If so, then yes. If not, then that is out of the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

[Spidey]

Lol…what if it was the Russians?

A threat is a threat.

[Will Robinson]

When you are doing the job but cross the line from enforcement to destruction of property without due process...you know...failing to follow the rules set up by your employer...then you go from 'just-doing-your-job to thuggery. When you need to be told to back off you arent showing that you understand your job very well. When your tactics cause revolt you might want to review the tactics...

I guess you only have a problem when the victim is black otherwise the heavy handed overzealous tactics are fine. Go ahead and shoot the white woman holding the baby, that's no issue...
Just don't shoot the black guy who beat the cops head in and turns back to go for him again.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Now if you don’t consider a gang of thugs a threat to freedom….well…

Are those thugs employed by the federal government? If so, then yes. If not, then that is out of the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

I would say groups with no respect for law constitute a threat to any free state. Not that it ★■◆●ing matters or anything, because in light of the 2nd amendment your government can't infringe on your right to keep and bear the AR-15 that you leveled between their leader's eyes in order to negotiate the outcome.

[vision]

I would say groups with no respect for law constitute a threat to any free state.

Agreed! And that's why each State in our Republic has their own laws to deal with those situations. It's not a federal matter and not related to the 2nd Amendment.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Do you find affirmation in coming short of making a point?

[callmeslick]

regarding civilian uprisings against the standing army, it's only really been tried once(1858-1865, if you want to include the minor starting skirmishes). It failed, even when the standing army had been kept EXTREMELY limited in scale. To suggest anything of the sort today is ludicrous. I also got a nice chuckle out of the suggestion that the overthrow of LOCAL officials was the intent. Never heard that gem before.

[callmeslick]

another day of triumph for the 2nd:
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/0 ... is-curren/

I'm sure he wanted to overthrow the government. Yeesh.

[Sergeant Thorne]

regarding civilian uprisings against the standing army, it's only really been tried once(1858-1865, if you want to include the minor starting skirmishes). It failed, even when the standing army had been kept EXTREMELY limited in scale. To suggest anything of the sort today is ludicrous. I also got a nice chuckle out of the suggestion that the overthrow of LOCAL officials was the intent. Never heard that gem before.

Any which way but lucid.

[Will Robinson]

another day of triumph for the 2nd:
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/2014/0 ... is-curren/

I'm sure he wanted to overthrow the government. Yeesh.

I'm sure you think you made a point there but for the rest of the world you might want to clarify what it was.

[Will Robinson]

... I also got a nice chuckle out of the suggestion that the overthrow of LOCAL officials was the intent. Never heard that gem before.

Where did you read the intent of the 2nd was to enable the successful overthrow of government at any level?
I believe you are smart enough to recognize there is a difference between the protection of oneself from an individual tyrant and conquering a continent and it leaves a lot of room for those nuances you profess to be so keenly aware of.
I guess that ability is selectively applied in deference to your ideological agenda.

[Spidey]

Careful what you wish for.

If the opponents of gun ownership were ever to get traction on this “it’s only legal to own a gun if you are in a militia” thing…you might not get the results you are looking for.

In fact if this idea got any real traction at the national level, you might just see the membership of militias reach levels that you really wouldn’t want to see.

But anyway just to be safe…I have now declared myself in a militia of one, and in the process of preparing to defend myself and the country against all enemies of freedom.

I guess I need to start saving up to get well regulated, I doubt my pea shooter will qualify.

[callmeslick]

actually, I don't think the wording of the 2nd implies ANY overthrow of tyranny. WHATSOEVER. I've noted why, repeatedly. Oh, and my point with the school lockdown article was to point out that this sort of thing wasn't envisioned by the Founders, but has become our daily reality.

[callmeslick]

Careful what you wish for.

If the opponents of gun ownership were ever to get traction on this “it’s only legal to own a gun if you are in a militia” thing…you might not get the results you are looking for.

In fact if this idea got any real traction at the national level, you might just see the membership of militias reach levels that you really wouldn’t want to see.

But anyway just to be safe…I have now declared myself in a militia of one, and in the process of preparing to defend myself and the country against all enemies of freedom.

I guess I need to start saving up to get well regulated, I doubt my pea shooter will qualify.

rolls eyes

[Will Robinson]

actually, I don't think the wording of the 2nd implies ANY overthrow of tyranny. WHATSOEVER. I've noted why, repeatedly. Oh, and my point with the school lockdown article was to point out that this sort of thing wasn't envisioned by the Founders, but has become our daily reality.

I didn't ask what you think. I asked where you found it was suggested...

And I'm sure the Founders did not envision all sorts of things that are going on but did you offer that up as a completely irrelevant cynical commentary or were you trying to make a point in this discussion about the founders....the 2nd amendment...etc. etc.?

[callmeslick]

actually, I don't think the wording of the 2nd implies ANY overthrow of tyranny. WHATSOEVER. I've noted why, repeatedly. Oh, and my point with the school lockdown article was to point out that this sort of thing wasn't envisioned by the Founders, but has become our daily reality.

I didn't ask what you think. I asked where you found it was suggested...

in one of the responses last evening.
Edit, perhaps confusing this thread with another on another site. At any rate, my re-read of what has been posted since yesterday finds that some of you consider Federal Law enforcement officers dealing with a 10 year scofflaw violating federal law and evading federal payments due to be 'thugs'. How sad and pathetic you are to think so.

[callmeslick]

When you are doing the job but cross the line from enforcement to destruction of property without due process...you know...failing to follow the rules set up by your employer...then you go from 'just-doing-your-job to thuggery. When you need to be told to back off you arent showing that you understand your job very well. When your tactics cause revolt you might want to review the tactics...

I guess you only have a problem when the victim is black otherwise the heavy handed overzealous tactics are fine. Go ahead and shoot the white woman holding the baby, that's no issue...
Just don't shoot the black guy who beat the cops head in and turns back to go for him again.

more ugly racism from a true professional.

[Spidey]

Actually according to vision’s interpretation of the 2nd, you wouldn’t have to belong to a militia, just be ready to “form” one if the need arises.

And yea, there are a lot of things going on the fathers never envisioned.

[callmeslick]

Actually according to vision’s interpretation of the 2nd, you wouldn’t have to belong to a militia, just be ready to “form” one if the need arises.


And yea, there are a lot of things going on the fathers never envisioned.

vision and I are arguing the same fundamental point. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete because its sole intent given in the wording of the Amendment is no longer needed. As such, I'd gladly favor repeal, or a revision that brings commonsense in a nation where old white guys think it's ok to shoot an unarmed girl on the porch, a rude fellow movie-goer, etc, along with loony-tunes thinking that government employees doing their job responsibly are 'thugs'. Heaven help us all.

[Will Robinson]

.. At any rate, my re-read of what has been posted since yesterday finds that some of you consider Federal Law enforcement officers dealing with a 10 year scofflaw violating federal law and evading federal payments due to be 'thugs'. How sad and pathetic you are to think so.

Typical of you to misrepresent what was said so you could then attack your strawman.

You seemed to have lost the part about those officers, when destroying cattle and physical property, having gone far afield from the actions their warrant authorized, were in fact acting as thugs.
You of course have to ignore all that in order to portray the commentary as something "pathetic". Projection on your part. As well as obfuscation to change the subject away from your comments that were questioned.

[Will Robinson]

When you are doing the job but cross the line from enforcement to destruction of property without due process...you know...failing to follow the rules set up by your employer...then you go from 'just-doing-your-job to thuggery. When you need to be told to back off you arent showing that you understand your job very well. When your tactics cause revolt you might want to review the tactics...

I guess you only have a problem when the victim is black otherwise the heavy handed overzealous tactics are fine. Go ahead and shoot the white woman holding the baby, that's no issue...
Just don't shoot the black guy who beat the cops head in and turns back to go for him again.

more ugly racism from a true professional.

Do you even know what "racism" means? If you think so please explain your making that charge right there with specifics that will show you are not just a hack trying to play the race card at any opportunity with no credibility.

[Will Robinson]

... The 2nd Amendment is obsolete because its sole intent given in the wording of the Amendment is no longer needed. As such, I'd gladly favor repeal, ...

Aren't you the same guy who got all indignant at the accusation that you are in favor of doing just that only a week or two back?
You don't know what you want at all. You dont have any core principles to ground you. You merely want to advocate for your political team and any way the wind blows you is fine if it seems like it gives you a win.
Pathetic indeed.

[callmeslick]

I said I'd favor it, but won't go so far as to propose it, because it would be needlessly divisive. I know EXACTLY where I stand. And, as with the ACA, prefer steps in the right direction to NOTHING.


why did you have to reply 3 times in a row, Will? I can follow single replies with multiple responses just fine.

[Will Robinson]

I said I'd favor it, but won't go so far as to propose it, because it would be needlessly divisive. I know EXACTLY where I stand. And, as with the ACA, prefer steps in the right direction to NOTHING.


why did you have to reply 3 times in a row, Will? I can follow single replies with multiple responses just fine.

I disagree, you cant seem to respond to all three.
You gave a limp dodge at the one and ignored the other two completely.

[vision]

vision and I are arguing the same fundamental point. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete because its sole intent given in the wording of the Amendment is no longer needed.

^ This guy gets it. I liken the 2nd Amendment argument to how common folk generally misuse the 1st and "free speech," which means you are allowed to criticize the government. It does not give you the right to say what you want about anyone. The 2nd Amendment gives the authority for state militias to form in place of a potentially oppressive federal army. I don't think that amendment should be extended to some jerk who wants to buy a gun and shoot up his co-workers. Personally, I think everyone who owns a gun should be subject to proper licensing that expires annually and that licensing should demonstrate proper handling of a firearm along with mental health screening and background checks. Of course, this will never happen because "Murica and there are already as many guns as citizens. So much for sensibility. That went out the door several decades ago.

[Spidey]

No, you guys may agree that the amendment is obsolete, but you definitely don’t agree on the reasons…

Slick thinks the amendment is obsolete because we now have a standing army, you believe it’s obsolete because we can no longer fight against the over powerful feds.

In fact slick disagrees with the notion that the amendment has anything at all to do with overthrowing any government. (but he did point out that they were worried about guns being confiscated from store houses, like at the time, they couldn’t have simply removed them from peoples houses)

Personally I believe the amendment gives the people the right to defend the country and themselves against enemies of freedom*…which will never become obsolete.

*Foreign or Domestic.


If the amendment is obsolete, maybe we should disarm the government instead of the people.......

[callmeslick]

No, you guys may agree that the amendment is obsolete, but you definitely don’t agree on the reasons…

Slick thinks the amendment is obsolete because we now have a standing army, you believe it’s obsolete because we can no longer fight against the over powerful feds.

aren't those two sides of the same coin?

In fact slick disagrees with the notion that the amendment has anything at all to do with overthrowing any government. (but he did point out that they were worried about guns being confiscated from store houses, like at the time, they couldn’t have simply removed them from peoples houses)

I wasn't so much referring to the government being the only entity willing to lock up the guns, they would have been easy targets for a foreign force, too.

[vision]

Personally I believe the amendment gives the people the right to defend the country and themselves against enemies of freedom*…which will never become obsolete.

Adam Lanza killed 26 enemies of freedom.

[callmeslick]

Personally I believe the amendment gives the people the right to defend the country and themselves against enemies of freedom*…which will never become obsolete.

Adam Lanza killed 26 enemies of freedom.

most of them under the age of 7. Just what Madison envisioned for his nation.

[Spidey]

Personally I believe the amendment gives the people the right to defend the country and themselves against enemies of freedom*…which will never become obsolete.

Adam Lanza killed 26 enemies of freedom.

Your primary mistake is faulting the weapons.

But you have been told this a hundred times…so there is no point.

[vision]

Your primary mistake is faulting the weapons.

Show me where I said that.

[Spidey]

Well your statement is a bold face lie, if you want to go that route.

[callmeslick]

Blaming faulty control and regulation over ACCESS to weapons is not the same as blaming the weapons. Just sayin'

[Will Robinson]

Blaming faulty control and regulation over ACCESS to weapons is not the same as blaming the weapons. Just sayin'

And saying you want improved control and regulation and saying you want the repeal of the right to keep and bear arms is not the same thing.

So what you are 'just sayin' is quite dishonest.
Man up slick.

[Spidey]

Sure…focusing on the weapons aspect rather than the reasons people use them is more of what I am getting at.

★■◆●ing hypocrites in Hollywood make thousands of movies glorifying their usage, and promoting violence to solve every problem, then talking a lot of ★■◆● about gun violence.

Also people get all upset when someone shoots someone...but the same group of people say 911 was just statistics, and start talking a bunch of ★■◆● about how it's more likely to get hit by lightning.

Show me you really care about people...just saying.