2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon 166 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  One thing I like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold. Very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.

  So let's play a game.

  Suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.

  Obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets! So muskets all round. After all, it would be crazy to suggest that the government would be intimidated by a bunch of yahoos with slingshots right? That kind of makes sense - it was drafted when the difference between a very remote imperial force and a citizenry wasn't that great.

  Fast forward some years and, well, a musket wouldn't even get you through a hold up at a 7/11 convenience store. They would laugh and not even given you a scratch card. You need to be packing some serious heat, especially if you are going up against the government.

  So what? 9mm glock? Not enough stopping power. We're talking AR15's assault riffles for everyone, some serious heat and a serious force that can take on the oppressive government. Oh yeah, Oregon. I guess having a few guns isn't enough because they have guns too and have way more training. Maybe if we had enough people and enough guns - would that be enough?

  what? drones? DRONES? How are we supposed to fight drones?!?!

  (it's already falling apart, but let's carry on for a laugh)

  OK, rocket launchers and missiles. Ha, now we can kick some government ass right! Yeah, that's the ticket.

  Eyes-IS-what-now? They have RPGs and still get wallopped by the US government? Oh yeah, I guess there's the air-force and all that. But we were PROMISED that we could have weapons needed to stand up to that government!

  Ok, ok, I have the solution and it's 100% completely legit, fully compatible with the constitution.

  I order me an aircraft carrier. Boom. Ain't no government gonna mess with me now bitch. They'll think twice before messing with any us on our little "yacht".

  But where do I get one from? Oh, did I not mention I'm Chinese American? I get my Uncle to park one off the coast ... but it's mine technically. It's my god damn constitutional right. Are all you 2nd amendment defending red-necks OK with that? A full on invasion force in your back yard?

  Tell me again where the 2nd amendment stops because if it's valid, it makes no sense for it to stop - to defend yourself against the largest military industrial complex the world has ever known is impossible through arms whatever arms you have, even those of a huge foreign power (and if they want to 'lend' them to me, why should anyone be able to deny me MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS).

  The only way to really protect yourself against the government abusing it's power is to defend and strengthen the institutions of democracy and that doesn't involve waving guns around. It means paying some attention and not voting for utter fuckwits.
  

  A few yahoos with pistols and riffles thinking they are some kind of freedom force? Laughable. Oregon showed what happens to them.

  Now, tell me again how you need your guns and the lame reasons you think justify them.
• 

  Heartsafire

  So no second amendment?
• 

  OUTLAW

  First of all..I`m "Pro Gun"..

  They`re a Necessity in Rural Parts of Canada..
  

  2nd amendment ... where should it end?.....Simon

  In the USA?.....At Donald Trump Rallys..

  .
  

  .............Trump Fan Who Punched Protester:

  "Next Time We See Him, We Might Have To Kill Him..

  .........
  
  ..........................................
• 

  Zoos

  If guns were only useful in a militia setting you may have made a half intelligent point.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  I don't think this is a fair view of the matter. Look at countries that recently had revulotions, a lot of people rising up against a dictator will be enough even if they don't have modern weapons. Sure, some got help from the outside but they had to do most of the legwork themselves. And the losses they sustained might have been much less if they would have had better equipment. The weapon is only half if it too, if you never used a firearm in your life it won't matter how advanced it is, you will still need practice.

  Arming the people to keep a balance is a good idea even if their weapons are inferior, I think other countries have shown that. Even those with citizens without much firearms at all.
• 

  little_Socrates

  You notice in the amendment it links "militia" and the right of the people to bare arms. In no way do I believe that the founders of the constitution meant the right only to extend to side arms. Weapons of war where meant to be included. Private ownership of large weapons of war was not that uncommon at least until civil war era. Your question becomes nonsensical when you talk about modern weapon systems simply due to the costs involved. Even Bill Gates probably couldn't afford to buy and operate an aircraft carrier.

  I have a counter question for you.... Can you point to any part of the constitution that would grant the government the power to limit the peoples right in this regard?
  
• 

  little_Socrates

  I just noticed your reference to Oregon.... okay fair enough. However this movement didn't have the support of the local population, and just had few people involved in it at all.

  How quickly you forget about a very similar situation from Nevada a while back. You might feel that the Bundy's where wrong and the government was right, that is fine I don't want to argue that point. However in this situation they had the local populations support, sheriff support, and LOTS of armed men. In this situation the government DID back down. The people got to defend what they thought was their right, and everybody went home safe and sound.
  
• 

  Hadriel

  Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

  The above quote from http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower
  
  

  Regarding the OP this argument is a bit typical really. I've seen it before. The problem is that it completely ignores the intent of the 2nd amendment and the facts regarding strict vs. lenient or open gun laws.
  

  The "left" makes the argument that well should everyone be issued a carrier? At first this makes you think but alas it misses on the real purpose of the amendment.

  At the time of its inception Britain in an attempt of control, prohibited access to firearms. The best way to stop a resistance is to stop them from obtaining the means to which they can fight back right?

  So the 2nd amendment was about preventing governmental disarmament more than anything.

  The founding fathers could not have known the advancements in technology that would subsequently become staples of modern day governments. So while I agree there is validity to the argument if the 2nd amendment were only about status quo however that was not its intent.

  This causes a bit of a conundrum in that it doesn't make good sense to issue everyone an RPG for example. I totally agree on that point. However along with that local government has no business having hand me down assault vehicles, RPG's and other weaponry from the military either! Why do police need such military weaponry on domestic soil? Plenty of military installments and national guard for that purpose.

  When all is going well I tend to agree no one needs weapons however you'll never sell me on the fact that when it all goes to hell in a handbasket that only government should be allowed to bear arms. When government breaks down due to invasion, bombing or whatever it is important to be able to protect yourself. If only the police have weapons and food is scarce what prevents them storming into your home taking what they want for their families and leaving you to starve?

  I agree this is worst case scenario stuff but for me personally I'm more confident in my sincerity to protect my family than I am in rolling the dice trusting some cop's integrity in a time of sheer crisis.

  Why do states with high gun ownership experience lower murder rates by gun? In Alaska for example everyone is packing. So why based on the left's theories isn't that state a complete blood bath? If guns are the problem then the left needs to riddle this one for me as the facts don't back up your argument.

  There is only one place I will agree that gun prohibition helps...that is in suicides. If a person is suicidal and is able to obtain a weapon often that will be their demise sadly. How many of those would have found other means if a gun wasn't available is hard to say. However this is never the argument made by the "left". No, the argument is that stricter gun laws mean less murder/homicides by guns. That is categorically false and has been clearly proven. Just take a look at California for example. One of the tougher states yet very high murder/homicide rate by guns. Why is that since the gun laws in that state are some of the toughest in the entire union?

  You may not like it but states with more open gun laws are safer as it pertains to murder homicides by guns, period end of story.
• 

  cappytan

  Edit: Screw this. Just deleted my comment. Nothing I say is going to make a difference to Simon.

  He hates guns, hates people that like guns, You can't reason with hate.
• 

  freemindfade

  I know a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life from all over America that do own guns. I can safely say not one of them do so that they can form a militia.

  People watch the news and see a bunch of hillbillies in oregon, and listen to the NRA and think that is the typical American gun owner. Well its not.

  You also have

  hobbiests (yes its hard to believe some people just like guns)

  Hunters.

  People who have them for protection (from people or animals or both)

  Gangs (big and small. I don't think they are trying to form militias)

  So while the second amendment may be used to protect peoples rights to have guns based on an age old american principle, its probably the last reason most people own guns. People from the the UK and Canada and Australia are so terrified of us and our craaaaazy gun laws. Stay home. America is just to scary for you. You are better off arm chair quarterbacking from the safety of your home.

  *wildly shoots guns in air screaming yeeha merica!*