Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Soupnazi630]

Not proven...CLAIMED

That "elite group" is the only one mentioned in the 2A and the reason FOR it

And please genius...get your spell check working or learn how to use it.

It is not the reason for it.

The reason for it is to protect the rights of individual citizens, That is a fact of plain grammar and legal precedent,.

Spell check your little dick boy

 

[Lesh]

Now back to the topic at hand

The Constitution makes NO reference to self defense.

Article 1 Section 8 however says the following

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The militia was twice used to put down such insurrections in those early years (Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion)

 

[Soupnazi630]

Now back to the topic at hand

The Constitution makes NO reference to self defense.

Article 1 Section 8 however says the following

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The militia was twice used to put down such insurrections in those early years (Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion)

The second amendmenrt protects individual rights not a militia

 

[Lesh]

The second amendmenrt protects individual rights not a militia

No mention of individual rights.
No mention of self defense
CERTAINLY no mention of protection from a tyrannical government

It does however tell us why it is there in the first phrase of that rather spare Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Clearly within the context of not JUST a militia...but a well regulated militia...as described in Article 1 Section 8

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

[Red Front]

Not proven...CLAIMED

That "elite group" is the only one mentioned in the 2A and the reason FOR it

And please genius...get your spell check working or learn how to use it.

Critiquing your opponent's supposed lack of grammatical competence or pointing out the typos in their posts, doesn't invalidate what they're saying or strengthen your argument.

 

[Red Front]

Before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, much of the debate revolved around the meaning of a "well-regulated militia." The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and established the right for individuals to have a gun for certain private purposes including self-defense in the home. The court expanded private gun ownership protection two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, determining that state and local governments are also bound to the Second Amendment.

 

[Woodznutz]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Most understand and agree with most of this. However, we do need protection from the failures of our tyrannical government, namely their failure to address violent crime. They've turned it into a resource to justify expansion of government rather than address it as a serious societal problem.

They're like a dogcatcher that releases dogs into a neighborhood rather than capture them.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No mention of individual rights.
No mention of self defense
CERTAINLY no mention of protection from a tyrannical government

It does however tell us why it is there in the first phrase of that rather spare Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Clearly within the context of not JUST a militia...but a well regulated militia...as described in Article 1 Section 8

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Yers it meantiuons individual rights.

The right of the peoplke which means individual citizens.

That is the intent and purpose

The only context is the context of individual rights

 

[night_son]

Pretty much true. But, there will be horrible bloodshed and our liberties will be few and far between during the Armageddon.

The Long Game tells us, historically speaking, that any successful defeat of a tyrannical government, such as the one we currently live under in America, will be followed by any new government we form (eventually) becoming just as, if not more, tyrannical. The people of the original American colonies lived long enough to experience this reality; they in essence traded one God King for another—in a different form. Any true rebellion against tyranny must include the complete dissolution of government in all forms. A key, and possibly insurmountable obstacle to achieving such a thing: our revolutionary forefathers faced British infantry and artillery formations, muzzle loading rifles and cannon; today we face a tyrannical government in control of thermonuclear, biological and chemical doomsday weapons, a government that will kill any number of its own citizens in order to survive, to persist, at any cost in life.

The American people could most certainly fight a successful decades long guerilla war or insurgency, but any new government such a resistance could possibly form at the end of it would in time become the same old monarchy we've been suffering under since the dawn of human time. The road to such a place could indeed be very liberating, but in the end our children and theirs would suffer the same as we do now under our current police state.

 

[Lesh]

Yers it meantiuons individual rights.

The right of the peoplke which means individual citizens.

That is the intent and purpose

The only context is the context of individual rights

If you ignore the militia clause

 

[night_son]

No mention of individual rights.
No mention of self defense
CERTAINLY no mention of protection from a tyrannical government

It does however tell us why it is there in the first phrase of that rather spare Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Clearly within the context of not JUST a militia...but a well regulated militia...as described in Article 1 Section 8

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Not: the right of the government
Not: the right of the police
Not: the right of judges, politicians, prosecutors, sheriffs
Not: the right of the military
Not: the right of anyone else

 

[night_son]

If you ignore the militia clause

A well regulated militia IS the people.

 

[Red Front]

The Long Game tells us, historically speaking, that any successful defeat of a tyrannical government, such as the one we currently live under in America, will be followed by any new government we form (eventually) becoming just as, if not more, tyrannical. The people of the original American colonies lived long enough to experience this reality; they in essence traded one God King for another—in a different form. Any true rebellion against tyranny must include the complete dissolution of government in all forms. A key, and possibly insurmountable obstacle to achieving such a thing: our revolutionary forefathers faced British infantry and artillery formations, muzzle loading rifles and cannon; today we face a tyrannical government in control of thermonuclear, biological and chemical doomsday weapons, a government that will kill any number of its own citizens in order to survive, to persist, at any cost in life.

The American people could most certainly fight a successful decades long guerilla war or insurgency, but any new government such a resistance could possibly form at the end of it would in time become the same old monarchy we've been suffering under since the dawn of human time. The road to such a place could indeed be very liberating, but in the end our children and theirs would suffer the same as we do now under our current police state.

​

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Because it does. It's a little boy's fantasy to think you will need to play the role of a hero fighting off a foreign invader in these United States.

Our federal government is foreign?

 

[Lesh]

The Long Game tells us, historically speaking, that any successful defeat of a tyrannical government, such as the one we currently live under in America, will be followed by any new government we form (eventually) becoming just as, if not more, tyrannical. The people of the original American colonies lived long enough to experience this reality; they in essence traded one God King for another—in a different form. Any true rebellion against tyranny must include the complete dissolution of government in all forms. A key, and possibly insurmountable obstacle to achieving such a thing: our revolutionary forefathers faced British infantry and artillery formations, muzzle loading rifles and cannon; today we face a tyrannical government in control of thermonuclear, biological and chemical doomsday weapons, a government that will kill any number of its own citizens in order to survive, to persist, at any cost in life.

The American people could most certainly fight a successful decades long guerilla war or insurgency, but any new government such a resistance could possibly form at the end of it would in time become the same old monarchy we've been suffering under since the dawn of human time. The road to such a place could indeed be very liberating, but in the end our children and theirs would suffer the same as we do now under our current police state.

This is a police state?

You’re nuts

 

[Lesh]

"the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Not: the right of the government
Not: the right of the police
Not: the right of judges, politicians, prosecutors, sheriffs
Not: the right of the military
Not: the right of anyone else

In the context of a well regulated militia

 

[Uncensored2008]

There was only one Civil War that I am aware of (along with the rest of the country),

There is the civil war you Nazis are waging against America now - the second civil war.

and that was more than 50 years after the Militia was used to put down Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

Again stupid, Shays rebellion was before the United States existed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a police state?

You’re nuts

You mean with the Gestapo rounding up enemies of the Reich as political enemies and putting them in the Gulag?

Sounds a lot like a police state to me.

But you're a Nazi, so you support a police state - as long as it's against your enemies, the Americans.

 

[Lesh]

You mean with the Gestapo rounding up enemies of the Reich as political enemies and putting them in the Gulag?

Sounds a lot like a police state to me.

But you're a Nazi, so you support a police state - as long as it's against your enemies, the Americans.

Only because you're nuts

 

[Cougarbear]

Very true.

Civil war will be horrible.

Worse yet, the Nazi democrats are starting a civil war knowing that after they lose, China will march in on a weakened America. Those like Lesh are engaging in treason on behalf of Communist China.

Hopefully, China will be the army from the North to descend upon Israel so that the Lord will come, stand in the midst of the parted Mt. of Olives and end the bloodshed on the earth. Millennium, here we come! A bumpy ride for sure as Democrats simply are atheists that don't understand any of this.