The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[ding]

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ding]

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

 

[rightwinger]

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

 

[ding]

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

 

[rightwinger]

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

 

[ding]

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

 

[ding]

It proves everything as those are all examples of nations which disarmed their people. Your fringe arguments proved nothing.

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

 

[Yarddog]

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

QUOTE:
"None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter"

Then look at the numbers of civilians killed in Ding's post again. Show an example then, of an armed population resisting a tyranical government where the number of civilians slaughtered, eclipses the ones provided. You said the slaughter would be much more, but that is only conjecture.

 

[Vandalshandle]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.

 

[ding]

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.

You know this how? Let me ask you this, if you are right in your belief, why would they have needed to ban guns in the first place?

 

[Yarddog]

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

I'm sure that the Armenian peasants and shepherds had a lot of guns confiscated. Maybe 10 or 11, anyway.

11 How was the genocide implemented?

Once the core and the leadership of a possible resistance was gone, it was time to remove the working Armenian male population, the one who could rise up in resistance during a future phase. All Armenian men aged 20-45 years (August 1914) and later men between 18-20 and 45-60 had been drafted to serve in the Ottoman Army. Only females and males under 18 and over 60 were left.[4]In early 1915, the Armenian soldiers were disarmed and placed in labor battalions where they were severely abused. In February 1915, the Turkish Government ordered these labor battalions to be liquidated, and by July 1915 approximately 200,000 Armenian soldiers had been murdered.[5]It was only after the Armenian community had been paralyzed by removing the leaders and the men that the main phase of the extermination project by mass deportations and massacres of the helpless civilian population commenced. The Armenian population now consisted mainly of women, children and men over the age of 60.[6]Women were raped or abducted or sold in slave markets to Turkish and Kurdish harems. Many women and girls committed suicide by jumping off cliffs and into rivers to escape this fate. Women, children and old people were gathered in the town churches which then were set on fire. As soon as the caravans of the deportees arrived outside the city and out of sight, they were attacked the Kurdish bands. With the support of Turkish soldiers they massacred the Armenians and looted them on both property and even clothing. Those who survived the massacre died of starvation and diseases during the long marches towards the Syrian and the Mesopotamian deserts. Assyrians/Syrians met the same fate, while the massacres of Pontic Greeks were mainly carried out during the years 1921-1923, i.e. during the period when Mustafa Kemal took power in the country and finished what the Turkish rulers had started during World War I.

As you can see, the bulk of Armenian men who would have defended the population were eliminated or disarmed,
and your insinuation is really just a myth I'm afraid to say. Check out the link.

Arms possession saved many Armenians from genocide

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

 

[rightwinger]

Again, you make the assumption that an armed population would have stopped them

Lets look at the Nazis

They faced an armed population in many of the nations the conquered...France, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium

In no cases were an armed community able to hold off the German Army. Those individuals who tried met with swift retribution with not only themselves, but their families and in some cases entire towns wiped out in retaliation of civilians killing German soldiers

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

 

[ding]

Really? you cant be serious. If you are correct that there is no proof armed populations would have protected themselves from slaughter and genocide, than why is it that all of those cases occurred after the populations were disarmed? Why didnt those things happen while the populations were still armed? It had to be after and the proof is pretty self evident unless you happen to be an attorney, then you might work some way around it

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

 

[ding]

I like our chance better with guns rather than out guns. This is true for both preventing the rise of a tyrannical government and dealing with one if it does arise.

But regardless of your argument, all that really matters is that this is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

 

[rightwinger]

Shirley you cannot provide any examples of an armed civilian population holding off a modern invading Army

Don't need to. This is what our Founding Fathers believed and this is the basis for the 2nd Amendment. Deal with it.

Founding Fathers were wrong

An armed population is not needed for the security of a free state....it takes standing armies to do that

You are free to disagree with the Founding Fathers, comrade, but not free to change the Constitution. I have already provided the proof that they were correct. They had their own proof back in their day.

Even if you look at the "proof" during their own day, they drew the wrong conclusion

While there is a romantic vision of the Minutemen during the Revolutionary War, Militias were not effective in fighting regular British troops. They were best known for running away. It was not until the Continental Army was trained into a fighting force that we started to make progress. It was the entrance of the French with their experience and navy that finally won the war.

After the war our nation was bankrupt. We thought we could get away without having a standing army......our founders were wrong

They didn't draw their conclusion from fighting the British, you moron. They drew it from the history of Europe.

Oh...I just gotta see your link on that one

 

[Skull Pilot]

No people do not need to be disarmed. Their ability to form an effective fighting force is limited. An army is more than a "bunch of guys with guns" It takes training, tactics, communications, command and control plus the all important logistics
Most importantly it takes a willingness to die for your cause.....something our gun nuts lack

The Founding Fathers disagree with you, amigo.

History has proven the Founding Fathers wrong

Even in the Revolutionary War where local militias were actually used, they were found to be minimally effective. It was not the local minuteman that won the war.......It was the Continental Army and the French Navy

The Founders disdained the idea of a standing Army....once again, history proved them wrong. Lack of a standing Army almost cost us the country in 1812. We also suffered for it during WWI and WWII

Armies are not a bunch of guys with guns running around and shooting at stuff.

I don't believe history has proven the Founding Fathers wrong that a well armed populace is the best protection of freedom and liberty. I believe you making fringe arguments that don't go to the heart of addressing what the Founding Fathers knew and history has proven.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Death by "Gun Control"

Nice try but proves nothing

None of your examples prove that if the population had been armed they would have overwhelmed the government forces. In fact, it would have led to greater slaughter

Most importantly, none of them had a free press, freedom of speech or a vote that would have prevented the despotic rulers to come into power

If you have a strong first amendment, you have no need for a second

People should always have the right and the means to protect themselves because the fucking government sure as hell won't

THAT is the most important reason for allowing the citizenry to keep and bear arms

 

[rightwinger]

Communities that tried to fight the Nazis through sniper fire or vigilante type attacks met with swift retribution as not only the perpetrators but random members of the town selected for execution

They did nothing to stop the Nazis and would do nothing against a modern army

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure. After the country had been disarmed.

France was not disarmed.
Neither was Norway, Belgium or the Netherlands

Given enough time, power corrupts. Our 2nd Amendment is our last check against tyranny. They have none.

Hasn't corrupted in over 230 years

That is because we have a vote and a strong First Amendment....we have never needed the second

Keep telling yourself that comrade. That is exactly the argument I would expect a subversive enemy agent to make.

Comrade?

Do you realize how ridiculous that reply is on a post supporting the strength of freedom of speech, the press and voting?

Are you still in High School?

You have too much faith in voters