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

[Vandalshandle]

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?

Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....

Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And again:

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment enumerating the criteria and conditions as to when government becomes ‘tyrannical,’ no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that authorizes the people to ‘take up arms’ against an otherwise just and proper government, simply because a reactionary, rightwing minority might subjectively and incorrectly perceive it as such.

Indeed, even the Heller Court acknowledges the fact that armed citizens comprising a ‘militia’ would never be successful against the armed forces of the United States:

“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, a right which prohibits government from enacting unreasonable restrictions concerning the regulation of firearms.

It is not a ‘right’ to oppose with force of arms a government which is functioning in accordance with Constitutional case law, at the behest, and with the consent, of the people.

 

[rightwinger]

Can you imagine how naïve a time that was?...what romantic bullshit

A time when if you owned a musket, you thought you were on par with a standing Army
Even then, peasants were no match for a trained, properly led fighting force

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

 

[Vandalshandle]

It would be very difficult to muster a company of militia. At any one time, about 30% of them are getting tattoos.

 

[ding]

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

 

[ding]

And again:

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment enumerating the criteria and conditions as to when government becomes ‘tyrannical,’ no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ that authorizes the people to ‘take up arms’ against an otherwise just and proper government, simply because a reactionary, rightwing minority might subjectively and incorrectly perceive it as such.

Indeed, even the Heller Court acknowledges the fact that armed citizens comprising a ‘militia’ would never be successful against the armed forces of the United States:

“It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, a right which prohibits government from enacting unreasonable restrictions concerning the regulation of firearms.

It is not a ‘right’ to oppose with force of arms a government which is functioning in accordance with Constitutional case law, at the behest, and with the consent, of the people.

Well, why didn't you say that before... which guns would you like to ban and confiscate?

 

[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

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?

Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....

Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.

I see. Let me ask you this, if there were no guns in the first place, why would they have needed to ban guns?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger the same holds true today, where people want their right to defense,
regardless how much greater armed forces they may be up against.

Also, at a time where British were trying to disarm the populace,
it makes sense to me the people wanted both personal right to keep and bear arms,
and they wanted militias if they could support them.

This isn't either or. It's wanting to preserve right to all of the above.

What we also need is equal right to legal defense, and laws against abusing this to violate the laws.
Otherwise, as with guns, we aren't enforcing the agreement that gun rights are to enforce laws, not violate them.
And the same is happening with legal and judicial abuse, where the right to defense
gets abused to violate instead of enforce laws.

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.

If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.

They'd become an exact reflection of what we say goes or doesn't go,
or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.

So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.

The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.

 

[rightwinger]

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

 

[rightwinger]

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.

If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.

They'd become an exact reflection of what we say goes or doesn't go,
or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.

So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.

The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.

How does one obtain consensus?

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Well, there was this little dust up going on, which was later referred to as WWI, in which all of the various ethnic cultures under domination of the Turks were trying to overthrow the Turks. You must have heard about it. It was in all the papers....

Private ownership of guns in that region was almost unheard of at the time. They were lucky if they could afford a dagger.

Please explain how things could have been any worse for the Armenians when the Turks went marching through their streets going door to door and the Armenians were armed. If anything, perhaps a few more families would have escaped. I'm sure most of them were taken by surprise.

Please someone name a genocide taken against a civilian population by its own gov. when that population was armed. It hasnt happened yet but on the flip side.... well, the facts are what they are

The Armenian Genocide of 1915


World War I Begins and the Genocide Follows
The Ottoman Empire allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. Fearing that Armenians would side with Russia, a Christian nation, the Turks disarmed the Armenian population. When the Russians handed the Turks a crushing defeat at the battle of Sarikemish in the Caucuses, the Turks accused the Armenians of fighting for the Russians and blamed them for the loss. In response, the Young Turks ordered the execution or deportation of the Armenian population. The genocide began on April 24, 1915, when the Turkish government arrested and executed about 300 intellectuals. Turks went door to door, rounding up male Armenians. They shot and killed them. Women, children, and the elderly were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert to concentration camps. Hundreds died of thirst, starvation, and exposure along the way. Those who stopped to rest were shot. Many Armenian children were spared death, but were forced to convert to Islam and join Turkish families. The government passed legislation to confiscate Armenian property. As many as 2 million Armenians were living in the Ottoman Empire just before the outbreak of World War I. At the end of the genocide, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining there.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.

If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.

They'd become an exact reflection of what we say goes or doesn't go,
or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.

So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.

The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.

How does one obtain consensus?

Dear rightwinger
You find out what both sides want.
You list out objections and limits, what both sides don't want or what they are concerned they want to address or prevent.
You work out ways to achieve the goals they both want, without causing the unintended
consequences or complications they don't want.

Where there are shared costs or responsibilities, just like a married couple, you find out what
they agree to share and where they don't and have to separate policies, funding or means of taking
care of areas in separate ways where they aren't responsible for the other person's and aren't affected.

I'd say it's like marriage counseling and trying to separate
what one partner puts on their account, what the other puts on theirs,
and what they share on the joint account. And making sure they
don't impose on each other or leave anything out.

 

[Yarddog]

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this? And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc

 

[Yarddog]

Dear Emily

Anyone who thinks they need their gun to fight off the government is not a real American

If I am not satisfied with my government, I vote them out of office and use my freedom of speech to voice my displeasure. That is the glory of our Constitution and has kept government in check for 235 years

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Dear rightwinger What are you saying?
They know they can buy votes. By pimping the abortion issue,
the gun vote, the black vote, the green vote.

If the people agreed to resolve all our issues by consensus,
including to agree which decisions to make by majority rule where it's a toss up,
the govt would have to do what we the people say we let them do.

They'd become an exact reflection of what we say goes or doesn't go,
or else nobody would follow, and we'd hire other people willing to do the job as we say.

So if we all agreed that gun rights can't be changed except by consensus
among the people and parties how to write the laws, NOBODY could threaten
that this party or that one is going to force their way. It would be barred.

The people would agree nothing is going to change anyway unless we AGREE on the law.
So nobody could threaten and use that to pimp votes.
You vote directly for the issues, and the govt has to follow what you say.

Concensus can be manipulated as well when one side can influence and or control the media in favor of their viewpoints.

 

[rightwinger]

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this? And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc

You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....

JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace

 

[ding]

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this? And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc

You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....

JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace

No. I was there. A little young for the 1st three. So which guns would you like to ban?

 

[ding]

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

I have explained it to you at least three times. Go back and read the OP, amigo.

Which guns would you like to ban?

 

[Yarddog]

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this? And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc

You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....

JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace

The problem is when you start saying YOU gun nuts, as though the average American who supports the 2nd amendment can be equated with whoever assasinated those mentioned. Most people are never going to dream of rising up against the government, nor do I. Guns don't need to be used to be a deterent. They simply need to be owned by people to be a deterent.

 

[ding]

You are naive. The useful idiots are the first ones to go.

Never in the history of our nation has it been necessary to use weapons to keep the government in check

Those who have tried have been arrested or executed for treason

That's because we have guns.

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

We are going in circles now. I've explained this to you already. So let's just move on to your logical conclusion. Would you like to ban and confiscate guns to alleviate your irrational fears?

 

[rightwinger]

They are useless against a modern military force

The Government fears your vote more than your guns

Why can't they fear both?

Why would they fear your guns?

Other than when you gun nuts were assassinating anyone who you disagreed with?

You may kill some politicians, but the government carries on

You make this seem like a wide spread problem, assasinating people. You sure your not talking about Mexico?
When was this? And also, many of these mass shooters in recent years have been drugged up courtesy of Big Pharma's medical experiments on the American people, via anti- depressants etc

You missed the America I grew up in where guns were used to solve political problems....

JFK, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, John Lennon, Wallace

No. I was there. A little young for the 1st three. So which guns would you like to ban?

I am OK with the guns...I would like to ban the owners