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

[Vandalshandle]

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.

An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.

deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it

I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
Wouldn't you agree?

Call me an asshole then because I own several guns. I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason. It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.

So basically you just want to vent off steam. Good for you. Vent away. There's lot's of things I don't like either.

Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole

Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government

Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole. I know that already. You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns. Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.

Wrong.

Shortages and price-hikes are the result of morons who buy into ridiculous lies about ‘the government.’

No one wants to take your guns or restrict access to ammunition, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

As you and other righting nitwits hoard ammunition and buy guns you incorrectly believe are going to be ‘banned,’ you needlessly make that ammunition more expensive and harder to find for the rest of us; the same is true with regard to firearms, I might be interested in buying a particular gun only to find it always out of stock, or so insanely over-priced as to not be affordable.

Indeed, your inane hording and panic-buying of firearms has done more to keep guns out of the hands of potential gunowners than any ‘gun control’ measure.

 

[Yarddog]

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

My goodness. One statistic. You need to go back and review the FBI's data, bro. It's that way across all of the violent crime types and has been that way ever since the FBI started compiling the data. The bottom line is that American's are not violent. Certain segments of America is, and since you are using our total statistics to inform your opinion, your opinion is being skewed by the segment which is skewing the data. Like I said, rather than worrying about guns, you just might to want to deal with the real root cause of the problem.

Blaming poverty is an excuse.

No, blaming poverty isn't an excuse. I've actually gone and broken down violent crime statistics by areas of a city based on poverty levels and found that actually poverty levels and crime often go hand in hand.

The problem is getting those detailed statistics. The stats I used were from London because I could get all of these statistics, for poverty levels, for income levels, for numbers of black people, Asian people, white people etc, and I could get crime statistics for each of this, at the local level, not at city level.

You have not used any evidence at all. You're just throwing things at me and hoping they stick.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.

 

[Yarddog]

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.

Really? which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?

 

[Yarddog]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

A gun, to an Armenian in 1915, would have cost about the same as a home and land to graze goats.

But, go ahead and visualize the long line of Armenia's handing in their Springfield rifles and Colt 1911's as they were herded to slaughter, if it makes you feel better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

The Turk government banned guns so that when they went door to door killing civilians they would meet miniumum resistance. End of story. Of course our government wont do something like that, but who knows what we will have in 50 years or 100 from now. preserving second amendment rights today is preserving second amendment rights for future generations. remember , once something is gone it is much harder to get it back.

The problem I have with your comments is that you're so willing to keep your guns, but so unwilling to vote properly in order to not have a govt that acts like this. It's shocking.

Really? which candidate is calling for disarming US citizens and rounding them up?

Neither of them, but then again I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

 

[Skull Pilot]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

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

It was in the OP, you idiot.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

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

civilians were really never on par with a standing army.

 

[Skull Pilot]

lol,no. I wish I was though.

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

It was in the OP, you idiot.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

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

and once again very few people who actually own guns want to fight the government

They want to own firearms because they want the most effective way to defend themselves, their family and their homes.

The government cannot and at times will not protect you

 

[Boss]

It's not the gun but the choice they want.
Like people who fight for abortion rights, don't all want abortions, they want the
choice not to have govt interfere that personally with them. Similar with gun rights.
They don't trust govt to regulate those, just like not trusting govt to regulate abortion rights.

It symbolizes a line in the sand where govt cannot tell you to give up your free choice.

I totally disagree with this on a fundamental basis. So-called "abortion rights" have nothing in common with our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The Constitution states very specifically that we have the inalienable right to own firearms. Nowhere does it say we have an inalienable right to kill the unborn. That is a manufactured right that doesn't exist and is not inalienable at all.

Our 2nd Amendment right is NOT about choice, it's about an inalienable right we have which can't be removed by man. We've seen all the usual arguments in this thread over what the framers meant about this or that but the bottom line remains, this was the #2 listed right in our bill of rights for a reason. It is fundamentally and vitally important to our freedom. Abortion is not and never has been.

Now, let's cut to the chase here... The REASON you have people arguing against the 2nd Amendment is because they are promoting a Socialist idea straight out of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Oh, I know the eyes are rolling... here he goes again... but this is the truth. Karl Marx spoke extensively of how it was essential to disarm the populace in order for the central authority to control the people more effectively. And if you listen to the leftists here, you see that they certainly understand this by the way they argue. They constantly attack the notion that the people would ever rise up and overthrow a tyrannic government as silly and ridiculous.

We don't need to argue that point with them, or any point, to be honest. It does not matter what the reasons are for our 2nd Amendment. It exists and it's inalienable. That's really the beginning and ending of the debate. Any arguments beyond that are superfluous. Now, as citizens of our respective states, we can outline parameters or rules for how our 2A rights are regulated. That is also a fundamental right we have to self-govern.

 

[ding]

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

See post 221.

Yeah, I know. It was that post which caused me to ask you the question if there were so few guns why did they need to ban them. A question you have still not answered. So why did they need to ban them?

I see no particular need to answer it twice.

You didn't answer it once.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

That doesn't surprise me at all. Modern liberals are the closest thing we have to Nazis today. If you could round up everyone you didn't like, I have no doubt you would. Me? I like diversity. It stirs the pot of the conflict and confusion process. That's how objective truth rises to the top. Error can't stand, it eventually fails. That's why I don't worry to much about assholes like you. Eventually you will Darwinize yourself out of existence. We are just one global thermal nuclear war away from the big cities getting killed off and the end of your stupid utopia fantasy. Of course it could also be one of seven other scenarios that have you guys eating each other to survive. Come on giant meteor 2016!

Guns don't kill people...crazed owners do

most people who kill with guns are not legally entitled to own one

In 2001, the 68 largest cities accounted for 42% of reported homicides which house only 18% of the U.S. population. (Homicide figures obtained from 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Report, p. 201.)

Volokh summarizes prior arrest data for homicide offenders from the report, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1998:

• 81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
  
• 66% have two or more arrests.
  
• 67% have at least one felony arrest.
  
• 56% have two or more felony arrests.
  
• 70% have at least one conviction.
  
• 54% have at least one felony conviction.

GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides

 

[ding]

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

What does that have to do with the Armenians banning guns? You said they had so few it didn't matter, right? If that were true, why did they need to ban them? Now do you understand?

Now about you wanting to ban high capacity magazines, do I understand you correctly that you want the army and police to have high capacity magazines but the people who the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect shouldn't? In what bizzaro world does that make any sense at all?

Ding, if in your fantasy world, you are going to become an urban freedom fighter and overcome the combined army, navy and air force of the United States government, then you need to start saving up to buy your own BatTank, BatHelicopter, and BatGunboat.

An armed populace is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and it has worked.

deterrent; a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

The government is terrified of you and your 1911.....

To be fair... it does have pearl handles. Besides I like MY chance better with a gun rather than without a gun. Guns aren't for everyone. A gun may not be for you. Some women and effeminate men don't have the hand strength to work the slide. Some women and effeminate men are scared of loud noises. At the end of the day, I fully respect your right to go into battle unarmed and unable to protect any of your loved ones. I won't look at you as any less of a man. I promise.

 

[ding]

And having conveniently ignored other genocides, like, oh, the US genocide against the native peoples, where the Native peoples had guns and the US had even more guns.

There have been plenty of genocides out there, picking and choosing what you want and then presenting it is poor logic.

Actually the US government had a big campaign to disarm native Americans. Can you guess why? but armed resistance by western tribes did manage to get them the FEW concessions they did get. They forced them out of the more powerful US government by their resistance. Unfortunantly , after they were put on reservations they were
basicaly lied to and screwed over. The wounded knee massacre happened during one of those dissarmament forays. Also, a very high percentage died from disease.

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

Well... don't own a gun then. How's that? Are we good?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The Armenians were an impoverished people, in a land where ownership of a cow and a couple of sheep meant that you were a wealthy man. In 1915, guns and ammunition were luxury items, in this part of the world, for anyone who was not in the business of being a highwayman for a living. In this part of the world, armies had just barely advanced beyond swordsmen on horseback.

For the THIRD time, so why did they need to ban guns? Don't be shy. Don't be afraid to answer. Just blurt it out. You can do it.

Sounds like something you would know about, not me. The only thing I have ever advocated banning were ammo cartridges so large that their only practical use was in assault weapons.

The public cannot get "assault" weapons

The only thing civilians can buy are semiautomatic weapons which have been around since the mid 1800's.

Magazine size is a red herring

Just because my 9mm can hold a 17 round magazine doesn't mean I am going to shoot 17 people
Just because a person had a 30 round magazine for a semiauto rifle doesn't mean he is going to shoot up a school

 

[ding]

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?

We have 300 million guns out there. Too late to do anything about it

I just think that any gun owner that thinks he needs guns and ammo for the day when he has to fight our government is a fucking asshole
Wouldn't you agree?

Call me an asshole then because I own several guns. I have enough ammo to last me some time because gun control assholes keep causing supply disruptions. I also had to buy reloading supplies for the same reason. It's the only way I can keep ammo for my COMPETITIVE shooting.

So basically you just want to vent off steam. Good for you. Vent away. There's lot's of things I don't like either.

Your fears that anyone is going to take away your guns because you shoot competitively shows you are a paranoid asshole

Your supply disruptions are caused by lunatics such as yourself...not the government

Oh, I'm just a plain old asshole. I know that already. You are the paranoid asshole because you are worried about my guns. Supplies were fine until the gun control assholes started beating their ridiculous war drums.

Wrong.

Shortages and price-hikes are the result of morons who buy into ridiculous lies about ‘the government.’

No one wants to take your guns or restrict access to ammunition, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

As you and other righting nitwits hoard ammunition and buy guns you incorrectly believe are going to be ‘banned,’ you needlessly make that ammunition more expensive and harder to find for the rest of us; the same is true with regard to firearms, I might be interested in buying a particular gun only to find it always out of stock, or so insanely over-priced as to not be affordable.

Indeed, your inane hording and panic-buying of firearms has done more to keep guns out of the hands of potential gunowners than any ‘gun control’ measure.

As I look at the vitriol from trolls, just in this thread alone, against the 2nd Amendment, it does not seem to me like there is no risk of idiots wanting to undue our 2nd Amendment rights.