Why we need the 2nd Amendment

[Open Bolt]

I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.

You completely missed the point. He did not offer any justifications of any sort whatsoever.

Free people do not have to justify ourselves. If we want to have guns, we have guns, and we don't care if anyone likes it or not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I showed a statute and several court rulings that establish people's right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.



People also have the right to use those weapons for the private defense of their homes.



Privately defending your home is individual self defense.

Yep, you showed a statute that was specific. It's hard to know the context of the law here, because there's only a quote that could have been taken out of context. However even if we take it to be massively relevant, the Second Amendment simply does not talk about self defense, the Founding Fathers did not talk about self defense.

Again, I'm not arguing that there is no right to self defense, just that the 2A doesn't protect it.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yep, you showed a statute that was specific. It's hard to know the context of the law here, because there's only a quote that could have been taken out of context.

The context is that people were allowed to have guns and use them for the private defense of their homes.

However even if we take it to be massively relevant, the Second Amendment simply does not talk about self defense, the Founding Fathers did not talk about self defense.
Again, I'm not arguing that there is no right to self defense, just that the 2A doesn't protect it.

Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.

But the right to keep and bear arms (which is protected by the Second Amendment) does cover people having guns that they can use to defend their homes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The context is that people were allowed to have guns and use them for the private defense of their homes.



Self defense is a natural human right that transcends all law.

But the right to keep and bear arms (which is protected by the Second Amendment) does cover people having guns that they can use to defend their homes.

Fine people then could have guns and use them for the self defense. Now people can have guns and use them for their self defense. So what?

Doesn't mean the 2A protects this, does it?

The third amendment uses the word "house", does this mean it provides you with a right to have a house? No.

The 2A protects two things. Neither of which are self defense. Just because you can use a gun to defend yourself, doesn't mean that's what the 2A protects. Hell, I could use a potato to defend myself, does this mean that potatoes are protected by the 2A?

 

[Colin norris]

You completely missed the point. He did not offer any justifications of any sort whatsoever.

Free people do not have to justify ourselves. If we want to have guns, we have guns, and we don't care if anyone likes it or not.

Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.

You all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. That was certainly enough to storm the wh to rid the country of tyranny. What did you do?
Nothing.

Trump orchestrated the only coup ever in the history of the country to install fascism. That should be enough to use your guns. Again you did nothing but reversed your beliefs and supported the fuckwit.

So don't give me that rubbish about why you have them. You have confirmed you have them because you want to. That's my point. You don't need them . You just want them like spoilt little kids. All tough guys and wannabe rambos.

 

[Open Bolt]

Its nothing to do with freedom.

Sure it is. Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.

You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom.

You have that twisted around. It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.

That comes from democracy.

Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.

So don't give me that rubbish about why you have them.

No one has given you anything of the sort. We've been saying that we have guns merely because we want them.

You have confirmed you have them because you want to.

Yes. That's what we've been telling you. We have guns because we want to have guns, and for no other reason.

That's my point.

That was our point.

You don't need them . You just want them like spoilt little kids.

We're free people. We don't have to need them. Merely wanting them is enough.

All tough guys and wannabe rambos.

Not really.

 

[Colin norris]

Sure it is. Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.

So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns don't have freedom. Is that right.
There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.

You have that twisted around. It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.

No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.

Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.

No its not. Let's say all guns disappeared overnight for instance. What would happen the very next day? Would you run your life differently?
Would no guns immediately restrict your freedom? I'd say having a gun would restrict where you might like to go.

No one has given you anything of the sort. We've been saying that we have guns merely because we want them.

I'm saying you have no use for all those guns. Don't give me the hunting and protection bullshit. It doesn't exist and you've probably never faced that situation. You'd be too frightened to go to LA by yourself un armed. I have a couple of times.

Yes. That's what we've been telling you. We have guns because we want to have guns, and for no other reason.

Still not a justification compared to what you say you have them for.

That was our point.



We're free people. We don't have to need them. Merely wanting them is enough.

Most Western democracies are free and ill bet your style of living is not one they are willing to import.

Not really.

Sure it is. Freedom is what provides our right to keep and bear arms.

I explained that above and you are still wrong.

You have that twisted around. It is freedom that provides our right to have guns.

Youre like a broken record. Is that all you have?

Actually freedom is more about civil liberties.



No one has given you anything of the sort. We've been saying that we have guns merely because we want them.



Yes. That's what we've been telling you. We have guns because we want to have guns, and for no other reason.



That was our point.



We're free people. We don't have to need them. Merely wanting them is enough.

Thats not the justifications you been saying. You know that. Going to your default position is not justification.

Not really.

 

[2aguy]

Fine people then could have guns and use them for the self defense. Now people can have guns and use them for their self defense. So what?

Doesn't mean the 2A protects this, does it?

The third amendment uses the word "house", does this mean it provides you with a right to have a house? No.

The 2A protects two things. Neither of which are self defense. Just because you can use a gun to defend yourself, doesn't mean that's what the 2A protects. Hell, I could use a potato to defend myself, does this mean that potatoes are protected by the 2A?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect it.......the Right existed before the Constitution was written, it wasn't created by the Constitution, it isn't protected by the Amendment.....the Amendment is simply written down so we can show asshats like you that the Right exists........without need for your consent......

 

[2aguy]

So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns don't have freedom. Is that right.
There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.

No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.

No its not. Let's say all guns disappeared overnight for instance. What would happen the very next day? Would you run your life differently?
Would no guns immediately restrict your freedom? I'd say having a gun would restrict where you might like to go.

I'm saying you have no use for all those guns. Don't give me the hunting and protection bullshit. It doesn't exist and you've probably never faced that situation. You'd be too frightened to go to LA by yourself un armed. I have a couple of times.

Still not a justification compared to what you say you have them for.

Most Western democracies are free and ill bet your style of living is not one they are willing to import.


I explained that above and you are still wrong.

Youre like a broken record. Is that all you have?

Thats not the justifications you been saying. You know that. Going to your default position is not justification.

If all guns disappeared overnight, crime would go up about 150%......and the democrat party brownshirts would be turned loose on the suburbs.....right now, the democrat party uses blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in primarily black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities...because they know only actual criminals in those neighborhoods have easy access to guns.....the democrats also know that the suburbs have guns...so if they tried to burn, loot and murder in the Suburbs, their blm/antifa brownshirts would get shot....

Europe took guns away from their people in the 1920s and 30s.....and by 1939 they began to murder 15 million innocent men, women and children........

That is what happens when you get rid of guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government?
Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared?
Yes, usually more people with guns like yourself but you've never done that either.
I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
It clearly states a well armed militia. 60 million nut cases like you are not a well armed militia.
Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns don't have freedom. Is that right.
There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

When was the first time you ever defended yourself agai st the government?

Like who, pillaging hordes of communists that have never appeared?

Yes, usually more people with guns like yourself but you've never done that either.

I don't care if you did own a thousand guns, that doesn't justify anything because you have no use for them. Youre justification is a misinterpretation of the 2nd.
It clearly states a well armed militia. 60 million nut cases like you are not a well armed militia.

Youre silly justifications are tied to the propaganda spread by the nra and republicans and you know it.

No, it clearly states that keeping and bearing arms is a "right of the People". Nowhere does the 2nd Amendment say anything about a "well armed militia".

I'm not a nut case. I'm a citizen of the republic and the 2nd Amendment states, in no uncertain terms, that my "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.

We're free BECAUSE we have an armed citizenry. So yes, we use guns to maintain our freedoms every single day.

 

[Blues Man]

Its nothing to do with freedom. You lot have never used guns to maintain freedom. That comes from democracy.

You all called Obama a terrorist, Muslim and non American. That was certainly enough to storm the wh to rid the country of tyranny. What did you do?
Nothing.

Trump orchestrated the only coup ever in the history of the country to install fascism. That should be enough to use your guns. Again you did nothing but reversed your beliefs and supported the fuckwit.

So don't give me that rubbish about why you have them. You have confirmed you have them because you want to. That's my point. You don't need them . You just want them like spoilt little kids. All tough guys and wannabe rambos.

What other people need is none of your fucking business.

My reasons for owning firearms are my own and have nothing to do with you.

I own firearms because unlike you I realized that the police cannot protect me and my family from those who would do us harm. SCOTUS has also ruled that no police officer has any legal obligation to come to your aid if you call them.

So tell you what. Since you have chosen to be unarmed and trust your safety to the police, If I see you getting mugged and beat on the street I will not draw my weapon to aid you but instead will call the cops and be on my way hoping they'll get there in time to save your sorry ass and you can simply mind your own fucking business in return.

 

[Blues Man]

So by your thinking, those who don't have a 2nd and not saturated by guns don't have freedom. Is that right.
There are numerous countries in the world that don't have that and are free.

No its not. The second was written before the gun saturation happened. Take it as you like but guns and freedom are not linked. Youre using it as a justification but never used them in unison to achieve either.

No its not. Let's say all guns disappeared overnight for instance. What would happen the very next day? Would you run your life differently?
Would no guns immediately restrict your freedom? I'd say having a gun would restrict where you might like to go.

I'm saying you have no use for all those guns. Don't give me the hunting and protection bullshit. It doesn't exist and you've probably never faced that situation. You'd be too frightened to go to LA by yourself un armed. I have a couple of times.

Still not a justification compared to what you say you have them for.

Most Western democracies are free and ill bet your style of living is not one they are willing to import.


I explained that above and you are still wrong.

Youre like a broken record. Is that all you have?

Thats not the justifications you been saying. You know that. Going to your default position is not justification.

They have less freedom.

How can you say a person who's government bans them from owning a firearm is more fee than those who can?

 

[Colin norris]

They have less freedom.

How can you say a person who's government bans them from owning a firearm is more fee than those who can?

By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?
Because you have no use for them as I said.
Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By your thinking, why don't you all have tanks and rocket launchers?
Because you have no use for them as I said.
Freedom doesn't allow you to do what you want regardless of what you think. Wouldn't it be nice without some government. You nuts would be out of control. The country would be like the wild west.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[Batcat]

So why do police officers have AR rifles? Is mass killing a legitimate police activity?



Good luck punching through Kevlar with a handgun or shotgun.



If there is a conflict between the Second Amendment and the NFA, the NFA becomes unconstitutional.



Actually lots of people use them for protection against foxes and coyotes.

And lots of other people use them for self defense against criminals.

And lots of other people use them for target shooting sports.



An AR is not an assault rifle unless it has full-auto or burst-fire capability.

The cops I knew in a small Florida town had five M16 rifles which were capable of fully automatic fire. However they had no instructor to qualify them on the use of these weapons so they just stayed locked up in the police building.

I do know one cop carried a AR-15 semiautomatic rifle in the trunk of his police car.

 

[Captain Caveman]

This is why we need assault weapons. the 2nd Amendment is to keep all enemies away, foreign and domestic. anyone who attacks the 2nd amendment is our domestic enemy, make no mistake. For they seek to take away our ability to engage our foreign enemies. Look at these brave Ukrainians, what if they had the 2nd amendment? Maybe Putin would think twice....how would you feel confronting the Russkies with 10 rounds? Or with a wooden rifle, as the Anti-2nd amendment folks flee in their private jets to leave you fend off the enemy?

America needs the 2nd amendment to allow those who would be willing to shoot their own countryman under the guise (false pretence) of 'defending me and my family'. Such a stupid reason in most countries would scupper (thwart or ruin) your gun application.