I have questions for 2A absolutists

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
Yes, I know that threats are different in modern times than past. That doesn't change the fact that if the aggressors have state of the art weaponry, those being put upon need as close to state of the art as possible to defend themselves. This scales up from person-to-person conflict to full-scale invasion from a state actor.
That is what I have been trying to get to, cause that is where, as an outsider, I see your pickle.
If the whole 2nd militia agenda is to stand, it makes zero sense for the "civilians" to carry pistols or even semis. What you need is to arm your civilians with full scale assault weapons. Pistols just means you shoot yourself and love ones by accident at some point.. Ban them. Its full auto or nothing. + grenades. + mines. ++++.

You already know the argument against assault weapons for civilians right?
I am just saying its hard to have it both ways, and clinging to the 2nd cause you like your glock collection is probably missing the point of the 2nd.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
That is what I have been trying to get to, cause that is where, as an outsider, I see your pickle.
If the whole 2nd militia agenda is to stand, it makes zero sense for the "civilians" to carry pistols or even semis. What you need is to arm your civilians with full scale assault weapons. Pistols just means you shoot yourself and love ones by accident at some point.. Ban them. Its full auto or nothing. + grenades. + mines. ++++.

You already know the argument against assault weapons for civilians right?
I am just saying its hard to have it both ways, and clinging to the 2nd cause you like your glock collection is probably missing the point of the 2nd.
Ironically, I'm inclined to agree with you, with the exception of mines (those are banned by the Geneva convention). If we're following the letter of the law and following the intent of the 2A wrt civilian defense, any weapon that a civilian can obtain that isn't banned by international conventions (which would sort-of overrule constitutional rights, based on diplomacy reasons) should be permissible. Now, not every civilian would be capable of maintaining, say, an F22, but why should there be restrictions on that specifically if semi-automatic assault rifles are permitted? Is that our version of 'no screaming fire in the theater' of the 2A? Feels a bit contrived to me. Bear in mind, the ones telling you that you aren't permitted to own full-scale military weapons are the only other ones with those weapons. Either the 2A should be changed entirely or restrictions should be removed.

Note that I don't own any glocks, I have a single 30-30 I've owned for about 15 years. I just have many fucks to give regarding personal freedoms and rights.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
Again you pick and choose! use the whole quote! You see my main objextion to the use of the word Militia is that we have a lot of xcowards who have guns who would run and hide if they were ever called upon to be part of a militia.....
I sense you have your personal rock all picked out to hide under!!
The whole quote still gives the answer who are the militia, all of us.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
I just Love making you gun nutters go all ape shit!! TRIGGERED all of you!! hahhahaaaaaaaaa
Sorry son, we all know how to keep our fingers off the trigger until ready to shoot. Only puffy lil' snowflakes like you get triggered.

Read them and learn.

 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
That is what I have been trying to get to, cause that is where, as an outsider, I see your pickle.
If the whole 2nd militia agenda is to stand, it makes zero sense for the "civilians" to carry pistols or even semis. What you need is to arm your civilians with full scale assault weapons. Pistols just means you shoot yourself and love ones by accident at some point.. Ban them. Its full auto or nothing. + grenades. + mines. ++++.

You already know the argument against assault weapons for civilians right?
I am just saying its hard to have it both ways, and clinging to the 2nd cause you like your glock collection is probably missing the point of the 2nd.
Gotta love ass clowns that make shit up in ignorance.
I mean really ?
"Pistols just means you shoot yourself and love ones by accident at some point."
How stupid are you?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
Anyone else not surprised this asshole didn't bother addressing the post that refuted his interpretation of the quote he used? Nor am I surprised that the dumb ass continues to rely on the debunked quote.
He 9is not capable of addressing the post that refuted his interpretation of the quote!!
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
Did you forget the topic? Try to remember.
Yeah, it seems we've moved on from the OP topic ("why do you 2A absolutists have problems with our gun control plans?") which has already been answered. Can't speak for everyone obviously but my opinion is probably typical - we aren't 2A absolutists any more than we're absolutists about any other amendment that have some amount of logical restrictions (e.g. the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example for the 1A) and don't necessarily reject the proposals outright but it depends on how it's written and implemented. It's pretty telling that those who support "background checks" refuse to ever address pro-2A concerns about cost/timeliness issues for example. It's telling that although 2A supporters have long made peace with restrictions on firearms such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, the gun control folks consistently make bad faith argument that pro 2A folks just want to own land mines hand out fully automatic weapons to felons, etc. It would be one thing if they behaved like the Temperance Movement did and actually seek to change the constitution to reach their objectives, but they don't.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
Feel free to invent whatever interpretation you want. Here in reality world hundreds of millions of firearms exist in private hands and always will.
That might be the only truly honest & meaningful thing you've offered so far. You're right that people won't be giving them up nor will they be required to do so. It's an absurd proposition. Heller affirmed the right to keep guns for personal protection but it also affirmed the ability of the govt to regulate the kinds of arms available to civilians & establish conditions of ownership.

Going on about militias is equally absurd. The notion that state militias would serve as a check against federal tyranny was repudiated by Union victory in the Civil War. The end of slavery, oddly enough, was viewed as tyranny by southern whites so they instituted the lesser tyranny of Jim Crow, instead. The only reason gun advocates bring it up at all is to claim the right to own firepower much greater than any rational claims of self defense.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
That might be the only truly honest & meaningful thing you've offered so far. You're right that people won't be giving them up nor will they be required to do so. It's an absurd proposition. Heller affirmed the right to keep guns for personal protection but it also affirmed the ability of the govt to regulate the kinds of arms available to civilians & establish conditions of ownership.

Going on about militias is equally absurd. The notion that state militias would serve as a check against federal tyranny was repudiated by Union victory in the Civil War. The end of slavery, oddly enough, was viewed as tyranny by southern whites so they instituted the lesser tyranny of Jim Crow, instead. The only reason gun advocates bring it up at all is to claim the right to own firepower much greater than any rational claims of self defense.
It was the gun control folks who brought up militias and were going on about 2A being meant to only provide a state right to have militias. The pro 2A crowd simply responded. On militias vs. standing armies of a “tyrannical federal government” that’s moot, the effectiveness of exercising a right has little to do if it should be taken away. Hell politicians don’t listen to the average voter but that doesn’t mean we should do away with 1A or “redress of grievances.”

As for firepower greater than “rational need for self defense” we can disagree on that.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
It was the gun control folks who brought up militias and were going on about 2A being meant to only provide a state right to have militias. The pro 2A crowd simply responded. On militias vs. standing armies of a “tyrannical federal government” that’s moot, the effectiveness of exercising a right has little to do if it should be taken away. Hell politicians don’t listen to the average voter but that doesn’t mean we should do away with 1A or “redress of grievances.”

As for firepower greater than “rational need for self defense” we can disagree on that.
So what? Gun advocates need only point to Heller wrt guns as self defense. They consistently conflate the issue to States' Rights militias in order to claim the right to military firepower.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
So what? Gun advocates need only point to Heller wrt guns as self defense. They consistently conflate the issue to States' Rights militias in order to claim the right to military firepower.
Again it's not me and rarely 2A advocates who bring up the militia stuff but rather gun control supporters as a claim 2A only speaks to militias. To me and any honest person reading the 2A, the first phrase provides one reason (but not the only) context why the people (meaning private citizens) have the right to bear arms. If you rearranged the order of First Amendment phrases to mirror the 2nd then this is easily seen and understood. Limiting 2A to "militias only" makes as little sense as limiting free speech to only "peaceful assembly and redress of grievances." In both cases the right is fully intended to be broad and the example provided is not an exclusive list of when it's allowed to be exercised.


The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances being necessary to a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
Again it's not me and rarely 2A advocates who bring up the militia stuff but rather gun control supporters as a claim 2A only speaks to militias. To me and any honest person reading the 2A, the first phrase provides one reason (but not the only) context why the people (meaning private citizens) have the right to bear arms. If you rearranged the order of First Amendment phrases to mirror the 2nd then this is easily seen and understood. Limiting 2A to "militias only" makes as little sense as limiting free speech to only "peaceful assembly and redress of grievances." In both cases the right is fully intended to be broad and the example provided is not an exclusive list of when it's allowed to be exercised.


The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances being necessary to a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Since its a states right issue the states can determine how they choose to defend themselves. The whole point of getting you to understand what the definition of "militia" is, is because the 2nd says that a militia is necessary in order for a state to protect itself. If the federal government bans guns then obviously a state can't rely on state controlled militia for protection. Now if the STATE bans guns from all its citizens but not for its militia members then it can still protect itself.

But you already know this you just refuse to acknowledge it and straw man the argument because you can't handle the truth, which is typical of most gun nutters. Its why you idiots think the 2nd is to overthrow a tyrannical government, a government that was democratically elected, which makes you nutters the tyrants.

Its cute how you had to alter the 1st amendment to try and make a point. Unfortunately for you, all you did was invalidate your own argument as you just changed the meaning of the 1st, good job dumb ass.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Since its a states right issue the states can determine how they choose to defend themselves. The whole point of getting you to understand what the definition of "militia" is, is because the 2nd says that a militia is necessary in order for a state to protect itself. If the federal government bans guns then obviously a state can't rely on state controlled militia for protection. Now if the STATE bans guns from all its citizens but not for its militia members then it can still perfect itself.

But you already know this you just refuse to acknowledge it and straw man the argument because you can't handle the truth, which is typical of most gun nutters. Its why you idiots think the 2nd is to overthrow a tyrannical government, a government that was democratically elected, which makes you nutters the tyrants.

Its cute how you had to alter the 1st amendment to try and make a point. Unfortunately for you, all you did was invalidate your own argument as you just changed the meaning of the 1st, good job dumb ass.
Aren't you supposed to be off stacking the courts, like a good little republican?

No, I'll wait till Democrats pack the court and make it so the federal government can take away your precious guns and I'll be laughing in your face while pointing out the hypocrisy of you accepting 150 years of precedent being thrown out by judges with an inconsistent ideology, only to complain when its undone under a similar manner.
Just in case you forgot.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
So in other words, your argument is shit. Lol thanks for playing champ.
Sorry, you lost all pretense of an argument when you decided that the best way forward was to stack the courts to get what you wanted. Only one of us here has abandoned discussion, and resorted to name-calling and cheating the system, and that's you.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
Sorry, you lost all pretense of an argument when you decided that the best way forward was to stack the courts to get what you wanted. Only one of us here has abandoned discussion, and resorted to name-calling and cheating the system, and that's you.
Its ok I already understand that you have poor reading comprehension skills and didn't understand the point of that post, its why you also, hilariously, embarrass yourself with points and facts that contradict your claims.

You found a way out of the discussion but you weren't ever in it in the first place, gun nutters gonna nut.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Its ok I already understand that you have poor reading comprehension skills and didn't understand the point of that post, its why you also, hilariously, embarrass yourself with points and facts that contradict your claims.

You found a way out of the discussion but you weren't ever in it in the first place, gun nutters gonna nut.
Sorry, I can't hear you over your repeated attempts to sidestep the constitution. Try yelling profanities a little louder.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
Again it's not me and rarely 2A advocates who bring up the militia stuff but rather gun control supporters as a claim 2A only speaks to militias. To me and any honest person reading the 2A, the first phrase provides one reason (but not the only) context why the people (meaning private citizens) have the right to bear arms. If you rearranged the order of First Amendment phrases to mirror the 2nd then this is easily seen and understood. Limiting 2A to "militias only" makes as little sense as limiting free speech to only "peaceful assembly and redress of grievances." In both cases the right is fully intended to be broad and the example provided is not an exclusive list of when it's allowed to be exercised.


The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances being necessary to a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
You did offer that a militia is a bunch of people with guns in support of Slow & Taj. That's not true at all. A state militia is a disciplined force under the command of the Governor. Other sorts of "militias" are just potential insurrectionists, plain & simple. That was never their Constitutional purpose. There are 23 actual state militias with about 14,000 members & they're not in the Bundy bunch, I suspect-


Ivwshane is simply wrong, as well. The SCOTUS affirmed the right of self defense in both Heller & MacDonald & that's just the way it is. It does not justify the sale of massive firepower to civilians.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY