I have questions for 2A absolutists

[ivwshane]

My point had been that the US has always had a gun fetish. That's the not new part. While there are new conversations, and I do point out that there isn't a new uprising of wanting to regulate it, or just plain get rid of the gun. Even Roosevelt attempted gun restrictions. This isn't anything new other than it's more publicized due to modern media.

I agree that anyone attempting to stand up to the Government would die.. and probably very badly. It's one of the main reasons why I do agree that 2A is possibly out of date with today's world.




Now you're chaning the argument. You were speaking of why the Founding Fathers would have put a system in place that would allow it's citizens the tools to remove the Government if it went from serving the people to subjugating them. It's why I pointed out that there have historically been countries that had democracy and decided to remove it.. which is something the FF probably knew was always a risk. Ergo why I said it's (to me) pretty straight forward on why they thought it was important.

You're speaking of today's world suddenly, the same world where I've repeatedly said that I agree it's very possible 2A is completely outdated. Also, the system has only been tested once when the South attempted to secede. We haven't, and hopefully never will, have a test like you speak of. I haven't a clue what would happen. I honestly don't think anyone does.

I simply expanded on your argument and drew it to its logical conclusion.

During the time the 2nd was written there were two main issues politicians/states were concerned with (in relation to the topic at hand):
The security of their state
A standing army as it was viewed as being dangerous to liberty

Militias allowed the states to protect themselves, it allowed the state to control them and it allowed the state to disperse them when not needed (unlike a standing army of professional soldiers).

Most state constitutions at the time (before the 2nd was written), had similar writings as the second but emphasized the need for a militia and all of them stated the purpose was to secure the state. Some also stated that there were to be no restrictions unless it caused security concerns. And only a handful separated the right of bearing arms for the purpose of a militia and the rights of an individual.

So no, absolutely not was the right to bear arms used ensure citizens could overthrow their government (after the constitution was written that is).


However, there is one point you didn't address; who decides when a government is tyrannical? And you'll have to be more specific than, "the people".

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Remember that throughout history, every country that has denied its citizenry the permission to own weaponry has eventually abused and/or killed its citizenry.

Woah, what? So England, australia, germany, france etc etc (i.e. every civilized country exept the US really)? Are they abusing and killing their citizens? Right now, or just in the past? Or are they going to? Less than two decades ago in Australia I believe, are they about to start killing citizens there?

(also, the US has lotsa guns, but that doesn't seem to stop cops from killing plenty of people..)

 

[obidamnkenobi]

well then we should start selling bazookas and anti-personnel mines to the people, plus artillery. after all the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and in order to overthrow a modern government you are gonna need some of those.

That would be my question to 2A absolutist; do you favor any restrictions on weapons for civilians? If so why? How do you draw the line? If there can be no restrictions on rifles/handguns, why do you (as I think most do) favor restrictions on rocket launchers, mortars grenades etc?

 

[Bird222]

I simply expanded on your argument and drew it to its logical conclusion.

During the time the 2nd was written there were two main issues politicians/states were concerned with (in relation to the topic at hand):
The security of their state
A standing army as it was viewed as being dangerous to liberty

Militias allowed the states to protect themselves, it allowed the state to control them and it allowed the state to disperse them when not needed (unlike a standing army of professional soldiers).

Most state constitutions at the time (before the 2nd was written), had similar writings as the second but emphasized the need for a militia and all of them stated the purpose was to secure the state. Some also stated that there were to be no restrictions unless it caused security concerns. And only a handful separated the right of bearing arms for the purpose of a militia and the rights of an individual.

So no, absolutely not was the right to bear arms used ensure citizens could overthrow their government (after the constitution was written that is).


However, there is one point you didn't address; who decides when a government is tyrannical? And you'll have to be more specific than, "the people".

What an odd statement. Who else is going to decide? Robots? Of course the people would decide when the government has gone too far. Presumably it would be the majority of citizens but still the people.

 

[Skel]

I simply expanded on your argument and drew it to its logical conclusion.

During the time the 2nd was written there were two main issues politicians/states were concerned with (in relation to the topic at hand):
The security of their state
A standing army as it was viewed as being dangerous to liberty

Militias allowed the states to protect themselves, it allowed the state to control them and it allowed the state to disperse them when not needed (unlike a standing army of professional soldiers).

Most state constitutions at the time (before the 2nd was written), had similar writings as the second but emphasized the need for a militia and all of them stated the purpose was to secure the state. Some also stated that there were to be no restrictions unless it caused security concerns. And only a handful separated the right of bearing arms for the purpose of a militia and the rights of an individual.

So no, absolutely not was the right to bear arms used ensure citizens could overthrow their government (after the constitution was written that is).


However, there is one point you didn't address; who decides when a government is tyrannical? And you'll have to be more specific than, "the people".

This will be probably my last post on this. We've gone round and round and you keep ignoring most of what I post. Instead you seem to keep trying to either grab onto one phrase or word and run with it in some odd attempt to have a 'gotcha', or you attempt to change the argument like you did in the last post I responded to. Either way, I've already explained at length on my thoughts on how 2A was formed and reasons why. If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree as this has become pointless. If you are just trolling at this point, congrats you won.. Go get your high fives.

You want a list of names? I honestly can't take this seriously, and why I'm starting to think you're just trolling or arguing to argue. We've already talked about who 'the people' are. Those would be the ones that decided they wanted change. It's not that complicated. They're 'the people' as much as those that want things to stay the same regardless of what the argument is.

 

[Bird222]

This will be probably my last post on this. We've gone round and round and you keep ignoring most of what I post. Instead you seem to keep trying to either grab onto one phrase or word and run with it in some odd attempt to have a 'gotcha', or you attempt to change the argument like you did in the last post I responded to. Either way, I've already explained at length on my thoughts on how 2A was formed and reasons why. If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree as this has become pointless. If you are just trolling at this point, congrats you won.. Go get your high fives.

You want a list of names? I honestly can't take this seriously, and why I'm starting to think you're just trolling or arguing to argue. We've already talked about who 'the people' are. Those would be the ones that decided they wanted change. It's not that complicated. They're 'the people' as much as those that want things to stay the same regardless of what the argument is.

Because he is.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Woah, what? So England, australia, germany, france etc etc (i.e. every civilized country exept the US really)? Are they abusing and killing their citizens? Right now, or just in the past? Or are they going to? Less than two decades ago in Australia I believe, are they about to start killing citizens there?

(also, the US has lotsa guns, but that doesn't seem to stop cops from killing plenty of people..)

Well, depending on how you interpret the 'countries' and what timeframe during history you're talking, yeah, i'm pretty sure that England has a long and storied history of oppression of citizens, to include restrictions on who was permitted to own weaponry for personal defense or otherwise. Australia basically committed genocide on the aboriginals there. Germany I won't even get in to. France is a wonderful example of what happens when you oppress citizens that still gain access to the means to overthrow their ruling class.

They may not be doing it right this moment, but make no mistake, every government will eventually if the impetus becomes available. It's a facet of humanity, not some element of only 'bad' regimes.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Well, depending on how you interpret the 'countries' and what timeframe during history you're talking, yeah, i'm pretty sure that England has a long and storied history of oppression of citizens, to include restrictions on who was permitted to own weaponry for personal defense or otherwise. Australia basically committed genocide on the aboriginals there. Germany I won't even get in to. France is a wonderful example of what happens when you oppress citizens that still gain access to the means to overthrow their ruling class.

They may not be doing it right this moment, but make no mistake, every government will eventually if the impetus becomes available. It's a facet of humanity, not some element of only 'bad' regimes.

I thought it was obvious that I refered to the last ~50-75 years or so when most western countries have restricted citizen's rights to own any firearms, but perhaps I should have clarified. If anything I think people could own more weapons before when the atrocities you mentioned happened.. I don't belive you can own automatic rifles anywhere in western europe or the US; does this lead to oppresion?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I thought it was obvious that I refered to the last ~50-75 years or so when most western countries have restricted citizen's rights to own any firearms, but perhaps I should have clarified. If anything I think people could own more weapons before when the atrocities you mentioned happened.. I don't belive you can own automatic rifles anywhere in western europe or the US; does this lead to oppresion?

Sorry, the comment you originally responded to from me, what I was referring to was all of human history, not just the last 50-75y. All I was trying to say was that throughout history, most if not all governments have at one time or another oppressed peoples within their citizenship (or within their country, if not direct citizens), and the only thing that has seemingly curtailed in recent memory that has been a large prevalence of powerful arms that the average citizen can use with little training. When those are unavailable, you're wholly up to the whims of the government. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the last few years, but ours has been a complete shitshow.

One could point out recent governments which do NOT have a large prevalence of arms and show that those have zero history of oppression of peoples, but it's my belief that's primarily been due to the actions of the US and the UN as 'world police', encouraging other countries through political or financial action to 'do right'. Unfortunately that only goes so far, in that some countries we're close enough allies to look the other way/leave shit up to the locals. For examples of that, see China/Hong Kong, Canada, and Russia's annexation of former bloc countries. Would mass prevalence of automatic weapons among people have prevented or at least delayed some of those incidents? I can't say.

I don't know the answer to your last question. I know my feelings regarding it, and my feelings are that citizens should have arms comparable to the government which they are a part of, whatever the state of the art is. I personally feel that it's the only way to ensure that the government stays beholden to the people, and not the other way around. That's only my feeling though and I'm one of 300m citizens of the US so my vote only goes so far. I also acknowledge that I'm in a very small minority with these opinions, and that's okay by me.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I don't know the answer to your last question. I know my feelings regarding it, and my feelings are that citizens should have arms comparable to the government which they are a part of, whatever the state of the art is. I personally feel that it's the only way to ensure that the government stays beholden to the people, and not the other way around. That's only my feeling though and I'm one of 300m citizens of the US so my vote only goes so far. I also acknowledge that I'm in a very small minority with these opinions, and that's okay by me.

Ok, so you think private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns, mortars, grenades rocket launchers etc? That's a refreshingly consistent view from 2A absolutists, or at least those who feel citizens need arms to defend against tyranny.

 

[glenn1]

That would be my question to 2A absolutist; do you favor any restrictions on weapons for civilians? If so why? How do you draw the line? If there can be no restrictions on rifles/handguns, why do you (as I think most do) favor restrictions on rocket launchers, mortars grenades etc?

That's a ridiculous question to ask when we currently live with numerous federal gun control laws on the books currently and a large body of regulation and federal agents to assist with compliance. Unless you're asking someone from prior to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and arguably before, since in the later half of the 19th century the ability of states to control who had access to guns (freed blacks, the KKK, etc) then obviously the answer is yes. Indeed 2A supporters are fine with some amount of restrictions on weapons for civilians and have been for decades. That doesn't mean you can expect (or demand) that 2A supporters go along with any and all new restrictions you can come up with.

Ok, so you think private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns, mortars, grenades rocket launchers etc? That's a refreshingly consistent view from 2A absolutists, or at least those who feel citizens need arms to defend against tyranny.

Holy cow, we've already been over this. Private citizens ALREADY CAN own these things, you just need a tax stamp pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968 to get them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ok, so you think private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns, mortars, grenades rocket launchers etc? That's a refreshingly consistent view from 2A absolutists, or at least those who feel citizens need arms to defend against tyranny.

Basically yes, if we're to follow the 2A and the intent of the 2A. I honestly don't know how that would affect things within the citizenry, and I understand the very strong resistance to such a notion, but I do feel it's probably necessary.

I know that if there was ever a true citizen uprising in the US, military stockpiles of weapons would be a prime target, due to the necessity of aligning resistance armaments with the governments.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

That's a ridiculous question to ask when we currently live with numerous federal gun control laws on the books currently and a large body of regulation and federal agents to assist with compliance. Unless you're asking someone from prior to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and arguably before, since in the later half of the 19th century the ability of states to control who had access to guns (freed blacks, the KKK, etc) then obviously the answer is yes. Indeed 2A supporters are fine with some amount of restrictions on weapons for civilians and have been for decades. That doesn't mean you can expect (or demand) that 2A supporters go along with any and all new restrictions you can come up with.



Holy cow, we've already been over this. Private citizens ALREADY CAN own these things, you just need a tax stamp pursuant to the Gun Control Act of 1968 to get them.

But the NRA currently oppose any and all suggested gun control proposals, not matter how minor or popular. So they feel the current level is perfect? No more is needed, we're in perfect balance?

And 2A says "arms". Aren't rocket launchers "arms"? What's the reasoning they should not be allowed? I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking why are you OK with that?

 

[glenn1]

But the NRA currently oppose any and all suggested gun control proposals, not matter how minor or popular. So they feel the current level is perfect? No more is needed, we're in perfect balance?

And 2A says "arms". Aren't rocket launchers "arms"? What's the reasoning they should not be allowed? I'm not asking what the law is, I'm asking why are you OK with that?

The NRA is a special interest group. I can pick a different special interest group that opposes other policies no matter how minor or popular - implementing Voter Photo ID comes to mind as well as immigration.

And if y'all would stop being dumbasses for a while and actually listened, 2A supporters like me have repeatedly given you actionable feedback about your gun control proposals and how to adjust them to fix our objections ('universal background checks' being one example among many). However your side seems more content to simply turn off your brains when folks don't accept your proposals wholesale and resort to ad hominems and arguments about rocket launchers. Which BTW as I just stated in my previous post are covered by the FCA 1968 and can be obtained by private citizens if you're that interested in getting one, willing to pay for the associated tax stamps, and jump through the other regulatory hoops.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

The NRA is a special interest group. I can pick a different special interest group that opposes other policies no matter how minor or popular - implementing Voter Photo ID comes to mind as well as immigration.

And if y'all would stop being dumbasses for a while and actually listened, 2A supporters like me have repeatedly given you actionable feedback about your gun control proposals and how to adjust them to fix our objections ('universal background checks' being one example among many). However your side seems more content to simply turn off your brains when folks don't accept your proposals wholesale and resort to ad hominems and arguments about rocket launchers. Which BTW as I just stated in my previous post are covered by the FCA 1968 and can be obtained by private citizens if you're that interested in getting one, willing to pay for the associated tax stamps, and jump through the other regulatory hoops.

Stop with the "your side". I never said whether I'm for or against gun control. I just wanted you to articulate the logic behind your position. But I don't think you will.. I assumed the NRA represented the opinion of gun owners.

I dont care what the law is. Why are restrictions on certain weapons ok, but others not?

 

[Skel]

Stop with the "your side". I never said whether I'm for or against gun control. I just wanted you to articulate the logic behind your position. But I don't think you will.. I assumed the NRA represented the opinion of gun owners.

I dont care what the law is. Why are restrictions on certain weapons ok, but others not?

The NRA is probably the most extreme of the pro gun lobby groups, which to be fair is what it's members who pay their dues want from it. While there has been a lot of stuff of late about how that group's money is getting abused, the main drive of it's members is to hold the line where it is at most. While I personally don't care for them and am not a member, I can't get mad and attempt to create some boogeyman out of them. It's members want that out of them.

As for your questions, for me it's about applying breaks on it so we're not over empowering someone. I just also think those restrictions should make sense technically. I speak of making sure the restrictions aren't based upon some misunderstanding on what it is. At one point a law focused upon the color of the gun, which is beyond stupid to me.

 

[glenn1]

Stop with the "your side". I never said whether I'm for or against gun control. I just wanted you to articulate the logic behind your position. But I don't think you will.. I assumed the NRA represented the opinion of gun owners.

I dont care what the law is. Why are restrictions on certain weapons ok, but others not?

For the same reason restrictions on any right are OK, because society comes up with a specific reason to do so that represents a compelling interest that democracy can accept (otherwise it would be repealed). Sometimes those restrictions go further than supporters would like and we try to balance the interests of the minority as well as the majority, but otherwise it's a calculated exercise of tradeoffs. For some uses cases it's reasonably easy to get broad consensus about restricting rights (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and in other cases it's nigh impossible (e.g. how much we can restrict "hate" speech). Gun control is likewise the same way, some restrictions are relatively easy to gain consensus (like restricting fully automatic weapons, which aren't particularly good for hunting or sport shooting purposes) and others the restrictions are extremely contentious (like the idea of essentially banning weapons in a locality altogether). That's how it works in our particular style of democracy.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What an odd statement. Who else is going to decide? Robots? Of course the people would decide when the government has gone too far. Presumably it would be the majority of citizens but still the people.

And when a group of "The People" support and want the tyranny? That's literally what happened in Nazi Germany. The people resisting were not likely to be ones that took up arms to violently overthrow the violent murderous Nazis, so them having guns or not didn't really matter much. It was the Nazi psychos with the guns that took control by murdering. Then they chose to restrict guns because at that point it did become life or death for many people so some of them would have possibly fought back. But until they had done that, most people didn't think they were actually murderous assholes (despite there being ample evidence, and literally it being part of their inherent ideology), because they kept being fed the nonsense about how it was harmless and super not real. Much like the modern day "good guy/bad guy with a gun" rhetoric from pro-gun persons, they act like bad guys with guns are easy to spot like they're cartoon villains or something. Same was said about the Nazis (if they were actually doing evil stuff, we'd know it!). Even when they started murdering people, they started with those that most already were biased against so they weren't missed.

He is making a parallel to the modern US. Where the groups demanding the guns (and brandishing them) are the groups also calling for the tyrannical behavior (and openly saying and actually following through, using violence to push their beliefs), supporting a leader that has openly supported tyrannical behavior, along with insane delusions (he's literally said he's an embodiment of God, has also said that they might need to do something when his "normal 8 years" is up - meaning he's not going to be willing to give up power). Part of the point of militias as understood by those that wrote the Constitution, was to use militias to deal with such situations should they escalate. His point is if we keep those extremist groups from using guns, it will keep them more in check and unable to perpetrate the violence. And no infringement of the right of the states to assemble militia will occur, so there's nothing going against the 2nd Amendment by doing so.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The NRA is probably the most extreme of the pro gun lobby groups, which to be fair is what it's members who pay their dues want from it. While there has been a lot of stuff of late about how that group's money is getting abused, the main drive of it's members is to hold the line where it is at most. While I personally don't care for them and am not a member, I can't get mad and attempt to create some boogeyman out of them. It's members want that out of them.

As for your questions, for me it's about applying breaks on it so we're not over empowering someone. I just also think those restrictions should make sense technically. I speak of making sure the restrictions aren't based upon some misunderstanding on what it is. At one point a law focused upon the color of the gun, which is beyond stupid to me.

For starters, the real members are largely not gun owners, but rather companies that make guns. They even went to the route of including membership to the NRA with gun purchases in order to pad their numbers. But its the gun makers the NRA is speaking for and who is actually paying for the NRA's lobbying efforts. Until people started making a fuss about them and their behavior, a lot of members didn't know about it and thus were deluded into believing what you're claiming. Now, sure there's still a lot of them that do agree with that, but there's a reason why the NRA's numbers and money have been dwindling. Because it was a sham organization, a front that has been pushing for things well outside the scope of what they claim. Its a group that screams about political influence and then does that more than any of the groups they're demonizing.

Sorry but no need to make them into boogeymen. If you've heard the shit they say (seriously, go look up their NRA TV, they openly called for murdering journalists, among a lot of really fucked up rhetoric), you wouldn't even be saying something so stupid. Seriously, its literally been shown that Russia was funneling money into the US political system via the NRA, which included having a Russian agent have sex with high ranking Republicans in exchange for political favor. Plus, WTF? "Well sure they're completely misusing people's money, but I won't let them be made into boogeyman because of it!" What in the fuck kind of reasoning is that?

The problem is you're well past that. They've already deliberately "misunderstood" the 2nd Amendment. And now you're defending that by arguing against such. Its blatantly just straight up objectively broken logic.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ok, so you think private citizens should be allowed to own machine guns, mortars, grenades rocket launchers etc? That's a refreshingly consistent view from 2A absolutists, or at least those who feel citizens need arms to defend against tyranny.

Nothing "allowed " about it.

In free countries nothing that is not expressly forbidden is allowed.
In authoritarian countries nothing that is not expressly allowed is forbidden.
It's just a difference in perspective and why those on the left are always Authoritarians.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Basically yes, if we're to follow the 2A and the intent of the 2A. I honestly don't know how that would affect things within the citizenry, and I understand the very strong resistance to such a notion, but I do feel it's probably necessary.

I know that if there was ever a true citizen uprising in the US, military stockpiles of weapons would be a prime target, due to the necessity of aligning resistance armaments with the governments.

And if your interpretation of the 2A is wrong? Hell, square up your argument with the fact it literally in the first 3 words says there should be regulation.

You honestly don't know how average citizens being able to buy howitzers, rocket launchers, and other weaponry would affect things? Why stop there? I should be able to own a nuclear weapon. Fuck you if you think otherwise. Same with biological weapons. And chemical weapons.

 

[ivwshane]

What an odd statement. Who else is going to decide? Robots? Of course the people would decide when the government has gone too far. Presumably it would be the majority of citizens but still the people.

I see half way through your post you started to realize exactly what I was asking. So "presumably" the group of people who would overthrow the government would be a majority of citizens. So 50.1% of the population will determine that? Or is it only 50.1% of the voting population? 50.1% of adults about a certain age? Who will be determining what metric to use in determining when a majority of citizens has been achieved that wish to overthrow the government?

Did you know that it is estimated that only 40-45% of the colonists supported rebellion and some historians said only about a 1/3rd did while the others were either British loyalists or indifferent.

Also, can you find any writings from the founding fathers after the new government was formed where they talk about overthrowing the government as a solution? Can you explain why they wrote, as apart of the constitution before any amendments were added, that the of the duty of government was to put down rebellions and insurrections?

 

[ivwshane]

This will be probably my last post on this. We've gone round and round and you keep ignoring most of what I post. Instead you seem to keep trying to either grab onto one phrase or word and run with it in some odd attempt to have a 'gotcha', or you attempt to change the argument like you did in the last post I responded to. Either way, I've already explained at length on my thoughts on how 2A was formed and reasons why. If you disagree, we'll just have to agree to disagree as this has become pointless. If you are just trolling at this point, congrats you won.. Go get your high fives.

You want a list of names? I honestly can't take this seriously, and why I'm starting to think you're just trolling or arguing to argue. We've already talked about who 'the people' are. Those would be the ones that decided they wanted change. It's not that complicated. They're 'the people' as much as those that want things to stay the same regardless of what the argument is.

I figured as much. When challenged on your beliefs you were unable to back them up with anything other than feels.
Facts do have a way of getting people.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry, the comment you originally responded to from me, what I was referring to was all of human history, not just the last 50-75y. All I was trying to say was that throughout history, most if not all governments have at one time or another oppressed peoples within their citizenship (or within their country, if not direct citizens), and the only thing that has seemingly curtailed in recent memory that has been a large prevalence of powerful arms that the average citizen can use with little training. When those are unavailable, you're wholly up to the whims of the government. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the last few years, but ours has been a complete shitshow.

One could point out recent governments which do NOT have a large prevalence of arms and show that those have zero history of oppression of peoples, but it's my belief that's primarily been due to the actions of the US and the UN as 'world police', encouraging other countries through political or financial action to 'do right'. Unfortunately that only goes so far, in that some countries we're close enough allies to look the other way/leave shit up to the locals. For examples of that, see China/Hong Kong, Canada, and Russia's annexation of former bloc countries. Would mass prevalence of automatic weapons among people have prevented or at least delayed some of those incidents? I can't say.

I don't know the answer to your last question. I know my feelings regarding it, and my feelings are that citizens should have arms comparable to the government which they are a part of, whatever the state of the art is. I personally feel that it's the only way to ensure that the government stays beholden to the people, and not the other way around. That's only my feeling though and I'm one of 300m citizens of the US so my vote only goes so far. I also acknowledge that I'm in a very small minority with these opinions, and that's okay by me.

You advocate for anarchy while completely ignoring the fact that our government is made up of the people. The tyrants aren't the ones who vote and work in government doing the job the elected officials tasked them to do, the tyrants are those with the guns who want to impose their will on everyone else by ignoring the very system the founding fathers put in place to ensure that the people are represented.

The founding fathers were smart, they knew that a free country such as the one they were creating would lead to citizens hell bent on burning it down or who thought they were above the laws the people created and the only remedy for such people/groups was a response by a volunteer army controlled by the state consisting of ordinary citizens. State organized militias.

 

[Skel]

For starters, the real members are largely not gun owners, but rather companies that make guns. They even went to the route of including membership to the NRA with gun purchases in order to pad their numbers. But its the gun makears the NRA is speaking for and who is actually paying for the NRA's lobbying efforts. Until people started making a fuss about them and their behavior, a lot of members didn't know about it and thus were deluded into believing what you're claiming. Now, sure there's still a lot of them that do agree with that, but there's a reason why the NRA's numbers and money have been dwindling. Because it was a sham organization, a front that has been pushing for things well outside the scope of what they claim. Its a group that screams about political influence and then does that more than any of the groups they're demonizing.

Sorry but no need to make them into boogeymen. If you've heard the shit they say (seriously, go look up their NRA TV, they openly called for murdering journalists, among a lot of really fucked up rhetoric), you wouldn't even be saying something so stupid. Seriously, its literally been shown that Russia was funneling money into the US political system via the NRA, which included having a Russian agent have sex with high ranking Republicans in exchange for political favor. Plus, WTF? "Well sure they're completely misusing people's money, but I won't let them be made into boogeyman because of it!" What in the fuck kind of reasoning is that?

The problem is you're well past that. They've already deliberately "misunderstood" the 2nd Amendment. And now you're defending that by arguing against such. Its blatantly just straight up objectively broken logic.

Just so I'm understanding.. the over 5 million members that pay dues aren't real? Those same people the NRA inundates with shit telling them to call whatever representative any time there is a gun law coming up? Which they most certainly do. There's only one gun maker that's giving away free memberships (to be clear, I'm not sure if they're still doing it as I couldn't find any info on it's website) is Taurus, so I'm not sure it's really fair to just throw away it's membership just because a manufacture was giving away memberships. I didn't see the 2019 numbers but in 2018 they claimed to have 5.5 million people paying their dues.

Again, I'm not a member nor a fan of the NRA. They've done some stupid shit and the people that made those decisions should be held accountable and probably face court.

Except for the NRA TV thing, which how are they any different than YouTube videos? It's something that most people don't bother knowing exists, let alone hinge on what they say. Maybe I'm missing the point there, as I barely knew they were there, but did anyone care about anything they said before the idiot said in her ad "Your Time is running out"? Maybe I'm wrong and I missed something. Please provide more info on them openly calling for murdering journalists, I only know of the time running out thing and could find that when I searched online.

As for misunderstanding 2A.. I go off of what the Supreme Court ruled on it. That makes a bit of sense for me, both in the fact that they're the ones who's job it is to do that, but also because we went for centuries with people just accepting that 2A meant people. I personally would think that if it really was just a militia then that would have been figured out way before the Founding Fathers got too far. If the SC comes out with a different meaning, I'll shrug my shoulders wondering how we got it wrong for some many centuries but would go with what they say. It really doesn't matter what you or I think it means if they're the only ones that really get to define it. Again.. that's just me.

I figured as much. When challenged on your beliefs you were unable to back them up with anything other than feels.
Facts do have a way of getting people.

You're flat out trolling at this point. Please go reread what I've written if you really think I've only backed stuff up with 'feels'.