Kerry comment on the 2nd amendment

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Anyone remember that the 'Citizens' of Iraq are armed to the teeth -
with weapons that we would never allow in the hands of US citizens ?

Wasn't much help against their 'Despotic Government', was it.

I already mentioned that.

And I refuted it. RTFT before posting...kthx.

Your "refutation" was incomplete and ignorant of the actual history.

The Iraqi Kurds and Shiites rebelled many times and were summarily crushed. It wasn't for lack of trying.

The White House will be happy to show you the pictures of the mass graves if you don't believe it.

 

[Nietzscheusw]

The fact is that for the powers that be to enforce a total military dictatorship in the USA would cost much less and would be far easier to accomplish with an unarmed citizenry.
Why would they do it? My guess is that they would not dislike having as much power as the chinese army/state over the people to force them to work for very very low wages.
In Iraq the bill is getting huge and the Pentagon does not really control the people. The Pentagon controls the oil fields but not the pipelines since they are regularly and successfully sabotaged, keeping the oil production low. This means that the powers that be are losing a lot in Iraq. All that because many iraqis are well armed and risk their lives.
This is a crucial lesson for the american people. You had better have anti-tanks missiles and the means and knowledge to build roadside bombs. And night-vision googles. I would add more: any politician who really cares about freedom should pass a law allowing the citizens to keep up with the technological advances of the armament of the state.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: BDawg
Either / Or

Any army that can get enough troops here to invade will whip the crap out of local militias. Red Dawn was just a movie.

Algeria, Vietnam and Somalia were not movies.

From another perspective, if two ex-GIs can obliterate 166 people in Oklahoma City, imagine what 20,000 similarly trained and motivated individuals might accomplish.

Doesn't bode well for Iraq then does it?

All depends upon the intended objective, you might say. At any rate, we should know the final answer within the next few years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Do you seriously think an armed citizenry is going to protect us from a despotic government?

Whether any given armed citizenry would prevail over any given tyrannical government remains and will remain an open [academic] question.

What is not an open question is whether the Framers of the Constitution believed that duck hunting was necessary to the security of a free state.

The legitimate government of the United State was overthrown in the last election. All our guns were useless to stop it because our minds were already blown away.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Do you seriously think an armed citizenry is going to protect us from a despotic government?

Yes. Do you seriously think that 1 million soldiers could take out 250 million armed citizens? Especially when those citizens are the friends, family, and neighbors of those 1 million soldiers (which would ruin soldier morale and make a high percentage of them unwilling to fight).

 

[SuperTool]

If that is the purpose of 2nd amendment to protect against despotic government, then private citizens have a right to own whatever weapons necessary to do so? Do we have a right to own fighter jets, attack helicopters, tanks, missiles, etc?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: BDawg
Either / Or

Any army that can get enough troops here to invade will whip the crap out of local militias. Red Dawn was just a movie.

Algeria, Vietnam and Somalia were not movies.

From another perspective, if two ex-GIs can obliterate 166 people in Oklahoma City, imagine what 20,000 similarly trained and motivated individuals might accomplish.

And which of those groups didn't have outside help?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: BDawg
Either / Or

Any army that can get enough troops here to invade will whip the crap out of local militias. Red Dawn was just a movie.

Algeria, Vietnam and Somalia were not movies.

From another perspective, if two ex-GIs can obliterate 166 people in Oklahoma City, imagine what 20,000 similarly trained and motivated individuals might accomplish.

And which of those groups didn't have outside help?

None. By the same token, who can, with any certainty, say the same wouldn't apply to potential belligerency here?

 

[BugsBunny1078]

The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

Sure why not?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

Sure why not?

Text

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

Ok, so any attempt to prevent Bill Gates from developing his own nuclear weapons program is infringing on his second ammendment rights.

Obviously we would be much safer is everyone went around carrying a nuke for their own personal protection!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Nietzscheusw
The fact is that for the powers that be to enforce a total military dictatorship in the USA would cost much less and would be far easier to accomplish with an unarmed citizenry.
Why would they do it? My guess is that they would not dislike having as much power as the chinese army/state over the people to force them to work for very very low wages.
In Iraq the bill is getting huge and the Pentagon does not really control the people. The Pentagon controls the oil fields but not the pipelines since they are regularly and successfully sabotaged, keeping the oil production low. This means that the powers that be are losing a lot in Iraq. All that because many iraqis are well armed and risk their lives.
This is a crucial lesson for the american people. You had better have anti-tanks missiles and the means and knowledge to build roadside bombs. And night-vision googles. I would add more: any politician who really cares about freedom should pass a law allowing the citizens to keep up with the technological advances of the armament of the state.

Anyone want to bet this guy a) has a tap on his phone or b) doesn't live in the US
(I'm betting on B).

 

[Aegion]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Do you seriously think an armed citizenry is going to protect us from a despotic government?

Whether any given armed citizenry would prevail over any given tyrannical government remains and will remain an open [academic] question.

What is not an open question is whether the Framers of the Constitution believed that duck hunting was necessary to the security of a free state.

Besides the question of exactly whether the founders intended to allow free access to guns, or simply for each state to have a militia is its own question by itself. Besides this, of course, if what the founders believed, and the realities of today show that the reason for the second ammendment being in place are no longer valid, then its time to ammend the consistitution and get rid of the Second Ammendment. The founding fathers were not infallible gods, but mortal men who left deliberate provisions allowing the constitution to be ammended in the future if a provision became outdated, or proved not to work well and caused problems, some time in the future.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If that is the purpose of 2nd amendment to protect against despotic government, then private citizens have a right to own whatever weapons necessary to do so? Do we have a right to own fighter jets, attack helicopters, tanks, missiles, etc?

What parts about the word "arms" do you not understand?

The Founding Fathers were very clear that "arms" including rifles and muskets (for example) but not cannon, which are ordinance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aegion
Besides the question of exactly whether the founders intended to allow free access to guns, or simply for each state to have a militia is its own question by itself. Besides this, of course, if what the founders believed, and the realities of today show that the reason for the second ammendment being in place are no longer valid, then its time to ammend the consistitution and get rid of the Second Ammendment. The founding fathers were not infallible gods, but mortal men who left deliberate provisions allowing the constitution to be ammended in the future if a provision became outdated, or proved not to work well and caused problems, some time in the future.

What "realities of today" would be cause for the 2nd amendment to no longer be valid? For what reason would the people desire to get rid of the 2nd amendment? Please answer these questions.

And yes, it is very possible to amend the US Constitution, and yes, the Founding Fathers did create clear provisions for such within the Constitution itself (edit: Article V). In fact, since the original 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended an additional 17 times. All that is required to pass an amendment is a 2/3's vote of both houses of Congress, and then ratification by 3/4's of the state legislatures. Feel free.

 

[chess9]

So, Vic, are you saying they're gonna' take away my tactical thermonuclear rabbit GUN?

I mean, an AK47 is a lot of fuss and bother. And so messy. The nice thing about a few hundred thousand degrees Kelvin is it doesn't leave much evidence behind for the do gooders. Know what I mean?

Sheezh, the liberals run this country....

-Robert

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: chess9
So, Vic, are you saying they're gonna' take away my tactical thermonuclear rabbit GUN?

I mean, an AK47 is a lot of fuss and bother. And so messy. The nice thing about a few hundred thousand degrees Kelvin is it doesn't leave much evidence behind for the do gooders. Know what I mean?

Sheezh, the liberals run this country....

-Robert

Did you even read my post? :disgust:

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

Sure why not?

Text

Wow that guy is a nut.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I used to believe that guns were a serious problem in this country. Now, after much thought on the matter, I believe that it's not guns that are the problem, rather it's the minority of Americans that cannot supress their murderous, violent tendencies. The problem is with our hostile war-like culture which sometimes, I feel is reinforced from the top on down.

Its not culture, its the fact that human nature in general has always been violent. The propensity for violence is in our genes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

Sure why not?

Text

Wow that guy is a nut.

Sarcasm?

I didn't see anything in that article but historical facts and the well-formed logical lessons to be learned from them.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I demand the right to go deer hunting with napalm . . .
you don't have to gut 'em,
and they're fully cooked.

 

[tcsenter]

The founding fathers were not infallible gods, but mortal men who left deliberate provisions allowing the constitution to be ammended in the future if a provision became outdated, or proved not to work well and caused problems, some time in the future.

Whatever the founders envisioned of the Second Amendment, it surely was not that the best defense of a free nation be the right to hunt ducks. We can agree that Kerry doesn't understand or perhaps has never read the Second Amendment if he believes it is about duck hunting.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
The Second Amendment clearly means that we have the right to have ANY arms and to bear them whereever we go.
Outlawing any one gun is infirnging on that right. Outlawing carrying the guns in certain areas is infringing that right. Infringing means to clip away little by little. Any anti-gun law is an infringing and clearly unconstitutional.

So we should be able to have full auto guns and carry them around with us?

Sure why not?

Text

Wow that guy is a nut.

Sarcasm?

I didn't see anything in that article but historical facts and the well-formed logical lessons to be learned from them.

Nope not sarcasm at all. The idea that hunting lincencess are there to keep people from owning guns is a little over the top. With out fish and game laws there would be no more aniamals that are larger then dogs in the wild.