So if guns serve to preserve your freedom

[_Rick_]

How is the impoverished criminal using his gun to kill you and take your money not making a political statement, by getting the means to benefit of his freedom?

This fabled militia - what if it's made up of poor black gangbangers, who see the enemy not in the government, but in the money controlling the government? After all, going after the actual government is pointless, as they will defend themselves with means to which you cannot respond. But marauding their base might just be what it needs to end this tyranny.

And what's the difference if suddenly it's you and your posse against the powers that are? That changes everything, right? You're no mere criminal, you're a citizen, shooting people that are immoral and wrong!


So - with that in mind - is the second amendment in this day and age anything else but an excuse to have toys / imaginary penis extensions / the tool to the ultimate power trip?

(Yes, I know, same old, same old. But then I'm really interested in how anyone can defend the second amendment in a pluralist democracy. The uprising will always be a minority. That is how a democracy works. If everyone has guns, it will only mean more people will die with little accomplished. If the democracy is broken, then a large enough uprising will usually sway police forces and the army. If they don't, good luck using your shotgun against an Apache Gunship, AC-130, or Predator.)

 

[surfsatwerk]

I liked watching Braveheart.

 

[SSSnail]

Because I can shoot the criminals.

 

[zinfamous]

I liked watching Braveheart.

I preferred The Patriot. It was basically Braveheart, but with more "'Merica! Fuck Yeah!" going on

 

[CurseTheSky]

Preserving freedom is about what is doing what is morally right, not just for you, but for the "common cause."

Using a weapon to mug / hurt / kill someone for your own benefit isn't preserving your freedom, it's taking someone else's.

Using a weapon to protect yourself or your family from someone trying to do the above IS preserving your freedom.

Big, big difference.

 

[Texashiker]

So - with that in mind - is the second amendment in this day and age anything else but an excuse to have toys / imaginary penis extensions / the tool to the ultimate power trip?

Free men carry firearms, slaves carry chains, there is no in the middle.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I preferred The Patriot. It was basically Braveheart, but with more "'Merica! Fuck Yeah!" going on

Not enough smashing people up with big club and stuff for my tastes.

 

[Atreus21]

I preferred The Patriot. It was basically Braveheart, but with more "'Merica! Fuck Yeah!" going on

That was a seriously dumb movie.

 

[Jaskalas]

...good luck using your shotgun against an Apache Gunship, AC-130, or Predator.)

Ask the Arab Spring how well the military stopped the people.

 

[monovillage]

Ask the Arab Spring how well the military stopped the people.

You mean the military refused to gun down their own people? Amazing..... well it's amazing to fucking liberals that is.

 

[jpeyton]

Take the emotion out of it and look at the numbers.

Firearms in the USA has a $31 billion/year impact on the economy (wages, taxes, sales), and employs 190,000 people directly/indirectly. 80 million gun owners in the USA enjoy firearms responsibly.

Of the roughly 15,000 homicides in the USA each year, about 10,000 are gun related.

On the other hand, heart disease kills 600,000/year and diabetes kills 70,000/year. Even the flu kills over 50,000/year. These are all domestic numbers.

I think the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Texashiker]

Take the emotion out of it and look at the numbers.

Firearms in the USA has a $31 billion/year impact on the economy (wages, taxes, sales), and employs 190,000 people directly/indirectly.

Something that is not talked about during gun debates is how the civilian market keeps gun companies in business.

The military does not buy enough rifles, shotgun and pistols to keep the factories up and running.

Related article - http://www.survivalboards.com/2012-07-25/something-to-consider-on-gun-control/

It times of war, its easier to retool, then it is to build a whole new factory.

It is absolutely essential that the civilian market keep buying guns, its a matter of national security.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

so what is the point of the second amendment in a modern world is what you're saying?

 

[_Rick_]

so what is the point of the second amendment in a modern world is what you're saying?

In a modern, mostly civilized world.
Insurgents these days (the people that are to benefit from the second amendment) tend to use IEDs to greater effect than hand guns anyway.

 

[Genx87]

How is the impoverished criminal using his gun to kill you and take your money not making a political statement, by getting the means to benefit of his freedom?

This fabled militia - what if it's made up of poor black gangbangers, who see the enemy not in the government, but in the money controlling the government? After all, going after the actual government is pointless, as they will defend themselves with means to which you cannot respond. But marauding their base might just be what it needs to end this tyranny.

And what's the difference if suddenly it's you and your posse against the powers that are? That changes everything, right? You're no mere criminal, you're a citizen, shooting people that are immoral and wrong!


So - with that in mind - is the second amendment in this day and age anything else but an excuse to have toys / imaginary penis extensions / the tool to the ultimate power trip?

(Yes, I know, same old, same old. But then I'm really interested in how anyone can defend the second amendment in a pluralist democracy. The uprising will always be a minority. That is how a democracy works. If everyone has guns, it will only mean more people will die with little accomplished. If the democracy is broken, then a large enough uprising will usually sway police forces and the army. If they don't, good luck using your shotgun against an Apache Gunship, AC-130, or Predator.)

You are depriving others of liberty when you use a weapon to steal from them.

Why do people continue to believe the general population doesnt stand a chance vs the govt in armed conflict? We have seen one dictator toppled and killed in the past 18 months with another on his way to the same fate. All from a bunch of armed civilians who decided to shoot back.

 

[_Rick_]

Take the emotion out of it and look at the numbers.

Firearms in the USA has a $31 billion/year impact on the economy (wages, taxes, sales), and employs 190,000 people directly/indirectly. 80 million gun owners in the USA enjoy firearms responsibly.

Of the roughly 15,000 homicides in the USA each year, about 10,000 are gun related.

On the other hand, heart disease kills 600,000/year and diabetes kills 70,000/year. Even the flu kills over 50,000/year. These are all domestic numbers.

I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Consumption of a harmful luxury good has no benefits. It merely raises costs on limited resources that could be used for productive purposes. But this is an issue for another thread.

 

[_Rick_]

You are depriving others of liberty when you use a weapon to steal from them.

Why do people continue to believe the general population doesnt stand a chance vs the govt in armed conflict? We have seen one dictator toppled and killed in the past 18 months with another on his way to the same fate. All from a bunch of armed civilians who decided to shoot back.

The American army is training in counter insurgency and getting a lot of practice in the middle east. They are technologically superior to the 40 year old equipment of some desert dictator. We are talking about America here, a democracy, and not a dictatorship.

Secondly, usually it's not just the army that stands behind a dictator. So those same guns that may help you overthrow him, will be used against you by parts of the populace that support the dictator.

Without the intervention in Libya, who knows what Ghaddafi's air force may have done to the uprising.

 

[Jaskalas]

In a modern, mostly civilized world.
Insurgents these days (the people that are to benefit from the second amendment) tend to use IEDs to greater effect than hand guns anyway.

Guns make people a threat. Means you either have to shoot them, or listen and maybe even come to terms with them. The projection of strength is at issue here. When the military has to face this threat, they think twice.

You can do whatever you like to disarmed sheep.

 

[Genx87]

The American army is training in counter insurgency and getting a lot of practice in the middle east. They are technologically superior to the 40 year old equipment of some desert dictator. We are talking about America here, a democracy, and not a dictatorship.

Secondly, usually it's not just the army that stands behind a dictator. So those same guns that may help you overthrow him, will be used against you by parts of the populace that support the dictator.

Without the intervention in Libya, who knows what Ghaddafi's air force may have done to the uprising.

Let me get this straight. You believe our military will on a whole be more well prepared to mow down civilians than Libya and Syria? Based on what exactly? Those armies were ideologically driven to die for a dictator. Our military is ideologically driven to die for a piece of paper. Huge difference. I'd say our military would have a harder time pulling the trigger than in those despot regimes. But for arguments sake lets discuss how our military has done putting down insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[_Rick_]

You mean the military refused to gun down their own people? Amazing..... well it's amazing to fucking liberals that is.

If the military is on your side - there's no need for you to have guns. If it's not on your side, it will eventually fire back, even if it has a defensive stance to protect its CIC. Especially if the military is well provided for and sees its interests endangered it may be more proactive. Insurgents are still the enemy.

 

[_Rick_]

Let me get this straight. You believe our military will on a whole be more well prepared to mow down civilians than Libya and Syria? Based on what exactly? Those armies were ideologically driven to die for a dictator. Our military is ideologically driven to die for a piece of paper. Huge difference. I'd say our military would have a harder time pulling the trigger than in those despot regimes. But for arguments sake lets discuss how our military has done putting on insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So why do you need the fabled organized militia, if the military defends the constitution?

 

[Jaskalas]

So why do you need the fabled organized militia, if the military defends the constitution?

Military won't be forced to make that choice if there is no armed resistance.

 

[_Rick_]

Guns make people a threat. Means you either have to shoot them, or listen and maybe even come to terms with them. The projection of strength is at issue here. When the military has to face this threat, they think twice.

You can do whatever you like to disarmed sheep.

No.
A strike is a very efficient way to get a message across.
You don't need to shoot, to endanger a nation.
Block its roads, refuse to work, all this will eventually put a government at risk.
Especially once it gains the required critical mass, that an armed uprising would need to make a difference.

Nobody can force you to do anything. And shooting back is not going to do you any good, if you're a minority. You'll only alienate even more of the remaining populace.

 

[Genx87]

So why do you need the fabled organized militia, if the military defends the constitution?

Just in case it fails in its duty.

 

[Jaskalas]

All the Arabs had to do was go on strike?

Somebody call the Syrians.