Why the second amendment argument is a joke

[BoberFett]

I agree with your entire post. And at some point the government will use its power and people will start disappearing at night via the black helicopters. Word will get around.

That will start it.

People will then start insurgency. Mostly by the lone wolf. They will do exactly as what happened in Iraq. Police officers will slowly but surely be sniped until police officers are scared to do their job. So the government will have no choice but to maintain order with military forces. Again. They will slowly be sniped one by one to demoralize the military. People will attack military recruiting stations to prevent more from joining the military if not executed outright at the mention of even wanting to join the military.

You see. We need guns in order to protect ourselves. We don't need nukes, we don't need tanks, we don't need machine guns. We have enough to demoralize the government and make it very hard for them to sustain themselves. All the while we refuse to pay taxes and stop working. The government will crumble like every one has in the past.

The only thing they can do is outlaw guns outright and come door to door and collect them. They can go ahead and try... That will be humous to watch. Again, see my first point about police officers...

Our people are lazy, but no matter what, the government will not win. There are enough lone wolves out there that will fix the problem and as more people disappear, that number increases.

Impossible. Without a nuclear arsenal citizens are powerless to stop the government who will nuke every major city if they have to, just to quell the rebellion so they can rule over the remaining rubble...

 

[jackstar7]

Maybe you can explain how democracy has worked for *you*, I'd love to hear it.

I reckon you won't hear it at all. But democracy has worked for me personally in facilitating air, water, and foods that I know meet standards meant to protect the population while still preserving my ability to choose to consume whatever crap I like. I also like public schools as opposed to what would happen to all those children (and society) without them. Deomcracy works for me. And I accept that it doesn't always, but that's because I don't get to decide everything for everyone... which is exactly how it is supposed to work.

But, you didn't explain why you still choose to live here if the system you are forced to live under is such an utter failure AND you're not doing anything to change the system.

 

[xj0hnx]

LOL, of course it's a failure. It's the biggest lie ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. The notion that consent is given by choosing between a handful of malignant narcissists dedicated to consolidating the power of the state via theft and mass murder, it is totally ludicrous. It's no more civilized than the warlords of old, except the warlords had the decency not to lie to you about why he is stealing your shit and burning down your village.

Maybe you can explain how democracy has worked for *you*, I'd love to hear it.

:thumbsup: Brilliant.

Impossible. Without a nuclear arsenal citizens are powerless to stop the government who will nuke every major city if they have to, just to quell the rebellion so they can rule over the remaining rubble...

Exactly. the "government" isn't going to use nukes on ...itself. I don't think there is anyone in the "government" with the balls to give the order to nuke Chicago because some militia is attacking military base, or police stations. the very idea is absurd beyond words.

 

[dmens]

I reckon you won't hear it at all. But democracy has worked for me personally in facilitating air, water, and foods that I know meet standards meant to protect the population while still preserving my ability to choose to consume whatever crap I like. I also like public schools as opposed to what would happen to all those children (and society) without them. Deomcracy works for me. And I accept that it doesn't always, but that's because I don't get to decide everything for everyone... which is exactly how it is supposed to work.

But, you didn't explain why you still choose to live here if the system you are forced to live under is such an utter failure AND you're not doing anything to change the system.

LOL, cause and effect failure. Because it isn't science and technology that promoted all those things, it's the Total State. And who knows how you can pimp the prison-daycare centers misnamed "public schools", pissing away the potential of entire generations of youth.

As for why I live here, it's because the entire world is held in thrall by the psychopaths who run the oppressive power structures. The best I can do is pick the least horrible place.

 

[jackstar7]

LOL, cause and effect failure. Because it isn't science and technology that promoted all those things, it's the Total State. And who knows how you can pimp the prison-daycare centers misnamed "public schools", pissing away the potential of entire generations of youth.

As for why I live here, it's because the entire world is held in thrall by the psychopaths who run the oppressive power structures. The best I can do is pick the least horrible place.

As I predicted, you wouldn't hear me.

But I like your slogan: "America! Least Horrible!"

 

[dmens]

As I predicted, you wouldn't hear me.

But I like your slogan: "America! Least Horrible!"

What, you mean I pointed out the fallacy in your argument? Are you one of these people who think there'd be no computers without WW2?

As for the slogan, it sure as hell beats "America land of the free". I can barely type that without laughing.

 

[jackstar7]

What, you mean I pointed out the fallacy in your argument? Are you one of these people who think there'd be no computers without WW2?

As for the slogan, it sure as hell beats "America land of the free". I can barely type that without laughing.

Sir, you pointed out no fallacy that I subscribe to. You inferred a predetermined handy strawman to knock over. Super-good job on that, by the way.

 

[dmens]

Sir, you pointed out no fallacy that I subscribe to. You inferred a predetermined handy strawman to knock over. Super-good job on that, by the way.

No strawman, just quoting your stated belief that "democracy" created clean air and water.

 

[jackstar7]

No strawman, just quoting your stated belief that "democracy" created clean air and water.

Which I didn't state, but that was my point in calling out your strawman.

Carry on, serf.

 

[dmens]

Which I didn't state, but that was my point in calling out your strawman.

Carry on, serf.

LOL @ serf. The irony.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Way back in 08 it was clear what was going on.Same thing happened in Germany .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfhHHCXxVe4

 

[Doppel]

So you advocate violent rebellion as the first resort rather than the last? Good thing you're anti-gun, you definitely shouldn't own one.

I know you don't have a degree, but I think you're capable of critical thinking more thorough than your sentence hints at.

 

[Lemon law]

LOL, of course it's a failure. It's the biggest lie ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. The notion that consent is given by choosing between a handful of malignant narcissists dedicated to consolidating the power of the state via theft and mass murder, it is totally ludicrous. It's no more civilized than the warlords of old, except the warlords had the decency not to lie to you about why he is stealing your shit and burning down your village.

Maybe you can explain how democracy has worked for *you*, I'd love to hear it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well dmes, my right to freedom of assembly and my right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures have worked pretty well for me, but this second amendment bullshit that criminals and nutcases should have the right to possess and use military grade firearms useless for legitimate hunting did not exactly work out well, in the Newton school shooting, or the Portland mall shooting a few days ago, or in all the mass violence by nuts in the past few years.

As for abuse of power by State Governors, maybe Gov Pete Wilson is a classic, as he tried to disenfranchise the rights of all Hispanics based on racial profiling when many of them had been US citizens, even before California became a State. And as a result, California has never voted GOP for 22 years and counting.

And if Arkansas, Arizona, Mississippi, want to go the same way, the abuse is only temporary. As the Americans citizens of all states have a long and proud history of dope slapping their idiot politicians. As even the former Red State of Nevada went democratic.

 

[dmens]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well dmes, my right to freedom of assembly and my right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures have worked pretty well for me, but this second amendment bullshit that criminals and nutcases should have the right to possess and use military grade firearms useless for legitimate hunting did not exactly work out well, in the Newton school shooting, or the Portland mall shooting a few days ago, or in all the mass violence by nuts in the past few years.

As for abuse of power by State Governors, maybe Gov Pete Wilson is a classic, as he tried to disenfranchise the rights of all Hispanics based on racial profiling when many of them had been US citizens, even before California became a State. And as a result, California has never voted GOP for 22 years and counting.

And if Arkansas, Arizona, Mississippi, want to go the same way, the abuse is only temporary. As the Americans citizens of all states have a long and proud history of dope slapping their idiot politicians. As even the former Red State of Nevada went democratic.

Wait are you trying to imply I'm a Republican? LOL

The Bill of Rights is an anti-state document. Democracy didn't create it. It was written as a document of defiance against the British state.

By the way the government created the "gun free zones", lulled the civilians into a false sense of security, then when some lunatic shoots up the place, the government has the chutzpah to tell the rest of us we're the problem? Even as the media vultures give a thousand copycats ideas, the cops are already planning their next budget increase, and the mass-murderer-in-chief is pimping his agenda before the bodies are buried.

Let's see how your right against unreasonable searches holds up if you happen to smoke pot in your home, or hold politically incorrect views: https://rt.com/usa/news/refusing-grand-jury-plante-196/

 

[IGBT]

Feinstein on guns.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinste...ow-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

 

[xj0hnx]

Feinstein on guns.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinste...ow-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

Diane Feinstein needs to be tarred and feathered.

 

[Darwin333]

I would also like to add that precedent has been set that not only can the executive branch, with absolutely ZERO judicial oversight, do all the things you listed but now they can and have flat out killed American citizens. No judge, no trial, no jury, no nothing except the Presidents authorization.

 

[Ausm]

 

[jackstar7]

LOL @ serf. The irony.

What irony? You're the one who sees yourself as such...

I see myself as a citizen.

 

[brandonb]

I love that picture. How ignorant people are.

Have you ever seen the 2nd amendment?

It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the commas in there?

What does it all mean?

It's so confusing.

Let me spell it out for you.

"We the people"

The government is supposed to be the populous. So what that is saying is this: There is no standing army, if there is a threat, the people need to be able to form militias to defend themselves. Since defending themselves means they will need arms, we have to give them the right. So that basically means we need to allow people to carry arms so they can form militias to detour a possible threat.

The United States Army doesn't mean squat. If the government wants to pay people to join their militia fine, but it doesn't eliminate or replace the right for the people to form their own militias. Again, we the people. To eliminate the people's right but allow the government to do it, it's no longer "we the people" and our constitution is toilet paper.

Hey! It already is. That to me is a threat and I should be able to have guns to defend myself from the threat. And I do!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

The second amendment makes a lot of sense. Governments have historically tried to take guns away before going off the deep end. USSR did that, Germany did that, China did that, etc.

The reason the second amendment no longer applies is that people are simply too lazy to give a shit about anything. Ask your friends and relatives if they know what the NDAA is. Ask if they know of the provisions in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
Basically it says the following:

The government is allowed to arrest and hold US citizens without a trial or charges. All they need to do is label you as a terrorist, and you're done. Notice that both Germany and USSR did this same exact thing. Hitler called his enemies terrorists and foreign invaders. Lenin branded people as terrorists if they were "against the revolution" which basically means whatever the hell he wanted it to mean. Now Obama and future presidents have that same executive power. You make a site called wikileaks? You're a terrorist. You work in journalism? You're a terrorist. Journalists are genuinely terrified of the implications here. Back in the long long ago, a wise and beautiful woman named Nixon was exposed by some guy named Deep Throat. In modern times, both Deep Throat and the journalist talking to him would be branded as terrorists, just like Julian Assange is right now.

The whole point of the second amendment is that you're supposed to rise up to prevent things like this from happening. America has all the guns in the universe, and nobody did a damn thing. People didn't even protest. You might as well lose your second amendment rights today since nobody cares about anything. People talk about freedom all day and they act like having a gun is freedom, then they turn a blind eye when the constitution is completely gutted by people Jefferson referred to as "tyrants."

we did rise up, we re elected obama and rejected romney

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

LOL, of course it's a failure. It's the biggest lie ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. The notion that consent is given by choosing between a handful of malignant narcissists dedicated to consolidating the power of the state via theft and mass murder, it is totally ludicrous. It's no more civilized than the warlords of old, except the warlords had the decency not to lie to you about why he is stealing your shit and burning down your village.

Maybe you can explain how democracy has worked for *you*, I'd love to hear it.

Oh the ironing...

The mere fact that you can post on this forum points to the complete and utter success of Democracy as the pre-eminent form of Government.

Your attitude is pretty amusing though.

But feel free to point how Democracy has held back the advancement of the Human race compared to all other types we have had.

Cynicism is not an argument by the way.

 

[Ausm]

I love that picture. How ignorant people are.

Have you ever seen the 2nd amendment?

It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the commas in there?

What does it all mean?

It's so confusing.

Let me spell it out for you.

"We the people"

The government is supposed to be the populous. So what that is saying is this: There is no standing army, if there is a threat, the people need to be able to form militias to defend themselves. Since defending themselves means they will need arms, we have to give them the right. So that basically means we need to allow people to carry arms so they can form militias to detour a possible threat.

The United States Army doesn't mean squat. If the government wants to pay people to join their militia fine, but it doesn't eliminate or replace the right for the people to form their own militias. Again, we the people. To eliminate the people's right but allow the government to do it, it's no longer "we the people" and our constitution is toilet paper.

Hey! It already is. That to me is a threat and I should be able to have guns to defend myself from the threat. And I do!

Can you pass some of the shit your're smoking my way?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I love that picture. How ignorant people are.

Have you ever seen the 2nd amendment?

It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

See the commas in there?

What does it all mean?

It's so confusing.

Let me spell it out for you.

"We the people"

The government is supposed to be the populous. So what that is saying is this: There is no standing army, if there is a threat, the people need to be able to form militias to defend themselves. Since defending themselves means they will need arms, we have to give them the right. So that basically means we need to allow people to carry arms so they can form militias to detour a possible threat.

The United States Army doesn't mean squat. If the government wants to pay people to join their militia fine, but it doesn't eliminate or replace the right for the people to form their own militias. Again, we the people. To eliminate the people's right but allow the government to do it, it's no longer "we the people" and our constitution is toilet paper.

Hey! It already is. That to me is a threat and I should be able to have guns to defend myself from the threat. And I do!

I see what you did there.

I also see how you completely ignored the "well regulated" part.

But then, you would have to ignore that part to support the rest of your rather stretchy extrapolation of whatever the founders intended.

 

[schneiderguy]

I see what you did there.

I also see how you completely ignored the "well regulated" part.

But then, you would have to ignore that part to support the rest of your rather stretchy extrapolation of whatever the founders intended.

Well regulated means well trained/well armed.