Why the second amendment argument is a joke

[dmens]

You've got a rhetoric worked out, and that's great. The funny thing is I'm not the one with the problem living here. You're the one who seems to hate America as a tragic failure. And those are certainly interesting examples to cite. Do you believe strongly in no rule of law? Do you actively work against it in any tangible ways?

Also, I'm not even strongly in favor of gun control. I would just like gun owners to own up to their either treating their guns as toys (target shooters, collectors, etc.) or security blankets.

Until there is some honesty from them, it's hard to really respect them.

There's the natural law, then there's the bureaucratic law. Two totally different things. Read about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Freder...astiat+the+law

Would you apply your argument to the blacks living in segregated America, and call them ingrates even though they live sometimes happy lives while their kin in Africa suffer infinitely more?

LOL @ security blanket. Tell that to the dead ATF agents at Waco, or the DEA chekists getting shot when they home invade some harmless pot smoker's house. That's not psychological, that's real lead.

 

[jackstar7]

There's the natural law, then there's the bureaucratic law. Two totally different things. Read about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Freder...astiat+the+law

Would you apply your argument to the blacks living in segregated America, and call them ingrates even though their kin in Africa suffer infinitely more?

What argument are you expanding into territory that has nothing to do with this discussion? I'd like you to be clear.

You also didn't answer the question about the rule of law and your stance as an agent working against it.

 

[shortylickens]

I agree with you completely. There are some classic signs of police state in the US such as the indefinite detention without trial and warrant less wire tapping and nobody with guns did anything about it.

You want us to fly to Cuba and shoot American soldiers?

 

[dmens]

What argument are you expanding into territory that has nothing to do with this discussion? I'd like you to be clear.

You also didn't answer the question about the rule of law and your stance as an agent working against it.

It's answered quite clearly. There are laws which should be respected, then there's laws which do nothing but serve the state against the people. They are distinct and should be treated as such.

As for working against the rule of law, yeah I speed habitually.

 

[Doppel]

You have the right to bears arms, its pretty clear those are limited as you cant have nukes etc. all the government has to do is make it more narrow than it is now and they will.

Yes, they will. And yes, they should. It's hopelessly naive the view some have on this. Laws change with technology and always have and always will. If I design a gun that when 30 bullets are fired each one hones in on a specific target at their head, bending around corners and I'm thus able to take out 200 people in the period of about 60 seconds (time it takes to reload an blast out a few clips) some would say the constitution protects that because it's a firearm. A good warrior right now well armed could make a mockery of a dozen armed guys back when the constitution was framed.

Most people intuitively do understand this, though.

Also, I won't be categorized as black or white. Although some weapons should be (if possible) limited, I readily admit that if every teacher (and I'm not saying I advocate this necessarily) in that school had a pistol, things would have gone much, much better last Friday.

Unfortunately the irony most gun owners probably fail to realize is that the only reason they need a gun to protect themselves is because the other person has a gun. If neither did, it wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Doppel]

You want us to fly to Cuba and shoot American soldiers?

What are you talking about?

 

[lotus503]

Yes, they will. And yes, they should. It's hopelessly naive the view some have on this. Laws change with technology and always have and always will. If I design a gun that when 30 bullets are fired each one hones in on a specific target at their head, bending around corners and I'm thus able to take out 200 people in the period of about 60 seconds (time it takes to reload an blast out a few clips) some would say the constitution protects that because it's a firearm. A good warrior right now well armed could make a mockery of a dozen armed guys back when the constitution was framed.

Most people intuitively do understand this, though.

Also, I won't be categorized as black or white. Although some weapons should be (if possible) limited, I readily admit that if every teacher (and I'm not saying I advocate this necessarily) in that school had a pistol, things would have gone much, much better last Friday.

Unfortunately the irony most gun owners probably fail to realize is that the only reason they need a gun to protect themselves is because the other person has a gun. If neither did, it wouldn't be necessary.

I agree with literally every word.

 

[BoberFett]

Impervious... yep. That's not the word I'd use, but I can agree with it.

I can't reconcile all the people who live here happily, but think we're one bad bottle of tequila from being a continental hellscape.

So Germany was a hellscape prior to the events which led to the Holocaust? A crashed economy blamed on a minority group? Nawww, that could never happen here...

You're incredibly naive. No wonder you support gun control.

 

[BoberFett]

Unfortunately the irony most gun owners probably fail to realize is that the only reason they need a gun to protect themselves is because the other person has a gun. If neither did, it wouldn't be necessary.

I'm sure a 5', 90lb woman being raped at knifepoint would appreciate your opinion.

 

[xj0hnx]

Also, I'm not even strongly in favor of gun control. I would just like gun owners to own up to their either treating their guns as toys (target shooters, collectors, etc.) or security blankets.

That is just idiotic. It goes a long way to showing how ignorantly biased you are referring to firearms as either "toys", or "security blankets".

 

[Darwin333]

Unfortunately the irony most gun owners probably fail to realize is that the only reason they need a gun to protect themselves is because the other person has a gun. If neither did, it wouldn't be necessary.

Are you implying that a 120lb woman can easily defend herself from a 250lb man? Or that a person can easily defend against multiple attackers potentially with melee weapons or knives?

 

[shortylickens]

What are you talking about?

Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm sure a 5', 90lb woman being raped at knifepoint would appreciate your opinion.

Are you implying that a 120lb woman can easily defend herself from a 250lb man? Or that a person can easily defend against multiple attackers potentially with melee weapons or knives?

Shhhhhh, you're getting in the way of his anti-gun rawr rawr rawr

 

[dmens]

Unfortunately the irony most gun owners probably fail to realize is that the only reason they need a gun to protect themselves is because the other person has a gun. If neither did, it wouldn't be necessary.

Indeed. Let me know when all the government agents, soldiers and cops throw their guns into the furnace.

 

[Doppel]

Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba.

I guess I missed the memo. Did the US government transplant its head of operations to Cuba? Is that where they're passing the laws now?

---

Point taken on the small people defending against large with gun.

 

[jackstar7]

That is just idiotic. It goes a long way to showing how ignorantly biased you are referring to firearms as either "toys", or "security blankets".

Great counterpoint.

Are you on the toy side or the blanket side? Little of both? Or just total desire to one day be in a position to kill another person?

 

[lotus503]

I'm sure a 5', 90lb woman being raped at knifepoint would appreciate your opinion.

59 percent of women support stricter gun laws.

​

 

[Smoblikat]

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."

BOOM!! 100% nailed it

I would love to stand in front of the white house armed to the teeth telling hussein to go back to etheopia.....but unless there are too many people to arrest I will get fucked. There arent enough people who care.

 

[Smoblikat]

59 percent of women support stricter gun laws.

​

So do 100% of idiots.

 

[lotus503]

So do 100% of idiots.

lol @ u

"I would love to stand in front of the white house armed to the teeth telling hussein to go back to etheopia"

 

[xj0hnx]

Great counterpoint.

Are you on the toy side or the blanket side? Little of both? Or just total desire to one day be in a position to kill another person?

Yip, nothing more than a troll. Back under your rock.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

guns are the only reason we still have freedom in this country. the government knows if they ever tried to turn america into a north american north korea that a hundred million armed adam lanzas would stand up and fight, thank god

 

[lotus503]

guns are the only reason we still have freedom in this country. the government knows if they ever tried to turn america into a north american north korea that a hundred million armed adam lanzas would stand up and fight, thank god

And you are as delusional as Adam Lanza.

 

[jackstar7]

Yip, nothing more than a troll. Back under your rock.

Hey, list some reasons to own guns that you don't believe fall under either of those generalizations.

But I understand you have to dismiss me. I mean the alternative is to say something of substance.

 

[Smoblikat]

lol @ u

"I would love to stand in front of the white house armed to the teeth telling hussein to go back to etheopia"

You like that?