Debate: Constitutional Provision for Gun Ownership is Out of Date with Current Realities

Discussion in 'Congress' started by rocket propelled, Jan 7, 2017.

  1. rocket propelled
    Offline

    rocket propelled Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    16
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +5
    The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. miketx
    Online

    miketx Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    20,903
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +22,683
    I don't think you know what you're talking about. Time and time again, people have held off armys.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,742
    Thanks Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    ...but not armies.
     
  4. USNavyVet
    Offline

    USNavyVet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    696
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Ratings:
    +434
    I think you need to read a few history books.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. AnCap'n_Murica
    Offline

    AnCap'n_Murica Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,528
    Thanks Received:
    656
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +5,787
    I think that the founders could not have imagined offset printing, let alone the internet and social media. Therefore, your speech has been determined to be detrimental to the country and you may not say such things anymore.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,887
    Thanks Received:
    3,891
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,782
    At what point does the Second Amendment specify "small arms"?
     
  7. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,742
    Thanks Received:
    1,019
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,130
    No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.
     
  8. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,887
    Thanks Received:
    3,891
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,782
    I think the likelihood of even an oppressive, fascist US government using nukes against rebellious citizens on their own soil is very remote, since they themselves and their own followers also live there. It would take a very stupid, suicidal person to go that route. So I don't really have a problem with the fact that ownership of the quite rare materials necessary for nukes is very restricted, particularly since the cost of those materials is prohibitively high, anyway.

    But leaving aside the "all or nothing" fallacy argument, it is a fact that the Founding generation had the technology of large weapons (cannons, for example) available and in use, and felt no necessity to limit the possession of such. You can argue whether or not they were correct in doing so, but you cannot honestly argue that they wrote the Second Amendment in ignorance of the issue.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    35,191
    Thanks Received:
    4,680
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +10,260
    It worked really well for Defrezze (SLA) and Koresh (branch davidians) and their followers - against a police dept. and a para military LE agency - didn't it.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. miketx
    Online

    miketx Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    20,903
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +22,683
    Afghanistan against the Soviets
    The Vietcong against the United States.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content