CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

Ame®icano

Platinum Member
Jul 8, 2008
24,750
7,531
350
Michigan
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?
 
Last edited:
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?


Do you realize that there are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands...and that is a conservative estimate.....and only in the last few years have any been used in mass shootings....

In fact.....knives are used to murder more people every single year than all rifle types, including the AR-15 civilian rifle...of the two, knives are deadlier than AR-15 rifles.....as are clubs and bare hands.....

Mass shooters murdered 795 people....in 35 years going back to 1982 to 2017......in 35 years! That is all guns, not just rifles.....

Knives are used to murder over 1,600 people every single year.....

So no, AR-15s are not a problem.......not even close...
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?


The real life consequences of the 2nd Amendment...are you serious about that point? Because if you are, then you need to face the truth....

As more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down...

Are you honest enough to see that and acknowledge it?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?


You would need to read Heller to know that the AR-15 civilian rifle, as the most common and popular rifle in the United States, is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment ....if you read Heller......

Guns do not cause thousands of deaths.....criminals murder about 10,000 people a year, 70-80% of which are other criminals......and the primary reason is that the democrat party continues to let violent gun offenders out of jail, over and over again, since the people using guns to commit murder are, at the 90% rate, criminals with long histories of crime and violence who should have been locked up before they committed their first murder....
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?


If you are honest....and look at the actual facts.....you can't hold onto your views about the 2nd Amendment and guns.....

Here is the number of people murdered in mass public shootings since 1982....notice how few in number they are each year...keeping in mind that knives murder over 1,600 people every single year...

US mass shootings, 1982-2018: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Total murders by mass public shooters...1982-2017
795



knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956

Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285



So why ban something that kills so few people while they are used to stop violent crime 1,500,000 times a year....?


Total murders by mass public shooters...1982-2017
795



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...

Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(Lawn Mower Accidents Rise This Time of Year | MU News Bureau)


2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

Wasps and bees....and animals....

Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier

Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,

478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,

and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.


Very good post.

I find it truly bizarre that the people who think Trump is Literally Hitler want him to have the power to take away all of our guns.
 
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

Unfortunately, it's not hypothetical situation, since we have seen the damage caused by tyrannical governments to its unarmed citizens. Every single one ended up in killing of millions, from Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Pol Pot, yeah... crazies. Western countries are not at that stage yet, but they're slowly approaching the absolute power levels.

If we are (US) to follow the constitution, and not to have standing army, than idea of having the same weaponry as government doesn't seems that bad.

To answer your question, thousands of deaths are happening with or without guns. Gun ban does not effect criminals, and statistically death rate isn't much lower after the ban, although mass shootings are not as common. Take Australia for example, 20 years after the "assault weapon" ban, murder rate is still at the same level. Here is the kicker, twenty plus years later, Australian government ordered owners or Riverman bolt action rifles to turn them in. How long before they reclassify the other rifles? LINK And for your information, Australia banned all airsoft guns and rifles. Pretty soon, they wont be allowed to posses even water guns.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.

Absolutely correct.

When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.

The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.

Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.

Absolutely correct.

When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.

The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.

Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
2nd has always been about stopping oppressive government. Tell us another one.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.

Absolutely correct.

When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.

The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.

Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
2nd has always been about stopping oppressive government. Tell us another one.

I think he was being sarcastic.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.

Absolutely correct.

When you're being oppressed by an enemy that's so powerful that it's unlikely that you can defeat them, it's best to just capitulate so that you don't get hurt. You should only fight when odds are in your favor.

The Founders knew that when they went to war against the British underdogs. That's why it's silly to assume that the 2nd Amendment was at all about protection from an oppressive government.

Stick to protesting. If they don't let you protest, then just accept that they're stronger than you and do what you're told.
2nd has always been about stopping oppressive government. Tell us another one.

Damn, man, I know there's no vocal tones in text, but I feel like I laid the sarcasm on way too thick for it to be missed. I even dropped that "British underdogs" bit in there just in case lol
 
Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

I understand that this thread poses a hypothetical, but the implication (or at least the logical extrapolation) of this comment is that tyranny itself is hypothetical, when clearly, it's anything but. The bottom line is that if ANYONE has a particular weapon, then EVERYONE should have the ability to be in possession of it.

Why are gun laws always proposed for average citizens, but I don't hear anyone saying "get those guns away from cops!" If people were truly freedom-minded, perhaps instead of recording Eric Garner get choked out on the floor, those people would have gunned down the fascists responsible for his death. Wearing a costume doesn't give you rights that other people don't have, despite large-scale confusion on this point.
 
We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.
There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceives the government to have become 'tyrannical.'
 
Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions.
Small, but important point of contention here. What did the Taliban use to repel the U.S.S.R. in the '70's, then mount a decisive, though ultimately unsuccessful, resistance to the U.S.A. most recently? Largely small arms, RPGs, and IEDs.

Do not kid yourself, there are over 300 million "small arms" weapons in the U.S. today, with millions capable and willing to use them if the need should arise. There are also readily available explosives (tannerite for example) that one can acquire today. If even 1% of Americans (about 3.6 million) resisted the current armed forces in their entirety (1.4 million), the military would have a fight on their hands they are ill equipped to face, unless they are willing to use large weapons (i.e. bombs) which invariably inflict "collateral damage" (though they are far better than they used to be, and getting better). This would only serve to increase the resistance thus swelling the 3.6 million to unknowable numbers, not to mention those in the armed forces that would defect initially, and continually throughout such a campaign. Then factor in the potential response from outside our borders, and you have a powder keg of force that even our military would have an insurmountable task before them.

This is, of course, a worst case scenario. However, it is one worth considering. Also, this is a strong argument, IMHO, to vehemently defend the 2nd. At least what we have now provides us with a fighting chance, should the worst case scenario play out.
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?
I'll answer, yes. And I'll pose a question to you.

What is a greater threat you:
  1. Being killed by a stranger with a gun.
  2. Being killed by a stranger on the highway.
  3. Being killed by disease.
  4. Being killed in a terrorist attack.
If one is honest, and looks at the actual facts, the order is (in order of highest to lowest risk):
  1. Disease. (610,000 heart disease alone)
  2. Driving. (40,200 in 2016, the highest in recent years)
  3. Gun. (36,252 According to CDC)
  4. Terrorist. (3,024 all years from 1975 thru 2015)
 
No contradiction.

You need guns to: repel the government from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow a tyrannical government. Let me put it in perspective for you. The founding fathers were rebel warlords. They talked with the British but when that did not work, they organized with guns and shot the British. It was a bloody revolution. Only one third of the colonial population supported independence at the time. The others were split evenly between loyalism and indifference.

The impetus for the war was that the British we're marching on Lexington and Concord to seize militia arms stockpiles. When the government comes for the guns, that is the point where those who refuse to submit to the will of others start firing.

The founding fathers were well aware that the government they created was not foolproof. Even in a completely homogeneous European white society (as it used to be), the difference of ideals meant the Constitution, and therefore our government, is a conflicted organism born of negotiation of fundamentally different ideas. The potential for it to become tyrannical by moving too far in one direction or the other meant that the populace may need to revolt again, violently. And now today you see that tyrannical government feared by the founding fathers fully formed. We are there.

The current framework of the argument that the 2nd amendment should be eliminated is that people don't need military style weapons and that violence is otherwise never justified unless used by the government itself (e.g. police).

Citizens do need, not just semi auto weapons, but full auto military style weapons because the purpose and intent behind the 2nd amendment is that the citizens need to be able to: protect themselves from tyrannical government, or to overthrow the tyrannical government. But allowing citizens only to have plunking single shot rifles, it eliminates this ability and makes the 2nd amendment nugatory.

Second, violence can be justified. That is how our nation was born. Not every individual is willing to use violence to defend themselves or their loved ones. And that is their lot in life, or their decision. But there are those who do want to exercise the right to defend themselves and others using violence and the 2nd amendment means that even if 99 people oppose that person's decision, their opposition is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is somehow, let's say "anti-democratic" in that sense because, of course, the first thing a tyrannical government would do to ensure it's survival prior to implementing more tyrannical measures would be to use the Democratic process, the idea of majority rule, to dispossess the minority view of the right to defend itself against total tyranny.
You already see the damage that the weapons which are allowed do in the hands of crazies. What you seem to be suggesting is to put no restrictions on the weaponry the populace is allowed to have. If a guy can kill dozens of people armed with an AR15, I shudder to think what one will do armed with a tank, jet, rocket launcher, etc. The whole idea that, because of the nature of 18th century warfare and it's correlation of weaponry the second amendment is still a valid concept in the 21th seems far fetched. Especially considering that there is a real life measurable consequence for adhering to the second amendment in it's current form, which I might add has restrictions on what weapons you are allowed to have. Restrictions that would disappear if we follow your argument.
This is my question. Do you think this hypothetical situation is worth the thousands of deaths that guns cause today?

How about we just lock the crazies up, instead of turning the entire planet into a nuthouse on lockdown?
 

Forum List

Back
Top