The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact. But I've witnessed too much.

Ten states have all but outlawed firearms. Where was the backlash? We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we? We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.

The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era. The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.

Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues. Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)

The government doesn't take your weapons all at once. They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand. They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.

I'm just telling you how life really works.

I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation. There are about 10 million of them. Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in? They are the single most popular of all firearms these days. And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned. They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.

So, people will break the law. Law breaking is illegal and could end up with the person in prison.

People make choices. They can CHOOSE to illegals.

As they say, criminals never obey the laws, and these people will be criminals.

Should you refuse to make laws because some people will refuse to abide by these laws?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

Sure there are ways around it.

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.

The military can be brainwashed into murdering Iraqis, and police can be brainwashed into murdering Blacks, but when the government starts to tell them to shoot AR owners who refuse to turn them in, the police and military will wake up.
They happen to also own ARs privately, so many of them will no longer comply with their orders.

Ah, so against Blacks they won't wake up. Against Iraqis they won't wake up, but against AR owners they will?

Er.... why?

Why are you so certain when they've done bad things before and not thought about it, that they'll think about it in the future?

If they go out to get gun owners, they'll have sufficiently brainwashed them then too. It's not that hard.

"These people are mentally insane, they should not have guns. They've broken the law, they are like Timothy McVeigh"

How many people stood up for McVeigh?

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is just an empty and obsolete shell that has been bastardized over the years. It's actually just a comical relic which is totally open to interpretation. The founders apparently had blinders on when they wrote it - because it only relates to the time it was written.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights, now, there wouldn't any such thing as the Second Amendment," said former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger during a 1991 PBS NewsHour interview on gun control. Burger was a conservative judge appointed to the highest bench of the land by President Richard Nixon.



The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

Warren Burger and NRA: Gun lobby’s big fraud on Second Amendment | The Milwaukee Independent

Warren Burger and the Second Amendment

 

[Cecilie1200]

And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young. Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?

Do I want to view humans as less than animals? No. But clearly progressives are. Have you ever seen animals have an abortion? Only humans (on the left) kill their own babies. And only humans kill themsleves.

Yes, well, I'm pretty sure it's the leftist vision of humanity and what it should be that I'm arguing against here.

 

[Lakhota]

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

I just heard, "Things I like are wonderful. Things I don't like are obviously bad and irrelevant, because I don't like them."

 

[P@triot]

The truth is so important. The facts are absolutely critical. We, as a society, cannot allow uninformed, emotional, irrational progressives such as Lakhota set policy or build their false narratives.

School shootings are down. Way down. And yet the left is in a full on panic-mode tizzy demanding that firearms be banned and the 2nd Amendment torn up. If we didn’t ban firearms in the 1990’s, we sure as hell shouldn’t ban them now.

Schools Safer Now Than They Were in 1990s, According to New Study

 

[Moonglow]

Spambot Patirot in action...

 

[P@triot]

Nothing does more to advance the cause of liberty or promote conservatism than a progressive in front of a microphone.

Gun show in Florida attracts most attendees ever after deadly mass shooting at Parkland high school

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd Amendment is just an empty and obsolete shell that has been bastardized over the years. It's actually just a comical relic which is totally open to interpretation. The founders apparently had blinders on when they wrote it - because it only relates to the time it was written.

This comment is why I want to repeal every motherfucking gun law on the books.

If the left (commies) can't at least admit that we have an individual right to on guns, no gun control will ever be acceptable, because it is a step toward total ban and confiscation.

I want total repeal. Fuck this shit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

Warren Burger and NRA: Gun lobby’s big fraud on Second Amendment | The Milwaukee Independent

Warren Burger and the Second Amendment

Warren Burger was a shitty justice who had ZERO discipline and who was a fucking commie. He gave no support for that retarded statement, and no one else has either.

We was WRONG!!! Writings of the founders have unequivocally rebuked CheeseBurger's bullshit. That statement only confirms what I always believed. Burger was not fit for the bench.

 

[Flopper]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

 

[Rustic]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.

From Heller:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

***

"
1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

***

" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

 

[fnm]

I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation. There are about 10 million of them. Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in? They are the single most popular of all firearms these days. And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned. They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.

Except for the fact that they fire one round of bullets at a time.

 

[Bush92]

2nd Amendment is what it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

I think the key phrase you should be concentrating on is this quote from me: "Learn to understand ENGLISH!"

No one in interested in interpreting and applying our laws according to your limited and flawed comprehension of what the words mean, dumbass.

 

[Flopper]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.

When teenagers are slaughtering kids in school with assault rifles, it's everybody's business. One would have to be insane to think our founding fathers would condom the gun slaughter we have in this country. Lucky for the gun nuts, they're not around because if they were, the 2nd amendment would look far different.

The context back in the 1700's was very different than today. Armed trained citizens were needed by militias to protect the colonies. People in rural areas needed guns to hunt for food and for protection from hostile Indians. Today, our military has plenty of resources to train recruits. We have law enforcement everywhere in the country and no one needs to hunt for food. The only thing we need guns for is to protect ourselves from others who have guns. The solution to problem is rather obvious, eliminate guns and there is no need for guns. However, I don't really support making all guns illegal, just making gun ownership a privileged, not a right.

 

[Rustic]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.

When teenagers are slaughtering kids in school with assault rifles, it's everybody's business. One would have to be insane to think our founding fathers would condom the gun slaughter we have in this country. Lucky for the gun nuts, they're not around because if they were, the 2nd amendment would look far different.

The context back in the 1700's was very different than today. Armed trained citizens were needed by militias to protect the colonies. People in rural areas needed guns to hunt for food and for protection from hostile Indians. Today, our military has plenty of resources to train recruits. We have law enforcement everywhere in the country and no one needs to hunt for food. The only thing we need guns for is to protect ourselves from others who have guns. The solution to problem is rather obvious, eliminate guns and there is no need for guns. However, I don't really support making all guns illegal, just making gun ownership a privileged, not a right.

True, In urban areas.
Not at all in Rural areas....

 

[jc456]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns. Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.

guess you missed how fast a malitia can be put together. Did you see the streets of DC after the Inauguration?