Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Dagosa]

Every grown man and woman is a militia member, scumbag.

Scumbag……there are two types of militia; the organized and the toy soldiers. That’s you, scumbag.

 

[Dagosa]

All depends on the gun. I have a .22 revolver that I can hit a soup can with offhand consistently at 60 feet. I also have a Glock 42 (my carry gun) that I can't shoot a tight pattern with at 20 feet unless I'm supported on a sandbag.

Exactly…….22 are cheaper to shoot and practice with. Probably shoot the .22 a hell of a lot more.

 

[Dagosa]

You keep saying that but you never come to take my guns.

So you’ll either run like a chicken shit or accidentally piss your pants. Be prepared and stock up on depends.

 

[Woodznutz]

Gee, that’s news according to the mission statement of all the guard units and their commanders in the United states. More shit you want to make up ?
“All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.”

But are they the 'militia' as defined by the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Woodznutz]

There is something wrong with your grip then. Take the Glock to a good gunsmith, you may need custom grips. Revolver grips tend to be more round, and auto grips tend to be more flat. The Glock may just not fit your hand.

True. It's a small gun and I have big hands. Although I'm not happy with my groupings all my shots are CBM at 30 feet.

 

[Cougarbear]

It's actually to defend against runaway slave rebellions that cross into 'free states'.

No, it isn't actually about race. Why is it that everything degenerates to race with liberals? Can't liberals make their cases logically or legally? A black man is killed by black cops and it's white supremacy. You people are completely insane.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, it isn't actually about race. Why is it that everything degenerates to race with liberals? Can't liberals make their cases logically or legally? A black man is killed by black cops and it's white supremacy. You people are completely insane.

At the time the founders were debating gun rights the major threat to 'free states' was armed slave rebellions. Armed civilian militias were needed to ensure safety, thus the 2nd A was worded the way it was. It was also parsed in such a way to ensure the individual right to bear arms regardless of any other circumstances.

In fact, they may have borrowed from the British, who when unable to defend the populace from common criminals, lifted restrictions on firearms and insisted the people arm and defend themselves.

 

[AZrailwhale]

At the time the founders were debating gun rights the major threat to 'free states' was armed slave rebellions. Armed civilian militias were needed to ensure safety, thus the 2nd A was worded the way it was. It was also parsed in such a way to ensure the individual right to bear arms regardless of any other circumstances.

In fact, they may have borrowed from the British, who when unable to defend the populace from common criminals, lifted restrictions on firearms and insisted the people arm and defend themselves.

Less than half the states had any significant slave population. A slave rebellion was so far down the list of possibilities it wasn't even considered. Read the Federalist Papers.

 

[Cougarbear]

At the time the founders were debating gun rights the major threat to 'free states' was armed slave rebellions. Armed civilian militias were needed to ensure safety, thus the 2nd A was worded the way it was. It was also parsed in such a way to ensure the individual right to bear arms regardless of any other circumstances.

In fact, they may have borrowed from the British, who when unable to defend the populace from common criminals, lifted restrictions on firearms and insisted the people arm and defend themselves.

I think you are just twisting around the real reasons in order to again race bate. I'm sure that slave owners used the 2nd amendment to their advantage. But, to say that's why it was written in the Bill of Rights is again rewriting history for current day causes.

 

[2aguy]

At the time the founders were debating gun rights the major threat to 'free states' was armed slave rebellions. Armed civilian militias were needed to ensure safety, thus the 2nd A was worded the way it was. It was also parsed in such a way to ensure the individual right to bear arms regardless of any other circumstances.

In fact, they may have borrowed from the British, who when unable to defend the populace from common criminals, lifted restrictions on firearms and insisted the people arm and defend themselves.

That is bullshit....you dope. You just swallowed the left wing kool aide and didn't look back.


With an established legal tradition protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms coming from England in 1688, it is difficult to argue that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist or meant to deal with potential slave revolts.


The English simply were not in the least bit concerned about the potential for slave revolts and "anti-Blackness" in America when they drafted their Bill of Rights in 1688.

------

Invasions from foreign enemies, American Indians, and pirates, but no mention of "anti-Blackness" or the need to prevent or deal with slave revolts.


Why did the writers of the Articles of Confederation go through the trouble of listing out the various threats that necessitated a militia but leave out "anti-Blackness" and slave revolts? There can be only one parsimonious explanation: the framers of the Articles of Confederation saw invasions from enemies, attacks from American Indians, and piracy as real threats to the fledgling states and felt it necessary to specifically mention these potential threats and lay the groundwork for how the individual states and the confederacy as a whole would respond.

-----

It is here that we find such Founding Fathers as James Madison stating during the Constitutional Convention, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty" (hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library).


In the Annals of Congress, we find Elbridge Gerry asserting without challenge that the purpose of the declaration of rights (Bill of Rights) is "to secure the people against the mal-administration of Government" and that the purpose and use of the militia "is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." These concerns about the threats posed by a large standing army (not by potential slave revolts) were echoed by other Federalists and Anti-Federalists throughout the ratification process and throughout the debates in Congress, when the first ten amendments were proposed. Indeed, in his first annual message as president in 1801, Thomas Jefferson summed up the prevailing view of the role of the militia best when he said (again, hat tip to The Avalon Project at Yale Law School's Lillian Goldman Law Library):

Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain a defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.

It is not necessary to rely solely on history to disprove the "racist Second Amendment" argument. A rational look at the Second Amendment and subsequent actions taken by Congress proves that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with race. For instance, if it were true that the Second Amendment was meant to be a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, then the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, would have made the Second Amendment moot. That Congress did not repeal the Second Amendment when the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted, nor has repealed it since that time, only strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment was not and is not intended to deal with potential slave revolts. Furthermore, that slavery was not just limited to black people of African descent, but extended to American Indians and even black people enslaving people of their own race, proves that even if was a tool to deal with potential slave revolts, it was far from being "anti-Black" or even racist. These inconvenient truths do not fit the narrative.

----

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the truth is quite discernible: far from being a tool to disenfranchise or oppress, the Second Amendment is and always has been a mechanism for safeguarding, securing, and protecting the people from foreign threats and an overreaching government. Indeed, the Second Amendment is all about preventing the shackles of slavery from ever being applied to the people, and should that unlucky day come, it is all about shattering those shackles. I

The Second Amendment: Not Racist, but Definitely Pro-Freedom







Spooner used the Second Amendment to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. Since a slave is a person who is (or can be) forbidden to possess arms, and the Second Amendment guarantees that all persons can possess arms, no person in the United States can be a slave.
------
The right of a man "to keep and bear arms," is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave. Yet the right is secured as effectually to those whom the States presume to call slaves, as to any whom the States condescend to acknowledge free.

==============



For 20 years now, a well-meaning law professor has been peddling the fiction that the Second Amendment – guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms – was adopted to protect slavery. He first proposed this in a 1998 law review article and trotted it out again in a recent New York Times op-ed.

The trouble is: It’s untrue. Not a single one of America’s founders is known to have suggested such a purpose.

When the Redcoats came to disarm the colonists, the American patriots relied on the right to “have arms for their Defense,” as stated in the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.

In 1776, Pennsylvania declared: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the state.” Vermont copied that language in its constitution, which explicitly abolished slavery. Massachusetts and North Carolina adopted their own versions.

When the states debated adoption of the Constitution without a bill of rights in 1787-88, Samuel Adams proposed the right to bear arms in Massachusetts’s ratification convention. The Dissent of the Minority did so in Pennsylvania, and the entire New Hampshire convention demanded recognition of the right.

There was no connection to slavery in any of these historical antecedents.

In his articles, Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University speculates that George Mason’s and Patrick Henry’s demands in the Virginia ratification convention could have been motivated to protect slavery. Not so.

Mason recalled that “when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And Patrick Henry implored: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” The ensuing debate concerned defense against tyranny and invasion – not slavery.

New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island joined in the demand for what became the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms had universal support.

It was the denial of the right of all “the people” to bear arms that supported slavery. The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision held that African-Americans could not be regarded as citizens, for otherwise they could hold political meetings and “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Frederick Douglass advocated Second Amendment rights for all, and Sojourner Truth carried guns in helping slaves to escape.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-second-amendment-had-nothing-to-do-with-slavery

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Cops have the same weapons I do and, I'm more proficient in their use and more proficient in close quarter tactics.

The best the cops can hope for is to overwhelm me with numbers.

That being said, if the people were so powerless against the government, then why are the Democrats chomping at the bit so hard to ban guns?

I'll tell you why: because they know they can't control us, now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll tell you why: because they know they can't control us, now.

Indeed.
Imagine, had the 30,000 people at the Jan 6 event been armed, with the intent to violently overthrow the government.
They could not have been stopped. Pelosi, Schumer, AOC - maybe Pence - all woudl be dead.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Indeed.
Imagine, had the 30,000 people at the Jan 6 event been armed, with the intent to violently overthrow the government.
They could not have been stopped. Pelosi, Schumer, AOC - maybe Pence - all woudl be dead.

Just imagine if just 10% of the gun owners in The United States took up arms. That's well over 10,000,000 people.

I don't care how many F-15's Creepy Joe has. There's no way they could stop a force that big.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just imagine if just 10% of the gun owners in The United States took up arms. That's well over 10,000,000 people.

I don't care how many F-15's Creepy Joe has. There's no way they could stop a force that big.

Especially if the 10,000,000 don't fight fair.

 

[GHook20]

Cops have the same weapons I do and, I'm more proficient in their use and more proficient in close quarter tactics.

The best the cops can hope for is to overwhelm me with numbers.

That being said, if the people were so powerless against the government, then why are the Democrats chomping at the bit so hard to ban guns?

I'll tell you why: because they know they can't control us, now.

First smoky… you don’t have the same access to guns as a regular cop, and esp not the swat team. Second, slow down internet tough guy, have you tested your proficiency against every cop in the country?

Reread the initial post. A semi auto assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to overthrow even a local government nowadays, but it can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting group of people such as what happened in Highland Park IL.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First smoky… you don’t have the same access to guns as a regular cop, and esp not the swat team.

Most people have access to these guns - why doesn't he?

Reread the initial post. A semi auto assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to overthrow even a local government nowadays, ....

Depends on what you mean by "overthrow" and how many people are involved.

but it can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting group of people such as what happened in Highland Park IL.

So can most other firearms.
Save one, every mass shooting in the US could have been equally perpetrated with a pump-action shotgun.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

First smoky… you don’t have the same access to guns as a regular cop, and esp not the swat team. Second, slow down internet tough guy, have you tested your proficiency against every cop in the country?

Reread the initial post. A semi auto assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to overthrow even a local government nowadays, but it can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting group of people such as what happened in Highland Park IL.

If that were true, the government wouldn't be trying to ban them.

 

[2aguy]

First smoky… you don’t have the same access to guns as a regular cop, and esp not the swat team. Second, slow down internet tough guy, have you tested your proficiency against every cop in the country?

Reread the initial post. A semi auto assault rifle isn’t going to be enough to overthrow even a local government nowadays, but it can wreak havoc on an unsuspecting group of people such as what happened in Highland Park IL.

Hmmmmm......seems to me that the U.S. with Jets and Tanks no longer controls Afghanistan......and the guys with rifles do...........

 

[GHook20]

Hmmmmm......seems to me that the U.S. with Jets and Tanks no longer controls Afghanistan......and the guys with rifles do...........

SMH, that is an apples to oranges comparison… we invaded and took over the country (and Iraq) pretty easily, but nation building a 3rd world country is difficult, costly and not worth the investment.

 

[2aguy]

SMH, that is an apples to oranges comparison… we invaded and took over the country (and Iraq) pretty easily, but nation building a 3rd world country is difficult, costly and not worth the investment.

You are right.....we have over 600 million guns in the hands of over 43% of the population.......we armed, intelligent people with resources the muslim monsters didn't have.......so they need to disarm us first....