The federal government and the second amendment

[M14 Shooter]

And by the way..the Constitution's second amendment was never meant to be a "check" against Federal Government. There's plenty in the Constitution that makes that very clear.

People in this country have something very powerful. The vote.

And it seems the very same folks telling you to use your guns on the government are the same folks trying to suppress it.

The government will only resort to force as a very last measure. While these clowns are thinking that arming themselves to fight a civil war they would lose in 2 minutes flat and everyone else really believing the vote will make a difference, no one seems to realize that our government has the biggest weapon of all. Mind control.

It only works on those who wear tinfoil hats -- so, if you turn yours in, you'll be safe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They've already disarmed them. The American people just have not realized it yet.

Okay explain how you think they have disarmed Americans ... Because I can assure you that you are incorrect.

.

If you don't already realize it, there is not much I can say to prove it to you.

^^^
Funny that you said this....

Just remember that if your reaction to information contrary to what you believe to be true is violent denial then you will have a hard time seeing the truth.

^^^
...just before you said this.

He asked for that information; you gave none.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Russia vs Afghanistan
U.S. vs Afghanistan
U.S. vs Vietnam
What good did those weapons have on the victor?

"

Okay, let's look at your examples.

Vietnam- We killed 3 million vietnamese, left the country a ruined wasteland that has still not recovered from the war, created millions of refugees... and with a government that is far more dictatorial than ours. Is this really what you'd call "victory"?

Afghanistan- Well, okay, I guess they've proven themselves immune to modernity... I guess China will take the next shot at them.

None of that is the point. Someone tried to make the claim that small arms are no match for our massive military. The examples given show that they can be.

 

[rightwinger]

Would there be a first without a second?

Why wouldnt there be?

Most of the world gets by without a second amendment

Such a childish notion and historically lacking.

Ball is in your court

Show the number of countries that have a second amendment. Then show how the citizens in nations that don't have lost their first amendmnt rights

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why wouldnt there be?

Most of the world gets by without a second amendment

Such a childish notion and historically lacking.

Ball is in your court

Show the number of countries that have a second amendment. Then show how the citizens in nations that don't have lost their first amendmnt rights

Those countries the people have the mentality of a subject. People like that are easily ruled.
You can't rule the American people we are to bull headed for that to happen.

 

[rightwinger]

Such a childish notion and historically lacking.

Ball is in your court

Show the number of countries that have a second amendment. Then show how the citizens in nations that don't have lost their first amendmnt rights

Those countries the people have the mentality of a subject. People like that are easily ruled.
You can't rule the American people we are to bull headed for that to happen.

They don't feel like subjects and endure a much lower murder rate than we tolerate

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

Russia vs Afghanistan
U.S. vs Afghanistan
U.S. vs Vietnam
What good did those weapons have on the victor?

"

Okay, let's look at your examples.

Vietnam- We killed 3 million vietnamese, left the country a ruined wasteland that has still not recovered from the war, created millions of refugees... and with a government that is far more dictatorial than ours. Is this really what you'd call "victory"?

Afghanistan- Well, okay, I guess they've proven themselves immune to modernity... I guess China will take the next shot at them.

None of that is the point. Someone tried to make the claim that small arms are no match for our massive military. The examples given show that they can be.

Corect.
Anti-gun loons are deliberately unaware of any history beyond what they had for breakfast.
It keeps them happy.

 

[Asclepias]

Oh ... So you are full of crap and really don't have an answer ... Typical Liberal ... That's what I thought.

.

Well I'm not a liberal for one. Not nice to say someone is full of crap because you disagree. Look up gradualism and think about the concept. Then think about events like the passing of the Patriot Act. That should start you in the right direction.

Look up Lock and Load because it is more than concept ... I didn't say you were full of crap because I disagreed ... But because you wouldn't answer the question.
If by disarming the American people ... You mean getting people to believe the government thinks they can actually win a fight by slaughtering their citizens ... Then that only goes to show you how much power you have already surrendered ... Glad I am not you.
If you don't want to be called a Liberal ... I can understand why.

.

The problem with the concept of lock and load is that you cant shoot an enemy you cannot define properly. I didn't give you a answer because you already showed me you are too deeply entrenched in denial. Why waste time typing out something you wont believe because you are brainwashed? You sound pretty naive thinking the government would not win a fight against its own citizens. A couple of bombs dropped on your neighborhood would do wonders for your eagerness to comply. I didn't say there would not be pockets of resistance as there always are. I dont mind being called a liberal, i was just telling you that I was not actually a liberal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ball is in your court

Show the number of countries that have a second amendment. Then show how the citizens in nations that don't have lost their first amendmnt rights

Those countries the people have the mentality of a subject. People like that are easily ruled.
You can't rule the American people we are to bull headed for that to happen.

They don't feel like subjects and endure a much lower murder rate than we tolerate

Yet they are subjects with a subjects mentality

 

[Asclepias]

Okay explain how you think they have disarmed Americans ... Because I can assure you that you are incorrect.

.

If you don't already realize it, there is not much I can say to prove it to you.

^^^
Funny that you said this....

Just remember that if your reaction to information contrary to what you believe to be true is violent denial then you will have a hard time seeing the truth.

^^^
...just before you said this.

He asked for that information; you gave none.

Its common for people to nervously laugh at things that make them uneasy. I understand why it was funny to you. As I told him there is no reason to waste typing strokes to tell him something he cant see anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Those countries the people have the mentality of a subject. People like that are easily ruled.
You can't rule the American people we are to bull headed for that to happen.

They don't feel like subjects and endure a much lower murder rate than we tolerate

Yet they are subjects with a subjects mentality

And they look down on us with pity. Not many envy the 300 million guns we have, nor the murders we put up with without a second thought

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They don't feel like subjects and endure a much lower murder rate than we tolerate

Yet they are subjects with a subjects mentality

And they look down on us with pity. Not many envy the 300 million guns we have, nor the murders we put up with without a second thought

Subjects mentality are easily ruled. like cattle and pigs at feed time.

 

[BlackSand]

Look up Lock and Load because it is more than concept ... I didn't say you were full of crap because I disagreed ... But because you wouldn't answer the question.
If by disarming the American people ... You mean getting people to believe the government thinks they can actually win a fight by slaughtering their citizens ... Then that only goes to show you how much power you have already surrendered ... Glad I am not you.
If you don't want to be called a Liberal ... I can understand why.

.

The problem with the concept of lock and load is that you cant shoot an enemy you cannot define properly. I didn't give you a answer because you already showed me you are too deeply entrenched in denial. Why waste time typing out something you wont believe because you are brainwashed? You sound pretty naive thinking the government would not win a fight against its own citizens. A couple of bombs dropped on your neighborhood would do wonders for your eagerness to comply. I didn't say there would not be pockets of resistance as there always are. I dont mind being called a liberal, i was just telling you that I was not actually a liberal.

I didn't say the government wouldn't fight its own people ... They have done stupid things before, are doing stupid things now ... And will most certainly do stupid things in the future.
The only person that is naïve ... Is a person that thinks American troops bombing neighborhoods in America is going to go over very well with the public.
You may be eager to comply ... But thankfully not everyone is ... And you are foolish to think that all the military or law enforcement will comply with orders to disarm America.

You are so brainwashed ... You suggest the foolish notion that what you think can stop a bullet.
News for you ... You are not Superman ... And any desire to disarm the American Public is only the outright desire to bring bloodshed into the streets.
Now I understand that you cannot fathom the idea anyone would fight to the death for their principles and what they think is their right ... And that is why I called you a Liberal to start with.
My bad ... I only assumed that since you don't see where anyone could possibly have principles worth standing for that you must be a Liberal ... My apologies.

.

 

[Asclepias]

Look up Lock and Load because it is more than concept ... I didn't say you were full of crap because I disagreed ... But because you wouldn't answer the question.
If by disarming the American people ... You mean getting people to believe the government thinks they can actually win a fight by slaughtering their citizens ... Then that only goes to show you how much power you have already surrendered ... Glad I am not you.
If you don't want to be called a Liberal ... I can understand why.

.

The problem with the concept of lock and load is that you cant shoot an enemy you cannot define properly. I didn't give you a answer because you already showed me you are too deeply entrenched in denial. Why waste time typing out something you wont believe because you are brainwashed? You sound pretty naive thinking the government would not win a fight against its own citizens. A couple of bombs dropped on your neighborhood would do wonders for your eagerness to comply. I didn't say there would not be pockets of resistance as there always are. I dont mind being called a liberal, i was just telling you that I was not actually a liberal.

I didn't say the government wouldn't fight its own people ... They have done stupid things before, are doing stupid things now ... And will most certainly do stupid things in the future.
The only person that is naïve ... Is a person that thinks American troops bombing neighborhoods in America is going to go over very well with the public.
You may be eager to comply ... But thankfully not everyone is ... And you are foolish to think that all the military or law enforcement will comply with orders to disarm America.

You are so brainwashed ... You suggest the foolish notion that what you think can stop a bullet.
News for you ... You are not Superman ... And any desire to disarm the American Public is only the outright desire to bring bloodshed into the streets.
Now I understand that you cannot fathom the idea anyone would fight to the death for their principles and what they think is their right ... And that is why I called you a Liberal to start with.
My bad ... I only assumed that since you don't see where anyone could possibly have principles worth standing for that you must be a Liberal ... My apologies.

.

I think the whole point of bombing an American neighborhood is not to seek approval from the public. It would be more like a warning that "you may be next". I dont know where you got the notion that I think I can stop a bullet?! The government would not need everyone in the military or police to do this. The people in control of the heavy arsenal would do it without thinking for the most part. This noble dream you have of people suddenly thinking of the whole country is a patriotic illusion. It would be every man for themselves. They bombed the community of Greenwood OK back in the 20's. Not many people even are aware of that. When you assume you make a ......... Instead of assuming I am for someone taking away my weapon you should have asked.

 

[BlackSand]

I think the whole point of bombing an American neighborhood is not to seek approval from the public. It would be more like a warning that "you may be next". I dont know where you got the notion that I think I can stop a bullet?! The government would not need everyone in the military or police to do this. The people in control of the heavy arsenal would do it without thinking for the most part. This noble dream you have of people suddenly thinking of the whole country is a patriotic illusion. It would be every man for themselves. They bombed the community of Greenwood OK back in the 20's. Not many people even are aware of that. When you assume you make a ......... Instead of assuming I am for someone taking away my weapon you should have asked.

Bombing American neighborhoods would do more to incite violence than anything else.
I have already said the choice is between the cage or grave ... How you interpret that is up to you ... And none of my concern.
You did state the you believe what someone thinks will stop others from retaliating ... Or in a sense "stop a bullet" ... When it won't and you can attempt to parse words all day ... To the same degree of ineffectiveness.

I don't think the whole country will be patriotic ... And that will mean more senseless bloodshed ... Blood on the hands of people who want to suggest otherwise (good luck trying to wiggle out of that one).
It won't be every man for themselves ... And there are plenty of people who are both capable and able to fight ... And a lot of them have the military training to boot.
It the 20's ... Whatever happened in Greenwood was not an attempt to disarm the entire American public ... So dream on in trying to make that comparison.

Hey ... I said I assumed and apologized ... While you continue to play Ring around the Rosey.
If you actually think ambiguity is akin to making a point worth considering ... Then I will gladly assume that you have no intent on being forthright in your presentation and in regards to anything you post.

.

 

[Asclepias]

I think the whole point of bombing an American neighborhood is not to seek approval from the public. It would be more like a warning that "you may be next". I dont know where you got the notion that I think I can stop a bullet?! The government would not need everyone in the military or police to do this. The people in control of the heavy arsenal would do it without thinking for the most part. This noble dream you have of people suddenly thinking of the whole country is a patriotic illusion. It would be every man for themselves. They bombed the community of Greenwood OK back in the 20's. Not many people even are aware of that. When you assume you make a ......... Instead of assuming I am for someone taking away my weapon you should have asked.

Bombing American neighborhoods would do more to incite violence than anything else.
I have already said the choice is between the cage or grave ... How you interpret that is up to you ... And none of my concern.
You did state the you believe what someone thinks will stop others from retaliating ... Or in a sense "stop a bullet" ... When it won't and you can attempt to parse words all day ... To the same degree of ineffectiveness.

I don't think the whole country will be patriotic ... And that will mean more senseless bloodshed ... Blood on the hands of people who want to suggest otherwise (good luck trying to wiggle out of that one).
It won't be every man for themselves ... And there are plenty of people who are both capable and able to fight ... And a lot of them have the military training to boot.
It the 20's ... Whatever happened in Greenwood was not an attempt to disarm the entire American public ... So dream on in trying to make that comparison.

Hey ... I said I assumed and apologized ... While you continue to play Ring around the Rosey.
If you actually think ambiguity is akin to making a point worth considering ... Then I will gladly assume that you have no intent on being forthright in your presentation and in regards to anything you post.

.

Bombing American neighborhoods would incite violence but not in a way that would result in a united front against the government. Americans would be fighting among themselves for admission into whatever form of society that was coming. Like most people that place limits on themselves its not just a choice between the cage and the grave. People like that see only in shades of black and white. There are always other options as the truth dictates that most things are shades of grey.

I only mentioned Greenwood to show you how easy it would be to do this, justify it, and have Americans accept it. Also the inhabitants of Greenwood were indeed disarmed in the process. There you go proving my point by making a distinction between American citizens.

I took you literally on the "bullet" statement and for that I apologize. My point is that if you are incapable of making the decision to fire the gun because you are confused or ignorant of what is being done to you then you have really disarmed yourself regardless if you have a weapon or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well said!

"We have the constitution to protect us"
We hear this all the time.
what happens when a government no longer obeys the constitution?

The is an incorrect reading of the Second Amendment, and is predicated on no current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The most common collectivist justification for the individual right to keep and bear arms is that the people need guns in order to deter the federal
government from becoming tyrannical and to mount an insurrection
should tyranny arise. This insurrectionist justification resonates with the First Amendment’s function of protecting robust political debate and dissent. However, drawing on my prior work on the dynamic political value of expressive freedom, I contend that insurrection and debate mark incompatible paths to political change.

Second Amendment insurrectionism falls short of First
Amendment dynamism normatively, because debate is more
constructive and participatory than violence. Second Amendment
insurrectionism also threatens the legal status of First Amendment
dynamism, because recognizing a constitutionally permissible
path to violent insurrection dramatically increases the cost
of constitutionally protecting advocacy of violence. We cannot
have both First Amendment dynamism and Second Amendment
insurrectionism—and in fact we have made our choice.
The Supreme Court spent almost a century developing First
Amendment doctrine, with special emphasis on the right to
advocate violent revolution, before it bothered to recognize an
individual right to keep and bear arms. That disparity embodies
our society’s embrace of debate, and rejection of insurrectionism,
as the vehicle for dynamic political change.

http://law.wustl.edu/magazine/fall2012/pdf/inreview-magarian.pdf

In essence, therefore, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First; should a citizen perceive the Federal government ‘tyrannical,’ his recourse is to seek remedy via the First Amendment, up to and including advocating for a violent overthrow of the Federal government.

To argue, however, that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ an insurrection by the people absent robust, open, and comprehensive debate, violates the First Amendment rights of citizens to indeed advocate for a solution through the political process.

This is consistent with the Heller Court’s holding that rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is an individual right to self-defense, and in individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense. It was not the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment act as a check on tyranny, otherwise they would not have conceived of the First Amendment and the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the context of the political process or in the Federal courts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well said!

"We have the constitution to protect us"
We hear this all the time.
what happens when a government no longer obeys the constitution?

The is an incorrect reading of the Second Amendment, and is predicated on no current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The most common collectivist justification for the individual right to keep and bear arms is that the people need guns in order to deter the federal
government from becoming tyrannical and to mount an insurrection
should tyranny arise. This insurrectionist justification resonates with the First Amendment’s function of protecting robust political debate and dissent. However, drawing on my prior work on the dynamic political value of expressive freedom, I contend that insurrection and debate mark incompatible paths to political change.

Second Amendment insurrectionism falls short of First
Amendment dynamism normatively, because debate is more
constructive and participatory than violence. Second Amendment
insurrectionism also threatens the legal status of First Amendment
dynamism, because recognizing a constitutionally permissible
path to violent insurrection dramatically increases the cost
of constitutionally protecting advocacy of violence. We cannot
have both First Amendment dynamism and Second Amendment
insurrectionism—and in fact we have made our choice.
The Supreme Court spent almost a century developing First
Amendment doctrine, with special emphasis on the right to
advocate violent revolution, before it bothered to recognize an
individual right to keep and bear arms. That disparity embodies
our society’s embrace of debate, and rejection of insurrectionism,
as the vehicle for dynamic political change.

http://law.wustl.edu/magazine/fall2012/pdf/inreview-magarian.pdf

In essence, therefore, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First; should a citizen perceive the Federal government ‘tyrannical,’ his recourse is to seek remedy via the First Amendment, up to and including advocating for a violent overthrow of the Federal government.

To argue, however, that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ an insurrection by the people absent robust, open, and comprehensive debate, violates the First Amendment rights of citizens to indeed advocate for a solution through the political process.

This is consistent with the Heller Court’s holding that rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is an individual right to self-defense, and in individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense. It was not the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment act as a check on tyranny, otherwise they would not have conceived of the First Amendment and the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the context of the political process or in the Federal courts.

What in the hell are you blabbing about? Who in the hell said anything about second trumping the first?

Miller vs. U.S. 1938 and Lewis vs U.S. 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[M14 Shooter]

"We have the constitution to protect us"
We hear this all the time.
what happens when a government no longer obeys the constitution?

The is an incorrect reading of the Second Amendment, and is predicated on no current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The most common collectivist justification for the individual right to keep and bear arms is that the people need guns in order to deter the federal
government from becoming tyrannical and to mount an insurrection
should tyranny arise. This insurrectionist justification resonates with the First Amendment’s function of protecting robust political debate and dissent. However, drawing on my prior work on the dynamic political value of expressive freedom, I contend that insurrection and debate mark incompatible paths to political change.

Second Amendment insurrectionism falls short of First
Amendment dynamism normatively, because debate is more
constructive and participatory than violence. Second Amendment
insurrectionism also threatens the legal status of First Amendment
dynamism, because recognizing a constitutionally permissible
path to violent insurrection dramatically increases the cost
of constitutionally protecting advocacy of violence. We cannot
have both First Amendment dynamism and Second Amendment
insurrectionism—and in fact we have made our choice.
The Supreme Court spent almost a century developing First
Amendment doctrine, with special emphasis on the right to
advocate violent revolution, before it bothered to recognize an
individual right to keep and bear arms. That disparity embodies
our society’s embrace of debate, and rejection of insurrectionism,
as the vehicle for dynamic political change.

http://law.wustl.edu/magazine/fall2012/pdf/inreview-magarian.pdf

In essence, therefore, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First; should a citizen perceive the Federal government ‘tyrannical,’ his recourse is to seek remedy via the First Amendment, up to and including advocating for a violent overthrow of the Federal government.

To argue, however, that the Second Amendment ‘authorizes’ an insurrection by the people absent robust, open, and comprehensive debate, violates the First Amendment rights of citizens to indeed advocate for a solution through the political process.

This is consistent with the Heller Court’s holding that rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is an individual right to self-defense, and in individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense. It was not the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment act as a check on tyranny, otherwise they would not have conceived of the First Amendment and the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the context of the political process or in the Federal courts.

What in the hell are you blabbing about? Who in the hell said anything about second trumping the first?

Miller vs. U.S. 1938 and Lewis vs U.S. 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

Because of the necessity to ensure the efficacy of the militia, which then serves to assist and/or resist the standing army when necessary.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet they are subjects with a subjects mentality

And they look down on us with pity. Not many envy the 300 million guns we have, nor the murders we put up with without a second thought

Subjects mentality are easily ruled. like cattle and pigs at feed time.

8000 Americans are slaughtered like pigs every year

But we still got our second amendment