The federal government and the second amendment

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Your contempt of the American people, the rule of law, and the Republic is duly noted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Of course. The 2nd exists, in part, as a means to redress greivances should routes you mention fail to do so.

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.

Said argument in no way violates any such right.
While the 2nd does not 'authorize' insurrection, it certainly does protect the means necessary for that violent overthrow.

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....

... as well as other weapons pursuant to other uses.
Amd, of course, if an individual has that right, then so too does a group of individuals.

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.

Non-sequitur - that they procteted the right to petition and redress in no way necessitates that they did not intend to protect the means necessary to take the next step.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Your contempt of the American people, the rule of law, and the Republic is duly noted.

If you would read before you post you would know my discussion with winger wasn't about America stupid ****.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Slaughtered like pigs? Careful jonesie going to duly note your contempt of the how did he put it?

the American people, the rule of law, and the Republic

Never mind that isn't even 1 percent of the population, nor figuring in the saving of lives because of being armed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Of course. The 2nd exists, in part, as a means to redress greivances should routes you mention fail to do so.

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.

Said argument in no way violates any such right.
While the 2nd does not 'authorize' insurrection, it certainly does protect the means necessary for that violent overthrow.

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....

... as well as other weapons pursuant to other uses.
Amd, of course, if an individual has that right, then so too does a group of individuals.

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.

Non-sequitur - that they procteted the right to petition and redress in no way necessitates that they did not intend to protect the means necessary to take the next step.

one thing I didn't comment on he thinks the first amendment will prevent tyranny. That's a real funny one. This guy claims to be a constitution bright spot

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Of course. The 2nd exists, in part, as a means to redress greivances should routes you mention fail to do so.


Said argument in no way violates any such right.
While the 2nd does not 'authorize' insurrection, it certainly does protect the means necessary for that violent overthrow.


... as well as other weapons pursuant to other uses.
Amd, of course, if an individual has that right, then so too does a group of individuals.

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.

Non-sequitur - that they procteted the right to petition and redress in no way necessitates that they did not intend to protect the means necessary to take the next step.

one thing I didn't comment on he thinks the first amendment will prevent tyranny. That's a real funny one. This guy claims to be a constitution bright spot

By defintion, tyrranies do not generally heed petitions of redress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course. The 2nd exists, in part, as a means to redress greivances should routes you mention fail to do so.


Said argument in no way violates any such right.
While the 2nd does not 'authorize' insurrection, it certainly does protect the means necessary for that violent overthrow.


... as well as other weapons pursuant to other uses.
Amd, of course, if an individual has that right, then so too does a group of individuals.


Non-sequitur - that they procteted the right to petition and redress in no way necessitates that they did not intend to protect the means necessary to take the next step.

one thing I didn't comment on he thinks the first amendment will prevent tyranny. That's a real funny one. This guy claims to be a constitution bright spot

By defintion, tyrranies do not generally heed petitions of redress.

But fear of lead poisoning seems to work.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

Where you may have a problem with "Black and White" ... "Dead and Alive" is far easier to grasp in regards to absolutes.
I didn't make a distinction between Americans as you suggested ... I made a distinction between circumstances that led to the deaths of Americans.
Well ... I think that it is pretty safe to say that some of us have already made a decision in regards to firing a weapon should the need arise ... It is not that hard to do, especially if the need presents itself.
Albeit living with the consequences can be a ***** ... But then again that is normally weighed in the choice by thoughtful people.

.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Where you may have a problem with "Black and White" ... "Dead and Alive" is far easier to grasp in regards to absolutes.
I didn't make a distinction between Americans as you suggested ... I made a distinction between circumstances that led to the deaths of Americans.
Well ... I think that it is pretty safe to say that some of us have already made a decision in regards to firing a weapon should the need arise ... It is not that hard to do, especially if the need presents itself.
Albeit living with the consequences can be a ***** ... But then again that is normally weighed in the choice by thoughtful people.

.

You are still stuck in that loop that presents you only 2 choices. Alive is different from living. as dead is different from expired. Thats 4 choices already.

You may not know you made a distinction but you did. You specifically said "Whatever happened in Greenwood was not an attempt to disarm the entire American public" effectively making a distinction between them and the rest of us. That proves my point that inherently most peoples first reaction will be to cover their own ass instead of being patriotic and claiming other Americans fight as their own.

What you don't understand about your decision is that you didn't really make it. It was handed to you in the form of a suggestion and you took it. (See the second line of my signature.) This will cause you to shoot the person that would be the most assistance in gaining freedom.

 

[BlackSand]

You are still stuck in that loop that presents you only 2 choices. Alive is different from living. as dead is different from expired. Thats 4 choices already.

You may not know you made a distinction but you did. You specifically said "Whatever happened in Greenwood was not an attempt to disarm the entire American public" effectively making a distinction between them and the rest of us. That proves my point that inherently most peoples first reaction will be to cover their own ass instead of being patriotic and claiming other Americans fight as their own.

What you don't understand about your decision is that you didn't really make it. It was handed to you in the form of a suggestion and you took it. (See the second line of my signature.) This will cause you to shoot the person that would be the most assistance in gaining freedom.

For those who are willing to fight ... Life has a flavor the weak will never savor.
Living is a choice ... One I offered ... And your other options are attempt to sound more thoughtful without making a choice.
You have a choice to go along with the government in that situation ... Fight with the government and most likely end up dead ... Or run away hiding until someone else is through fighting and dying.
You make the choice ... How you feel you need to describe it is up to you ... And not my problem.

I know where you think I made a distinction but I know both what I posted and meant ... And what you think doesn't matter.
I said that the idea of disarming the entire population is different than anything on the scale of Greenwood ... And at some point the number of people matters ... Duh!

Now you are correct that most people will cover their ass ... Until they are rooted out and systematically slaughtered.
At some point some people will get wise enough to understand the necessity of working together ... And it doesn't matter if they do it for patriotism or basic survival.

.

 

[Asclepias]

You are still stuck in that loop that presents you only 2 choices. Alive is different from living. as dead is different from expired. Thats 4 choices already.

You may not know you made a distinction but you did. You specifically said "Whatever happened in Greenwood was not an attempt to disarm the entire American public" effectively making a distinction between them and the rest of us. That proves my point that inherently most peoples first reaction will be to cover their own ass instead of being patriotic and claiming other Americans fight as their own.

What you don't understand about your decision is that you didn't really make it. It was handed to you in the form of a suggestion and you took it. (See the second line of my signature.) This will cause you to shoot the person that would be the most assistance in gaining freedom.

For those who are willing to fight ... Life has a flavor the weak will never savor.
Living is a choice ... One I offered ... And your other options are attempt to sound more thoughtful without making a choice.
You have a choice to go along with the government in that situation ... Fight with the government and most likely end up dead ... Or run away hiding until someone else is through fighting and dying.
You make the choice ... How you feel you need to describe it is up to you ... And not my problem.

I know where you think I made a distinction but I know both what I posted and meant ... And what you think doesn't matter.
I said that the idea of disarming the entire population is different than anything on the scale of Greenwood ... And at some point the number of people matters ... Duh!

Now you are correct that most people will cover their ass ... Until they are rooted out and systematically slaughtered.
At some point some people will get wise enough to understand the necessity of working together ... And it doesn't matter if they do it for patriotism or basic survival.

.

I agree that fighting to survive has its own set of rewards. i am a fighter by nature. You say you offered a choice for living but actually what you said was "alive". As I pointed out alive and living are 2 different things. If faced with a choice I will always choose to be alive. Most people are just living or are dead and waiting to expire. Being alive does not translate to being stupid or denying that the government could pull it off. It simple means I will keep the main thing in front of me which is the true nature of my condition. Again you limit yourself to only 2 choices. One that will ultimately categorize you as part of the herd and the other that is part of the soon to die or dead. As I pointed out already there is more than 2 choices to anything.

You did made a distinction which is quite evident in your words. If you didn't mean to say those words then I can understand you made a mistake. You denying that what I think doesnt matter is transparently false. if it didn't matter to you it would have let go without commenting on it. Remember what I said to you about gradualism? Disarming Greenwood is just a start and one that is easily explained away. There was a time when some of the things allowed on TV today were completely outlawed in years past. That is gradualism and people fall for it all the time.

Yes it does matter why people get together to resist. One reason leads back down the same road and proves that people have not learned their lesson. The other leads to true freedom.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

Except those wars weren't won with just "Small Arms".

But here's the more important thing. In these cases, these were a foreign country that didn't want to be there with people who didn't want them there.

In the case of you gun nuts, don't worry, your neighbors WILL rat you out.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Except those wars weren't won with just "Small Arms".

But here's the more important thing. In these cases, these were a foreign country that didn't want to be there with people who didn't want them there.

In the case of you gun nuts, don't worry, your neighbors WILL rat you out.

I think most gun nuts totally miss that point. Those people were fighting foreign invasion. Our soldiers really didn't have much incentive except to survive. There is a reason the south lost the civil war. The south was out gunned by the Federal government on our soil. Now people want you to believe that a couple of rag tag so called patriots would stick together long enough to stop anything.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Except those wars weren't won with just "Small Arms".

But here's the more important thing. In these cases, these were a foreign country that didn't want to be there with people who didn't want them there.

In the case of you gun nuts, don't worry, your neighbors WILL rat you out.

oh you mean the modern day Tories?
But the one with the heavy weaponry didn't win did they?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Except those wars weren't won with just "Small Arms".

But here's the more important thing. In these cases, these were a foreign country that didn't want to be there with people who didn't want them there.

In the case of you gun nuts, don't worry, your neighbors WILL rat you out.

I think most gun nuts totally miss that point. Those people were fighting foreign invasion. Our soldiers really didn't have much incentive except to survive. There is a reason the south lost the civil war. The south was out gunned by the Federal government on our soil. Now people want you to believe that a couple of rag tag so called patriots would stick together long enough to stop anything.

Would you fight if the government took everything you had?
Just answer the question

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Asclepias you know what I find really funny is how you can cheer Mandela for what he did before he was locked up but say it's impossible for Americans to do it.

 

[Asclepias]

Except those wars weren't won with just "Small Arms".

But here's the more important thing. In these cases, these were a foreign country that didn't want to be there with people who didn't want them there.

In the case of you gun nuts, don't worry, your neighbors WILL rat you out.

I think most gun nuts totally miss that point. Those people were fighting foreign invasion. Our soldiers really didn't have much incentive except to survive. There is a reason the south lost the civil war. The south was out gunned by the Federal government on our soil. Now people want you to believe that a couple of rag tag so called patriots would stick together long enough to stop anything.

Would you fight if the government took everything you had?
Just answer the question

Yes I would. I hope you mean freedom because material possessions don't mean much. However, I would be smart and not dumb enough to think I could out gun the military with a group of unorganized, shodily trained people who in most cases would rat me out if their lives depended on it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think most gun nuts totally miss that point. Those people were fighting foreign invasion. Our soldiers really didn't have much incentive except to survive. There is a reason the south lost the civil war. The south was out gunned by the Federal government on our soil. Now people want you to believe that a couple of rag tag so called patriots would stick together long enough to stop anything.

Would you fight if the government took everything you had?
Just answer the question

Yes I would. However, I would be smart and not dumb enough to think I could out gun the military with a group of unorganized, shodily trained people who in most cases would rat me out if their lives depended on it.

Some have a plan and are well organized.

 

[Asclepias]

Asclepias you know what I find really funny is how you can cheer Mandela for what he did before he was locked up but say it's impossible for Americans to do it.

What is funny about it? 2 different scenarios. We are disjointed and divided. Americans have been trained/brainwashed to fight each other way more than the government.

 

[Asclepias]

Would you fight if the government took everything you had?
Just answer the question

Yes I would. However, I would be smart and not dumb enough to think I could out gun the military with a group of unorganized, shodily trained people who in most cases would rat me out if their lives depended on it.

Some have a plan and are well organized.

If something were to go down by force those "some" have been ID'd and will die in 24 hours or less. It will be explained as a major secret undercover sting to stop homegrown terrorist. Other Americans will say good riddance.