Then why are you wasting our time attacking the intent of the 2nd, cripes!
I mean, what the heck was the point of saying this, then?
And this?
You jumped on to my reply with something about just accepting new leadership when I mentioned disarming. And you have done nothing but paint the intent of the 2nd as a futile and hopeless pipe dream.
- Do you believe the threat of tyranny (perhaps not in the immediate future) is real?
2 That we have the right to resist?
In exchange, answers to yours
- No
- Yes
Because I’m not.
I gave an additional option that is more historically accurate.
It’s called a question.
It is just that, now. Having served in the military, I wouldn’t want to face armoured vehicles with 50 cals from the fortified safety of my house. It’s easy for people to say they will fight when the government troops show up at their homes but will they really do that with their children there?
Having witnessed first hand when a group of civilians tried to take on a conventional military force, I can attest that almost all of them got pulverized before even seeing a single enemy soldier. Howitzers, mortars and SMGs and 20mm cannons mounted on APCs are very effective, not to mention tanks.
Well, you’d be able to sit back and do nothing, I 'd assume. Others would like to continue to keep what was promised to them as their birthright, the right to keep and bear arms so as to give themselves some sort of chance. These arguments don’t make 2A people wrong on then intent of the 2nd (fighting enemy combatants). If anything it reaffirms how brutal and oppresive governments can be.
Inspired by TB’s post…
Who here does not believe one or both of the following, and which?
- Do you believe the threat of tyranny (perhaps not in the immediate future) is real?
2 That we have the right to resist?
“Some of sort chance” isn’t the same as the “only way to keep one’s freedom”.
Any restriction on the sale of specific types of weapons is allegedly a path to tyranny, a grave affront to liberty, the FFs and the alleged birthright in the 2A but if the actual emergency does occur, all those liberty-loving gun carrying citizens are reduced to a shrug and “well, at least we’ve got some sort of chance”. Not exactly efficient in deterring a tyrannical government…
Again, back to FFs - musket vs. musket - there wasn’t a technological distinction between civilian and military weapons, and the militiamen could be a proxy for a standing army . Besides, if you look a the 3A (don’t see many people claiming it’s their birthright) it was a specific response to a British threat that would come sooner or later, claiming the legacy of freedom loving Englishmen and their Bill of Rights as well as explicitly addressing specific grievances leveled against the British Crown (quartering acts).
Also, why isn’t (wasn’t) the 18th amendment a hallowed birthright?
1 Like
Am I the only one who wonders at how quick we are to vilify gun and 2A folk when traffic accidents kill more children? Yet nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry is out there stuffing their face, fiddling with cell phones or what not, all while driving.
Edit: I realize it’s not a perfect comparison, but still. And what’s with the lampooning and stereotyping of NRA folks? These aren’t the type of folks topping the charts as gun homicide offenders.
Would you answer the two questions above your post?
Then amend it, if you have the votes. But they aren’t wrong. It clearly was written for the people to bear arms against soldiers and not simply shooting varmints. We don’t get to decide it no longer applies and simply re-interpret it to mean home-defense, hunting, and target shooting. Admit they are right. Propose amendments that reflect certain concerns (mental health, the nuke question) while also reassuring rightly worried law-abiding citizens that the intent of their founding fathers will be protected with re-affirming language.
- Yes, it’s real. And it’s already happening, but I don’t see citizens out in the streets.
- Yes you have, but I don’t see anyone doing anything about it.
So believing 1 and 2 surely you don’t expect them to resist enemy soldiers with knives and pitchforks? Or, even with a simple handgun, right?
If 1. is a reality, and 2 is affirmed, than surely the citizen would at least need battle-field worthy rifles, no?
Edit: I mean, in the end, you agree there is a right to resist, which then implies a right to at least some level of scary looking rifles and magazines, no?
I don’t know, we put up stereotypical videos of gun enthusiasts, but they’re kind of the exception when it comes to gun violence, no? They’re not really the ones pulling the triggers when we actually look at all gun violence, right?
Please tell me how the Patriot Act was stopped with an AR-15. Or stop-and-frisk. Or how you successfully resisted NSA overreach.
Or the TSA on the airports - did you refuse to take off your shoes and pulled out your gun, or did you meekly join all others in putting your belt and phone in that plastic box?
If that’s not liberty-infringing I don’t know what is. But hey, at least you’ve got a gun back home.
It’s actually very delusional (and reassuring) - I still got my gun(s) so therefore I must be free.
1 Like