|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument. If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not.
this is the argument pretty much everyone is trying to make, save for a couple guys. do you know what their rebuttal is?
"but the second amendment defends my rights to own firearms and so no, you may not take them away from me."
which leads us to the initial reason why the 2nd amendment was brought up again. if you hide behind it and say nothing should be done because a law written hundreds of years ago protects your rights, then youre arguing in bad faith and not trying to get anything done.
what do americans think the constitution is? the equivalent of gods ten commandments?
|
On September 05 2018 15:26 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/G8_Pe-8e1mg even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument. If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not. this is the argument pretty much everyone is trying to make, save for a couple guys. do you know what their rebuttal is? "but the second amendment defends my rights to own firearms and so no, you may not take them away from me." which leads us to the initial reason why the 2nd amendment was brought up again. if you hide behind it and say nothing should be done because a law written hundreds of years ago protects your rights, then youre arguing in bad faith and not trying to get anything done. what do americans think the constitution is? the equivalent of gods ten commandments?
Pretty much. No idea how they reconcile their views with the 11th-27th amendments and I've never gotten a decent explanation. Nor are they actually calling for the type of things it took to get a lot of the more important ones passed.
Changing the constitution (as well as changing the way we read it) is the only reason it's not a trash document, hell, the constitution as it stood prior to the 11th-20th amendment would get a country invaded by the US nowadays to spread them some democracy and freedom.
|
On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/G8_Pe-8e1mg even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument.If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not.
I dont think that point has ever been argued in here, unless I missed it
|
|
|
On September 05 2018 22:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/G8_Pe-8e1mg even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument.If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not. I dont think that point has ever been argued in here, unless I missed it
Honestly don't think that's even a bad argument in and of itself. Technology changes over time, and laws need to change to adapt to them. People did have "worse guns back then", and their laws did not imagine the weaponry people have easy access to today. Of course that's only half the problem, the other half being that the world itself has changed as well.
|
On September 05 2018 22:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/G8_Pe-8e1mg even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument.If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not. I dont think that point has ever been argued in here, unless I missed it
1 2 3 4 5
Took like 5 minutes with the search function and "founding fathers" + "ar 15" or "musket" as keywords. I admit those are all old posts, but I wouldn't look for them if I wasn't sure it will be easy to find posts like that on TL forums. I was sure because I remember reading a few posts like that after Orlando and/or Las Vegas shootings.
|
On September 06 2018 02:29 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2018 22:55 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 09:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 05 2018 05:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 05 2018 05:05 Aveng3r wrote:On September 05 2018 04:42 Excludos wrote:On September 05 2018 04:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
True. "The second amendment says..." is quite often used as a showstopper. The problem is that the argument it is used against usually is a higher level argument, not "what does the law say", but "what SHOULD the law say". What the law says is not interesting in a discussion about what it should say. Every law can be changed. But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture. "The constitution says" is very important in a court of law. But it should not be as important in the legislative, which could, given enough support, change that very constitution. And even less so in public discourse.
Because the important questions for which new laws are needed are those that are not properly handled by current law. And if they are not properly handled by current law, "what does the law say about this" is not an answer to the question, and doesn't solve the problem.
And of course, the question whether something is not currently handled properly or not is another important question in this process. But this question is once again not answered by "what does the law say" alone.
The laws are important when talking about courts and behaviour you should apply currently. They are not important when talking about changes to the laws. Have you considered that the constitution has anything to do with a tradition of 200+ years of uninterrupted democracy and being the most prosperous and strong nation on earth? That maybe there is some wisdom on the constitution and that lawmakers and the people in general who do not know everything and can't forsee the future should not mess with it? This isn't to comment on the 2nd amendment per se, but that people should def err on the side of caution when it comes to tinkering with the US constitution. "The constitution says" IS a very strong argument, that requires very strong counter arguments. To answer the questions in order: No and No. The US might be the oldest existing nation with a Democracy, but by far not the longest or the oldest in history. Also I find it hilarious that every time I bring up the fact that the US is suppose to be a Democracy as a rebut to the current faults with the voting system, conservatives are very quick at pointing out that it's "not a democracy, it's a republic!"... Which is a form of a democracy, but I digress. Having a base set of laws/principles to found a country on is not a bad thing by any means. but at any time when you start holding those principles up as the word of god, instead of analyzing them and perhaps find faults which have appeared due to the world having changed a bit over the last few hundred years, you are doing yourself and your nation a gigantic disservice. I can say with complete confidence that your forefathers did not have semi automatic rifles, school shootings, terrorism and general mass gun violence in mind when they wrote down the second amendment. Thank you. Its been said before in this thread, but I feel that any time we even mention the second amendment in here, it is important to remember the context in which it was written, recognize that times have changed quite a bit, and it might not hurt to reexamine the intended purpose of our constitution Does the first amendment not apply to the internet? or the modern phone? It does not. The first admendment only applies to government. Otherwise how could the Trump administration attempt to remove the principle of net neutrality, without immediately being shut down? I'm not even American and I know this. You are, and yet... Oh btw USA is not the oldest democracy, not by a long shot. When did blacks or women get the vote in USA? What's the point you are trying to make anyways? President Donald Trump is a staunch defensor of free speech despite leftist propaganda: + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/G8_Pe-8e1mg even for fake news like CNN Back to the point: My point is that "people had worse guns back then" is an incredibly stupid argument.If you say "we can save lives by regulating gun access" then that's a fair argument. Disregarding the constitution is not. I dont think that point has ever been argued in here, unless I missed it 1 2 3 4 5 Took like 5 minutes with the search function and "founding fathers" + "ar 15" or "musket" as keywords. I admit those are all old posts, but I wouldn't look for them if I wasn't sure it will be easy to find posts like that on TL forums. I was sure because I remember reading a few posts like that after Orlando and/or Las Vegas shootings.
Some version of the evolution of arms and the non-evolution of the 2nd amendment comes up regularly. Excludos used it this page and last page.
The companion argument that the founders would never have imagined computers and electronic articles, so the First Amendment should not be applied to government censorship of online articles usually comes up in regular order.
On September 04 2018 05:09 itsnotevenbutter wrote:
According to the U.S. Constitution, it's a divine right owned by all Americans that their government can never take away, no matter race, religion, or creed.
On September 04 2018 20:33 Simberto wrote:
But in the US, "the constitution!" is often held up as untouchable scripture.
On September 04 2018 14:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its pretty much considered blasphemy to think that you should take away their rights as granted to them by their forefathers.
This exchange with micronesia is an example another thread and debate trope.
|
Got it.. I took worse to mean "more harmful" - misinterpreted on my end
Yes, I have in fact made that very argument myself a number of times
|
The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written so that people could keep a flint-lock rifle in their home and not an AK-47 is flawed. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is not so simple as "we like guns and we're gonna keep them." Its more of an insurance policy to protect citizens against tyranny, of any era. By giving Americans the right to bear arms, we the people, ensure that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, we have the means to overthrow and replace it.
|
So if you think the local police have been commandeered by a tyrant, are you going to shoot them?
|
I think that if the police, federal agencies, or military try to hold me without trial, seize my property without cause, or declare marshal law, then that would count as tyranny.
Regardless of their authority, would you let a group of armed thugs tell you that you cannot go out at night?
|
Who is the jury deciding when someone can be considered tyrannical?
|
So you want guns so you can shoot police and military if you personally determine that your due process rights are being affected, gotcha.
|
Armed conflict with the police, no matter how corrupt, is a great way to get killed. If guns were an effective way to resist abusive police forces, black folk would have guns on guns on guns.
|
On September 06 2018 22:10 farvacola wrote:
So you want guns so you can shoot police and military if you personally determine that your due process rights are being affected, gotcha.
The founding fathers did.
I actually dont even own a gun and think that the circumstances in which I would ever want one are extremely rare. What I do want is the capability to acquire one if and when those circumstances ever arise.
|
|
|
On September 06 2018 22:21 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2018 22:10 farvacola wrote:
So you want guns so you can shoot police and military if you personally determine that your due process rights are being affected, gotcha. The founding fathers did. I actually dont even own a gun and think that the circumstances in which I would ever want one are extremely rare. What I do want is the capability to acquire one if and when those circumstances ever arise.
There were no police in the time of the America Revolution; modern professional police forces didn’t exist. You are talking about British Soldiers, who were generally pretty thuggish and abusive with their status. And if you are going to cite the founding fathers, you should remember how they dealt with Shay’s armed rebellion over taxes.
And if you dig into this thread, very few people realistically talk about banning all fire arms or even making them difficult for a reasonable person to buy.
|
On September 06 2018 22:21 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2018 22:10 farvacola wrote:
So you want guns so you can shoot police and military if you personally determine that your due process rights are being affected, gotcha. The founding fathers did. I actually dont even own a gun and think that the circumstances in which I would ever want one are extremely rare. What I do want is the capability to acquire one if and when those circumstances ever arise.
That's all fine and dandy, I'm mostly just pointing out that the "resist tyranny" argument is quite inferior by comparison with the more simple, more easily defended personal defense argument. Having a gun so you can defend your home and family, as specious as that may be when viewed alongside stats that indicate that civilians are bad at using guns correctly, is the basic stuff of the 2nd Amendment imo, outdated textual language notwithstanding.
|
On September 06 2018 22:08 JD.Cursed wrote:
I think that if the police, federal agencies, or military try to hold me without trial, seize my property without cause, or declare marshal law, then that would count as tyranny.
Regardless of their authority, would you let a group of armed thugs tell you that you cannot go out at night?
If those armed thugs were the police, acting on government orders because of, say, massive riots in your city, would you grab a rifle and shoot them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
