Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

[Stephen Cue]

A lot of people say that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended for military only and not for every citizen to own firearms. The founding fathers have asserted in many contexts that they believe each citizen not only has the right to defend themselves with firearms against those that would harm them but also against a tyrannical government. I know it’s hard for us Americans to imagine our government becoming tyrannical and forming a dictatorial abusive state, but don’t you think that the number of civilian guns out there has something to do with that?


I have heard many people posit the question of “Do you think your little AK-47 or AR-15 will do anything to an Apache helicopter or Tank or Jets, or any other highly advanced military weapon the government has at its disposal?” Yes! I absolutely believe the if the masses of law-abiding citizens owned the same small arms that the military uses, hinders the thought of a tyrannical takeover of our government.


I ask this, look to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Look to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, look to any other country that is/was under the thumb of a ruthless régime. Did we all not want their citizens to stand up and take back their countries? How did we expect that to happen? "Thoreauian" disobedience? No, there was no other way than civil war and bloodshed.

Again, some may say well this is American in the 21st century, we are civilized and those way are over for us. Are they? World War II, which no one will deny was vastly necessary to stop a maniacal and genocidal regime from taking over the world, was only 71 years ago. One lifetime, it wasn’t in revolutionary times when muskets were the paramount technology of the time. The technology we have today is not much different than what we had back then, just quicker and on a bigger scale.


Is there anyone that would deny that if the sane citizens of Nazi Germany were to have been armed properly and mounted a civil war against Hitler’s government that, he may have been stopped quicker and the 13 million numbers of people that they murdered would not have been reduced?


Also, please no one take this as an incitement to civil war right now in America, that is not my intention of this and if you think that is what I am sa
ying then please stop eating idiot sandwiches. I hope and pray that our country stays the greatest and freest country that ever was but if anything should ever try to interfere with that, our law-abiding citizenry would be there to fight against this. I know, I know, that is a horrible thought but if it came down to losing America as we know it and falling under what China, North Korea, Russia (Today or under the USSR),etc. is then we must not take away now in good times, the preventative measures that would stop bad times.


On Dec. 7th 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked us with thoughts of invading the United States. This plan was halted due to the fear of number of guns in the hands of American citizens. The plans were halted because of this sentiment, allegedly stated by Japan’s Isoroku Yamamoto; Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy: “There would be a gun under every blade of grass”. There is no proof that he actually said this, but true nonetheless.

 

[Glocktogo]

Anytime someone talks about banning assault weapons, ask them this.

Do you support the civil overthrow of the oppressive regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria, or do you support the regimes of Mubarak, Gadhaffi and al-Assad? If you support oppression and control of a populace, then you are correct in supporting gun bans. If you support freedom, then you should oppose them. Without those assault weapons, there would be no repression and defeat of tyranny. It's as simple as that.

The gun ban crowd needs to find another avenue to improve citizen safety. One that doesn't compromise freedom and self-determination.

 

[Stephen Cue]

Anytime someone talks about banning assault weapons, ask them this.

Do you support the civil overthrow of the oppressive regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria, or do you support the regimes of Mubarak, Gadhaffi and al-Assad? If you support oppression and control of a populace, then you are correct in supporting gun bans. If you support freedom, then you should oppose them. Without those assault weapons, there would be no repression and defeat of tyranny. It's as simple as that.

The gun ban crowd needs to find another avenue to improve citizen safety. One that doesn't compromise freedom and self-determination.

[Broken External Image]

 

[twoguns?]

Its pretty obvious , at least to me, it is about Control.
Add any argument in there and it still is.
As a Father and Grandfather it really annoys me that they want to take away MY way of protecting My Kids and Grandkids.
No $$$ for a Police patrol, hell I'll donate 2-5 days a month, because it is My responsibility.
Why should I ask someone else to risk theyre lives to protect my Kiddos.
Now get 10-15 people from each (doesnt sound too far out?) school, Bazinga! the Kiddos are protected>
take our means of protection away ...well, I'll just have to cut them up instead of shooting (and that gets messy)

. and GTG its NEVER turned out good when they took means of protection from the people, EVAR
(Im pretty sure you know that )

 

[mightymouse]

People can say what they wish about the Second Amendment, but there is no denying the following fact: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by a group of men who had just emerged victorious in an armed struggle between the finest army in the world and a rag-tag band of citizen soldiers armed with whatever weapons they had on hand. How anyone can believe that men who owed their lives and their independence--and that of their fledgling country--to the actions of an armed citizenry would want to keep arms OUT of the hands of the people is beyond me.

 

[sh00ter]

Anytime someone talks about banning assault weapons, ask them this.

Do you support the civil overthrow of the oppressive regimes in Egypt, Libya and Syria, or do you support the regimes of Mubarak, Gadhaffi and al-Assad? If you support oppression and control of a populace, then you are correct in supporting gun bans. If you support freedom, then you should oppose them. Without those assault weapons, there would be no repression and defeat of tyranny. It's as simple as that.

The gun ban crowd needs to find another avenue to improve citizen safety. One that doesn't compromise freedom and self-determination.

I supported Assad, Gadhaffi and Mubarkak...totalitarian, socialist dictators do a GREAT job at keeping radical muslims in line (the Shaw did this in Iran before the revolution)...We always go in and arm the people who hate us and help them rise to power...Obongo approved 20 F-16's to go to the Muslim Brotherhood...he wants to TAKE your AR15, but give F-16's to a radical theocractic gov't who hates America...I do get your point, but in this case, the dictators are the lesser of two evils when it comes to radical Islam. I don't actually "support" the fore mentioned dictators, but they were what was best for us. I think we should stay out of it (like say Syria) because BOTH sides are bad ultimately.

The Russian media made a mockery of us after the Benghazi incident...they basically said we don't learn our lesson...always propping up Islamists and then all surprised when they turn on us. Gadhaffi was a former terr0r supporter and had American blood on his hands...but the "here & now" his existence was good for the USA.

MOVING the topic off of radical Islam, then I totally agree...Stalin, Hitler, Mao all disarmed people...tyrannical regimes LOVE un-armed peasants.

 

[TerryMiller]

I supported Assad, Gadhaffi and Mubarkak...totalitarian, socialist dictators do a GREAT job at keeping radical muslims in line (the Shaw did this in Iran before the revolution)...We always go in and arm the people who hate us and help them rise to power...Obongo approved 20 F-16's to go to the Muslim Brotherhood...he wants to TAKE your AR15, but give F-16's to a radical theocractic gov't who hates America...I do get your point, but in this case, the dictators are the lesser of two evils when it comes to radical Islam. I don't actually "support" the fore mentioned dictators, but they were what was best for us. I think we should stay out of it (like say Syria) because BOTH sides are bad ultimately.

The Russian media made a mockery of us after the Benghazi incident...they basically said we don't learn our lesson...always propping up Islamists and then all surprised when they turn on us. Gadhaffi was a former terr0r supporter and had American blood on his hands...but the "here & now" his existence was good for the USA.

MOVING the topic off of radical Islam, then I totally agree...Stalin, Hitler, Mao all disarmed people...tyrannical regimes LOVE un-armed peasants.

For the sake of understanding my point of view which happens to coincide with the above, I was first "introduced" to Islam when I served in the U.S. Army in Pakistan back in the '60's. I've since had many opportunities to learn so much more than most folks about that religion. And, speaking of religion, I would also sooner deal with a political dictator than a religious one.

There has been some reports that the U.S. may have been supplying weapons to the Libyan rebels. There has been admissions that perhaps Ambassador Stevens of Libya was supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels. If that is true, could he have been involved with helping the Libyan rebels? Why else would he have been in Benghazi without an adequate security force, especially for an ambassador?

I do know that the Muslim Brotherhood is an evil organization, and many are just now beginning to learn that with the developments of the conditions and constitution in Egypt. What does anyone want to be that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind many of the uprisings in the Middle East.

As for the 2nd amendment, for as old as I am, I was recently enlightened when it was explained that the amendment spoke of "a well regulated militia" but ended up by saying the rights of firearm ownership was left to "the people." Not just to the "people" of the "regulated militia."

 

[Glocktogo]

I was mainly speaking as a devil's advocate regarding the Muslim countries I mentioned. I tend to agree that not every society is ready for the self-rule of a free society. I tend to agree that things ran pretty smoothly under the listed dictators and they kept the real troublemakers under thumb. That's because some of us are realists.

The target audience for my musings however, would probably disagree. They think "diversity" is to be celebrated regardless of merit and that it's better to have free radicals running around with IED's and RPG's, than to have order issued from the barrel of a gun. These very same progressives will then go on to tell you it's OK to disarm our society and have order issued from the barrel of our government's guns, because we're a nation of laws. Daisy sniffers are an exceptionally naive bunch.

I'm beginning to see the reason they want guns banned is because subconsciously, they realize that they aren't trustworthy enough to bear arms. Their emotional state would cause them to misuse a firearm or they'd unintentionally cause harm through ineptitude and irresponsibility. They then project that same lack of trustworthiness onto those of us who are trustworthy. It would be an unfathomable concept to think otherwise for them. Witness all the calls for murdering NRA members on the Democratic Underground website.

Considering the current "progressive" groupthink and focus on collectivism, I'm beginning to wonder if they've devolved to the point that a democratic republic is no longer a viable form of government for them. Should we soon consider controlling them with a form of dictatorship or fiat government? Perhaps a military rule? They obviously can't be trusted with guns or voting or their own financial future. If they're going to become wards of the state, shouldn't the state have a say in how they're utilized for the greater good?

Of course I'm just spitballing here. I do find it amusing that they trust an armed force would always follow their edicts, but never give it a thought that those same armed lapdogs might eventually bite their masters!

 

[tran]

Correct me if I am wrong but the problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it does not cover Ammunition. This is a loop hold, I look for them to go after. In the end guns are worthless without ammo. It's something to think about guys.

 

[Glocktogo]

Correct me if I am wrong but the problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it does not cover Ammunition. This is a loop hold, I look for them to go after. In the end guns are worthless without ammo. It's something to think about guys.

Which is why you should have a LARGE supply. In a world without ammunition, the man with a stockpile is king!