Discussion: The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, and talking like that put a nice little hight light on you.
 
Nivek, stop thinking about that one or two crazy people, think about more like a Zombie Apocolypse. But, instead of Zombies, they are oppressive, imperialistic, tyrannical Government Agents.
 
When the hell did SuBe become a mod? Talk about giving the kid keys to the candy store.
 
Nivek, stop thinking about that one or two crazy people, think about more like a Zombie Apocolypse. But, instead of Zombies, they are oppressive, imperialistic, tyrannical Government Agents.

*groan* okay, not to say this to pi$$ of anyone, but as soon as the "We need 'em to overthrow a tyrannical government" type-argument get's brought into a 2nd amendment debate, it get's pretty silly. It's not a reasonable reason, it is short of talking treason. And it makes the rest of us who look at guns for hunting or honest protection look as silly, paranoid, and somewhat crazy as the people who say "All or Nothing! Don't ban any guns, it my right!".
 
*groan* okay, not to say this to pi$$ of anyone, but as soon as the "We need 'em to overthrow a tyrannical government" type-argument get's brought into a 2nd amendment debate, it get's pretty silly. It's not a reasonable reason, it is short of talking treason. And it makes the rest of us who look at guns for weapon or honest protection look as silly, paranoid, and somewhat crazy.
Think about it from the Founder's point of view. Why would they hold firearms to such a high degree? Why was it so important that it had to be the 2nd Amendment? Was it only for hunting? What did the United States just get out of right before the Bill of Rights were written?
 
Think about it from the Founder's point of view. Why would they hold firearms to such a high degree? Why was it so important that it had to be the 2nd Amendment? Was it only for hunting? What did the United States just get out of right before the Bill of Rights were written?

These high cyclic rate weapons didn't exist in their time, and once again, distraction away from the issue. It is not relevant. This was already law once, and was overturned to appease a focus group. Not because it was wrong.
 
These high cyclic rate weapons didn't exist in their time, and once again, distraction away from the issue. This was already law once, and was overturned to appease a focus group. Not because it was wrong.
Do you honestly believe that if the Founders were alive today, or had these weapons back then, they wouldn't use them to defend themselves? They wouldn't use them against enemy on their soil?
 
Do you honestly believe that if the Founders were alive today, or had these weapons back then, they wouldn't use them to defend themselves? They wouldn't use them against enemy on their soil?


I'm more than positive that the founders never intended for every American to own canon and rocket, "in case of". They knew, like a good parent, that we can only handle so much. And they knew with advances in technology and society, the laws would have to change.
 
It means this is just like the car distraction. It takes attention away from the discussion.

I doubt that very much you just don't see the validity in it probably because like most you believe guns to be more of a threat than they are. Against a large and organized force a firefight only isolates your position and ensures capture/death. You want to fight, you learn how others have done it successfully and that's mainly through use of explosives/chemical weapons which you can place and walk away but also have a far bigger kill rate than a dozen AK's could while also installing a sense of apprehension in your opponent.

All guns do is make people lazy and ensure that people that are set on mass slaughter do far less damage than what would be done with 100 dollars in drug store materials and fifteen minutes on the internets.

This is how actual combat works and I'd say it's relevant as more US soldiers die in Iraq from this than from bullets.

I still don't know what a hight light is though.
 
I'm more than positive that the founders never intended for every American to own canon and rocket, "in case of". They knew, like a good parent, that we can only handle so much. And they knew with advances in technology and society, the laws would have to change.

Can you give any evidence to support this reasoning?
 
I'm more than positive that the founders never intended for every American to own canon and rocket, "in case of". They knew, like a good parent, that we can only handle so much. And they knew with advances in technology and society, the laws would have to change.
What makes you sure of that? We weren't meant to have a Standing Military. We were meant to have Citizen Soldiers, which means, those Citizens were meant to be armed in case of emergency.

Which one of the Federalist Papers did the Founding Fathers make the case against everyone owning Firearms? And, which Founding Father wrote it?
 
I'm more than positive that the founders never intended for every American to own canon and rocket, "in case of". They knew, like a good parent, that we can only handle so much. And they knew with advances in technology and society, the laws would have to change.

Where can you legally buy a cannon or rocket?
 
Where can you legally buy a cannon or rocket?

In the South around the 4th of July and New Years, lots of places......in Tennessee, year around. :woot:
 
I see the founding fathers meaning this:

The public....(non army affiliated individuals) need to retain weapons for the following reasons:
1) for personal protection (you can defend yourself from a house invader of some sort...thief...etc..)
2) for country protection (you can help defend your country from invaders, you have your own weapon, this means you can join up at a moments notice, no need to arm a militia)
3) protection from the government itself (this allows the people, in the event of a tyrannous government coming to pass, can rise up and defend their own rights)
 
I see the founding fathers meaning this:

The public....(non army affiliated individuals) need to retain weapons for the following reasons:
1) for personal protection (you can defend yourself from a house invader of some sort...thief...etc..)
2) for country protection (you can help defend your country from invaders, you have your own weapon, this means you can join up at a moments notice, no need to arm a militia)
3) protection from the government itself (this allows the people, in the event of a tyrannous government coming to pass, can rise up and defend their own rights)
The Writings OF the Founding Fathers would agree with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"