It's that every man for himself attitude that I believe has led to the recent property boom in Western countries.
I could have sworn someone around here once made the argument that the right to bear arms mean that "we, the people" could topple our own oppressive governments when they infringed upon our freedoms.
That was me.
I started re-thinking that position when that guy went into the capitol building in Denver and tried to declare himself Emperor. I thought, this is what I've been defending. This is what happens when you express your politics with a gun.
A conversation with a friend got across to me that to really oppose the government in a meaningful fashion, you would need a hell of a lot more than handguns. You would need real military equipment - howitzers, tanks, all that.
This thread is precisely why I think America is a totally scary and fucked up nation. You don't know how to be sane. You literally don't. You talk about gun shit like it was the fucking 1700's.
Do you have something in particular against the AK-47, or are you referring to the (now expired) ban on "Assault Weapons" such as the AK-47, the AR-15, Uzis, etc.?ChochemV2 wrote:I think we really need to separate our garden-variety gun users from the people who want to be able to buy AK-47's within the realm of this discussion.
People who are on 'disability' because of mental impairment, who then are at large to buy guns without having any proof whatever that they are rational, strikes me as problematic.
Do you think we should need identfication to buy hunting rifles?People who get their panties in a wad because they want the freedom to buy guns without identification, yet cannot see this problem, strike me as mentally unbalanced.
And as I say, if gun ownership is for the purpose of preventing tyranny, and you do not also have a "well regulated militia" to do that with, you are indeed fucking crazy.
If you wanna prevent tyranny, then bring back the draft, and get rid of the mercenary army, who will follow whoever it is that they think pays them. Tyranny will not be prevented by a buncha disorganized gun nuts with assault rifles. It will be by taxing the rich to empower the middle class, who've always been the backbone of republics. Tyranny is always preceded by great inequality of wealth, and when the middle class gets poor enuf, they always call on a tyrant to throw the bastards out and shoot as many as necessary to redistribute the assets back to the middle class. Its a messy method, but has always worked.
DHodges wrote:Do you have something in particular against the AK-47, or are you referring to the (now expired) ban on "Assault Weapons" such as the AK-47, the AR-15, Uzis, etc.?
I think "well regulated militia" is meant to refer to armies raised by the states, to keep the federal army in check, isn't it? That makes sense to me . . . at least the intention of trying to put as many checks and balances into the system as possible when they created it.
Leyla Shen wrote:In the Second Amendment, â€œthe peopleâ€ clearly refers to the individual states as individual states and not the individual citizens who comprise them.
Dave wrote:Sorry for bringing this up again, but something about it bothered me.
In particular, if the Second Amendment was a limitation on the federal government and not on the states, then could not the rest of the Bill of Rights also be read that way?
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
For instance, what about First Amendment rights like freedom of speech?
Actually, the First Amendment is even more limited, as it specifically states, "Congress shall make no law respecting..." which clearly defines the scope as only applying to the Federal government. The individual states could therefore, if they wanted, establish their own state church, or whatever. (I've been trying to find if it was interpreted that way, but haven't found a source yet.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. (etcâ€¦)
Maybe this will help you in your decision? Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests