ot. 2nd am.: threats

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Scaredy, I really love reading your posts.
Humm… kill the tyrants. I was talking to my brother about this. He loves his guns and wants to protect them. I told him that since be owns guns already, he should support strict gun control because that would make his collection more valuable. It’s like owning a house in a great neighborhood and forbidding any new construction.
[/quote]
except new gun control may mean that possession of certain firearms are illegal and potentially a felony based upon how they look…
[quote=FlyerInHi]
He admits that “standing up to the tyrants” is just a stupid but effective vote getting argument especially when the NRA also supports stronger police and military. The military outguns any citizen and can easily take away the guns if necessary.
[/quote]
Umm.. that just compromised your earlier statement – which is then just a ‘spin lead in’ to this segment. While the military outguns, outgun does not always outdo quantity.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
If anyone should have taken up arms, the slaves, during the civil war, should have revolted and taken over while the men were away, like the peasants revolted in Russia or China and killed all the aristocrats who oppressed them[/quote]
Um.. some of the slaves actually did!
http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war

[scaredyclassic]

picnic table with 10k in fed. reserve notes on it. a scrawny dude is trying to protect it with a gun.

the govt. kills him and gives the cash to afghani warlords..

real patriots use trucks with fertilizer bombs i guess.

[scaredyclassic]

so say 51 percent, a majority of americans vote trump, but he loses due to electoral college fluke,

and they feel subjectively they are currently truly seriously oppressed and they feel their rights are really trampled on, for various reasons…but all very sincerely.

the 2nd am., as illuminated by the federalist papers, was intended to ensure that majorities are always armed and ready when they feel oppressed to revolt and the 2nd,am. says to you that they are justified to take their guns and start shooting politicians when they believe sincerely they are being oppressed?

its difficult to really see that in the text without guidance of the federalist papers:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

they certainly couldve thrown in a word like revolt or dethrone or something into such a convoluted sentence if theyd really really intended majorities to kill when they believe themselves oppressed.

a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and to overthrow such State when it becomef Intolerably Oppreffive, the right of the people individually and collectively, to keep and bear Arms, but not all arms, obviously, like crazy big arms, shall not be infringed, reasonable restrictions may apply, see state and federal authorities for details.

[Anonymous]

[quote=ucodegen]
Taking a quote out of context might work with Trump, but not me. I never said that an individual or small group should take action. The weapons are there should the citizens as a majority need to take collective action.

[odd list of “I get to use my guns!” fantasies ….]
[/quote]

Yeah right, “the majority” will take action.

Are Trump’s “2nd Amendment people” the same as “the majority?”

The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the local militias – which existed at the time – the power to resist the federal government. Militias were military units, “well regulated” as in having a chain of command, etc.

The 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense when one considers the words that were actually written, words like “militia” and “well regulated” – words that today’s gun “enthusiasts” have removed in their own minds through the most convoluted of arguments (The arguments always start with “read the Federalist Papers”, lol …)

Trump’s comments were clearly meant to imply that some arbitrarily defined group – “the 2nd amendment people” – can change the outcome of a lawful, constitutionally-defined process, because they have weapons. Not “the majority” that just voted for the other candidate, but the minority of Americans who always look to guns as the answer.

Trump made the suggestion that those who have the tools and willingness to use violence can overrule the peaceful mechanisms of our government.

His words were disgusting, dangerous and goes against everything that makes our country great: democracy, the rule of law, and the peaceful transfer of power through elections.

Scardey isn’t twisting your words. You are twisting them pretty well yourself.

[FlyerInHi]

ucodegen, I was only saying that my brother who likes guns doesn’t really believe guns are for resisting tyrants. It’s just an argument to protect a hobby/pastime and access to buying and selling guns.

I still maintain that increasing gun control would make existing guns more valuable. Maybe then only the rich can afford guns like only they can buy luxury cars and houses.
Plus if the Feds confiscate the gun, don’t they have to pay fair compensation?

[scaredyclassic]

if the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.

[Anonymous]

[quote=scaredyclassic]if the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.[/quote]

Bingo.

The 2nd amendment doesn’t even use the word “guns.” It uses the word “arms.”

And just about every arm – including any arm that could realistically influence the outcome in a military conflict – is already not available to the public.

If there was a “revolution”, there would be military units on both sides – just as there was during our civil war. With today’s military weapons, Bubba’s “modified” AR-15 wouldn’t even be heard above the din in the moments before it was buried in the rubble.

Tell us how we have a situation where the entire military is on one side and the entire non-military population is going to be on the other? Because that’s the only situation where the “2nd amendment protects us from the government” argument makes any sense.

The hypothetical scenario based on a conflict split strictly across military vs. civilians is so fantastic that it’s not even worth considering for policy debates. Discussing these scenarios like it is some realistic possibility accomplishes nothing and may even incite some losers to go out and hurt someone.

[FlyerInHi]

I think gun rights defenders believe that people should be able to own missiles and nuclear weapons as long as they can afford them.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=scaredyclassic]
this statement actually alarmed me. i guess it gets to why i hate guns. a chunk of the popu k ation feels they get to shoot people if things arent going their way[/quote]This supposed quote of Trump saying that the second amendment people would take (kill) Hillary is a gross twist done by innuendo. The reality of the whole thing is that the ‘Second Amendment’ people, who are not necessarily all Republican – might vote solely on the risk to the Second Amendment and cause Hillary to loose the race. Remember context boys and girls. We are talking about an election and wedge issues that politicians etc like to throw about. Its all about votes.

NOTE: I don’t know yet if Trump actually said it was a ‘Joke’, if so – he shouldn’t have. He should have turned to the questioner and asked in his “You’re Fired” voice and say ‘and do you regularly take quotes out of context and then twist the meaning?’ – He definitely needs to learn to handle people misquoting in a more ‘creative’ manner.

Quote in question:

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” Trump said of his presidential rival. “By the way, and if she gets to pick,” he continued, “if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

[/quote]

the “context” is that Trumps people have been predicting violence and a bloodbath should trump lose.

ugh. i cant believe we are parsing language of a presidential candidate to see whether there are other reasonable interpretations other thsn that he is advocating violent govt overthrow.

to me, i dont see it. maybe i have bad reading comp. at least we dont have to struggle with who was the Founding Father of ISIS. its obama! ez. obama founded isis. in context anyone whacked out enough to claim that could easily urge second am. people (as opposed to what, normal people? 5th am. people?) to do their 2nd am. thing and open a can of 2nd am. whoop ass on traitors and such

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I think gun rights defenders believe that people should be able to own missiles and nuclear weapons as long as they can afford them.[/quote]
Red Herring. Though some real extreme outliers may, but most do not.
[quote=scaredyclassic]if the purpose of the 2nd am. really is to prep for revolution wgen necessaey, it makes no sense to limit the type of atms obtainable. grenades, tanks…those would be more useful in keeping the Gov. in line.[/quote]
Not useful, easier. ‘Heavy’ weapons would change ‘people at large’ to a small group or single individual. This was never the intent of the Founding Fathers – again, it is also shown in the Federalist Papers. War, bloodshed should never be easy nor sanitary. Keeping it dirty, keeps it to the last resort.

NOTE during the late 1700s into the 1800s, it was legal for an individual to own a cannon, which was the heaviest weapon at the time.

[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]so say 51 percent, a majority of americans vote trump, but he loses due to electoral college fluke,

and they feel subjectively they are currently truly seriously oppressed and they feel their rights are really trampled on, for various reasons…but all very sincerely.[/quote]
Not much different than Al Gore, from what I remember. Yes, it may be time to abolish the electoral college..
[quote=scaredyclassic]
the 2nd am., as illuminated by the federalist papers, was intended to ensure that majorities are always armed and ready when they feel oppressed to revolt and the 2nd,am. says to you that they are justified to take their guns and start shooting politicians when they believe sincerely they are being oppressed?[/quote]Good try, but no it does not say the above. Making the wording of the statement such that they did – then attacking that false premise, is an invalid argument. It is known as a straw-man argument.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
its difficult to really see that in the text without guidance of the federalist papers:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[/quote]
See what – remember that you started with a false premise, which is also a premise that I did not even take. What I have pointed out on this statement is that the word regulate means to control – always has. It has never been equivalent to outfit or supply.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
they certainly couldve thrown in a word like revolt or dethrone or something into such a convoluted sentence if theyd really really intended majorities to kill when they believe themselves oppressed.
[/quote]
You forgot my Thomas Jefferson quote on a little revolution. What I was pointing out above – and seemed to go right by you, was the mere fact that the public can arm themselves, is in itself a deterrent to abuse or tyranny.

[quote=scaredyclassic]
a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and to overthrow such State when it becomef Intolerably Oppreffive, the right of the people individually and collectively, to keep and bear Arms, but not all arms, obviously, like crazy big arms, shall not be infringed, reasonable restrictions may apply, see state and federal authorities for details.[/quote]
Now imagine the rest of the constitution written as you proposed.. for example enumerating every race of people on earth instead of saying ‘all’. If you read those papers, you would understand that some of what you implied, goes without stating. That is why the terms ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘not infringed’ are there.

BTW, what is with the ‘s'(s)?? almost looks like using the old style use of ‘s'(ƒ), which looks like an ‘f’.

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment was intended to give the local militias – which existed at the time – the power to resist the federal government. Militias were military units, “well regulated” as in having a chain of command, etc.
[/quote]Nope.. and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That is also why the wording is regulate not outfit, supplied or prepaired – all words available to the Founding Fathers. This is also why the Supreme Court found it to be an individual right – and did not require being in a militia to exercise.
[quote=harvey]
The 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense when one considers the words that were actually written, words like “militia” and “well regulated” – words that today’s gun “enthusiasts” have removed in their own minds through the most convoluted of arguments (The arguments always start with “read the Federalist Papers”, lol …)
[/quote]
I have not ignored those words, I have actually researched the terms and made sure I was clear on meaning — and I would suggest reading them. Hamilton refers to “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”. Hamilton was actually dead set against a standing army and wanted something more like the Swiss model. He also reasoned why it needed to be “the People at Large”. While it may no longer be feasible to use a Swiss style model for the United State (which is an argument in itself) his reasoning as to why “the people at large” were to be armed still stands. We can trust those that live with and among us as brothers, neighbors, co-workers more than we can trust those that have no direct contact (Hamilton is wordier on this)
[quote=harvey]
Trump’s comments were clearly meant to imply that some arbitrarily defined group – “the 2nd amendment people” – can change the outcome of a lawful, constitutionally-defined process, because they have weapons. Not “the majority” that just voted for the other candidate, but the minority of Americans who always look to guns as the answer.[/quote]You went off the rails at the ‘because’ on the first sentence. They can change the outcome if they decide to vote solely by the 2nd Amendment wedge issue.

[quote=harvey]
Trump made the suggestion that those who have the tools and willingness to use violence can overrule the peaceful mechanisms of our government.
[/quote] Now you are really off the rails here, and not supported by any facts at hand. He never said go and get your guns 2nd amendment people. Remember – this is an election.

[quote=harvey]
Scardey isn’t twisting your words. You are twisting them pretty well yourself.[/quote]
Sorry but that is not supported by facts at hand.

NOTE: You might want to quote the section you are addressing than a ‘reply all’ style of quote. The latter really gums up the reading of postings. I take the time to address each point and to cut out parts I am not addressing so that there is not a huge nested series of quotes. In fact, both scardey and you are not directly countering points and are instead ‘yelling into the air’ “you’re wrong, you’re wrong…” – not very constructive or creative.

[Anonymous]

[quote=ucodegen]
[quote=harvey]
Trump’s comments were clearly meant to imply that some arbitrarily defined group – “the 2nd amendment people” – can change the outcome of a lawful, constitutionally-defined process, because they have weapons. Not “the majority” that just voted for the other candidate, but the minority of Americans who always look to guns as the answer.[/quote]You went off the rails at the ‘because’ on the first sentence. They can change the outcome if they decide to vote solely by the 2nd Amendment wedge issue.

[quote=harvey]
Trump made the suggestion that those who have the tools and willingness to use violence can overrule the peaceful mechanisms of our government.
[/quote] Now you are really off the rails here, and not supported by any facts at hand. He never said go and get your guns 2nd amendment people. Remember – this is an election.
[/quote]

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. “Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.”

He was specifically saying that there were remedies available after the peaceful election occurred, and after the constitutionally-defined process of a president choosing supreme count judges. And this thing “that can be done” is only available to the “Second Amendment people.”

Yup, he went there. There is no other interpretation. And if you don’t see that in his words then you are utterly stupid or being intentionally ignorant about blatant facts.

The fantasies about citizens using their guns to fix the government are just going to incite pointless violence. Encouraging the idea will accomplish nothing constructive. It’s utterly pathetic that Trump goes anywhere near that territory.

[Anonymous]

And tell me again why I can’t own an F-18 with cluster bombs if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow me to resist the government’s military?

Oh right, I need to read the Federalist Papers…

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]
The fantasies about citizens using their guns to fix the government are just going to incite pointless violence. Encouraging the idea will accomplish nothing constructive. It’s utterly pathetic that Trump goes anywhere near that territory.[/quote]
The statement is laughable when you consider that most of the recent political ‘violence’ has been caused by Anti-Trump protesters – not Pro-Trump people. It even got to the point that the media was making comments about it.

And again – you are creating a straw-man argument.

[Author]

Posts