I think most reasonable people would disagree. "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." That's the text of the Second Amendment. Put aside whether or not it actually explicitly grants individuals the right to own firearms for their own purposes (the Court has ruled it has, 5-4, I would argue that it doesn't). Where do you pull the "protect the people from the tyranny of the government" argument from? "Being necessary to the security of a free State" is the only causal statement (ie this is the reason why we have this amendment) of any Amendment in the constitution. And it pretty clearly has to do with militias, if we go by the syntax of the sentence and by historical reality. A militia is necessary to protect the state from exterior threats (ie Britain, Native Americans, French, Spanish). You can pull the Wayne LaPierre argument of "our founding fathers had just freed themselves from the tyranny of Great Britain, and wanted to protect themselves and posterity from tyranny in the future." But you're putting words in their mouth, as many politicians on both sides do.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf See page 24, last paragraph - which carries over to page 25.
Personally I find it hard to believe that the freedom from oppression argument is serious. or is even viewed as serious by those making it. Feel free to argue that you do take it seriously, but it is a silly argument. Turning to your first point, the vote was a travesty. It was defeated not by majority vote, so how does that represent democracy in action? You can't be serious. And please provide a link for all these studies that show gun control does not work. Virtually all of the states with high crime rates have lax gun control. And New York City, with relatively strict gun control, is one of the safest big cities in America. I understand that mere correlatoin does not prove causation, but it is hardly the case that gun control does not work. Your point comparing handguns with assault rifles is not persuasive. Rifles with multi round clips are the preferred weapon used in mass killings. Those types of events are much more disruptive to our civil society than a gang banger knocking off another with a revolver. In any event places like New York DO engage in a huge effort to limit handguns, and have lower murder rates to show for it. My guess is you have guns and have bought into the notion that you have something to fear from gun control. Fine, but I just can't believe you have seriously thought through this overthrowing hte government concept. Ever consider that we might be more at risk of a democratically elected and operating government being undermined by a minority who own guns and threaten the government agents? I think that is a much more likely scenario in America's future than your fear.
I will give a proper response to that post when I have some more time. For now, I just want you to Google Chicago gun control.
You proved my point.... all of those points concern the founder's view of the value of militias, not private citizens bearing arms for their own personal enjoyment/protection. Immaterial to your argument, we have an army that does these things. Again, this argues that a civilian militia, not privately armed citizens, makes large standing armies unnecessary. (And even if the argument was specifically about the private and individual right to bear arms, it would be irrelevant, because we have a large standing army. That cat is out of the bag, and having militias really wouldn't put the cat back in, so it's a moot point.) This doesn't provide a rationale for the individual right of ownership. It would better argue for having a draft or even a mandatory service requirement in the model of Israel. And again, it is about militias. I suppose you could say that everyone owning a gun would mean that everyone is "trained in arms." But we aren't required to own guns, we have the right to and we have the right not to. So codifying the individual right to bear arms does very little to ensure that a nation's citizens are able to resist tyranny. All of these arguments, as I've mentioned a bit above, have little practicality in 2013 anyway. A citizenry armed with six shooters, handguns, and "assault weapons" wouldn't be able to stand up to a government with machine guns, tanks, drones, nukes, etc. As others have said, the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should be able to own all of these weapons...otherwise our government has an unfair advantage in the fight that we're about to have with them! But nobody argues that, because it's ridiculous. Therefore, you concede that a line must be drawn somewhere as to what kind of deadly weaponry ordinary citizens may and may not own. It seems to me that background checks on all purchases, to ensure that those who buy deadly weapons haven't been legitimately disqualified from purchasing them, makes sense as a reasonable restriction.
When Red State democrats dont have to stand for reelection. The Senate move was a joke. Obama was a Joke. Did you think that some Red State Senators, were going to risk their careers, for a lame duck President, to score political points against the House? Where the bill would surely fail. An act of political theater, to enable the predictable scolds to act like Vultures feeding on the tragically dead.
You need to study your civics. you might also consider brushing up on the numbers of Tanks,Helicopters, and Jets that actually exist. PS.in the above quote from Federalist 46, the half amillion number was roughly equal to the number of able bodied men in the colonies. Mr Mason from Va, goes on... the simple fact is, he uses two phrases to speak to the same set of people...forst it that every man be armed...then he calls them the milita. Those concidentsl phrasings held the same basic meaning until after the Miller ruling in 1939. It has been subtly perverted with the weak minded arguments you spewed forth above. If you dont like the Second Amendment...change the Constitution. Though, I would expect its adherents to drop try to drop the inane subordinate clause from it at the same time. You might want to check on the plain fourth grade meaning of Subordinate Clause, and independant clause. One conveys no meaning, and is all style. The other conveys the full meaning. Thats basic fourth grade english. PS..did you really say nukes? As in the government would drop Nukes on guerillas? :rofl2: We didnt ise them on the Chinese in Korea...we didnt use them in Vietnam...but we are going to nuke the homeland? You should be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nuke these bastards Mr Presodent im sure Air Force one can hover till the land becomes inhabitable again. Tanks, Machine guns, etc are either easily neutralized, or taken....thats the essence of guerilla warfare. The British, dominated the planet in 1776. The US has dominated the world, since WWII. How did the Revolution, Korea, and Vietnam work out. How bloody did Iraq get after conventional war was over.... Syria? Those principles have not changed in a thousand years. A well armed populace can fight any government to a stand still, or better. Even in the middle ages, the English kings didnt let their outliers train with weapons. Thise that dont remember history...
It's fairly obvious you don't know shit about the process. He switched his vote to a no so he could reintroduce the bill later. http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/w...ll-reward-his-vote-against-background-checks/ ""“[Reid v]oted ‘no’ as a procedural move to preserve [the] option to reintroduce the bill,” the site explains. “Reid did vote no on the background check vote to preserve his right as majority leader to bring it up again,” agreed a Senate GOP aide in an email to The Daily Caller Thursday. “Majority leaders do this all the time on bills they want to try to advance again.” And Reid himself addressed the question on Facebook Wednesday afternoon. “Many of you have inquired as to why I voted against the Manchin-Toomey background checks legislation, even though I fully support it.” Reid wrote. “Good question. I voted no for procedural reasons so that I can retain the right to bring it up for a vote in the near future.”
So we shouldn't have any laws at all since criminals will just break them anyway? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-18-2013/broken-bad---legislated-evil
It's ironic that it's usually the same people who cite failing drug laws as a reason to legalize, but yet they are on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to the same issue arising with other things such as firearms.
Actually I don't support legalization for that reason at all. I support legalization because it's the big tobacco and beer companies that supress it. I also don't buy the BS that it's any more harmful then those either. There is also the taxation incentive and regulation of it. Throw in all the medicinal powers and now I've completely gone off topic but I don't support legalization because the laws suck.
Please show proof that "assault rifles" are the prefered weapon in mass killings. We don't even know if Lanza used one. The media reported both that he did and then that he didn't. We won't know until the police report is declassified. Do I own guns? Sure I have a couple of relatively shitty guns. Nothing that can even use a magazine or a clip though. I live in a very rural area where the police wouldn't be here in time if someone were threatening my family. I also hunt. I'm hardly what anyone would consider a "gun nut" though. None of the suggested laws would affect me personally in that regard. It's not so much that I fear gun control, it's just that I don't believe it works or helps solve anything other than to take away rights from law abiding citizens. I also believe that slippery slopes are dangerous, especially over the course of time. I do fear too much government control which I believe we already have in many cases. When I see images of military grade vehicles rolling through the streets Boston in search of a dangerous terrorist it sure does strike a nerve. Wouldn't you like a high capacity rifle at your disposal if you were on lock down and some terrorist with bombs, grenades and a high capacity weapon of his own were in your neck of the woods? Less than a century ago Hitler managed to force his way into a democratic government, create a false flag to institute emergency powers and eventually take over with the Nazi party. With the patriot act in place and a handful of conspirators claiming there were a bunch of chechnian sleeper cells we could have armored vehicles rolling through every major city in the US without too much trouble. Is this something that's likely to happen? Obviously not. Is it something that history has shown us could happen? Yes sir. Do we have much of a chance against the full fury of the US military even with a bunch of "assault weapons"? We'd absolutely be fighting a major uphill battle, but I'd much prefer to have access to the best weapons possible for use in the guerilla & urban warfare that would be necessary. Yes, I am dead serious about being concerned with a tryant coming to power, as unlikely as that may be. For your reading pleasure: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...mbergs-anti-gun-propaganda-ten-bullet-points/ http://www.redstate.com/cmndr45/2012/08/26/chicago-poster-child-for-failed-gun-control/ http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-576422.html http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/ http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/the-threat-posed-by-gun-magazine-limits http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott http://massgunlawreform.com/index.html http://www.goal.org/2013-gun-crime-report.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/category/ccm-departments/true-stories/ BTW, these fuckheads who do mass shootings love easy targets. By easy target I mean places where no one else has guns, like "gun free school zone". http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...newtown-school-because-it-was-an-easy-target/
Don't be silly. Laws that have a purpose and actually accomplish something other than take away our rights are fine. Gun control doesn't accomplish anything and so I ask you why would you want to be controlled by the government for unnecessary reasons? We don't have the right to murder people. We don't have the right to steal. We don't have the right to drink and drive. We do have the right to bear arms and bearing arms in and of itself is not a negative thing.
So what exactly are you arguing? That we should just trust the government (rely on the government controlled army) and that we don't actually have the right to bear arms? I'm not sure what to take from your rant. If we had to go to war with the government we'd obviously be at a major disadvantage. Guerilla and urban warfare would make it not an unwinnable fight though.
I hate the argument that these people seek out gun free zones to do their shootouts. They seek out areas in which there are large amounts of people in a concentrated area. Which happens to be the same reason that nobody wants guns there. I don't think the fact that there are no guns allowed there is what is drawing in mass shooters because I hardly think that schools/theaters would be packed with guns if not for the law.
So if your goal is to kill as many people as possible are you going to a heavily populated area with armed guards that can easily stop you or a heavily populated area without armed guards? It's a hypothetical question, no need to answer.
(I want to start this by saying I keep multiple guns in my home for home defense purposes, just because I don't want you to get the idea that I'm some liberal that doesn't understand the idea of needing one for protection. I just think that both sides generally jump to the extreme ends of the argument to combat the other and it gets on my nerves lol.) Obviously a killer is going to a place that isn't armed with guards. What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Is a location being deemed a gun-free zone the thing that is stopping schools/theaters being protected by armed guards? It is my understanding that a gun-free zone is referring to average people being allowed to have a concealed weapon in those locations. My point is that the same thing causing killers to target certain areas is the same thing causing these zones to be gun-free zones: large groups of people gathered centrally with limited escape routes. Let's not confuse what is causing what here. Let me answer your hypothetical with some of my own: If elementary schools were no longer considered gun free zones, do you think killers would no longer target them? Would there all of a sudden be masses of teachers toting guns to schools? And would that be a good thing?
