The 2nd amendment was placed there to protect the people from a tyrannical government. (Jesus, Massachusetts)

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....

Just because time advances does not mean your rights are any less valid,

Is your right to privacy any less important in 2014 then 1791?

Is your right to free speech any less important in 2014 then 1791?

Really?

So Rapist loner rape?

Thieves do not steal?

Murders do not Murder

Tyrants and their agents to not take by force what they can not claim by right?

I did not know human nature has changed so much so that we are not in a danger of our follow man or those with power over us...


This idea that just because the year on the calendar is difference means your rights are no longer "valid" is a joke..

Where do you live? What nation?

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And I certainly believe one should have a reasonable means to protect oneself and property. However, guns are less useful in the 21st century for protection than the 19th century. Furthermore, the notions that more guns are more safe is incorrect.

Really? They are?

So why does the US Armed Force us them?
So why does the FBI us them?
So why does the Secret Service us them?
So why do the police officers of America us them?

So why do 130,000,000 to 150,000,000 have them?

Oh no wrong again pal.


FBI: More guns, less violent crime | The Daily Caller

[Huckleberry3911948]

that is true
why do you think they are spending millions to ban home owner possession of guns? why do you think they sue and jail us every time we shoot a home invader.
we are under seige from our own government.
the distrust level is very high.
what you see our government doing to them, special op assassination and drone strikes, you can eventually expect here.
no more "our boys" just blackwater.
they are the good guys right? why doesnt it feel that way?
from the brave one, jodie foster

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan

Yes, but how often do firearms enable crimes? You can't rob a bank with a knife. You can't equip soldiers with knives and swords as their primary weapons. You can't kill dozens of kids in a school with a knife, because then someone will tackle you or throw something at you.

BS you cant.

Police: Man with knife robbed Millersburg bank - abc27 WHTM

That happened 7 hours ago...

Stabbing suspect said, 'I have more people to kill,' complaint says - CNN.com

24 Injured In Stabbing At Franklin Regional High School « CBS Pittsburgh

8 Children Dead in Japanese School Stabbing
8 Children Dead in Japanese School Stabbing - ABC News

chinese stabbing

7 dead in Tokyo stabbing rampage - USATODAY.com

China stabbing: 22 children and elderly woman stabbed outside primary school by Chinese knifeman | Mail Online

Yeah everyone did that and they were not stopped, or no one could get close enough to stop them.

You are just so wrong it is almost funny..

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan

That's just incompetence. Not a valid reason to lessen gun restrictions.

Well, if you are unarmed, you stand a better chance of stopping somebody who doesn't have a gun.

And if they do? Then what?

What if they are 6ft 9 and change bench press 800LBS? What then?

the right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment is all we need, and if you dont like it, well try and change it.

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And your argument relies on society taking a step back.... And your argument relies on what if, what if, what if.....And fear. Why are gun lovers so full of fear?

So you are saying their has never been a collapse of society, long or short term?

It relies on past events, history, and basic human nature..Not fear.

We are not full of fear, just bravery, but then again you would not know the difference now would you?

We are not the side that wants to strip people of their rights an means to self defense based off of fear, that is your side

We are not the side that wants to ban the most effective tools of self defense base off of fear, that is your
side


We are not the side that uses opinions, emotions, lies, to strip others of their rights and the means to defend those rights based off of fear, that is your side.

I'm a man with or without my gun, unlike many on here.

So you are a "man" if you rely on others for you safety and defense and those who do not are not?

I really don't care about this issue enough outside of giving my opinion on here. Don't worry, you can stay afraid and cling to youre guns.

We are not afraid, we are however winning in the courts, elections, the info war, the culture war, and the youth, dont worry about us we will be just fine.

The 2nd amendment wasn't about protection from tyranny but protection in general.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
― George Washington

“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.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison


"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton

You, unsurprisingly, have missed the point. All your arguments are based on the past or events unforseen. We have the ability to modify, revise, or eliminate laws. You are acting like laws are static..... I want laws that reflect the need or issue in which they were written in.

All of our points are based on facts, historically and current events, trends, and basic logic..

You and you side also assume that that things and society always and only change for the better, rarely has that ever been the case and when it is it really lasts.

The 2nd Amendment is reflected on the need for the maintenance and defense of a free state with and by a armed citizenry.

you do not like this fact so you refuse to accept it.

[gunlover]

Originally Posted by dv1033

What's your point?

This country has enough guns per capita that an outside observer would guess we were repelling an invader or in a civil war. We have above average crime for a developed nation and the highest incarceration rate.

There will always be crime with free will, but somehow most of the developed world has less crime with less guns. What we are doing isn't working.

Having a open border with the 3rd world.
Having a failed education system.
Having a failed tax system that chases away jobs.
Having a regulatory system that makes it impossible to start a business.

All have a great deal in that cause of that..

Also having millions of laws most of which do nothing but harm the property, wealth, and liberty of the people as well as the failure of the war on drugs always as the prison industrial complex have the massive number of the incarceration rate..Which is unjust and must end if only for the fact it cost more and more money and makes things worse..

They do not have massive illegal immigration into their nations.
They do have school choice.

They have a massively different culture and values then we do.

They don't have the same rights and place the same value on liberty that we do.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And your argument relies on society taking a step
back.... And your argument relies on what if, what if, what if.....And fear. Why
are gun lovers so full of fear?
I'm a man with or without my gun, unlike many on here.

My argument relies on fear? lol. The anti-gun argument is built of fear. Scare parents in to supporting anti-gun candidates and policies, lest your children may die. The anti-gun handbook literally says the first thing to do after a tragedy is to jump in front of a camera and play on peoples emotions. { yes, there really is a handbook, it's called "preventing gun violence through effective messaging}.... When they aren't using fear, they're using lies, distortions, misconceptions, stereotypes, confusion, and down right deception to push their agenda.

I really don't care about this issue enough outside of giving my opinion on here

That's obvious, as you clearly know nothing about this issue. This issue is one of my main concerns, and I have studied it extensively, so who do you think is more educated on the topic.... you or me?

Don't worry, you can stay afraid and cling to youre guns.

I will. Thanks

You, unsurprisingly, have missed the point. All your arguments are based on the
past or events unforseen. We have the ability to modify, revise, or eliminate
laws. You are acting like laws are static..... I want laws that reflect the need
or issue in which they were written in.

So then do that then. That's what I've been telling you all along. If you don't like the 2A, the LAW, then modify, revise, or eliminate it. Again, why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[freightshaker]

Originally Posted by dv1033

And what about our modern times.... With our supermarkets, law.enforcement, armies, welfare, etc....

I'm curious.. What is the response time of your local law enforcement? I know in my city, the response time is 11 min, 11 seconds average. Most cities range anywhere from 9-15 minutes. How long does it take to kill someone? The police are NOT there to protect you. They are there to investigate crimes AFTER the fact. It's your job to protect yourself and your family until the police arrive. I don't know about you, but I am older. I am not going to fare well in a hand to hand fight at this point. What are my options? I can arm myself, or I can depend on the good nature of a criminal not to severely injure or kill me.
''

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Agreed, but tyranny is in the list, and tyranny and the quest to control has never been entirely eliminated.

I personally argue that the 2nd Amendment was confirmation of the intrinsic right of self defense against all aggressors. All aggressors may include a rogue government intending to do me harm. That does not permit me to take proactive action to eliminate potential aggressors, only those who have proven that they are indeed aggressors.

Check the title of the thread. Quite a few people think the main purpose was defense against tyranny. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said here.

As I've pointed multiple times, the make up of the US was very different. The continental US was occupied by much more powerful empires, Native Americans were a threat, and law enforcement was scare or non-existent in places. These were the conditions that the 2nd amendment, as we know it, was devised under.

Which is something that has a rational basis. It's very common to examine prior situations both minor and major to fill in details of current events to provide a more accurate prediction. Using predicted future events to determine a possible outcome is called speculation at best, fantasy at worst.

Events unforeseen are a failure of the mechanisms we use to predict future events.

So your argument is, that the arguments used are using normal predictive methods, or the failure of those predictive methods to validate the thought process, which to me seems like a very logical mechanism to argue that change is not needed.

My argument is that as a society, we have become safer through laws, law enforcement and social services than though gun ownership. These things were weak or nonexistent prior to the 20th century.

So which need do you see that requires that the government be given the right to eliminate firearms? Give me the goal not the method, what is the overall goal? You're arguing support for the mechanism to achieve that goal, and not evaluating how the goal can be reached. The 2nd Amendment is a limitation on government (and all of the risks that entails), if you make a good enough case that the only way to achieve the goal is to remove that limitation, then you might even convince me.

I have never suggested or implied eliminating firearms. It seems a common theme that people just assume if you "against" the 2nd amendment you hate all guns.

I would suggest looking at our peer countries for a model. Israel, for example, is surrounded by enemies and treats gun ownership as a privilege.