Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another one arguing that "we no longer need the 2A"
We need a modern 2nd amendment.
Quote:
Ok, fine! Do something about it then! Repeal it! Change it! Go through the legal process set forth in Article V of the Constitution and get rid of that antiquated, obsolete amendment that has so obviously outlived it's purpose! Until then, we have a 2A Right!
Is that so hard to understand!?!?!
It's so cute when you gunlovers get all emotional.... Don't worry, I think this country has much bigger issues than a bunch of Gunlovers and Whippersnappers crying over their guns. It's a forum, and I gave my opinion.
No matter what you say though, the 2nd amendment was for defense, not this specific notion of protecting against tyranny. That just makes a good bumper sticker when you throw in some our your out of context founding father quotes.
You are quoting the federalist papers? I
referred to the constitutional convention.
But anyway the federalist papers were explicity opposed to adding the
bill of rights to the constitution.
Hmmmm.... you're right, but it might help to understand WHY they were opposed to the Bill of Rights. Many of the founders were OPPOSED to the Bill of Rights because they believed that explicitly including some rights of the people may endanger those Rights not included and subject them to infringement. It certainly wasn't because the founders didn't believe the people ought to have these rights, it was because the founders believed that these rights were universally understood to be so far beyond the reach of government infringement that enumerating them in a Bill of Rights was pointless and perhaps may be counterproductive
Quote:
And Federalist Paper No. 29 said the Union has the power, "to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO
THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF
TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Oh, we're quoting Federalist 29? Fine by me. Don't forget this little gem though.....
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped
.......This passage can be located just a paragraph or two after the one you quoted.
How in the world did you ever miss it?
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-22-2014 at 12:31 PM..
I don't assume that. I'm demonstrating how our global society has evolved to a more democratic-styled world. The pen has become mightier. I can see why that news would upset a gunlover.....
What really baffles me about your type, is that you so readily accept the fact that the world has changed in to a place where the 2A has outlived it's purpose, yet you seem to believe that the world as it is today will somehow remain static. If the world can change for the better in the last 200 years in such a rapid fashion, is it not possible that the world could once again change or "devolve" in to a place where the Right to arms is once again important and necessary?
What really baffles me about your type, is that you so readily accept the fact that the world has changed in to a place where the 2A has outlived it's purpose, yet you seem to believe that the world as it is today will somehow remain static.
Yes the notion of the right to bear of arms should be changed from over 200 years ago. No where have I advocated for the outright banning of firearms or the outright dissolution of the 2nd amendment.
Time is never static.
Quote:
If the world can change for the better in the last 200 years in such a rapid fashion, is it not possible that the world could once again change or "devolve" in to a place where the Right to arms is once again important and necessary?
It certainly could. Amendments and laws over time, no? I understand why you want America to have laws stuck in the past when it benefits you.
As I suggested in the very post you quoted, Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a way for you to "modernize" the 2A. You get right on that. Contact your state and federal representatives, build a movement, and inspire change.
Until then, the "old, outdated version" of the 2A will remain. Why is this fairly juvenile concept so difficult for you guys to grasp? Do you not respect the rules and procedures of law?
Quote:
It's so cute when you gunlovers get all emotional.... Don't worry, I think this
country has much bigger issues than a bunch of Gunlovers and Whippersnappers
crying over their guns. It's a forum, and I gave my opinion.
LOL, not getting emotional. Why would I? My side is winning this battle where it counts. Just merely stating facts. If you don't like a law, change it. Until then, infringing upon it is a violation of the law.
Quote:
No matter what you say though, the 2nd amendment was for defense, not this
notion of protecting against tyranny.
Pretty obvious that you have an inadequate working knowledge of history pertaining to the 2A. I don't need to say much to prove you wrong. If you only took the time to realize the conditions that led to the drafting of the 2A, you'd know how wrong you were,, except I guess it's better to wallow in willful ignorance than to have to admit you are wrong though, huh? See, the anti-federalists were afraid that the new Federal Gov't would come in with a standing army and disarm the citizen militias in the several states. The founders also had a profound mistrust of any standing army. So, in order to pacify the concerns of the anti-federalists, and to reduce the need for a powerful standing army at the federal level, they enshrined the right of the people to keep and bear arms which enabled the several states to establish militias, in the form of the 2A..... A simple examination of a passage in Federalist 29 clearly demonstrates that I am right, or rather, just how wrong you are....
"""""""""""""""
Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped " it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
"""""""""""
BOOOOOM!!!!! Now what?
btw, my services do not come free of charge. Where might I send the bill for the history lesson I just gave you?
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-22-2014 at 12:54 PM..
Yes the notion of the right to bear of arms should be changed from over 200 years ago. No where have I advocated for the outright banning of firearms or the outright dissolution of the 2nd amendment.
Time is never static. .
You do know that less than 100 years ago the entire civilized world was overrun by tyrannical regimes, not once, but twice.
You also do know, that the only time Europe has had 70 years without tyrants and wars, is when we American taxpayers insured their Security. And we no longer wish or can afford to continue it.
You do also understand that a mere 24-25 years ago, half of Europe overthrew tyrannical regimes, by force, and many by blood-shedding.
You do know that Europe is in a political, demographic, and economic tailspin. You also know that we have our own big centralized Govt that keeps devouring individuals' and states" rights.
You can't be living in today's world, or can't have read less than introduction to History and Political Systems for Dummies.
You seem so uneducated, and ignorant of political systems in Europe. Tell me, why are the executive branches organized in the way that they are organized in Europe?
It certainly could. Amendments and laws over time, no? I understand why you want America to have laws stuck in the past when it benefits you.
Ah, so you admit that the world could "devolve" in to a place where the people's right to arms may once again become relevant and necessary. Why are you so intent on neutering it then?
And yes, having the 2A does benefit me, it benefits us all, as it assures that we'll have the tools necessary to defend ourselves if we ever have to. Why would I not like a law that benefits me? That doesn't make any sense......?
Yeah, making things up that the person you are arguing with never said.... and then failing to back up your lies is really helping. Instead of showing me where I advocated revolution (I never did), you slink back to insults.
Yeah just keep changing the subject and running from the issues while making crap up, that is sooo helping.
You want to try to back up your stupid claim that any future revolution would end like Cuba's because "it was a revolution too"? Or are you going to keep avoiding that and making up things that I never said, so that you can act like a mental midget and resort to nothing but off-topic insults?
I am guessing the answer is no.
Um, Never said? really?
Quote:
The people of Egypt, Syria, Libya among other nations have risen up in arms against their tyrannical governments.
We have supplied the "rebels" with weapons that help them fight their government forces.
Gun grabbers have
no concept of this.
"It can't happen here", right?
Quote:
Uh, the intention of the second was to protect from our own government
becoming tyrannical... and the threat of that is greater than ever
Originally Posted by dv1033 It certainly could. Amendments and laws over time, no? I understand why you want America to have laws stuck in the past when it benefits you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Ah, so you admit that the world could "devolve" in to a place where the people's right to arms may once again become relevant and necessary. Why are you so intent on neutering it then?
And yes, having the 2A does benefit me, it benefits us all, as it assures that we'll have the tools necessary to defend ourselves if we ever have to. Why would I not like a law that benefits me? That doesn't make any sense......?
Like the song goes "stop making sense, making sense!"
These people are alarmists and scared of their own shadows. Once guns are banned (even though they claim (lie about how) this isn't what they advocate) knife crime will increase, just as it has in the UK. Now the UK is going to ban knives longer than 3 inches. This is how alarmists (progressives) go about disarming the populous (their enemies) in preparation for the Totalitarian objective they desire.
Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and the Totalitarian/Fascist aspects of them cannot take control with an armed society. The very first thing any dictator does is find out who owns weapons (registration) and then disarms them.
Like the song goes "stop making sense, making sense!"
These people are alarmists and scared of their own shadows. Once guns are banned (even though they claim (lie about how) this isn't what they advocate) knife crime will increase, just as it has in the UK. Now the UK is going to ban knives longer than 3 inches. This is how alarmists (progressives) go about disarming the populous (their enemies) in preparation for the Totalitarian objective they desire.
Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and the Totalitarian/Fascist aspects of them cannot take control with an armed society. The very first thing any dictator does is find out who owns weapons (registration) and then disarms them.
Actually, all the UK's efforts to curb gun violence has failed. I used to have a link where the author, quite ironically railed against the American NRA, and then went on to say how the UK's crime rate involving guns has doubled since they banned handguns. I think the authors name was Nigel Farmdale, of the Telegraph. Feel free to look it up on your own if you like.
Admittedly though, the UK's gun crime rate is far less than ours, but it was less than ours before they banned a lot of guns over there, and, at least according to Mr. Farmdale, their laws have not reduced their crime rate even one bit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
