U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,533 posts, read 13,521,650 times
Reputation: 4712

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker View Post
THANK YOU FOR MAKING A STRONG CASE FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT! But from reading your previous posts, somehow I doubt that was your intention?

If "evil people must simply not be allowed to prevail". And by your own admission: "All it takes are enough evil minds in control of government to totally destroy all those points you made." Then how do you justify that only government forces should be allowed to possess so called "military style assault weapons?" These would be the same evil minds that you would be willing to relinquish your civil rights to, all in the name of public safety and the greater good?

So according to your logic, the majority of members in the armed forces, national guard and law enforcement have evil minds? That the majority of them would willfully carry out the orders of those who have evil minds in government? That they would willfully destroy their own family, children, friends and neighborhoods leaving them with absolutely nothing to come back to? No food, no running water, no housing, NOTHING! Except for rubble of course. Because that would be the end result of the military waging war against their own citizens. If that's the case then it's quite obvious why we have the 2nd Amendment. If anything then all law abiding citizens who are not members of the military and law enforcement should be able to lawfully possess fully automatic weapons along with any and all types of military hardware and weapons that any individual(s) can afford. I'm glad that you'd be okay with that.
So you pretty strongly feel everybody should have the right to arm themselves with all the same weapons used by the military to counter it. I doubt the police would be on your side. And some of those weapons would be too costly for many people to acquire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,533 posts, read 13,521,650 times
Reputation: 4712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are already restrictions, no one is prevented from owning a gun if they meet the criteria.
True that is. Some people actually take the first part of the 2nd Amendment seriously: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People threatening to shoot to kill innocent people does not make for a secure state and must have their guns taken away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:23 AM
 
10,157 posts, read 4,754,745 times
Reputation: 5631
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
True that is. Some people actually take the first part of the 2nd Amendment seriously: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People threatening to shoot to kill innocent people does not make for a secure state and must have their guns taken away.
And how do we figure out who that is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
714 posts, read 651,738 times
Reputation: 428
The idea is to both be able to stand up to government, and have lay people able to be rushed into irregular units should the proverbial excrement hit the fan.

Is that 100% necessary now? Maybe not, but you can understand why they felt that way.

If I’m not mistaken, males in the Colonies were basically required to have a firearm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,533 posts, read 13,521,650 times
Reputation: 4712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan20 View Post
Great idea......Seinfeld has coffee and cars, how bout coffee and guns? I like it, I like it a lot.
I'd sooner have no gun free zones allowed unless there is a metal detector at the entrance with armed and armored guards monitoring it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
714 posts, read 651,738 times
Reputation: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
I'd sooner have no gun free zones allowed unless there is a metal detector at the entrance with armed and armored guards monitoring it.
As Chris Rock said,

ďNever go to a party with metal detectors.
Sure, itís safe inside.
But what about all those outside with guns?
They know you ainít got one!Ē
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,533 posts, read 13,521,650 times
Reputation: 4712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
And how do we figure out who that is?
It's surprising how some people reveal what they want to do, such as through social media, against innocent people. It may be as much of a threat to be taken seriously as a cry for help with their mental condition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,533 posts, read 13,521,650 times
Reputation: 4712
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcp123 View Post
As Chris Rock said,

“Never go to a party with metal detectors.
Sure, it’s safe inside.
But what about all those outside with guns?
They know you ain’t got one!”
You seem to fear that armed and armored security guards would be overwhelmed by an army of mass shooters equipped the same way. Fortunately, most mass shooters operate alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
714 posts, read 651,738 times
Reputation: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
You seem to fear that armed and armored security guards would be overwhelmed by an army of mass shooters equipped the same way. Fortunately, most mass shooters operate alone.
Nah, not afraid. Itís actually easy to carry where I live and for other reasons I have decided against it.

That said, I am a-ok with people being armed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 05:56 PM
 
3,396 posts, read 1,928,144 times
Reputation: 2486
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
So you pretty strongly feel everybody should have the right to arm themselves with all the same weapons used by the military to counter it. I doubt the police would be on your side. And some of those weapons would be too costly for many people to acquire.
You're the one who laid out the case for it not me. I'm just agreeing with you. You obviously don't even remember your own post below?

Quote:
You're all out WRONG! All it takes are enough evil minds in control of government to totally destroy all those points you made. Evil minds would certainly not be against destroying their own friends, family and neighborhoods. World history if full of accounts of how evil minds have killed millions of people. Evil people must simply not be allowed to prevail. The situation isn't about left, right or mental illness. It's about pure evil.
I don't look at the vast majority of law enforcement and military personnel as being evil, mindless robots who would carry out orders from "evil minds in control of government". To come in and lay waste to their own country. They too have families, homes and all of the freedoms that Americans are accustomed to. The end result would be mutually assured destruction.

That's why I believe that they would be on the side of those fighting "evil minds in control of government". They indeed possess "those weapons that are too costly for many people to acquire." That combined with the tens of millions of Americans who are LAWFULLY, LAWFULLY, LAWFULLY armed would easily defeat those "evil minds in control of government". How the hell else could "evil minds in control of government" be defeated unless free people had the means to do it? The ballot box? I suggest you look at how the ballot box worked out for a country such as Venezuela, there are others of course.

I had to repeat the word LAWFULLY because you seem to imply that I'm all for arming everybody. Please point out where I've ever stated that? If you can't then that's just pure conjecture on your part. Just to be clear, I'm okay with all of the conditions to LAWFULLY possess firearms as listed on Federal Form 4473.

Quote:
Noah Webster, 1787:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
Quote:
The second amendment is clear:

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.

The whole concept of the second amendment was based on war and the weapons of war and to that end, for all Americans to have the right to keep and bear them without infringement by any government body.

The founding fathers didn't state this or that type of arms, because they meant for citizens to have the same ability and firepower as any standing army, in order to protect their new found liberties from tyranny.

It's why they left the amendment open to just arms, with the knowledge that weapons have and would continue to progress and citizens should be able to keep and bear them.

The founding fathers were in fear of exactly what this appeals court has done, find a way to disarm citizens of weapons that can actually protect them from government tyranny.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the same thing from happening with the new American government they were creating, that the British had tried to do to them, by using their standing army and the weapons available to meet that goal.

Especially since the founder fathers realized that the new American government would have to eventually create a standing army for protection from foreign interests.

Without American citizens having the same or similar firearms as the standing army, and the right to keep and bear them, any fight against tyranny and saving liberty is gone.

Even the founding fathers themselves wrote that this concept was the reason for the second amendment:

Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 08-14-2019 at 06:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top