The Second Amendment


At the time that the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution, the deadliest small-arm around was the flintlock musket. Perhaps if the Founding Fathers had been able to see what guns would evolve into, they might not have been so keen for everyone to have one. To me, an Irishman living in Britain, the notion of an assault weapon in private hands is very scary. A handgun for home defence I can understand, but the number of semi-automatic weapons owned by Americans! WHo are they expecting? The Chinese People's Army?

reply

if the Founding Fathers had been able to see what guns would evolve into, they would likely endorse citizens becoming even MORE heavily armed than they are. Why do you think our founding fathers would support the tyrannical government being more heavily armed than the citizens who rule over the government?

I see no difference in owning a handgun and owning an automatic weapon- or even a ground-to-air missile. One will either use it to defend liberty or they will use it illegally.

Same as a baseball bat.



My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

"I see no difference in owning a handgun and owning an automatic weapon- or even a ground-to-air missile".

One difference: a handgun can slaughter fewer school-kids.

And just how tyrannical is the "gummint" anyway? We don't hear tales of American storm-troopers hauling citizens off to concentration-camps.

reply

I've never seen a handgun slaughter people. I've never seen ground-to-air missles slaughter people. If a person wants to slaughter a bunch of people, that lies in the f^cked up head of the person- not the type of weapon.
I mean, if I were to be so inclined, I could take out 60 kindergarteners in less than 10 seconds at 12:10 every day.
Or I could take out a crapload of Tea Party protesters or symphony patrons... or football fans. We don't see that happen in the news.

What gets killers the attention they crave is the marriage of guns and innocent victims. This is because we've put such a bugaboo on guns that they get the most media attention- short of flying a 727 into Buchanan Elementary. It's what has gotten people's passions feverish and so when someone wants to elicit a fevered response, they use a gun.


The government is pretty tyrannical. But that's because a great number of the people are tyrannical. But the people are also quite passive. And most sane people would choose to avoid using violence to solve what COULD be resolved with supporting better law and electing better representatives and lawmakers.

We're not that far gone yet. There's still hope which is why there's so much political discussion on the internet and other media. We hope that we can resolve our differences peacefully for a better tomorrow. But that will likely require thinking outside of the tiny myopic box where Republican and Democrat platforms thrive.

But if we ever DO get that far gone, to the point where defending ourselves and our nation necessitates violence, then it would be better to be armed than unarmed, I would think.







My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

You went Godwin. That means you have no argument.

--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

And just how tyrannical is the "gummint" anyway? We don't hear tales of American storm-troopers hauling citizens off to concentration-camps


Well there's always Guantanamo....


"Gummint"?

Just because a government is not as tyrannical as they can be (yet) does not mean that potential is not there. Thankfully our government and corporations have adopted the "bread and circuses" technique of control which is far less bloody and intimidating. But it's not like these 'jackbooted thugs' haven't used extreme measures on peaceful, law-abiding citizens either.




"De gustibus non est disputandum"
#3

reply

@ Sid: I think the difference for us in the UK and Europe is we view Govt as an institution that is there to protect, defend and help (in a caring way) the population. We get angry when Govt fails in it's duty of care. Pays inadequate retirement or disability benefits, runs poor emergency services or inadequate schools, libraries, hospitals or social housing.
In the US, they view Govt as a threat, because the monied interests are there to ensure there is no re-distribution of wealth by the Govt via taxes and social reform, and they churn out properganda to ensure this message is driven home via TV, the Press and other media. Hence the vast differences of wealth distribution. 400 people control more than 50% of the total wealth assets in the US. They're not going to give it up without a fight!

reply

[deleted]

I think it's now defined as: an "assault rifle" is any rifle that's scary-looking




"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3

reply

[deleted]

That's how I see it. A slippery slope where even a super-soaker can be deemed an "assault rifle"




"Oh that's nice, sweetie" = Grandma's version of "cool story, bro"
#3

reply

in a well-regulated militia........

reply

How well-regulated can a militia be- especially when the regulators are the reason for HAVING the militia?

"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

reply

All you anti-gun liberals need to keep something in mind... Timothy McViegh didn't need a gun, nor did the 911 terrorists. Liberal mentality would suggest we also need to ban U-hauls, fertilizer, box cutters, and commercial flights. I will never understand why you idiots refuse to blame the criminal.

reply

Ooh! I could take out A LOT of people with a U-Haul!



"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

reply

Americans are soooooo stupid & pathetic.


Bear arms


Are arms from bears.

Lol lol lol lol lol

America is so *beep* & China needs to get rid of it for the worlds safety.

reply

But the Second Amendment isn't unlimited - ie, you can't own a tank - so your comment doesn't make any sense.

reply

You can own a tank. All you need is the bucks and you can buy a surplus tank. Paul Allen formerly of Microsoft owns a couple.

reply