Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t want to eliminate guns from society, you just want government to have them all.
jcrichton, another poster called you a progressive. Then I read this. Is this an accurate representation of you opinion that you want to eliminate guns from society except those which the government wants?
 
Jon, you truly think that tyrants need a list of weapons, owners, and cash cites?

You don’t think that they will torture the information out of people or that they would raze whole towns out of existence?

Are these the tyrants from the movies where the heroes are met by multiple assailants who take turns in reacting to their assaults or where the heroes take three dozen shots to the head and torso yet keep on taking the tyrants out?

Yes, the fastest way to keep their agents alive is to disarm their targets; but it is not the only method of disarming the targets, which includes the extermination of all civilians (children, women, and elderly). Do you think that the Muslim terrorist use town’s people as human shield because they want to send them to their god ahead of themselves?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Forfeiting rights? No. Just give up the illusion of why you cleave so sternly to guns. Say that you want as many guns as your mule can carry and there’s no need to further the argument… yet, claiming that the well-armed militia keeps the US government from reaching into tyranny is not only fallacy but devoid of reality.
Most of us won’t give up that "illusion " because we have no interest in cleaving to your support of only government having the guns. I think we’d like to see you give up your contentment with tyranny
 
40.png
JonNC:
You don’t want to eliminate guns from society, you just want government to have them all.
jcrichton, another poster called you a progressive. Then I read this. Is this an accurate representation of you opinion that you want to eliminate guns from society except those which the government wants?
The reality is it has to be. Either both citizens and government have guns, or only government does.

Is there another option?
 
You keep bringing up Trump–he can’t tell if he is coming or going… but could you imagine Trump being a nice tyrant that would only engage those who are armed to their teeth?

Tyrants don’t care who die–except for themselves (look back into history where they would murder even their own children, siblings, and parents just on fear that these posed a threat to their power).

You have missed my point totally.

You want guns, keep/buy them; just don’t pretend that you are doing it to keep the evil tyrants from emerging.

I would love you to prove where I have stated:
You don’t want to eliminate guns from society, you just want government to have them all.
Over and over I have said that militia is a dream, a romance, an idle and void argument. That tyrants bent on power will not be moved by the destruction of its citizenry nor would it fear guns in the hands of those who they will designate as enemy of the state.

I have also presented the only course that stays tyranny: government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
You keep bringing up Trump–he can’t tell if he is coming or going… but could you imagine Trump being a nice tyrant that would only engage those who are armed to their teeth?
Then replace the name Trump with Sanders or Obama or Cruz. Trump just happens to be the president. Are you good with government having all the guns?
You want guns, keep/buy them; just don’t pretend that you are doing it to keep the evil tyrants from emerging.
I can "pretend " whatever I want, but that isn’t the point. The prefatory clause states the militia as the first reason for the constitutional protection of the inherent human and civil right to keep and bear arms.
You can pretend that isn’t the case all you want.
 
It seems that I’m a progressive who wants to remain in the tyranny of the British empire or any other empire, just as long as they have the guns! 🤯🤯🤯

It seems that the novo-tyrants are afraid of guns in the hands of their citizens and they opt for peaceful negotiations rather than civil war and extermination of their citizens:
The horrors depicted in this report reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorized at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population," Lynn Maalouf, deputy director for research at Amnesty’s regional office in Beirut, told the Associated Press. (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Mid...overnment-carry-out-a-policy-of-extermination)
…oh, and this happened waaaaay back in the 11’s; twenty eleven–not more than six years ago.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I have also presented the only course that stays tyranny: government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
And that doesn’t always work. See the Weimar Republic.
Our constitutional representative republic is by far the best system ever in limiting government power, but that doesn’t eliminate the need for the populace to be armed. It isn’t either/or. It’s both/and
 
Jon, it is you and your folk that keep claiming that the US will soon regress to tyranny if not for the gun totting citizens that keeps it in check.

I, on the other hand, believe that liberty and justice for all is due to working the Constitution through our governance, not the potential militia that will recue the constitution.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Jon, I am getting that vertigo feeling… I must jump out of this merry…

God Bless America, and the rest of the world!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I, on the other hand, believe that liberty and justice for all is due to working the Constitution through our governance, not the potential militia that will recue the constitution.
If the Founders saw our government today, they would be aghast and would probably be swayed by the cheap arguments of “times change, and you never thought THIS would happen”.
 
…and they would run back to the drawing board and put in the material they left out and remove/revamp the actual meaning of “pursuit” and “alienable” and “rights.”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Which would not be a lot of the garbage entitlements that many so-called “Catholics” want.
 
I just see you as someone who doesn’t value this particular inherent individual right.
I know it is a Constitutional right, and that legitimate self-defense is a legitimate right. I do not know that I have ever heard that owning a firearm is an inherent right. I do not see how this could be since firearms have not been around for most of history.

If owning some sort of weapon is an inherent right (I have never heard the Church say this), and if some weapons are not legitimate, I do not understand how any specific level of deadliness would be inherent.

I do not value this right as that would be a personal assessment, though I do support the Second Amendment. My lack of appreciation is based on the limitations for its effectiveness, believing the negatives outweigh the positives.

But what has the Church said about the right of ownership of a particular weapon, or weapons in general, being inherent, or legitimate?
 
=“jcrichton, post:1108, topic:452415, full:true”]
Jon, it is you and your folk that keep claiming that the US will soon regress to tyranny if not for the gun totting citizens that keeps it in check.
A rather snarky question.
First, who are “my folk”? Constitutional conservatives?
I think there is a significant risk of the US someday devolving into a socialist authoritarian system, yes. The regular erosion of defense of individual rights to ffee speech, due process, and particularly religious free exercise are very concerning.
That has nothing to do with the second amendment. That happens to be the result of incremental increase in government power which is always at the expense of individual liberty
I, on the other hand, believe that liberty and justice for all is due to working the Constitution through our governance, not the potential militia that will recue the constitution.
I have problem with this. It is the nature of our republic. None of the founders promoted the second amendment in the same terms as your caricature.
 
I think there is a significant risk of the US someday devolving into a socialist authoritarian system, yes. The regular erosion of defense of individual rights to ffee speech, due process, and particularly religious free exercise are very concerning.

That has nothing to do with the second amendment. That happens to be the result of incremental increase in government power which is always at the expense of individual liberty
I have no idea what the future will hold, so I will not disagree with this. However, I do think such a scenario would happen slow enough that the Second Amendment would become severely gutted, if not out right repealed. Otherwise, I would have to envision some sort of civil conflict in which the military would no be unified, making the rag-tag militia caricature moot.
 
However, I do think such a scenario would happen slow enough that the Second Amendment would become severely gutted, if not out right repealed. Otherwise, I would have to envision some sort of civil conflict in which the military would no be unified, making the rag-tag militia caricature moot.
Hence the position of the NRA and many constitutional conservatives to defend this sn other rights
 
Last edited:
Jcrichton:

.
Jon, it is you and your folk that keep claiming that the US will soon regress to tyranny
.
This is a straw-man argument.

Nobody is saying the US will “soon” . . . . “Regress to tyranny”.

The principles concerning rights are not to be taken lightly.

If you throw out one element of the Constitution, you throw them ALL out.

Congress is NOT empowered to take away our gun rights.

You don’t seem to care about this. I do.

If you want to take away firearms from law abiding citizens, get a two thirds majority, and have it ratified by 75% of the states.

But you don’t usurp powers that you do not have.

And if they do . . . Don’t be so naive to think that . . . “NOW, Congress will quit dismantling our Constitution.”

Don’t think that jcrichton.

.

If North Korea committs an act of agression, you don’t attack Costa Rica.

If the “bad guys” commit illegal acts with firearms, you don’t attack law abiding citizens.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top