Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I felt your options presented a false dichotomy.

One can support the 2nd and support additional controls.
 
Hi!

Once again, someone with the keen eye to make my point for me!

Thank you!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Brendan!

…so how many slugs does it take to fill a pot?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Jon, I’m speaking to the insane asylum posture of gunners–‘I needs to have my guns; I needs my guns to help me sleep; I needs my guns to keep the feds at bay…’ (I truly don’t know how gun supporters speak; again, I’m using exaggeration to help make the point).

Here’s the straw man argument: ‘cause, it’s in the constitution.’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I think we are on the similar grounds… look at the marijuana thing; 'hey, make it a summons; hey, make it legal… then we hear the actual facts:
Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled (http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/study-fatal-car-crashes-involving-marijuana-have-tripled/)
Click to expand...
Freedom to drug yourself:
Public health officials have called the current opioid epidemic the worst drug crisis in American history, killing more than 33,000 people in 2015. Overdose deaths were nearly equal to the number of deaths from car crashes. In 2015, for the first time, deaths from heroin alone surpassed gun homicides. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/opioid-crisis-epidemic.html)
Click to expand...
Claiming constitutional rights and freedom to ‘be you’ clearly threatens both the temporal and spiritual culture of the nation; yet, we must steadfastly adhere to our guns or whatever the tool that moves one.

…just don’t even whisper (soon think) the term Jesus.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
jcrichton said:
Jon, I’m speaking to the insane asylum posture of gunners–‘I needs to have my guns; I needs my guns to help me sleep; I needs my guns to keep the feds at bay…’ (I truly don’t know how gun supporters speak; again, I’m using exaggeration to help make the point).
Click to expand...
The problem is twofold.
  1. it is condescending and simply insults the vast majority of gun owners. So,
  2. it doesn’t make the point and actually hurts your argument, what little of one gun ban proponents have.
Here’s the straw man argument: ‘cause, it’s in the constitution.’
Click to expand...
That isn’t a straw man. It’s a fact. The MacDonald and Heller decisions affirm the historical reason and intent to protect the inherent individual right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment.
 
I do support the 2nd amendment. Fully, without restriction. However I sometimes feel as if many people put as much or more authority in the founding fathers and the Constitution than the Bible. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the argument “The Founders thought it was necessary…” As a justification. It’s the American political equivalent of “the Holy Spirit thought it good…”

Sometimes people forget that the philosophy of the Founders was based on Enlightenment-era thinking, which was both unenlightened and anti-Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I apologize if you and anyone else feels that it is condescending; I’m quite pedestrian and apolitical so I hold no superiority complex.

It is a straw man argument because the intent was to protect the citizens from exploitation by foreign and domestic monarchs. Holding on to such antiquated means of defense is void since the power of the government can exterminate its citizens hundred times over before the militia can pull itself together to determine what actions to take.

The argument of bambi or secret squirrel is just as apt: a rifle, with a scope, having a trained shooter wheeling it will always get the food on the table–there’s no need for massive gun power nor a cash of them!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
I thought you said that it was necessary to hit as many squirrels as possible with rapid fire (some will get hit with one projectile others with multiple a few plastered with them…)–I’m talking overkill!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
It is a straw man argument because the intent was to protect the citizens from exploitation by foreign and domestic monarchs. Holding on to such antiquated means of defense is void since the power of the government can exterminate its citizens hundred times over before the militia can pull itself together to determine what actions to take.
Click to expand...
From the majority in the DC v Heller Decision DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.
Click to expand...
Apparently, what you call a straw man has only become “antiquated” in the last nine years, since Heller was decided in 2008.
Disarming the citizenry is always the top priority of tyrants. Even in the last century, tyrants thought an armed citizenry was dangerous to their rule, even though their armaments were not far removed in their deadliness from today.

What is curious ( and I’m not speaking of you personally) is the silly but vocal claim over the last year or so that President Trump is a fascist. If we take a moment away from our senses and pretend that he is, why would anyone want to disarm the people and allow him to have all of the guns?

Now, we return to reality, where Trump is simply a populist pragmatist. The fact is the day may come when a socialist/fascist/communist or just someone who thinks the rights protected in the constitution are “antiquated”, or an eighteenth century paradigm of no value today, and freedom loving people, members of the militia, will have to fight for liberty. That is no straw man
 
Last edited:
jcrichton said:
The argument of bambi or secret squirrel is just as apt: a rifle, with a scope, having a trained shooter wheeling it will always get the food on the table–there’s no need for massive gun power nor a cash of them!
Click to expand...
But here’s the thing: that isn’t for you to decide. It isn’t any of your business. Like any other right, the only time it becomes the business of the state is if I abuse my right, harm another with it, be it a gun, or slander with speech, or libel with press. And it is still none of your business how I exercise my right if someone else abuses theirs.
If I want to kill a rabbit on my land for food using an AR-15 with a scope, it is my business, not yours.
If you choose to not have a gun, it is none of my business. You mind yours. I’ll mind mine. That’s how rights work
 
JonNC said:
The fact is the day may come when a socialist/fascist/communist or just someone who thinks the rights protected in the constitution are “antiquated”, or an eighteenth century paradigm of no value today, and freedom loving people, members of the militia, will have to fight for liberty.
Click to expand...
So, if someone you deem a “socialist” is elected to the presidency, you’re prepared to overturn the decision of the people with armed force? Given the frequency with which I’ve heard Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton called “socialists” around here, that worries me.

Furthermore, the idea of an armed citizen militia rising up to protect the Constitutional rights of the people is nothing more than a fantasy. Should we ever, somehow, have some sort of coup or something that resulted in an unelected, repressive government, it’s not going to be overthrown with handguns and shotguns and even assault weapons in the hands of an unorganized, inexperienced, untrained “militia” with non-existent communications.
 
=“Inisfallen, post:810, topic:452415, full:true”]
So, if someone you deem a “socialist” is elected to the presidency, you’re prepared to overturn the decision of the people with armed force? Given the frequency with which I’ve heard Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton called “socialists” around here, that worries me.
Click to expand...
Why would it worry you? First, despite their philosophy, neither of them attempted to rule outside of the constitutional model, Obama’s phone and pen, and the complaints about the Electoral College notwithstanding. Obama did not seize power in November. If he had, he probably wouldn’t have turned it over to Clinton.
Furthermore, the idea of an armed citizen militia rising up to protect the Constitutional rights of the people is nothing more than a fantasy.
Click to expand...
I hear some people say that. It doesn’t make the right any less valid. The constitution protects the inherent individual right to keep and bear arms. It states that an armed citizenry is necessary for the security of a FREE state, as one reason for the protection. That you or others think it fantasy is irrelevant.
Should we ever, somehow, have some sort of coup or something that resulted in an unelected, repressive government, it’s not going to be overthrown with handguns and shotguns and even assault weapons in the hands of an unorganized, inexperienced, untrained “militia” with non-existent communications.
Click to expand...
Again, whether or not you or others think it plausible, the right exists. And because you think it implausible is not an excuse or reason for that right to be taken away.
In fact, an Australian -style attempt at confiscation of semi automatic rifles (which are not assault weapons) would be cause for, 1st simply refusing to comply, and 2nd, as a last resort, resistance. There are 300 million firearms in the hands of roughly 100 million law abiding Americans. It is fantasy to believe that a confiscation of weapons is even possible.
 
Last edited:
Especially when the hypocrisy of the Democrats / Liberals is called out … they carry guns and they hire armed bodyguards.
 
omgriley said:
I do support the 2nd amendment. Fully, without restriction. However I sometimes feel as if many people put as much or more authority in the founding fathers and the Constitution than the Bible. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the argument “The Founders thought it was necessary…” As a justification. It’s the American political equivalent of “the Holy Spirit thought it good…”

Sometimes people forget that the philosophy of the Founders was based on Enlightenment-era thinking, which was both unenlightened and anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
So, can you point to something in the constitution that is specifically anti-Catholic?
But I think you actually put your finger on the “render unto Caesar” verse. Unless you’re an anarchist of some kind, you know that government has to exist. What a constitutional conservative like me believes is that government should be as limited as possible, and that individual rights protected.
No other man made document in human history does that better than the US constitution. It was the founders that did that. With all of their personal flaws, they did that. They are the experts on that brilliant approach to governance. In short, they provided the best "Caesar " in history.
The are not divine, or apostolic. I would not go to them for sacraments or absolution.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Especially when the hypocrisy of the Democrats / Liberals is called out … they carry guns and they hire armed bodyguards.
Click to expand...
Of course this is hypocrisy, but I’m even more perplexed by the odd belief that guns in the hands of humans in government is okay, but not in the hands of human civilians.
Are humans in government to be trusted more than human civilians? Why? After the carnage by governments against civilians in the last century, why would anyone believe its a good thing that only government has guns?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top