Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jericho777 said:
Well living in the shadow of Boston with the Marathon Bombings and terrorists on the loose this is the perfect example of why real Americans should own firearms. The police and government cannot and will not protect you. You need to be able to protect yourself and love ones. By the time the cops get there you will be DEAD! Boston area is in lockdown, hand grenades and bombs being thrown, gun battles with the police. It has been a virtual war zone here all week. Family and friends are working in Boston with major stress of danger and not allowed to protect themselves. Wake up people this is as real as it gets. Don’t let anybody tell you don’t need to or should not own firearms. Your life is worth more than that.
Click to expand...
Because adding yet more guns into the mix - wielded by those whose training is probably inferior to the police et al and who are moreover stressed out - would really calm things down :rolleyes:
 
LilyM said:
Because adding yet more guns into the mix - wielded by those whose training is probably inferior to the police et al and who are moreover stressed out - would really calm things down :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Believe it or not the police are not the best shots or your best hope. You need to take responsibility for your oun safety. If you don’t want to so be it but keep your hands of my rights.
 
jericho777 said:
Believe it or not the police are not the best shots or your best hope. You need to take responsibility for your oun safety. If you don’t want to so be it but keep your hands of my rights.
Click to expand...
Which is fine if guns are the only means of defence (they aren’t) AND if civilian gun owners have superior skills to the police (on average they don’t).

If you personally are a crack shot, fantastic, go for it. I’m not, and never will be, so for me to have a gun would be useless.

Kinda like the bunkum theory that condoms overall prevent the spread of STIs. They merely provide a false sense of security whereby people get into more situations where they fail. Net help - zero.

Before you tell me that even brandishing a weapon will help - brandishing a realistic looking and sounding toy gun would be equally effective and it could not be taken or stolen and used against me.
 
Sadly you have failed to read the writings of the founding fathers on the true meaning of the second amendment. Their position is directly opposite of yours. BTW today is the anniversary of the battle of Lexington green. This battle started the American Revolution. The British were trying to disarm the colonists. American citizens armed with their own private muskets fought the British. You would still be a subject of England if they followed your logic. I’m glad they didn’t. 😉
 
jericho777 said:
Sadly you have failed to read the writings of the founding fathers on the true meaning of the second amendment. Their position is directly opposite of yours. BTW today is the anniversary of the battle of Lexington green. This battle started the American Revolution. The British were trying to disarm the colonists. American citizens armed with their own private muskets fought the British. You would still be a subject of England if they followed your logic. I’m glad they didn’t. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m not American. Armed revolt is not a requirement for defeat of tyranny - Communism fell in most places without a single shot being fired. Women and minorities gained a whole mess of rights and liberties without resort to armed struggle. 🤷

So the very premise that arms are necessary for the protection or gaining of freedom is debatable to put it mildly. Of course non-armed struggle requires hard work and sacrifice. Easier to just blast away at whatever real and imagined bogeymen you fancy. Except that they can and do blast right back at you the harder you shoot, which makes the price a lot higher.
 
LilyM said:
I’m not American. Armed revolt is not a requirement for defeat of tyranny - Communism fell in most places without a single shot being fired. Women and minorities gained a whole mess of rights and liberties without resort to armed struggle. 🤷

So the very premise that arms are necessary for the protection or gaining of freedom is debatable to put it mildly. Of course non-armed struggle requires hard work and sacrifice. Easier to just blast away at whatever real and imagined bogeymen you fancy. Except that they can and do blast right back at you the harder you shoot, which makes the price a lot higher.
Click to expand...
How many tens of millions of souls did Stalin and Mao butcher? How many now languish in North Korean prison camps without hope? Is this how you justify their murders by saying “Of course non-armed struggle requires hard work and sacrifice. Easier to just blast away at whatever real and imagined bogeymen you fancy.”? Really, just suck it up and deal with it! By doing nothing you are giving tacid support to evil. I’m glad you don’t have my back.

“The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing” Edmund Burke 1729-1727
 
COmmunism fell without a shot being fired? Non-violent struggle requires hard work, easier to “blast away”, etc.?
Both types of struggle have proven at times effective , at other times not. It requires wisdom to know the difference.
COmmunist regimes crushed numerous revolts both violent and non-violent over the years. THe “fall of Communism” in Europe has much to do with government’s finally choosing not to fight back, which doubtless has everything to do with the sovereignity of GOd, and also something to do with growing sense of disintegration brought about in these governments by their failure to generate economies able to support the military might able to keep up with a reinvigorated West, and perhaps, an inner lack of resolve brought about by the growing sense of the failure of the system to which individuals had dedicated their lives.
THe American Revolution broke out only after many years of “non-violent” struggle. THe “blast away” phase cannot be described by anything short of “hard work, sacrifice, toil and tears”, whatever else might be said about it.
 
Daniel1
**
Maybe they should repeal the first amendment too? **

Interestingly, this is the only one of the first ten amendments that gives a reason for the amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”
 
LilyM said:
I’m not American. Armed revolt is not a requirement for defeat of tyranny - Communism fell in most places without a single shot being fired. Women and minorities gained a whole mess of rights and liberties without resort to armed struggle. 🤷

So the very premise that arms are necessary for the protection or gaining of freedom is debatable to put it mildly. Of course non-armed struggle requires hard work and sacrifice. Easier to just blast away at whatever real and imagined bogeymen you fancy. Except that they can and do blast right back at you the harder you shoot, which makes the price a lot higher.
Click to expand...
👍 Trigger-happy individuals cannot exist without triggers!
 
Lily
**
I’m not American. Armed revolt is not a requirement for defeat of tyranny - Communism fell in most places without a single shot being fired. Women and minorities gained a whole mess of rights and liberties without resort to armed struggle.**

Communism was held in place in many places by force of arms.

Fascism and Nazism only fell by force of arms.
 
polytropos said:
Could a relatively untrained citizen militia actually defend against an abusive government with a modern army?
Click to expand...
One only need look back to the American Civil War to answer the question. The citizen’s of the southern states rose up against what they felt was an oppressive, tyrannical government with a modern army (for the day) and put of a worthy fight. True, they eventually lost but it shows what can happen when you win over the hearts and minds of the people and they join together.

Years ago, a rag tag army of ordinary citizens armed mostly with privately owned guns took on the most powerful military empire in the world and defeated them. This event was called the American Revolution. And there was the time the United States got its butt handed to it by a bunch of peasant rice farmers in a little place called Vietnam.

Military might does not guarantee a victory and the precedent for that has already been established.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top