We're experimenting with our forums. Check it out for yourself.

2nd Amendment

Forum: Politics Page 1 of 4  1 2 3 4  
Author: [Politics] Topic: 2nd Amendment
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:16:13 PM
I know I'll catch heat for this, I'm sure rick is about to hit the ceiling...

But can somebody please tell me exactly how and why the 2nd Amendment is necessary today, in this day and age..

I mean in the year 2012, right now, and in the USA of course. 


What purpose is it serving? Who is it serving? 
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:18:57 PM
Sorry, forgot to link the lefty trash that got my brain moving in the first place.

Stimulating thought 
canovsp PM canovsp
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5726
 
canovsp
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:27:08 PM
The citizens of the U.S. will never have to worry about govt tyranny.

There will never be a Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, or countless other dictators in the U.S. as long as we have the right to bear arms.

Americans think different than the rest of the world. Our ancestors came here either because of the opportunity America offered or because of religious and political freedom.

The day we give up the right to bear arms is the day we concede there was no reason to ever have left the country we came from.
be easy PM be easy
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15432
 
be easy
Participation Meter
MVP
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:31:46 PM
what purpose does the right to bear arms serve?

Well, what happens if someone wishes to do you harm? How do you protect yourself, and your property?
SarasotaSlim PM SarasotaSlim
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 27964
 
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 12:44:31 PM

What purpose is it serving ..who is it serving ?

It is serving Americans ..just incase Canada try's to invade the US ..

OakleyDoak PM OakleyDoak
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1100
 
OakleyDoak
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 4/15/2012 1:22:47 PM

What is more heinous :  bullet wounds
OR 
a body that's been stabbed multiple times or bashed with a blunt object ??Human or animal ?

I know what you're saying...Well,I think I do,but...Really ?

Seems like these days it's more prudent to carry and own a firearm than yesterday !

ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25908
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 1:38:47 PM
without question one purpose, like most things in politics, is to rile up the crazies for recruitment purposes.  in the south, it is not uncommon for you to hear people tell you that they went out a bought guns around 2008 because they were told to expect obama to take all of their gun rights away.  all of them.  they believed it.  the latest example was a person who is now doing 3 years for pulling a gun out when he shouldn't have in a trayvon martin type situatio but that's beside the point.

now, i'm not saying there aren't very good reasons to own a gun, but this is undoubtedly one reason for the second amendment.  anything the government and politicians can do to manipulate people will likely remain.  that's the best reason for many things in politics/government. 
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 1:48:08 PM
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that there is a final check on the government in the form of taking up arms. 

Our founding was based on consent of the governed. Our Declaration of Independence went on to say
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "


rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 1:53:04 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

without question one purpose, like most things in politics, is to rile up the crazies for recruitment purposes.  in the south, it is not uncommon for you to hear people tell you that they went out a bought guns around 2008 because they were told to expect obama to take all of their gun rights away.  all of them.  they believed it.  the latest example was a person who is now doing 3 years for pulling a gun out when he shouldn't have in a trayvon martin type situatio but that's beside the point.


now, i'm not saying there aren't very good reasons to own a gun, but this is undoubtedly one reason for the second amendment.  anything the government and politicians can do to manipulate people will likely remain.  that's the best reason for many things in politics/government. 

Is it really that far fetched to think that a President who has deep ties in the Brady Campaign, and an attorney General who wants to "brainwash" children into being anti-gun would have negative effects on constitutional liberties when concerning the 2nd amendment.  

I hear this argument all the time, like I am some sort of reactionary kook for not trusting someone who is openly anti-gun. I would be shocked if there was not an assault weapons ban (or something similar) if Pres. Obama gets another term. 
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25908
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:00:00 PM
rick, there could be negative effects on gun ownership.  that's very far afield from what i'm talking about.  i'm talking about the people who will say that if you vote for obama, all of your guns and all of your gun rights will be taken away.  it's not uncommon for me to hear that.  that's the craziness i'm referring to.  or, almost as bad, the "where do we draw the line?" types who say if obama takes this gun away, then the next thing you know he'll take all of our guns away. 

basically, to answer disco's question, one significant purpose of the 2nd amendment today is for people who use the words, "all", "every" or "where do we draw the line?" when talking about obama and gun control.
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:00:06 PM
I do not trust the NRA for the record.  

This guy had a good point. They are a special interest powerhouse that is Republican in nature.  They are the equivalent of the Pro-Abortion lobbies, and Planned Parenthood on the left.  They take a wedge issue, and interject themselves into the debate to garner attention, donations, and support.  

I stopped shooting at a local range, because they made you become a member to the range so that they could keep better account of who was shooting there.  In the process they used your information for a mandatory NRA enrollment (1 year I think) to boost their numbers.  As a Veteran and a Christian I have enough strikes against me without joining a Gun group.   
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25908
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:05:27 PM
rick, it's not an issue i think about very much but i'm sure i'm in the gun control group.  but we may not be very far apart on this issue.

i would agree the nra is like most powerful special inetrest groups.  whether they are promoting global warming or anti-abortion views or guns, they are about power and recruitment and they will create monsters and take whatever extreme position they think will get people fired up, increase membership and get them more power and, influence and money.
SarasotaSlim PM SarasotaSlim
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 27964
 
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:06:09 PM
If Obama gets re-elected he will let you keep your guns,...but he will appoint an Ammo Czar and ban purchasing ammunition and ammunition components...
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:06:36 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

rick, there could be negative effects on gun ownership.  that's very far afield from what i'm talking about.  i'm talking about the people who will say that if you vote for obama, all of your guns and all of your gun rights will be taken away.  it's not uncommon for me to hear that.  that's the craziness i'm referring to.  or, almost as bad, the "where do we draw the line?" types who say if obama takes this gun away, then the next thing you know he'll take all of our guns away. 


basically, to answer disco's question, one significant purpose of the 2nd amendment today is for people who use the words, "all", "every" or "where do we draw the line?" when talking about obama and gun control.

There are people that want the right of personal gun ownership to be abolished. Mayor Bloomberg comes to mind.  Knowing that there are people of this ilk in the debate pushing for regulations makes it appear (and I think rightfully so) that these regulations are an intentional evisceration and Trojan horse meant to submarine the basic gun rights of Americans.  

Knowing that most gun owners have taken a ZERO regulation policy, I know that I personally have.  Even if the "regulation" makes sense there is just no way that I would support it.  Like the extended magazine debate we were having after Loughner shot Giffords.  I do not care about 30 round magazines for handguns.  I think that people that own them are tools.  I think that numerous magazines and a little bit of skill make the 30 round magazine obsolete anyway.  I would never own one, and if I had a friend that did, I would be embarrassed for them.  I would never in a million years support a ban on them based on principle alone. 
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:11:52 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:

If Obama gets re-elected he will let you keep your guns,...but he will appoint an Ammo Czar and ban purchasing ammunition and ammunition components...

He already has one.  Cass Sunstein has laid the groundwork for an EPA tax on Ammunition because it contains Lead and other heavy metals.  He wrote about inducing change in his book nudge.  Where he used "Libertarian Paternalism" to make people act in the manner that he laid out.  
Libertarian Paternalism = help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will as well as the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.


In less words Cass Sunstein thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions. 
OakleyDoak PM OakleyDoak
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1100
 
OakleyDoak
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:17:54 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by rick3117:


He already has one.  Cass Sunstein has laid the groundwork for an EPA tax on Ammunition because it contains Lead and other heavy metals.  He wrote about inducing change in his book nudge.  Where he used "Libertarian Paternalism" to make people act in the manner that he laid out.  
Libertarian Paternalism = help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will as well as the sharpness of mind. But unlike 'hard' paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice.


In less words Cass Sunstein thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions. 
    Well,in that case I C him as being deserving of just being called behind Sunstein.
rick3117 PM rick3117
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14715
 
rick3117
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:18:39 PM
Zing!
wallstreetcappers PM wallstreetcappers
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 52145
 
wallstreetcappers
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:22:54 PM
Who makes money off the "right to bear arms"?

That is who this is serving.

NRA would not exist without it, gun manufacturers have no business or means without it.

I dont feel any safer knowing that weapons exist that can kill me, even if I was willing to also own one to guard against someone else having one.

That logic makes no sense to me.
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25908
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:41:59 PM
ideally, there would be no guns.  now i understand that's not a practical position so it's not my position.  i've thought about getting a gun but, in my experience, the odds of something bad happening as a result of gun ownership are much greater than something good happening so i haven't.  although i may get one for my office at some point. 
OakleyDoak PM OakleyDoak
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1100
 
OakleyDoak
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:42:42 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Who makes money off the "right to bear arms"?

That is who this is serving.

NRA would not exist without it, gun manufacturers have no business or means without it.

I dont feel any safer knowing that weapons exist that can kill me, even if I was willing to also own one to guard against someone else having one.

That logic makes no sense to me.
For someone who's physically weaker and less combatively skilled than a hypothetical attacker,a firearm sure does serve as a potential equalizer !

But yeah,it sure would be nice if we all could trust one another to 'play well with others.'
OakleyDoak PM OakleyDoak
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1100
 
OakleyDoak
Participation Meter
Veteran
Posted: 4/15/2012 2:45:46 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

ideally, there would be no guns.  now i understand that's not a practical position so it's not my position.  i've thought about getting a gun but, in my experience, the odds of something bad happening as a result of gun ownership are much greater than something good happening so i haven't.  although i may get one for my office at some point. 

What negative experience have you endured ?
Care to expound ??

ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25908
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 4/15/2012 3:28:53 PM
oak, not me personally, just being involved in the criminal justice system.  i'm referring to three significant events.

1. Good- a criminal is threatening you or your family, you have a gun available and use it in a way that eliminates the threat when the threat would have materialized without the gun.  very rare.

2. Bad- some sort of accident with the gun, i.e. a young kid gets it, older kids playing w2ith it, accidentally goes off, etc.  rare

3. Bad- a situation arises where the gun owner overreacts and uses the gun where the law doesn't allow it.  for instance, a zimmerman situation if it's proven he didn't have a right to use it.  but much more common is where a guy just pulls a gun and points it at someone when he's not allowed to.  shooting someone obviously carries significant penalties but even pointing a gun at someone without justification gets you an updated couple of years in prison in some states.  not that rare.
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 3:42:00 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Who makes money off the "right to bear arms"?

That is who this is serving.

NRA would not exist without it, gun manufacturers have no business or means without it.

I dont feel any safer knowing that weapons exist that can kill me, even if I was willing to also own one to guard against someone else having one.

That logic makes no sense to me.

Mr. WSC I always appreciate your voice of reason. 
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 3:51:38 PM
I see some of the typical responses that I was expecting.

To simplify the question, or take it to it's logical end....

rick - I am obviously in favour of most, if not all of the rights you are worried are constantly being washed away, except for this specific issue. The question is why, in this day and age, in a 'modern' society, should you have the right to own firearms?

Other rights and freedoms make sense. This one does not. Again, to take the argument to it's logical end, let me reply to another poster...
DiscoD69 PM DiscoD69
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7937
 
DiscoD69
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 4/15/2012 3:54:01 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:

 

The citizens of the U.S. will never have to worry about govt tyranny.




It's funny you say that because all you guys do is complain about how powerless you are against 'government tyranny.' Further, if the gov't wanted you dead or in jail, the right to bear arms isn't going to help you at all. You will either be killed in a fire fight, or be taken. The 2nd Amendment is not protecting you at all, and it sure as hell isn't giving you the power to keep the government 'in check.'
Forum: Politics Page 1 of 4  1 2 3 4  
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.
Desktop View: Switch to Mobile View