So, alutard, not going explain how repealing the 2nd amendment would help? Going to assert your position and because you are alutard we are expects to believe. Sorry, but I think strategy will convine exactly 0 people.
the problem with outlawing firearms is it will never keep them out of the hands of the people who are going to use them wrongly. The responsible people that own guns aren't the problem. Also the point of armed citizens is so if they are never needed against our government they should be there.
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private defense." - James Madison
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams
I don't personally own a gun, but the last thing I want is the government telling me I can't. The founding forefathers knew that no government can be trusted this is our safeguard.
" The founding forefathers knew that no government can be trusted this is our safeguard."
NOT now, maybe in the 1700's or early 1800's. If you try an armed revolt now you will be CRUSHED. But go ahead & try. Better get out those carrier pigeons too.
[view link]
Yeah it would be better to never fight back, just do what your told and never question... Some people are ok with living life as a coward, many of us are not. If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything
"You may be the one who needs to USE it well, as you are the one who wants the change"
You are happy with the present government make up? Doesn't sound that way to me.
I'd like to reacquire a House majority, hopefully a wide one. I DO plan to use my vote. Hopefully leading to a significant increase in the Senate majority past 61. And keeping the WH for another 8 to 16 years past 2016 which will allow for hopefully removing the 5-4 Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately my voting won't RID us of the Shadow Government known as the NRA and its mindless and obsequious minions.
If the Second Amendment were simply repealed with nothing in its place, would the individual states be free to pass their own firearms laws regulating guns without possible conflict with the Constitution? Maybe so. What would be the legal status of present fireams regulations if there were no Second Amendment? Would they be able to stand alone if there was no phrase "A well regulated Milita being necessary to the security of a free state.." It could be argued that with the repeal of the Second Amendment there is no legal basis for the federal regulation of firearms at all. It would become the province of the states under the Tenth Amendment, where powers not given to the federal government repose in the individual states or the people themselves.
What percentage of new guns for sale are purchased at gun shows where there are no background checks? What percentage of the new guns sold at gun shows are used in ciminal activity? If the gun show loophole were closed and criminals could not buy guns in that venue, how would that effect the sales of firearms? Is the possible loss of that market the reason behind the objection to closing the gun show loophole and requring background checks?
If, for example, the percentage of guns sold at gun shows to people who could not pass a background check and that later turned up in criminal activity was 0.05 of the total market for new guns, maybe the NRA and the gun manufacturers could accept that nominal loss, support background checks and cover their losses by raising prices, if necessary.
BUT, if criminals who could not pass background checks are any significant portion of sales at guns shows, say 15 or 20% of the total market, background checks at gun shows become a threat to market share, sales, profits and a company's survival. Colt Firearms went through a difficult Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the 1990s after losing the U.S. Army contract for the AR-15 carbine.
No gun manufacturer can afford to stand by and let the government chop down its market share by regulations that would stop criminals from buying guns at gun shows. Of course they would never admit to knowing this. Big tobacco executives said, under oath before Congress, that they had no medical reports linking cigarettes with lung cancer. They lied. All of them had studies at least suggesting the linkage.
Gun manufactures and their suppliers of frames, triggers, magazines, cylinders and ammunition will never admit that they have market studies verifying that a significant portion of their market share depends on criminals buying guns.
The Second Amendment is being misused as a shield and rallying cry to protect the ability of gun manufactures to sell guns to anyone, regardless of background, because the sales of firearms has been steadily declining since the 1970s.
As "Deep Throat" said to Bob Woodward in the garage scene in the movie "All the President's Men," "Follow the money."
Does anyone really believe that an armed rebellion against the U.S. government is even a rational idea? No president could ever allow such a thing to get started. Sections of the country would be put under martial law. The Union victory in the Civil War established the principle, still not universally accepted, that it is lawful to use all force necessary to crush an armed rebellion against the federal government.
SuperDude, if you read enough of the posts of the NRA & gun supporters here & the responses to my gun opinions - you'll see that the idea has support. NOW actually trying it would be INCREDIBLY stupid & suicidal as I have pointed out more than once.
There is GREAT Fear of the "Black Helicopters" out there.
Well alutard is on the record as not only supporting repealing of the 2nd amendment but supporting confiscation of existing guns. Given how many are not registered you have to wonder what he would do about those ones? Nothing? Just confiscate the registered ones? In that case there would be plenty to trade on the black market.
Maybe he would advocate that they the government give some kind of amnesty and ask that unregistered ones be turned in voluntarily? Still not going to be enough to stop a thriving black market. So what then? Repeal parts of the constitution regarding warrants so police don't need reasonable cause to do blanket searches of homes for?
Alutard just has not thought this through.
I also agree that keeping the government fearful of an armed populace potentially capable of armed rebellion is one of the two big reasons that amendment is even there. (The other would be self-defense against petty criminals.) Alutard thinks such a rebellion would be crushed as if the government can clairvoyantly know where all the guns are. Here's the problem, though - people would hide them. Britain was a very advanced state but look at all the problems they had dealing with the militant groups on both sides in North Ireland because people hide things like guns. All they could then do to crush a popular rebellion would be to jack it up to the level of Nazi Germany which would turn even more of the control against them.
alutard's thinking on the whole matter is very shallow. You saw that above when he complete ignore a number of us who objected that if you repealed the 2nd amendment people would just acquire guns illegal. Then you saw him address the armed populace issue on a very shallow level. As always, alutard just feels he can influence people on an issue by merely stating his opinion without facts or logic to back him up, and complete ignoring any questions to his pontifications. Sorry, but it don't work that way. You have to get into the nitty-gritty details, and, yes, that means people will challenge the facts and logic you attempt to offer, if you even can.
Again completely ignores anyone calling on him to provide facts or logic to back his position or to explain the holes in his logic. Such a rebel to ignore all calls to do so! Rebel without a clue how to back his position that is.
There's no point in explaining & detailing anything to you Dougster. You'll just simply attack what I say because it is me saying/writing it. If & when I detail my thoughts/opinion on the subject, it will be when I decide. NOT when you and your attack dogs try to make me.
Blah, blah, blah... Many people besides me have asked you for proof of your positions in this and many other threads. The result is always the same - silence from you since you ain't got nothing.
But that's fine, the sound of your feet running speaks volumes as to the strength of your position.
Run, alutard, run!
An interesting arsenal this person had. But today's laws allow for person to buy all this deadly stuff and use it to kill and massacre. Just lucky it wasn't little children again. NRA will explain and excuse all this.
The 2nd Amendment has its roots in the World of the 18th Century. IT DOESN'T work in the 21st Century.
alutard: "IT DOESN'T work in the 21st Century."
And your proof is????
The 2nd amendment is just as relevant today as it was then. These attacks by psycho gunmen on innocent students prove that, as does the current administration push and pushing the limits of executive power as demonstrated by the recent IRS, NSA, and AP scandals. I won't be surprised if they have gone over at some point. (That information is getting leaked for a reason.)
I'm not ganging up against you Alucard. I do want to know if you believe that it is justifiable to defend oneself with equal or greater force against an attacker bent on doing you physical, mental, and emotional damage?
34 comments