Break out your Chain Mail

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Again, you're making no sense. The point, simply, was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to protect against the government is outdated. Now if you want to amend the constitution to include possession of IEDs, then maybe your post would be in any way on-topic.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Again, you're making no sense. The point, simply, was that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being to protect against the government is outdated. Now if you want to amend the constitution to include possession of IEDs, then maybe your post would be in any way on-topic.

Having trouble keeping up with the discussion I see.

I'm making plenty of sense. You failed to support the point you think you made. You basically said that the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer useful, since the government has drones. I responded by saying that a government can't occupy, govern, and oppress the people using only drones, that they would have to send in ground-level troops at some point. You then claimed that tanks could do the job. I pointed out that that won't work either, since tanks are very vulnerable to explosives. Now you're trying to change the subject by tossing out straw men.

Would you like to start over and try to support your claim?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Having trouble keeping up with the discussion I see.

I'm not the one who brought an IED to a gun fight.

You failed to support the point you think you made. You basically said that the Second Amendment is outdated and no longer useful, since the government has drones.

Actually, I didn't say that. I asked it. My point was pretty clear: if that's the intent, then guns are not particularly up to date. IEDs had squat to do with that because IEDs aren't specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

So next time you derail a thread at least have the good sense to not accuse others of not keeping up. Thanks in advance.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I'm not the one who brought an IED to a gun fight.

Says the guy who started it all by bringing drones to a gun fight.

If you wanted to keep the focus entirely on guns, why did you change the subject to drones?

Actually, I didn't say that. I asked it. My point was pretty clear: if that's the intent, then guns are not particularly up to date. IEDs had squat to do with that because IEDs aren't specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Guns aren't particularly up to date based on what, exactly? Is there some reason you can't say what you mean?

Just make a point already and stick to it.

So next time you derail a thread at least have the good sense to not accuse others of not keeping up. Thanks in advance.

It's pretty clear that you're not keeping up, though. You complained about me bringing up IEDs right after you brought up drones and tanks. You've confused yourself.

Go back to the beginning and state your argument. Don't be shy.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Says the guy who started it all by bringing drones to a gun fight.

If you wanted to keep the focus entirely on guns, why did you change the subject to drones?

If you really can't follow along I can't help you, it's very simple.

Me: If the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to empower the people against government, are guns even effective at this point against drones, etc.?

You: Yes, because IEDs.

Me: Oh my god there's no way this guy is not a high school sophomore.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Put another way, the drones are important to the argument because the government has them. Guns are important to the argument because I'm asking whether they'd be effective against the drones.

IEDs are entirely irrelevant to the question posed.

Surely you're following now. I'm trying to convince myself that you can follow this.

[Itssaul]

I think the real problem is who brought tanks to the equation :P

JK.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Tanks, drones, armed monkeys, whatever. The debate is about guns, and to those who state the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the government. Obviously, guns against guns are one thing, and until the dawn of the 20th century I think that holds up.

Now, I think the question is: if this is the intent, should we be allowed to arm ourselves indiscriminately? If so, where does that end?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

If you really can't follow along I can't help you, it's very simple.

Me: If the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to empower the people against government, are guns even effective at this point against drones, etc.?

You: Yes, because IEDs.

Me: Oh my god there's no way this guy is not a high school sophomore.

LOL, I love the way you dishonestly cut out the middle portion of that exchange.

Better to be a sophomore than a liar.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

No, that's a pretty spot on summary. I really want to believe you can comprehend the things you're participating in, though ...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Put another way, the drones are important to the argument because the government has them. Guns are important to the argument because I'm asking whether they'd be effective against the drones.

IEDs are entirely irrelevant to the question posed.

Surely you're following now. I'm trying to convince myself that you can follow this.

Guns don't have to be effective against drones, because the government can't, again, occupy, govern, and tyrannize the people through the use of drones only. At some point, the government has to put boots on the ground.

That's why guns are still important.

Of course, you've got no response other than to deflect.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

No, that's a pretty spot on summary. I really want to believe you can comprehend the things you're participating in, though ...

Hey, man, whatever you need to convince yourself that you haven't been taken to the woodshed.

LULZ.

[g8orbill]

It is ree dik uh luss how libs want to take guns yet have no problem with abortion and yet are willing to give up more freedoms over an exception( and as tragic as the Newton incident is- it is the exception)

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Hey, man, whatever you need to convince yourself that you haven't been taken to the woodshed.

LULZ.

Guns (the people) versus advanced weaponry (the government).

The people having IEDs is not part of the discussion. I'm sorry you can't follow that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Tanks, drones, armed monkeys, whatever. The debate is about guns, and to those who state the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us against the government. Obviously, guns against guns are one thing, and until the dawn of the 20th century I think that holds up.

Now, I think the question is: if this is the intent, should we be allowed to arm ourselves indiscriminately? If so, where does that end?

No, I think the questions are, why should we ever trust that our government won't become tyrannical and why should we allow a government that has the potential to become tyrannical to determine what weapons we can possess?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Guns (the people) versus advanced weaponry (the government).

The people having IEDs is not part of the discussion. I'm sorry you can't follow that.

Of course IEDs are part of the discussion. After all, you brought up drones and tanks. If you bring drones and tanks into the discussion, it only makes sense to bring in IEDs, since under a scenario of government tyranny employed through the use of armored vehicles, the people will resort to the use of IEDs, just as we've seen in Afghanistan. For some reason, you can't come up with a response to this.

LOL, it's fun to watch you scramble and change direction.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Of course IEDs are part of the discussion. After all, you brought up drones and tanks.

Please follow.

The 2nd Amendment impacts guns and people. Drones and tanks are what the guns are up against according to the Constitution, not IEDs.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Please follow.

The 2nd Amendment impacts guns and people. Drones and tanks are what the guns are up against according to the Constitution, not IEDs.

What's to follow? You're not making anything resembling a point and whatever it is is irrelevant. The people will not attempt to neutralize drones and tanks with just guns, they will do so with anything at their disposal, and rightfully so. Besides, the Constitution won't even matter at that point.

Try again. Start by making a coherent argument. Babbling about drones, tanks, and the Second Amendment isn't an argument.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

You do know that the best way to placate a populace is to take away their ability to fight back? It takes the President today 3 hours to activate Martial Law and another 3 hours for the NG to do door-to-door searches. I'm not saying Obama would do that but we are paving the way for a future President to do just that. Once you have disarmed the opposition, nothing stands in your way to do whatever you want.

And you to go back to school bud. Just because Jefferson didn't say it doesn't mean no one else did. There are several other Founders who mandated it and wrote about it but somehow people identify with Jefferson as the architect.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

Again, another from Richard Lee:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States (He did say this)

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Some other quotes related to the Constitution:

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

It's all over the times of that period that to prevent tyranny from taking root is through arming of the populace. You want to subvert everyone - take away their ability to fight back. Nothing else is easier to subvert than taking away a people's arms. There's no other way to fight back; we've seen this even on social networks where many supposed events die out. All it takes is the President to order the internet to be shut down and goodbye cause. How would a populace fight back if their vote someday didn't matter?

But an armed citizen can't be shutdown and all it takes is the people to gather as one army to take back the country if it ever came to that.

Here here sir! Thank you for your clarity. Thank God that most of us are not willing to become serfs of the government.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

I don't think US government guns kill 'far more' people than guns owned by private citizens. In 2009, there were around 30,000 firearm deaths in the US. I don't think the combined totals of gun deaths by the US military and US police forces come close to 30k for most years. Perhaps during the peak of the Iraq war it did, but certainly not most years. Can you provide some data that shows US government guns kill far more people than guns owned by private US citizens?

That said, I'm all for a withdrawal from Afghanistan asap. As for US police, I'm not in favor of taking their guns away and having them walk around with nothing but billy sticks for protection.

I take it that you would not want the people left defenseless either. Would it be alright for citizens to have the means to defend themselves when the police cannot?