When There Is No Second Amendment

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

You never answered my question, how come the 2nd Amendment didn't help those Japanese Americans? Shouldn't they have shot back?

Because they didn't exercise it, and nobody else did either.

[GatorJeff]

Nate Silver handicapped the odds of the US being taken over by a tyrannical government and determined those chances to be ZERO.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by GatorJeff

Nate Silver handicapped the odds of the US being taken over by a tyrannical government and determined those chances to be ZERO.

Did he handicap the odds of our government slowly becoming tyrannical?

[Minister_of_Information]

Will this be the generation that trades away popular sovereignty in the name of feeling like they "did something" to protect the children?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well, you just hit on a point of the beginning of a line of presidents trashing the constitution. Roosevelt didn't much care for upholding, protecting and defending the constitution.

It surely didn't start with him, but you are right. I can't think of a president that did care much for it, when push came to shove. Hell, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus like it was no big deal.

[Gatorpika]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

I assume also, by this theory of yours, that you would never live in a place that didn't allow you to have a semi-automatic weapon (i.e., most of Europe)? That's sort of sad.

I might want a gun if I lived in the UK

[GatorSaint]

Its like Red Dawn here in the US, but with instead of Cubans or Russians playing the part of the "enemy" rather he is the Marxist/Socialist/Communist US government soldiers that everyone with an AR-15 finds fashionable to label his fellow Americans of the future.

You see, when you have to go to absurd lengths to justify owning weapons not even dreamed about by the Founding Fathers, what you really are is mentally unstable, probably narcissistic.

Why you need that assault rifle is because deep down inside you realize you are powerless in this world, and your gun is your crutch so you can get through life without screaming in abject terror each time you hear a bump outside your window.

So it might get cold up on that mountain waiting on the government to walk into your ambush....

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by GatorSaint

Its like Red Dawn here in the US, but with instead of Cubans or Russians playing the part of the "enemy" rather he is the Marxist/Socialist/Communist US government soldiers that everyone with an AR-15 finds fashionable to label his fellow Americans of the future.

You see, when you have to go to absurd lengths to justify owning weapons not even dreamed about by the Founding Fathers, what you really are is mentally unstable, probably narcissistic.

Why you need that assault rifle is because deep down inside you realize you are powerless in this world, and your gun is your crutch so you can get through life without screaming in abject terror each time you hear a bump outside your window.

So it might get cold up on that mountain waiting on the government to walk into your ambush....

That's right. The government is our friend.

Until it isn't.

Lon Horiuchi.

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by Gatorpika

I might want a gun if I lived in the UK

Well, you just have to cross them off your list then.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by GatorSaint

So it might get cold up on that mountain waiting on the government to walk into your ambush....

It's estimated that governments around the world killed 200-250 million of their own citizens over the course of the 20th Century, and that doesn't include all the tens of millions of citizens they sent to fight and die in various wars, most of them completely pointless and unnecessary.

With that in mind, can you provide us with even one reason why the American people should ignore that recent history, disarm themselves, and trust the U.S. government to never become as barbaric and tyrannical?

[LittleBlueLW]

Some of you should learn what an assault rifle actually is.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Some of you should learn what an assault rifle actually is.

If they do they'll find out they're wrong. It's not like they'll be logical or anything

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

It's estimated that governments around the world killed 200-250 million of their own citizens over the course of the 20th Century, and that doesn't include all the tens of millions of citizens they sent to fight and die in various wars, most of them completely pointless and unnecessary.

With that in mind, can you provide us with even one reason why the American people should ignore that recent history, disarm themselves, and trust the U.S. government to never become as barbaric and tyrannical?

I don't think they should completely disarm at all, but I don't think all your melodrama about government killing and coercion to death creates some wild need for semi-automatic weapons or assault rifles. I do agree about unnecessary wars, but the AR-15 doesn't seem to me the dividing line between tyranny and freedom. Interestingly, we and most of the world has been armed for most of the 20th century you discuss, so I am not sure it argues your case for you.

[MichiGator2002]

Just for argument's sake, does anyone want to articulate what intermediate scrutiny/strict scrutiny satisfying argument they'd make on behalf of a ban of semi-automatic rifles and/or high capacity (10+) magazines? If you were solicitor general, and had to actually do more than throw talking points out, what would you say?

Because, again, the burden here is on the government to justify denying us, not for American gunowners to justify their "need". "Because" is all the reason a free people need to exercise any fundamental right.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

I don't think they should completely disarm at all, but I don't think all your melodrama about government killing and coercion to death creates some wild need for semi-automatic weapons or assault rifles.

Ah, so it's a question of "need"? You think you possess the right to determine what others "need" and "don't need"? Or should we trust a corrupt government to do that for us?

I do agree about unnecessary wars, but the AR-15 doesn't seem to me the dividing line between tyranny and freedom.

OK, what does seem to be the dividing line to you?

Interestingly, we and most of the world has been armed for most of the 20th century you discuss, so I am not sure it argues your case for you.

The world has also had laws against murder for most of the 20th century, yet we still have murder. Is that any reason to get rid of murder laws?

[CalSFGator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Ah, so it's a question of "need"? You think you possess the right to determine what others "need" and "don't need"? Or should we trust a corrupt government to do that for us?

The government (corrupt or otherwise) alreay makes that decision for both of us, lest you somehow didn't notice. They have already decided who can and can't have armored tanks, or rocket launchers, or fighter jets, or nuclear weapons, rather than let each person make their own determination of "need". Now, I am sure there are lots of terrorists out there that agree with you about our tyrannical and evil gov't and that they should be allowed to make their own choice of arming need, but such is the nature of organized life.

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

OK, what does seem to be the dividing line to you?

Well, obviously there is no bright line. Welcome to adulthood. It can be annoyingly complex. It's not a comic book, and not every state is on the brink of becoming Stalin's Soviet Union, no matter how many lonely Red Dawners like to pretend it is. That said, we do have to keep an eye out, and there are things we can and should be doing to avoid creeping power grabs. We should be cutting our absurd defense budget, we should repeal the terrible patriot act, we should clearly outlaw torture, we should respect international law and join the ICC. These things can help protect us. A bunch of bumbling hillbillies playing with assault rifles at their fish camps is hardly high on my list of protections.

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

The world has also had laws against murder for most of the 20th century, yet we still have murder. Is that any reason to get rid of murder laws?

huh? Your logic is wildly off here. You consider your guns to have the equivalent deterrent impact? You think our Navy Seals would have long stormed your house if it weren't for your AR-15?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

The government (corrupt or otherwise) alreay makes that decision for both of us, lest you somehow didn't notice. They have already decided who can and can't have armored tanks, or rocket launchers, or fighter jets, or nuclear weapons, rather than let each person make their own determination of "need".

Why are you changing the subject to nuclear weapons and other armaments of a nature not associated with personal defense? The discussion is about "assault" rifles. There's no need to move the goal posts around mid-discussion or try to confuse the issue.

Anyway, just because the government makes a determination regarding "need" doesn't mean anyone is morally obligated to abide by it.

Now, I am sure there are lots of terrorists out there that agree with you about our tyrannical and evil gov't and that they should be allowed to make their own choice of arming need, but such is the nature of organized life.

So peaceful, law-abiding American citizens are terrorists? Or are you comparing them to terrorists?

Can you clarify for me?

Well, obviously there is no bright line. Welcome to adulthood. It can be annoyingly complex.

If there's no bright line, how do you know the AR-15 isn't the dividing line between tyranny and non-tyranny?

You're not making any sense.

It's not a comic book, and not every state is on the brink of becoming Stalin's Soviet Union, no matter how many lonely Red Dawners like to pretend it is.

How do you know this? How do you know the future plans of the U.S. government?

Do you have any winning lottery numbers, by chance?

That said, we do have to keep an eye out, and there are things we can and should be doing to avoid creeping power grabs. We should be cutting our absurd defense budget, we should repeal the terrible patriot act, we should clearly outlaw torture, we should respect international law and join the ICC. These things can help protect us. A bunch of bumbling hillbillies playing with assault rifles at their fish camps is hardly high on my list of protections.

Right. "We should, we should, we should". Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Obama's fraudulent 2008 presidential campaign.

Tell me, how do you propose "we" go about these grandiose ideas of yours?

huh? Your logic is wildly off here.

Not really.

You consider your guns to have the equivalent deterrent impact? You think our Navy Seals would have long stormed your house if it weren't for your AR-15?

It's not just my guns, it's the guns of 300+ million people. And yes, that's a pretty large deterrent.

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Not surprisingly, a study done by someone not affiliated with the NRA found it has been a success. Gun violence is down, and gun suicides are down sharply.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wo...-in-australia/

The city of Chicago would disagree...

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

The government (corrupt or otherwise) alreay makes that decision for both of us, lest you somehow didn't notice. They have already decided who can and can't have armored tanks, or rocket launchers, or fighter jets, or nuclear weapons, rather than let each person make their own determination of "need". Now, I am sure there are lots of terrorists out there that agree with you about our tyrannical and evil gov't and that they should be allowed to make their own choice of arming need, but such is the nature of organized life.



Well, obviously there is no bright line. Welcome to adulthood. It can be annoyingly complex. It's not a comic book, and not every state is on the brink of becoming Stalin's Soviet Union, no matter how many lonely Red Dawners like to pretend it is. That said, we do have to keep an eye out, and there are things we can and should be doing to avoid creeping power grabs. We should be cutting our absurd defense budget, we should repeal the terrible patriot act, we should clearly outlaw torture, we should respect international law and join the ICC. These things can help protect us. A bunch of bumbling hillbillies playing with assault rifles at their fish camps is hardly high on my list of protections.



huh? Your logic is wildly off here. You consider your guns to have the equivalent deterrent impact? You think our Navy Seals would have long stormed your house if it weren't for your AR-15?

When everyone in your neighborhood has one, it sure as hell does. Through out history, states with their people armed have been widely feared and ignored.

[gregthegator]

Originally Posted by CalSFGator

Ah, so you won't answer any of the questions I put forth and instead throw up a straw man. Classic. No, we definitely should not trust our government, at all. I never have and never will. I don't like their style. Unlike you, I just didn't start not trusting them 5 years ago when a moderate corporatist became president. Either way, whether I trust them or not has little to do with it. My best protection is my wily charms and my ability to relocate. So when the Red Dawners get all creepy and stalk the borders with their penis extension guns and itchy trigger fingers in their army surplus store camo and illegal Mexican-detectors, I will take a comfy business class flight to more reasonable shores.

Not bad...now where is/are reasonable shores?

Haven't got it determined myself...