BF2S Forums Serious Question about the 2nd Amendment

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Pug wrote:

You have your freedoms as long as you don't infringe on other's freedoms.

OK I'll word this simply. The questions being asked are a. how do you justify the keeping of guns for a government deposing revolution in the USA (which would inevitably involve infringing on freedoms, as most revolutions do), and b. if you exercised the intended use for the second amendment and threw off the government oppressors (which you've all cited as a factor in you owning guns), how does this separate you from HAMAS, the IRA etc etc etc *insert group you all love the hate on here*.

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

But, you can't condemn Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA, and praise Armed civilians.  Let's suppose the US president becomes a dictator, and the people start a civil war using their firearms and lots of innocent people die.  That would make you no better no worse than those organizations you criticize.

Last time I checked, none of these organizations were actually a government.

Here's the issue you are missing:
-you have the freedom to own a gun
-you DO NOT have the freedom to infringe on other's rights because you have a gun

Just like you have certain freedoms as long as you don't infringe on others' freedoms.

Why does this have to be harder than that?

Read all the posts that Lowing wrote, he said that armed civilians guarantee that a corrupted government or a dictator won't take your liberties away.  So, how would this armed society do to stop him?  Respecting the laws?  They should act like Hamas or Hezbollah.  They would defend a just cause, using wrong means for it.

sergeriver wrote:

First off, Hamas and Hezbollah are part of the government.  When some asshole goes happytrigger and kills 30 or more people at Virginia Tech, that infringes the freedoms of a lot of people.  When you need a gun to protect yourself from a government you have no freedoms.

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

First off, Hamas and Hezbollah are part of the government.  When some asshole goes happytrigger and kills 30 or more people at Virginia Tech, that infringes the freedoms of a lot of people.  When you need a gun to protect yourself from a government you have no freedoms.

Again, you are failing to understand what I've been writing.  You are still arguing semantics.

What part, the one of those operating in a society and those outside?

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

What part, the one of those operating in a society and those outside?

You're argument is the COST of having this right, yet you're focusing on "the right for a militia" as backup.  It's not about guns at all...

Here's an illustration:
The are laws against defamation and liable, just like murder.  Are you saying we should also be looking at freedom of speech too?

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-19 10:38:52)

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.

thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.

I disagree.  You can't let people go freely advocating Genocide.  I'm all for Freedom of Speech, but Genocide it's just unacceptable.  Sorry.

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.

What I meant in the OP is that maybe, just maybe the founding fathers of the US wanted to protect the country from any threat having an armed militia.  That doesn't necessarily mean that all citizens should be armed.  Secondly, this was written more than 200 years ago, and they couldn't imagine the guns that today anyone can acquire in US.  I don't think they would agree with people having AK-47s, Uzis, M4s, etc.  I don't want to take your right to bear guns away, I'm just making a bit different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  Maybe I'm wrong and those guys meant what you all think.

Well, I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but the "militia" clause had to do with self-defense against Indians...not the government.  Colonials weren't supposed to have guns...so they were concerned about self-defense.  Current day interpretation is about self defense, as I don't see a "muster" anytime soon.

But I have been arguing along a different line altogether.

FEOS wrote:

While I agree with the first part of your post, the last bit is just laughable.

The_Mac wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The government isn't afraid of the people because they have guns, it's afraid because people can vote them out.  Do you really think that your AK-47 will make the difference against the US Armed Forces?  Lol.  Oh, and blaming Liberals for all your problems seems very ignorant IMO.  I think Conservatives suppressed a lot more liberties than Liberals.  Take a look at your president, although I don't know what that guy is really.

No, obviously I don't think I rely on my gun to have a voice, goon, I personally don't own any guns. The idea is that for example, you have Hitler, and if all the jews just had guns, Hitler's Nazi thugs would have been exterminated. Think of the number of Jews who died in the camps, or were imprisoned. If they had just fired off two shots, Hitler's gangs would have been over. That's standing up against an oppressive government.

Of course, Hitler banned guns, which is what the liberals and lackeys (those words sound nice together...almost as if by coincidence).

In a more concise manner for your limited mind:
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb28 … rksre9.gif

Care to provide where conservatives suppressed more than liberals?

I can think off the top of my head, the liberals in the '70's came up with a brilliant notion that schools had to have an equal ratio of races, so the result was that the most convenient school was not necessarily a school to attend, and children would get shipped way out.


Sounds like a brilliant well thought out plan to save America from racists, well done liberals.

In a more modern context, besides trying to suppress rights explicitly written in the Constitution, liberals are trying to undermine the war effort. Of course, they do it because they want to "support the troops," even though the majority want to finish up the job they're doing in Iraq. It's a liberals duty to not even recognize the progress we have made in Iraq, as well as nominating a government official on the verge of becoming dictator of Russia instead of the lead general in Iraq, because that might open the thought that things are going well in Iraq, bravo Times, whore out any credibility you had, won't you?

They could have just summed up their "Why we chose Putin" by saying, "General Prateus is in Iraq, screwing over Insurgent thugs."

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Serge, the "militia" thing has been brought up on multiple occasions and is an obvious point of contention: does it guarantee the right to a Militia, or the right to keep and bear arms?

I say both. This is how gun owners and others who are against tweaking around with the Bill of Rights interpret it:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Oh, and by the way, this'll help facilitate the existence of well regulated militias, which are also legal, being necessary to the security of a free State."

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Hitler or Stalin, yes. The machine? Perhaps not. Would it have provided a speed bump for fascism? Yes. In Germany's case, it might've been more of a pain in the ass to round up the Jews if its troops kept getting shot at more often.

Do you really think they could have defeated the German Army?  Germany lost during WW2 about 6 million soldiers, so do your maths and imagine the number of soldiers they had.  The Soviet Union lost almost 11 million.  How armed civilians could have defeated such armies is beyond my understanding.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 16:47:41)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

You're argument is the COST of having this right, yet you're focusing on "the right for a militia" as backup.  It's not about guns at all...

Here's an illustration:
The are laws against defamation and liable, just like murder.  Are you saying we should also be looking at freedom of speech too?

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.

thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.