The correlation between guns and mass murders

Yes, but the post was about the Declaration of Independence, which preceded the constitution by 11 years. As for the second amendment, it too is subject to reconsideration, just like the 18th amendment. There is nothing eternally sacred about these documents. They are in force so long as the nation that is ruled by them agrees to keep them in force. I personally would love to see the 2nd amendment repealed, as the need for it has long passed, in my opinion.
So you believe that it is not possible for our government to turn into an oppressive authoritarian government?
 
Yes, but the post was about the Declaration of Independence
You discussed "codifying" slavery as a response to the Second Amendment.

I also pointed out they thought preserving the ability of the people to overthrow people like Biden a good idea.

Hence why I posted their thoughts on it, and why we have the Second Amendment.
As for the second amendment, it too is subject to reconsideration, just like the 18th amendment. There is nothing eternally sacred about these documents. They are in force so long as the nation that is ruled by them agrees to keep them in force. I personally would love to see the 2nd amendment repealed, as the need for it has long passed, in my opinion.
I don't like guns, never have.

What I like is the government won't run roughshod over people who are armed.

The Second Amendment should stay right where it's at because I don't trust your government.
 
Last edited:
So you believe that it is not possible for our government to turn into an oppressive authoritarian government?
Sure, it is possible. But strong support for Democracy is the best was to avoid the government turning into an oppressive authoritarian government.
 
You discussed "codifying" slavery as a response to the Second Amendment.
Actually, codifying slavery (in terms of making slaves count as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes, but not with the right to vote) was before the 2nd amendment, so it could not have been a response to it.


I also pointed out they thought preserving the ability of the people to overthrow people like Biden a good idea.
The best way to preserve the ability to throw out leaders we don't like is to support Democracy and the US system of checks and balances. It has worked well over the years, with peaceful "overthrow" of various parties and presidents and other leaders, all through the vote and mostly without any bloodshed. That is far preferable to having as your only recourse, a bloody civil war.


What I like is the government won't run roughshod over people who are armed.
I don't like government running roughshod over people who are not armed either. I see no reason have special sympathy for those that are armed.


The Second Amendment should stay right where it's at because I don't trust your government.
If there is a revolution and the current government is overthrown, what makes you think the new government will have a 2nd amendment, or even a constitution that looks anything at all like the one we have?
 
But what happens when thst fails? If it does happen what are you going to do?
If the government fails to respect the will of the people as expressed at the polls, there is no reason to expect it will respect the 2nd amendment either. It is a false hope to rely on the 2nd amendment, because it will vanish the moment you think you need it, which shows it was never any protection all along.
 
Actually, codifying slavery (in terms of making slaves count as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes, but not with the right to vote) was before the 2nd amendment, so it could not have been a response to it.
Never said it was. The Second Amendment is a response to the revolutionary war in throwing off an oppresser.

Are you purposely not understanding for arguments sake?
The best way to preserve the ability to throw out leaders we don't like is to support Democracy and the US system of checks and balances. It has worked well over the years, with peaceful "overthrow" of various parties and presidents and other leaders, all through the vote and mostly without any bloodshed. That is far preferable to having as your only recourse, a bloody civil war.
No kidding.
I don't like government running roughshod over people who are not armed either. I see no reason have special sympathy for those that are armed.
Now you twist it further?

I see no reason to feel "special sympathy" for people who are armed either. Nor for those who twist ideas like you do
If there is a revolution and the current government is overthrown, what makes you think the new government will have a 2nd amendment, or even a constitution that looks anything at all like the one we have?
I don't think anything about it, what makes you think I do?

I am telling you we have a Second Amendment, given by men wiser and smarter than your current leaders, and some of the reasons why we have it.

Now, argue yourself into a pretzel and ask some more.
 
If the government fails to respect the will of the people as expressed at the polls, there is no reason to expect it will respect the 2nd amendment either. It is a false hope to rely on the 2nd amendment, because it will vanish the moment you think you need it, which shows it was never any protection all along.
Can you guarantee that the election process will always be honestly administered? I will answer for you, You lack the ability to make that guarantee.
 
Never said it was. The Second Amendment is a response to the revolutionary war in throwing off an oppresser.
An oppressor that is now an ally. But the 2nd amendment was not really a response to that event, which by then was already a decade into the past. Most historians conclude that the 2nd amendment was a concession to the anti-federalists to ensure that individual states would maintain the right to have their own armed defense. At this time the feeling of national unity was much weaker than it is today. Back then, people mostly lived their lives and died in their home state with very little interaction with people from other states. A Virginian considered himself a Virginian first and the citizen of this new "United States" second, and only grudgingly. As that time, volunteer militias were the norm for local defense, and so it was natural to want to have an armed populace from which a state militia could be quickly formed.

Today people travel between states much more freely. I grew up in Michigan, for example, but now I am a Minnesotan. I might very well live out the rest of my days as a Arkansas resident. Also states have their own armed defense at the state, county, and local level. The need for a state to form a volunteer militia is non-existent. Recently, court rulings have interpreted the 2nd amendment more as an individual right rather than a community right. But these are recent decisions which could be faulty and so they do not prove anything about the original intent of the founders. That brings up another question. If an armed populace with individual rights is in place to respond as a group to what some consider an oppressive authoritarian government, what assurance is there that all the individuals with guns will be on the "right" side of such an uprising? What is more likely is that various groups will, at various times decide that the government is oppressive and take action. And other such groups will decide that the first group is the real danger to the nation and will take up arms against them, leading to a civil war. There is no guarantee that the "good guys" will win. Generally what happens is the ones with the most guns will win. And there are not always the "good guys". So by putting your hopes in the 2nd amendment instead of the democratic process, you make it more likely that you will lose a government you like and get a government you don't like.


Are you purposely not understanding for arguments sake?
I am understanding you as well as possible, given what you have written.


Now you twist it further?

I see no reason to feel "special sympathy" for people who are armed either. Nor for those who twist ideas like you do

I don't think anything about it, what makes you think I do?
Because you made special mention of wanting to have government that will not ride roughshod over people who are armed. Maybe what you really meant to say was that "government will not ride roughshod over people who are armed". But that is clearly not true either. The armament of the government military is so overwhelmingly powerful that it could not possibly be overthrown by any loosely organized collection of armed individuals. It is a fantasy to think that such a revolution would be fought with firearms, with the government having power over the Internet and telephone, as well as life-support infrastructure, there is no way such an insurrection could succeed. The best bet is to exert control over the government using the channels that are provided by the government, which in the case of the United States is one of the best in the world in terms of people having options for peaceful control.


I am telling you we have a Second Amendment, given by men wiser and smarter than your current leaders, and some of the reasons why we have it.
I realize that, and I disagree with you.
 
Can you guarantee that the election process will always be honestly administered? I will answer for you, You lack the ability to make that guarantee.
There are no guarantees in life - only chances. And your chances at positively affecting your life through armed force provides no guarantees either, and does not even offer as good a chance at success as the process that has worked for over 200 years and has seen numerous administrations "overthrown" peacefully.
 
An oppressor that is now an ally.
That is debatable and also meaningless. They oppressed, we threw them off. It took guns to do it
But the 2nd amendment was not really a response to that event...
And I think it was integral to what they were thinking.
I am understanding you as well as possible, given what you have written.



Because you made special mention of wanting to have government that will not ride roughshod over people who are armed. Maybe what you really meant to say was that "government will not ride roughshod over people who are armed". But that is clearly not true either. The armament of the government military is so overwhelmingly powerful that it could not possibly be overthrown by any loosely organized collection of armed individuals. It is a fantasy to think that such a revolution would be fought with firearms, with the government having power over the Internet and telephone, as well as life-support infrastructure, there is no way such an insurrection could succeed. The best bet is to exert control over the government using the channels that are provided by the government, which in the case of the United States is one of the best in the world in terms of people having options for peaceful control.
You can think it fantasy as it happens I guess.

No doubt voting is the way to handle it, but that ignores what people are saying about the state of voting in this country. You need to start considering what people are saying.

You can be like Joey and think unless people own F16's the government will crush the people. I also think leftists would want it to go that way, big bad government crushing the people.

I don't think it would go as you foresee because no one can foresee it.
 
Most decent people are against slavery

glad I don’t have to try to rationalize thinking my magic book of morality thinks slavery’s okey-dokey
You don't believe in moral absolutes and do believe humans are apes. So lets not be two faced about morality when your model paves the road for slavery in the first place.
Forced or race slavery does not violate one thing in your model since human apes have no natural right to anything. Slavery be it abusive or sex on demand is compatible with your model and you don't have the guts to admit it. Your personal and sanctimonious beliefs about slavery can change anytime and under any circumstance because cultures change all the time. There is no anchor in your model.
 
Last edited:
You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?
You brought up slavery and any cross examination should not be construed as supporting slavery. You blew it all off and shirked responsibility.
She would have less to defend against if there was not such a saturation level of guns. Women are often the victims of gun violence, and all the more so in countries with a surplus of guns.
Again you are opposed to a young female gun rights to protect herself from home invaders. That is all we need to know
 
Last edited:
You discussed "codifying" slavery as a response to the Second Amendment.

I also pointed out they thought preserving the ability of the people to overthrow people like Biden a good idea.

Hence why I posted their thoughts on it, and why we have the Second Amendment.

I don't like guns, never have.

What I like is the government won't run roughshod over people who are armed.

The Second Amendment should stay right where it's at because I don't trust your government.
The Constitution gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections (Article 1, Section 8). Thus, insurrections against the govt are an unconstitutional way to deal with an unpopular, oppressive or out of touch govt. Instead, the framers instituted other methods including checks and balances, impeachment and voting rights to ensure that govt is accountable.

That you don't like the current, legally elected govt does not mean you have the right to "overthrow people like Biden".
 
The Constitution gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections (Article 1, Section 8). Thus, insurrections against the govt are an unconstitutional way to deal with an unpopular, oppressive or out of touch govt. Instead, the framers instituted other methods including checks and balances, impeachment and voting rights to ensure that govt is accountable.

That you don't like the current, legally elected govt does not mean you have the right to "overthrow people like Biden".
Biden is by far the worst authoritarian to ever get elected so overthrowing that clown is a given. If the people decide to overthrow your liberal retards I'll just sit and watch.

The coming investigations will also show him and his family as a criminal enterprise.

That will be the proper way to remove your clown stain from the nation.

However, the right of the people to own guns will remain intact, even if you cry about it.
 
There are no guarantees in life - only chances. And your chances at positively affecting your life through armed force provides no guarantees either, and does not even offer as good a chance at success as the process that has worked for over 200 years and has seen numerous administrations "overthrown" peacefully.
So why not let people make the decision for themselves?
 
The Constitution gives Congress the duty to put down armed insurrections (Article 1, Section 8). Thus, insurrections against the govt are an unconstitutional way to deal with an unpopular, oppressive or out of touch govt. Instead, the framers instituted other methods including checks and balances, impeachment and voting rights to ensure that govt is accountable.

That you don't like the current, legally elected govt does not mean you have the right to "overthrow people like Biden".
Since the Revolutionary War was illegal i take it that you still want us to be a British Colony?
 
Back
Top