General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 123

To technically, the National Guard would be used to overthrow a tyrannical federal government, if things ever came down to that. But I guess the caveat is that the federal government can call on the National Guard and I would assume that would rule over what the State said.

 

But the way it's written isn't dated at all..

 

Well, I have said previously, I don't really see any rationale for people who aren't hunters that are living in non-rural areas to need an AR-15. I support their right to own one but I would never say that it's necessarily sound and logical decision.

In rural & farming areas, the AR-15 does have practical applications outside of self-defense. They are treated as more of a tool than weapon. Like I used to live in a condo building in the city and my neighbor had a chainsaw. Absolutely no use for a chainsaw in that environment. But there it was.

Aside from that, an appropriately sized pistol in the hands of someone who is completely comfortable using a gun can be very effective in self-defense, and I have seen it with my own two eyes.

 

I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be pretty impressed with the maximum firepower today's weapons can achieve. Bet they wished they had them against the Brits.

 

Besides collectors and hunters, there is no practical reason to own any semi-auto, high caliber/velocity rifle.

Like we said yesterday, home defense isn't practical with these due to penetrating power, maybe if you get low velocity ammo but still.

 

Any "well-regulated" militia in this day and age would immediately become a tool of the federal government, so in that sense the spirit of the 2nd amendment would not be upheld. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

I'm curious of the percentage of these "come and take it" type of people who will defend the second amendment if shit hits the fan.

Say all of the NRA member go against who is trying to take away their guns, how many people is that roughly?

 

These folks better be good at shooting down drones.

Can you use drones like that in the US ?

 

Have you seen some of these people and how armed they are? It's pretty surprising.

 

I'm supportive of concealed carry in general, so yes. I'm most critical of the policy on the aforesaid basis and the fact that it allows for a supposition of danger that endangers black arrestees much more than white ones.

 

You don't think creating non lethal bullets as a standard would help anything?

 

It is

for someone who is going to bat for the 2nd amendment so hard it sure seems like you've never actually read it if you've never heard of the militia component.

 

No

You're assuming that people are rational and well informed which sadly is a big assumption

 

Yea, shit I thought Obama swore in on the Qur'an until yesterday! I swear to christ I remember hearing that in 2008 and just never looked into it and kind of forgot about it. Fucking (bleep).

Edit: I got a warning for calling myself a name...ok.

 

Because this is apparently necessary, here is the full text of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

This was written at a time when the government and the populace were on a roughly equal playing field in terms of their arms. Since then, many weapons generally unavailable to civilians have been developed for military use and would render the entire point moot barring mass defection from the military.

 

I don't know that our military is equipped to subdue a nation of 400 million. Especially if a large percentage are armed. You can only bomb so many people and places. Eventually you need boots on the ground.

 

The NRA had something like 3.5 million members a few years ago. Say that number increased by 500,000 over the past few years and say that 1/2 of them were willing to fight against the government that was trying to take their arms. That's 2,000,000 angry and armed people with the "come and take it" mentality. That's pretty dangerous if you ask me.

 

2 million idiots who dont understand basic gun safety, are untrained in combat, probably using handguns and have likely never killed a human being before vs. about 1.4 active trained soldiers (circa 2013, not including another 800k in reserves) with automatic rifles, snipers, tanks, bomber jets, vast resources and technology and organization, fucking atom bombs, whatever else all totally unavailable to civilians. unless those rebels are fighting with the will of an overwhelming majority of the population or the soldiers defect and use their resources against the government, its not gonna happen.

 

I have a family member who is mentally handicapped and he knew that, no, Obama did not actually swear in using the Qur'an because that's obviously a bunch of stupid misinformation. Please don't use "retarded" like that.

 

This is the real historical context in which the meaning of the Second Amendment must be interpreted: the national army had been annihilated, the First Nations had reclaimed the Ohio Valley, and the British were emboldened to retain the Western forts (Michilmakinac and Detroit) that they had agreed to surrender in the treaty of 1787. A “well-regulated militia” of armed people was the only thing standing between George Washington and the return of King George III. Or, between white people and successful rebellions of slaves and Native Americans.

Odd, to say the least, that the left-liberal media has so neglected this background, particularly since it speaks to “original intent,” that fetish of Scalia and much of his party. More importantly, why haven’t we taken advantage of the GOP’s Salafist interpretation of the Constitution to revive the classical (Charles) Beardsian critique of this slaveowners’ relic? The alternative tradition in American history, embraced by Jefferson, Lincoln, and Wilson, has always asserted the priority of the Declaration of Independence as the nation’s foundational document and natural law.

A Note from Mike Davis about the Second Amendment - Los Angeles Review of Books

 

Any such insurgency would require huge sections of the military to defect for obvious reasons - and, historically, have required that - can't they get their weapons from them?

 

I wonder how many are ex-military. I wonder how many ex-military that aren't affiliated with the NRA would oppose the government. It's enough that the govt has deemed returning vets a national security threat.

I think it's a little silly to generalize all NRA members as you have. At the ranges I've been to everyone is well trained in safety and they don't let anyone fuck around. Basic safety tests are typically a requirement to purchase a firearm in many places, so saying that a vast majority don't understand basic safety seems dubious.

 

these numbers dont really support the idea that enough people know what the fuck they're doing. Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries

 

Beard's take makes sense, given that the revolution itself was never about freedom as we understand or pretend it was today - it was about economic freedom from the taxes imposed by the crown. Only landowning white men significantly benefited in terms of greater "freedom", and only landowning white men had any say in what went into the constitution. Even the abolition of slavery was a move designed not to do the right thing, but to economically cripple the south.

At the end of the day, it's hard for me to give a rat's ass about arguments made by constitutionalists, because as a mixed-race female with the occasional gal pal the founding fathers would've barely considered me human in the first place.

 

Oh no, I don't deny that there are a lot of idiots with guns, but the NRA probably isn't where you'll find them.