Educating a tyrant on the purpose of 2A

[Ben Waylin]

Jesus…

God bless you.

?

 

[jdel77]

So how is that so different? The militia aspect?

It’s not.
The crux of this entire argument is the PURPOSE of the militias, beginning with the unconstitutionalisation (?) for citizens rights to bear arms being taken away.

We’re debating whether the 2A is stating:

A) Citizens rights to bear arms must be protected, to join militias to support and assist the government against factional revolutionary insurrections

or

B) The citizens militia exists so citizens can oppose the entire government should it turn into an autocracy, thus most likely plunging the USA into anarchy.

Which makes more sense to you?

Citizens protecting and assisting their new emerging and precious democratic nation who had just defeated their monarchical British overlords, with an intimate awareness and involvement with France who was on the brink of internal collapse from the Revolutionary Left OR… Citizens being encouraged to fight their own government and create chaos if things turn to shit.

Really? The latter makes more sense? ? Yeesh.

 

[jdel77]

God bless you.

?

You should try Bhudda sometime.
Or, the fat free alternative, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Bhudda.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

It’s not.
The crux of this entire argument is the PURPOSE of the militias, beginning with the unconstitutionalisation (?) for citizens rights to bear arms being taken away.

We’re debating whether the 2A is stating:

A) Citizens rights to bear arms must be protected, to join militias to support and assist the government against factional revolutionary insurrections

or

B) The citizens militia exists so citizens can oppose the entire government should it turn into an autocracy, thus most likely plunging the USA into anarchy.

Which makes more sense to you?

Citizens protecting and assisting their new emerging and precious democratic nation who had just defeated their monarchical British overlords, with an intimately awareness and involvement with France who was on the brink of internal collapse from the Revolutionary Left OR Citizens being encouraged to fight their own government and create chaos if things turn to shit.

Really? The latter makes more sense? ? Yeesh.

 

[jdel77]

Typical knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn’t know how to think critically.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

from someone who doesn’t know how to think critically.

It's strange that you should say that. Aren't you a school teacher? I mean you either cherry picked parts of what you've read and understand or haven't actually read about anything/enough in regards to what you're talking about. Sorry if I came off harsh, but seriously that is some straw grasping craziness of a conclusion that entirely dismisses all evidence.

Maybe try actually reading the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights for yourself. Try putting aside your emotion or feelings and look at them literally. Like rules of a game, for example. Afterwards, see if you believe that you can still convince anyone who has. When you're done you should define individual rights and how they differ from group rights. When was the second challenged for the first time? Why was it challenged? Why was it not challenged sooner? If the Government has the right to protect itself from the militia and individual states(which it does), why would it need to be written that it does if the purpose of the militia is your crazy conclusion?

I feel like people get too caught up in their team mindset by listening to the media experts that they don't even realize these aren't some top secret documents. They teach this stuff in elementary school. Scholars don't need to argue these things, only lawyers and special interest groups do. Why is that? This isn't prehistorical petroglyphs that we're trying to decipher here.

 

[Floyd Eye]

It’s not.
The crux of this entire argument is the PURPOSE of the militias, beginning with the unconstitutionalisation (?) for citizens rights to bear arms being taken away.

We’re debating whether the 2A is stating:

A) Citizens rights to bear arms must be protected, to join militias to support and assist the government against factional revolutionary insurrections

or

B) The citizens militia exists so citizens can oppose the entire government should it turn into an autocracy, thus most likely plunging the USA into anarchy.

Which makes more sense to you?

Citizens protecting and assisting their new emerging and precious democratic nation who had just defeated their monarchical British overlords, with an intimate awareness and involvement with France who was on the brink of internal collapse from the Revolutionary Left OR… Citizens being encouraged to fight their own government and create chaos if things turn to shit.

Really? The latter makes more sense? ? Yeesh.

Again dude, if you, as an Australian or wherever, are going to wade into American history and heritage, you should actually educate yourself on the subject. There isn't a person alive who actually studied American History, as we are all forced to in elementary school, who believes the 2A was written soley so citizens could protect the government. And definitely not the federal government. The founders did not want a strong central government for one thing. Yes they envisioned an armed populace as a bulwark against foreign invaders ( of which there have been none since like 1812) but everyone from Madison to Jefferson and Adams and Franklin have left plenty of correspondence intimating that the citizenry has a duty to overthrow a corrupt government. They were trying to create a government that would not allow the bullshit that was happening with the monarchies in Europe. A government who governs with the consent of the people.



You'll notice that after the civil war ended the feds didn't go after the 2A rights of southerners. Well, until later when they invented gun control to keep uppity blacks from having guns.

 

[VonBonfire]

Aren't you a school teacher?

Yuck.

 

[Bad Brain]

then it could read

That ain’t paraphrased either teach ?

 

[84superchamp]

I’m a shotgun junkie. I honestly have no idea how many I have, but it’s more than a few.

I’m still trying to find my perfect shotgun but have to watch prices. Anything is a step up from my old Harrington-Richardson single shot 20ga that I’ve had for decades.
I prefer a pump rather than semi auto, and maybe bigger gauge.

….for groundhogs and home defense.

 

[311boogieman]

There isn't a person alive who actually studied American History, as we are all forced to in elementary school, who believes the 2A was written soley so citizens could protect the government.

Yes they envisioned an armed populace as a bulwark against foreign invaders

This is how I always saw it:

1. Don't like your government - you can overthrow it
2. Like your government and a foreigner attacks, protect all

*Don't like your government, and a foreigner attacks? We're all fucked

 

[Floyd Eye]

I’m still trying to find my perfect shotgun but have to watch prices. Anything is a step up from my old Harrington-Richardson single shot 20ga that I’ve had for decades.
I prefer a pump rather than semi auto, and maybe bigger gauge.

….for groundhogs and home defense.

Hard to beat a 20" Mossberg 590. Or a Remington 870.

 

[VonBonfire]

Hard to beat a 20" Mossberg 590. Or a Remington 870.

That 590 with ghost rings is a great piece of hardware. Have handled.

 

[rsm]

 

[rsm]

Hard to beat a 20" Mossberg 590. Or a Remington 870.

I have a 12-gauge bullpup, 18.5" barrel, by my bedside; one mag with 00 buck, and another with 3-pellet 1450 FPS, in the weapon with one in the chamber; 9mm for backup.

thing kicks, but easier that my 10mm

 

[jdel77]

It's strange that you should say that. Aren't you a school teacher? I mean you either cherry picked parts of what you've read and understand or haven't actually read about anything/enough in regards to what you're talking about. Sorry if I came off harsh, but seriously that is some straw grasping craziness of a conclusion that entirely dismisses all evidence.

Maybe try actually reading the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights for yourself. Try putting aside your emotion or feelings and look at them literally. Like rules of a game, for example. Afterwards, see if you believe that you can still convince anyone who has. When you're done you should define individual rights and how they differ from group rights. When was the second challenged for the first time? Why was it challenged? Why was it not challenged sooner? If the Government has the right to protect itself from the militia and individual states(which it does), why would it need to be written that it does if the purpose of the militia is your crazy conclusion?

I feel like people get too caught up in their team mindset by listening to the media experts that they don't even realize these aren't some top secret documents. They teach this stuff in elementary school. Scholars don't need to argue these things, only lawyers and special interest groups do. Why is that? This isn't prehistorical petroglyphs that we're trying to decipher here.

Some good points here, I’ll go through them tomorrow. It’s late here in Oz.

Again dude, if you, as an Australian or wherever, are going to wade into American history and heritage, you should actually educate yourself on the subject. There isn't a person alive who actually studied American History, as we are all forced to in elementary school, who believes the 2A was written soley so citizens could protect the government. And definitely not the federal government. The founders did not want a strong central government for one thing. Yes they envisioned an armed populace as a bulwark against foreign invaders ( of which there have been none since like 1812) but everyone from Madison to Jefferson and Adams and Franklin have left plenty of correspondence intimating that the citizenry has a duty to overthrow a corrupt government. They were trying to create a government that would not allow the bullshit that was happening with the monarchies in Europe. A government who governs with the consent of the people.

You'll notice that after the civil war ended the feds didn't go after the 2A rights of southerners. Well, until later when they invented gun control to keep uppity blacks from having guns.

Solid points too - will check in tomorrow ?

 

[jdel77]

This is how I always saw it:

1. Don't like your government - you can overthrow it
2. Like your government and a foreigner attacks, protect all

*Don't like your government, and a foreigner attacks? We're all fucked

Solid outlook, but “Don’t like your government” is an incredibly deep concept.

 

[jdel77]

Yuck.

Grow up man.

 

[Ben Waylin]

You should try Bhudda sometime.
Or, the fat free alternative, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Bhudda.

Why ?

Buddha isn't real.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I have a 12-gauge bullpup, 18.5" barrel, by my bedside; one mag with 00 buck, and another with 3-pellet 1450 FPS, in the weapon with one in the chamber; 9mm for backup.

thing kicks, but easier that my 10mm

I have several bullpups, including a KSG25. 30" barrel, but about the same overall length as my 20" Mossberg 500. My favorite bullpup though is my IWI TS-12.