2nd Amendment - what's the point?

I think it really comes down to this
Is war a good thing or a bad thing.
Was the American Revolution really necessary?
Did the Union really have to fight the Civil War?

We have been indoctrinated into thinking of the necessity of these wars in particular and most war in general.

You want to call pacifism spinelessness, go ahead, that puts you firmly in the majority.
 
ezra said:
You literally just "threw shit" at everyone in this thread except for Pleiades.
Click to expand...

Learn to grasp the simple concept that perhaps my statement was aimed at the nature of the discussion, but of course you'd head straight for the only scenario in-which I am the big troll baddie that is talking shit about everyone. It is in-fact not the case, and you are also clutching a straws. It also seems to me that people complain that I am talking about them specifically when I did not mention a single name and rather ironically get singled out for apparently picking on people. You couldn't make this stuff up. You also may think I'm alone in my opinion, but I'm one of a few people that thinks this thread is a shit-throwing festival.

Oh dear. I said it again....
 
Last edited:
Stu said:
I think it really comes down to this
Is war a good thing or a bad thing.
Was the American Revolution really necessary?
Did the Union really have to fight the Civil War?

We have been indoctrinated into thinking of the necessity of these wars in particular and most war in general.

You want to call pacifism spinelessness, go ahead, that puts you firmly in the majority.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary so long as you can accept the consequences for not acting. Such things as genocide and slavery.
 
Stu said:
I think it really comes down to this
Is war a good thing or a bad thing.
Was the American Revolution really necessary?
Did the Union really have to fight the Civil War?

We have been indoctrinated into thinking of the necessity of these wars in particular and most war in general.

You want to call pacifism spinelessness, go ahead, that puts you firmly in the majority.
Click to expand...

No, pacifism is very brave. Calling into question other people's life and death decisions while you yourself are safe and unharmed on the other hand is not brave.
 
let's look at the American Civil war, the last, and only time the so called second amendment right to end government tyranny was exercised.

Was it really about ending slavery, and did slavery actually end?
 
[MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION]

Please, for the love of God, don't go down this ridiculous path. This is nothing but puerile semantics.
 
Stu said:
let's look at the American Civil war, the last, and only time the so called second amendment right to end government tyranny was exercised.
Click to expand...
Why do we need to look at that?

Was it really about ending slavery, and did slavery actually end?
Click to expand...
Probably not, and no.

So let's just get rid of it right? Is what you're saying isn't it? I'm not convinced.
 
Also what about regulated state militia? People are conveniently ignoring the possibility of a state sanctioned body.

People just want to fight about guns to an illogical degree and are ignoring all legitimate alternatives. I think people just want to fight and it's stupid.
 
Matt3737 said:
This says a lot about your own posts. Thanks for not participating.
Click to expand...

Oh and, I forgot to mention. I did participate. I was one of the first people to do so on the first page of the thread before it turned pissy.
 
Matt3737 said:
@Stu

Please, for the love of God, don't go down this ridiculous path. This is nothing but puerile semantics.
Click to expand...

if folks are going to argue that the second ammendment protects us from the government then how is discussing how well regulated militias, fighting against a perceived tyranny, not germane?
 
JJJA said:
Oh and, I forgot to mention. I did participate. I was one of the first people to do so on the first page of the thread before it turned pissy.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but if you're not participating now and you just want to throw a hissy fit. Please don't. It's not welcome.
 
Stu said:
if folks are going to argue that the second ammendment protects us from the government then how is discussing how well regulated militias, fighting against a perceived tyranny, not germane?
Click to expand...

You know there are actual State Defense Forces in current operation, right? They're regulated by the National Guard and commanded by the Governor of the state. Want to just suddenly make them illegal and disband them? You'll have to take it up with the states.
 
Stu said:
if folks are going to argue that the second ammendment protects us from the government then how is discussing how well regulated militias, fighting against a perceived tyranny, not germane?
Click to expand...

Hey, if you seriously want to dismiss the abolition of slavery then that's on you.
 
sprinkles said:
Also what about regulated state militia? People are conveniently ignoring the possibility of a state sanctioned body.

People just want to fight about guns to an illogical degree and are ignoring all legitimate alternatives. I think people just want to fight and it's stupid.
Click to expand...

i believe you were arguing that the second amendment keeps us free from gov tyranny by preserving the option of armed insurrection

I am arguing that armed insurrection has limited hope of success and therefor its possibility is not protecting us from anything but only providing the illusion of freedom.
 
Stu said:
i believe you were arguing that the second amendment keeps us free from gov tyranny by preserving the option of armed insurrection

I am arguing that armed insurrection has limited hope of success and therefor its possibility is not protecting us from anything but only providing the illusion of freedom.
Click to expand...

That was one point, not my entire basis. I also argued that success is irrelevant so your point about success is irrelevant to me.
 
Stu said:
i believe you were arguing that the second amendment keeps us free from gov tyranny by preserving the option of armed insurrection

I am arguing that armed insurrection has limited hope of success and therefor its possibility is not protecting us from anything but only providing the illusion of freedom.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that because one fails they all must fail. Each outcome is dependent on its circumstances.
 
well, i stand corrected
 
Are you suggesting that there are only two options, that if we couldn't achieve victory then we should lay down and be walked over?

If the government did get out of control I would rather die fighting it than lay down and accept it. No victory is even necessary.

Patrick Henry didn't say "We should only try if we can actually win." He said "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
Click to expand...

What I'm suggesting BTW is that you wouldn't have a hope in hell fighting your own military, I could be wrong. The Taliban and North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong have proved that guerillas can really stand up to the technologically advanced military machine, at least for a period of time.

Personally I do not think the regular military would fight against its own people. Nowwww....the special trained forces is another topic.
Click to expand...

All over this happens all the time, in South America and Africa. If the circumstances were right it could happen in America or anywhere else for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top