2nd Amendment - what's the point?

the said:
That's fine, they've been programmed to only speak about one aspect when the words "second amendment" are invoked. They can't grasp the concept that the 2nd Am. was put in place to remove a corrupt government yet you will be imprisoned for exercising that right - those things are mutually exclusive. And then how do you remedy this problem? I'm not sure they see it as a problem though.
Click to expand...

We have a few words that perfectly describe the situation then as they do now: revolution, rebellion, uprising, resistance, civil disobedience. The right to bear arms does not necessarily include the right to use them upon someone else.
 
Matt3737 said:
We have a few words that perfectly describe the situation then as they do now: revolution, rebellion, uprising, resistance, civil disobedience. The right to bear arms does not necessarily include the right to use them upon someone else.
Click to expand...

Right. We are bearing arms against deer to ensure our freedom.
 
hush said:
Let's keep this focused on the topic at hand, and not on pointing fingers at each other.
Click to expand...

Also, I'm going to post this again.

I already did so four pages ago, and yet it continued to happen.

Please keep the discussion focused on the topic, and not on other members.

We can be civil to each other.
 
the said:
They can't grasp the concept that the 2nd Am. was put in place to remove a corrupt government.
Click to expand...

I think this is the central issue.
Is it true? and is it viable if true? Take a look at Syria, that armed insurrection is working out real well.
And then there is Dr Carson's position on the Nazi Genocide, The American Indians were fairly well armed and at one point pretty successful at holding their own. But look at how many died and how impoverished their people became.
 
Skarekrow said:
That mentallity is not across the board...I grew up in a multi-generational military family...Hell, even Grandma was an Army nurse.
I joined the USCG when I was 19ish...training to use weapons of all sorts.
I don't fear our government taking people's gun away...it's a scenario that will never happen here in America...not anytime soon anyhow.
But there are some of us who are very familiar with guns, their use, etc. who feel we have a serious problem with the availability of guns should one choose to obtain one.
And once again, I'm not blaming this issue of mass/school shootings on guns alone...that is a silly argument used by paranoid NRA parrots.

Clearly something needs to be done...and the gun lobbies idea of arming more private citizens is just perpetuating the mentality of this being a wild-west shoot out where the good guys with guns will always prevail.
Ha!
Click to expand...

Speaking of shoot-outs - my best friend's husband has purchased his holster and guns to wear out in the open come January when the new Open Carry Law takes effect.

He's ex military - ex cop - ex mercenary. He told me was looking forward to swaggering around with those things showing and he "Dares" anyone to try and grab them from him. It was if he's looking for a fight. [rolls eyes] Whew.... I know you can't choose your best friend's husband...but dannnng its' hard to be around him sometimes. It's quite evident to me of the brainwashing he's been through over the years for he didn't used to be so....so blatantly violent. Of course I assume it's due to the many near misses of death and seeing the horror of torture all around him that weights heavy upon him now.

So perhaps when the "Shoot out at the Houston TX Corral" happens - THEN - we may start seeing some curbs on owning guns. [MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION]
 
the said:
Right. We are bearing arms against deer to ensure our freedom.
Click to expand...

No, it's just a point of transition. Whether or not arms are used justifiably or not depends on the circumstances and the outcome of the transition.

In anthropology, liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold") is the quality of ambiguity or disorientation that occurs in the middle stage of rituals, when participants no longer hold their pre-ritual status but have not yet begun the transition to the status they will hold when the ritual is complete. During a ritual's liminal stage, participants "stand at the threshold" between their previous way of structuring their identity, time, or community, and a new way, which the ritual establishes.

The concept of liminality was first developed in the early 20th century by anthropologist Arnold van Gennep and later taken up by Victor Turner. More recently, usage of the term has broadened to describe political and cultural change as well as rituals. During liminal periods of all kinds, social hierarchies may be reversed or temporarily dissolved, continuity of tradition may become uncertain, and future outcomes once taken for granted may be thrown into doubt. The dissolution of order during liminality creates a fluid, malleable situation that enables new institutions and customs to become established. The term has also passed into popular usage, where it is applied much more broadly, undermining its significance to some extent.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality

Does this help any?
 
Kgal said:
So perhaps when the "Shoot out at the Houston TX Corral" happens - THEN - we may start seeing some curbs on owning guns. [MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

We have to wait for a lot of people to potentially die before we can start curbing gun ownership? :-(
 
Stu said:
I think this is the central issue.
Is it true? and is it viable if true? Take a look at Syria, that armed insurrection is working out real well.
And then there is Dr Carson's position on the Nazi Genocide, The American Indians were fairly well armed and at one point pretty successful at holding their own. But look at how many died and how impoverished their people became.
Click to expand...

All good points.
 
Stu said:
I think this is the central issue.
Is it true? and is it viable if true? Take a look at Syria, that armed insurrection is working out real well.
And then there is Dr Carson's position on the Nazi Genocide, The American Indians were fairly well armed and at one point pretty successful at holding their own. But look at how many died and how impoverished their people became.
Click to expand...

They made their choice. You think they didn't notice the odds and the consequences? Do you think they'd just take it all back if they could?

I doubt it. Some times a person reaches a point where they feel literally ANYTHING is better than where they're at.

And really some times the alternative is suicide but not everyone is down for that. They take homicide instead.
 
Also suffering the consequences of defeat might only make a person regret that they weren't strong enough. If they miss their opportunity though, they will live the rest of their life regretting that one moment of choice that they can never have back. They might be ashamed that they never tried.

This is especially true if they're going to end up with the same ending regardless of which path they take.
 
sprinkles said:
Also suffering the consequences of defeat might only make a person regret that they weren't strong enough. If they miss their opportunity though, they will live the rest of their life regretting that one moment of choice that they can never have back. They might be ashamed that they never tried.

This is especially true if they're going to end up with the same ending regardless of which path they take.
Click to expand...
275px-Total_deaths_during_the_syrian_civil_war_%28October_2013%29.png
 
It seems for the most the Americans are one side of this issue and the non-Americans (with apologies to Skarekrow) are on the other side. This is the way it breaks down in every other forum I have participated in, when this topic comes up and it really does tell you something.
What it says is that the gun culture, the love of gun, the idea that guns make you safe and you need guns for protection against the government and the criminals is an American idea that has no universal applicability.
People from countries outside the USA have beliefs that are opposed to what most Americans accept as a universal truth.
 
Also go ask the people whether the Jewish resistance to the Holocaust was 'viable'.

Seriously. Some times I wonder if you people have any spirit at all.
 
sprinkles said:
Also go ask the people whether the Jewish resistance to the Holocaust was 'viable'.

Seriously. Some times I wonder if you people have any spirit at all.
Click to expand...

You're a smart guy, few would argue that armed resistance to slaughter is wrong.

Yet there is something untenable about maintaining laws that allow 90 Americans a day to die from being shot so that the citizenry can threaten the government with a weak insurrection.

What I don't see (outside of the Freedom caucus in the House of Representatives) is as much passion for ridding our political system of the corruption that is rampant in the electoral process which is fed by big money as there is for holding onto the illusion of freedom that owning a gun provides.
 
Anyway all I was really saying is that questioning the viability of resistances other people have made is kind of offensively spineless.
 
what i find spineless is people who vehemently maintain their political ignorance while playing with there pistols.
 
Stu said:
You're a smart guy, few would argue that armed resistance to slaughter is wrong.

Yet there is something untenable about maintaining laws that allow 90 Americans a day to die from being shot so that the citizenry can threaten the government with a weak insurrection.

What I don't see (outside of the Freedom caucus in the House of Representatives) is as much passion for ridding our political system of the corruption that is rampant in the electoral process which is fed by big money as there is for holding onto the illusion of freedom that owning a gun provides.
Click to expand...

It's less about the laws and more about the spirit and foundation of this country. As Lincoln said, it is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people"

I take the 2nd Amendment as a token of trust and good faith. That the government itself was willing to put in a clause for the States to protect themselves. It shows a spirit that the government had the people in mind, and that they recogngize that no authority is perfect, not even themselves.

I have a problem with getting rid of something that runs so deep. Gun control is a separate issue.
 
the said:
You just spoke about every person in this thread with one swipe of your broad brush, instead of speaking on the issue. Try again.
Click to expand...

I spoke about the thread and the discussion and decided that it was not a discussion. And as far as I can see, I'm not the person singling people out, either. I think I tried perfectly well the first time, and I am not inclined to feel sorry for myself because I'm not giving an opinion you had hoped for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top