I've Never Heard A Better 2nd Amendment Argument

[Gravdigr]

And here it is.

This is all I will say on the subject, you good folks can argue amongst yourselves all you like. I ain't changing your mind, and you ain't about to change mine.

[DanaC]

That's right. Defend yourself from a theoretically possible future assault by your government at the cost of an actual and current slowly unfolding massacre on your streets and in your schools.

[Happy Monkey]

The protestors weren't armed, and they won.

And now, a bunch of armed men took over the Crimean parliament and put up a Russian flag.

Which group is the 2nd amendment argument?

[Undertoad]

Except it's not an actual massacre, we just say it's one for the emotional plea.

Here's my counter-argument:

Iraq is lousy with AK-47s. For some reason this did not make them free.

[sexobon]

But then no one is saying that guns will make everyone free, just that they can give people a fighting chance to protect their freedom should they wish to keep it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Websites can make people rich. Mark Zuckerberg's website made a lot of money. Undertoad is lousy with website. For some reason this did not make him rich. There is an actual and current slowly unfolding crime wave on the internet comprised of websites for terrorists, drug traffickers, child pornographers and more extracting a cost on our streets and in our schools. Undertoad should not be entitled to have a website. Only Mark Zuckerberg should have a website.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

... Websites can make people rich. Mark Zuckerberg's website made a lot of money. Undertoad is lousy with website. For some reason this did not make him rich. ...

You should probably rewrite the logic for that second paragraph.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by sexobon

But then no one is saying that guns will make everyone free, just that they can give people a fighting chance to protect their freedom should they wish to keep it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
...

Killing another human being does not set you free.

[Spexxvet]

How do we curb all the wrongful gun deaths, without limiting guns?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How do we curb all the wrongful gun deaths, without limiting guns?

Is there many after you deduct the ones that just needed killin'?

[footfootfoot]

The idea that citizens, armed with the type of weapons that citizens can afford and buy, could in any way defend themselves against the military and its very special weapons is fantastic.

The 2nd amendment was written in another time and world.

Now that I've posted my opinion on Grav's article I'll go read it.

hahhahahha

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

The idea that citizens, armed with the type of weapons that citizens can afford and buy, could in any way defend themselves against the military and its very special weapons is fantastic.

The 2nd amendment was written in another time and world. ...

@piedpiedpied,

Well, the Afghanis must have some fantastic ideas since their culture has transcended invasions by the world's two major superpowers. You see, those who know unconventional warfare [UW], how it works and how it can be successful for those with patience also know that there is a minimum threshold of initial capability needed to give an insurgency a chance against all but the weakest of governments. That threshold is the private ownership of individual firearms and hasn't changed since the 2nd amendment was written. Those who have "been there, done that" recognize it while the been nowhere, done nothings can't. The majority of people fall into the latter category. That's why it takes a 2/3 vote in Congress rather than a simple majority to change it.

Conventional militaries do not fare well over the long haul against those using UW tactics ... not the Russians' ... not ours. That's why there are specialists in this area. For the US, it's Special Forces. They know how to develop an insurgency to overthrow a government even if you don't. That ability also makes them best qualified to conduct counterinsurgencies as seen in the heavy reliance on them in Afghanistan. The nature of the UW beast is; however, that even our best solution, human or technological, is still not the definitive solution to an insurgency ... not foreign ... not domestic.

None of the above matters to those with defeatist attitudes and those who would rather just go with the flow as long as they themselves remain minimally comfortable. There are; however, still those of us who don't want to live in France.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Killing another human being does not set you free.

Of course it can, it's just not the preferred method.

[IamSam]

^

And in the spirit of the above, Colorado is contemplating issuing licenses to shoot down drones. Not only is it our patriotic duty to fight against the coming surveillance society, it is a quick way to earn a few extra bucks for more ammo with a proposed bounty of $100/drone. From the Huffington Post:

~snip~

...One resident of the small Colorado town of Deer Trail is hopeful that his drone hunting ordinance will pass, so much so that he's already holding target practice.

Phil Steel, an anti-surveillance activist and the author of the town's drone hunting ordinance, told KDVR that he hosted the first drone hunting practice demonstration over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

"If it is flying under a thousand-foot ceiling, then it is trespassing and the ordinance declares the supremacy and sovereignty of the airspace above Deer Trail, Colorado," Steel said to KDVR.

According to Steel's rules on his Droneshooters website, the drone hunters were limited to 12 gauge or smaller shotguns with barrel lengths of 18 inches or greater.

Steel didn't fire at any actual drones during his target practice. Instead, he launched dozens of Estes model rockets to mimic the drone hunting experience.

Under the proposed ordinance, if a drone were flying less than 1,000 feet above private property and during daylight hours it could be targeted by a shooter in Deer Trail. Should the shooter down a government drone, a $100 bounty would be granted.

Steel also created symbolic drone hunting licenses to "hunt and kill drones operating within the sovereign airspace of the town of Deer Trail." The licenses do not legally grant the holders any actual rights to shoot down drones in Deer Trail airspace, yet the licenses were still popular with nearly 1,000 people sending in the $25 fee in for the license, generating $19,006 for the town in September.

"I want to take a stand against the coming surveillance society that seems to be rushing in on us," Steel told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" earlier in the year.

~snip~

I'm getting my drone license framed and hanging it on the wall in my living room right next to the gun rack with my 12 guage.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by sexobon

@piedpiedpied,

Well, the Afghanis must have some fantastic ideas since their culture has transcended invasions by the world's two major superpowers. You see, those who know unconventional warfare [UW], how it works and how it can be successful for those with patience also know that there is a minimum threshold of initial capability needed to give an insurgency a chance against all but the weakest of governments. That threshold is the private ownership of individual firearms and hasn't changed since the 2nd amendment was written. Those who have "been there, done that" recognize it while the been nowhere, done nothings can't. The majority of people fall into the latter category. That's why it takes a 2/3 vote in Congress rather than a simple majority to change it.

Conventional militaries do not fare well over the long haul against those using UW tactics ... not the Russians' ... not ours. That's why there are specialists in this area. For the US, it's Special Forces. They know how to develop an insurgency to overthrow a government even if you don't. That ability also makes them best qualified to conduct counterinsurgencies as seen in the heavy reliance on them in Afghanistan. The nature of the UW beast is; however, that even our best solution, human or technological, is still not the definitive solution to an insurgency ... not foreign ... not domestic.

None of the above matters to those with defeatist attitudes and those who would rather just go with the flow as long as they themselves remain minimally comfortable. There are; however, still those of us who don't want to live in France.



Of course it can, it's just not the preferred method.

This is why the second amendment doesn't go far enough as far as creating a level playing field for an overthrow of a tyrannical gov't. Let's hope when the day comes that at least some of the special forces guys will want to fight on the side of the freedom fighters and not on the side of the tyrannical gov't.

I can't imagine very many Americans who'd be willing to live like an Afghani for some moral code. I bet we'd see a fair number of Rosetta Stone learn French CDs fly off the shelves first.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

... Let's hope when the day comes that at least some of the special forces guys will want to fight on the side of the freedom fighters and not on the side of the tyrannical gov't. ...

My experience is that it will be the vast majority of them with only a few novices and a few burnouts close to retirement who might prioritize following orders over supporting and defending the Constitution. The SF motto "De Oppresso Liber" (Liberation of the Oppressed) is a lifestyle.

[footfootfoot]

Crap. It's blocked at my school. Weapons sites, etc. I'm sure there's a FIRST amendment issue here since the school is public and blocking certain sites is essentially censorship AND there is no evidence that the site promotes violence, etc etc