Stand up against the Government!

cannabis said:
i believe you're incorrect. look how long koresh held out against the government. that was just a dozen or so people.

it is dangerous to claim that we can get rid of the second simply because the government has better arms than we do and that we can simply reinstate it if the need arises or if the people are as armed as the government. if you take all the gun owners in the US, i truly believe the government would be hard pressed to defeat them if they united by only a small amount of gun owners.

i also disagree with what you're saying, because it could be analogized to saying - well, the government is more equipped to stifle any speech, monitor any speech, censor any speech, thus, we no longer need the 1st amendment. thank goodness we have it, because the government has in fact tried to stifle speech and lost in court dozens of times in the past few decades. imagine if we had let the first amendment go because it was outdated...do you really think the government would reinstate it simply because, say the internet was invented?
Click to expand...

Koresh held out so long because of the children with him, not because he was so well armed. His fate was never in doubt.

Speech did not kill 20 children in Ct last week, but if it did we could have that debate. The purpose of freespeech is still ALIVE and WELL. The justification that guns would allow citizens to attack the government is not.
 
Jarod said:
Koresh held out so long because of the children with him, not because he was so well armed. His fate was never in doubt.

Speech did not kill 20 children in Ct last week, but if it did we could have that debate. The purpose of freespeech is still ALIVE and WELL. The justification that guns would allow citizens to attack the government is not.
Click to expand...

And what purpose would that be Jarod?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2012/06/12/news/local_news/doc4fd72968411ba251169759.txt



http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2667159/posts

York, PA - At least half a dozen York and York County residents carried guns to York City Council Tuesday in a show of support for the right to bring weapons to municipal meetings.

Councilwoman Toni Smith has advocated for a gun ban at the council's meetings, which have been regularly attended by at least one city resident openly carrying a firearm. Smith was told by city solicitor Don Hoyt at a meeting last month that the state prohibits such a ban, and she has not formally proposed any such measure.

At Tuesday's meeting, gun owners sat scattered across council chambers, some with holstered weapons and others with ammunition strapped to their belts. Some of the owners stepped forward to cite passages from state law and the U.S. Constitution in support of the right to bear firearms.

Andy Edmonds, a North Codorus Township resident and co-founder of the Hanover Tea Party Patriots, said passing a gun ban in spite of the law would knowingly impede the right of residents to lawfully carry a gun. That is a misdemeanor and treason, he said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2779801/posts

Armed citizens, upset by a government disarmament edict, confronted the Ruidoso, New Mexico city council Tuesday night in defiance of an executive order from the mayor banning guns on city property, KRQE reports. Yet despite what anchor Dick Knipfing describes as “powerful emotions,” dozens of armed citizens conducted themselves peaceably, controlling themselves and their anger against what activist and New Mexico Militia leader Bob Wright called the act of a “tyrant.”
Click to expand...

I did not mean "use a gun" as in use it as a prop, I ment "use a gun" as in for its intended use. To fire it.
 
Sparta said:
And what purpose would that be Jarod?
Click to expand...

There are many purposes for free speech, but to allow for political dissent is the biggest I can come up with. You are free to say bad things about the president, and I support that right fully and belive having that right is invaluable to a free nation.
 
Jarod said:
There are many purposes for free speech, but to allow for political dissent is the biggest I can come up with. You are free to say bad things about the president, and I support that right fully and belive having that right is invaluable to a free nation.
Click to expand...

Well then there is no point because the government can shut down free speech whenever it wants. It controls communication satellites, the internet, can block radio transmissions and phone calls, and obviously controls what does and doesn't go on TV. No point in free speech since the government can shut it down.
 
Sparta said:
Well then there is no point because the government can shut down free speech whenever it wants. It controls communication satellites, the internet, can block radio transmissions and phone calls, and obviously controls what does and doesn't go on TV. No point in free speech since the government can shut it down.
Click to expand...


Sure they could do that, but as long as speech is free, they would not be allowed to do that.

You are missing the point. Allowing free speech allow political dessent. Allowing citizens to possess guns, does not allow citezens to overthrow the government.
 
Jarod said:
I did not mean "use a gun" as in use it as a prop, I ment "use a gun" as in for its intended use. To fire it.
Click to expand...
so you want an instance that has never occurred because you anti gunners demand that government put down anybody that would dare stand up to the government. yeah, that's gonna work real well in answering your stupid assed request. fuck off.
 
Jarod said:
Sure they could do that, but as long as speech is free, they would not be allowed to do that.

You are missing the point. Allowing free speech allow political dessent. Allowing citizens to possess guns, does not allow citezens to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. You seem to think that because the government has certain tools, it means that the 2A is irrelevant. But when that same line of reasoning is applied to the 1A, you still support it.
 
Jarod said:
No your logic is flawed, If NO Americans had a car accident for 20 years, then I would agree Auto Insurance is outdated and of no use.
Click to expand...

Have NO Americans been oppressed by our government over the last 50 years, or were you referring to America at large?
 
Jarod said:
Sure they could do that, but as long as speech is free, they would not be allowed to do that.

You are missing the point. Allowing free speech allow political dessent. Allowing citizens to possess guns, does not allow citezens to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...
no jarod, YOU are missing the point. the government can do anything it wants when it gets enough support from the statists. the NFA was passed under the commerce clause because the government knew at that time that anything else would be violating the 2nd Amendment. It took decades of brainwashing the idiots to get prohibitive gun laws passed. Now we have constitutional free speech zones, so what do you think they could never do? also, it would not be overthrowing the government, it would be overthrowing the men who have corrupted the government.
 
Jarod said:
Koresh held out so long because of the children with him, not because he was so well armed. His fate was never in doubt.

Speech did not kill 20 children in Ct last week, but if it did we could have that debate. The purpose of freespeech is still ALIVE and WELL. The justification that guns would allow citizens to attack the government is not.
Click to expand...

and you don't think other people will have children with them? further, it was not just because of the children, there was indeed a fire fight. had koresh not been armed, they would have instantly swarmed the building.

it is not about attacking the government jarod, rather, defending against the government should it ever come to that. it is also about the right to self defense etc...

to point the massacre in CT wholly misconstrues the issue. no one, i repeat no one, is saying that we have a right to do what that whacko did. you using those poor dead children as political fodder is horrible.
 
Sparta said:
No, you're missing the point. You seem to think that because the government has certain tools, it means that the 2A is irrelevant. But when that same line of reasoning is applied to the 1A, you still support it.
Click to expand...
You say that I "seem to think that because th egovernment has certain tools, it means that the 2A is irrelevant." Thats not at all what I think, go back and read the thread again. I never said that.
 
Corinth said:
Have NO Americans been oppressed by our government over the last 50 years, or were you referring to America at large?
Click to expand...

Plenty of Americans have been oppressed by out government over the past 50 years, hoever violence has never been a successfull course of redress.
 
cannabis said:
and you don't think other people will have children with them? further, it was not just because of the children, there was indeed a fire fight. had koresh not been armed, they would have instantly swarmed the building.

it is not about attacking the government jarod, rather, defending against the government should it ever come to that. it is also about the right to self defense etc...

to point the massacre in CT wholly misconstrues the issue. no one, i repeat no one, is saying that we have a right to do what that whacko did. you using those poor dead children as political fodder is horrible.
Click to expand...

I never said you were claiming a right to do what this crazy person did. All I am saying, in this thread, is that the idea expressed by Jefferson that we need the 2A so individuals can stand up to the Government is outdated.

Self defense against non-government actors is a different issue, one with more merit when it comes to why we should keep the 2A.
 
Jarod said:
My point is that the idea that Americans should have guns to protect themselves from the Government is outdated and of no use to us in our current culture. We have already outlawed the weapons that would have the power to stand up to the Government and we have already built our military and police way past the ability of individual citizens to use weapons to stand up to that.
Click to expand...

This ignores the fact that our military was defeated in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, etc. by people armed just like our citizens are. 1 Million people in the military, 250 Million guns in the hands of 100 Million or more. They killed about 3M in Viet Nam, we lost nearly 60K soldiers and still lost.

It also ignores that many of the people in the military would be some of the people against what the government was doing.

You try to fake it in, pretend that the reality meets your ideation, but it doesn't in this case. The weapons in the hands of the citizens absolutely are a deterrent to tyranny.
 
I'm so old I remember when right-wingers though the United States Armed Forces were the finest fighting force ever assembled.
 
Damocles said:
This ignores the fact that our military was defeated in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, etc. by people armed just like our citizens are. 1 Million people in the military, 250 Million guns in the hands of 100 Million or more. They killed about 3M in Viet Nam, we lost nearly 60K soldiers and still lost.

It also ignores that many of the people in the military would be some of the people against what the government was doing.

You try to fake it in, pretend that the reality meets your ideation, but it doesn't in this case. The weapons in the hands of the citizens absolutely are a deterrent to tyranny.
Click to expand...

We were not defeated in Afganistan.

We were defeated in Viet Nam, for one reason, because we were not willing to use the full force of the power of the United States Military.

If average Americans were alowed to arm themselves with flame throwers and rpg launchers and tanks and tactical nuclear weapons, defense against an invading force might be a possability. I am not taking about a forign force invading. I am talking about defense against our own Government. Violence resistance against our own government is not realistic.

I understand you dont agree, that does not however mean that I am faking anything or pretending reality is any different than it is.
 
Jarod said:
We were not defeated in Afganistan.

We were defeated in Viet Nam, for one reason, because we were not willing to use the full force of the power of the United States Military.

If average Americans were alowed to arm themselves with flame throwers and rpg launchers and tanks and tactical nuclear weapons, defense against an invading force might be a possability. I am not taking about a forign force invading. I am talking about defense against our own Government. Violence resistance against our own government is not realistic.
Click to expand...
WHY. NOT????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top