The Second Amendment is no guarantee

[Boboclown]

Battle of Athens 1946, LA riots 1992 when Koreans protected themselves.

Whether its fighting an unjust government, or just ensuring your own security, the 2nd Amendment is there so we can keep and bear arms.

 

[E4mafia]

Battle of Athens 1946, LA riots 1992 when Koreans protected themselves.

Whether its fighting an unjust government, or just ensuring your own security, the 2nd Amendment is there so we can keep and bear arms.

God bless them roof top koreans Roof Koreans | Know Your Meme

Let us also not forget the reason our country was founded:
American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

 

[The Heretic]

The Second Amendment never was and never will be a "guarantee".

The Bill of Rights is just what it sounds like; an enumeration of our rights.

We will always have those rights - they are inherent or intrinsic to our nature as humans.

That said, any governmental body can come along and decide to take away your freedom to exercise your rights.

The "guarantee" comes from you resisting that force - first with the soap box, then the ballot box, then the cartridge box (I would stick some kind of box in for the justice system, but I can't think of what it would be that is a "box", so I will assume that comes under the soap and ballot box).

 

[U8395279]

Anyone else notice that this was posted by the same person who claimed in another thread that he has a son living in California who is blind, and who has a concealed carry permit?

I think that you guys are allowing this dude to play you with a bunch of utter nonsense.

.

 

[Mister Bisley]

The Second Amendment never was and never will be a "guarantee".

The Bill of Rights is just what it sounds like; an enumeration of our rights.

We will always have those rights - they are inherent or intrinsic to our nature as humans.

That said, any governmental body can come along and decide to take away your freedom to exercise your rights.

The "guarantee" comes from you resisting that force - first with the soap box, then the ballot box, then the cartridge box (I would stick some kind of box in for the justice system, but I can't think of what it would be that is a "box", so I will assume that comes under the soap and ballot box).

This might sound a bit harsh to some...but I always thought that if we did "soap box politics" the world would be a better place.

In soap box politics, the politicians stands in the town square, in front of his constituents...He stands on a soap box with a noose around his neck and then voices his ideas and agendas. If the people like the ideas, you remove the noose and if they don't like them, they remove the soap box.

While a bit extreme and not entirely practical...it would damn sure create utmost accountability and there would be zero "we're going to have to pass it, to find out what's in it" bills.

They sure as heck wouldn't be talking about gun confiscation.

 

[spreezeye]

Be careful how you use the second amendment to protect your rights.. The Supreme Court can nullify it in a heartbeat. Why? Consider this, and 1800 a firearm was a weapon we be careful how you use the second amendment to protect your rights.. The Supreme Court can nullify it in a heartbeat. Why? Consider this, and 1800 a firearm was a weapon fired from the arm ( not the shoulder or the hand, NRA take note ), Which fired one shot and then was reloaded from the muscle. Any enhancements after this were for machines of war. Someday someone will invent a nuclear warhead and 30 caliber and the NRA will support a right to use it. Such has been their logic
Jmlabrum

hmmm, ever seen a 1700's pistol? tainted logic? the NRA has been fairly clear, you making this stuff up?

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

s

Dang it guys, use your heads. Youv'e got to come up with better reasons to keep your guns. You are putting your heads in the sand and hiding behind the NRA and the 2nd Amendment. Haven't you just lost ground with all the mass shootings? The media is full of the of guns being responsible and yet not one talks about why the shooter hates his classmates!! I hate to say it but you are losing.

I have been branded so, again adios.

you dont have to leave .....IM A TROLL........ for the pro gun crowd .......I deliberately rub some members the wrong way and make thought provoking posts almost daily
I too thought your first post was anti gun leaning but realize your being facetious....slam the demorats will ya damn it, so we know whose side your shooting at

 

[308]

Well...he asked "Haven't you just lost ground with all the mass shootings?"

My answer is I didn't loose anything. However, if jmlubrwhatever lost something, that's his problem.

 

[SnapShot]

Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent to the Ninth Circuit's denial of review in Silveira v. Lockyer: (he served on the 9th circuit and retired in 2017 the 9th includes WA,OR,AK, ID, HI,MT, CA, NV, AZ) (this case was the formation of the opinion that was later overruled by the heller case ,in the Silveira v. Lockyer majority opinion said that the 2nd ammend. ony provided "collective" rights, which were limited to the arming of state militia.... the heller case as ruled by the Supreme court overruled that opinion, stating that it applied to individuals, never the less I think Judge Alex Kozinski says it best and lays the foundation for any arguments in the future

"But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.
Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. …As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin's atrocities, the
killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—
were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history.
The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed
—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silence
those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose
or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

 

[Caveman Jim]

Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissent to the Ninth Circuit's denial of review in Silveira v. Lockyer: (he served on the 9th circuit and retired in 2017 the 9th includes WA,OR,AK, ID, HI,MT, CA, NV, AZ) (this case was the formation of the opinion that was later overruled by the heller case ,in the Silveira v. Lockyer majority opinion said that the 2nd ammend. ony provided "collective" rights, which were limited to the arming of state militia.... the heller case as ruled by the Supreme court overruled that opinion, stating that it applied to individuals, never the less I think Judge Alex Kozinski says it best and lays the foundation for any arguments in the future

"But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.
Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. …As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin's atrocities, the
killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—
were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history.
The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed
—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silence
those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose
or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

spot on and the Proggs will always side with uncommon sense.

 

[11Charlie]

Reading threads like this really, really, really makes me wish stupidity was very painful!!!

 

[slimmer13]

Reading threads like this really, really, really makes me wish stupidity was very painful!!!

It is. For everyone else.

 

[alv7722]

Dang it guys, use your heads. Youv'e got to come up with better reasons to keep your guns. You are putting your heads in the sand and hiding behind the NRA and the 2nd Amendment. Haven't you just lost ground with all the mass shootings? The media is full of the of guns being responsible and yet not one talks about why the shooter hates his classmates!! I hate to say it but you are losing.

I have been branded so, again adios.

We don't have to come up with "reasons" to keep our guns. It is a Civil Right.

 

[Vettewine]

Be careful how you use the second amendment to protect your rights.. The Supreme Court can nullify it in a heartbeat. Why? Consider this, and 1800 a firearm was a weapon we be careful how you use the second amendment to protect your rights.. The Supreme Court can nullify it in a heartbeat. Why? Consider this, and 1800 a firearm was a weapon fired from the arm ( not the shoulder or the hand, NRA take note ), Which fired one shot and then was reloaded from the muscle. Any enhancements after this were for machines of war. Someday someone will invent a nuclear warhead and 30 caliber and the NRA will support a right to use it. Such has been their logic
Jmlabrum

Ridiculous...! There were both rifles and pistols back in the 1700s and both were considered "firearms" by definition...!

 

[Vettewine]

Just my thoughts on it. At 86, I go back a long way with NRA when they were still the American Rifleman. They lost public credibility when they supported our right to use pistol ammunition that would shoot through police armor.
Jmlabrum

I also go back a long way with the NRA and I never heard anyone at the NRA support shooting cops with any type of ammo, period...! Methinks you must have an issue or an experience with the NRA that you didn't like and need to bring out for discussion. BTW, bad guys can have armor, too...!

 

[Boboclown]

The police armor thing is a weird argument. Just about any rifle can penetrate the armor they wear since the kevlar is meant for pistol rounds. And its possible even .44 magnum could be used to penetrate said armor.

Ignorance is a common thing.

 

[Goosebrown]

ITS ALIVE!!!!

This thread voted most welcome zombie thread since forever.

Don't feed the denizens

 

[Ligito]

Oof

Oof da

 

[back4more]

 

[wired]

Opinions are like...