GreenMan0352 wrote: Acronym Esq wrote:
CZp10 wrote:Yikes, so far 24% say they literally want the second amendment removed from the constitution. I can understand people wanting to review the restrictions put on it or not put on it, but removing it completely?
OK, I'll take a stab. If I can't argue against myself, I don't have a very good grip on the argument. Here we go.
The Constitution formed a more realistic and powerful federal government, but since it followed war and failure, it was still crippled and pennyless. ... The 2nd Amendment wasn't an idealistic constitutional escape clause. The 2nd Amendment put "the people" on notice that "the people" are expected to serve in the Militia.
200+ years. Our country is a success. We figured out how to fund, train, and maintain the most powerful standing military on the planet. Our enemies are no longer inside our borders. Our paid, trained, and equipped fighting men can deploy anywhere quickly. We don't need teenage rednecks who trained on their farm hunting rabits to bring their 10/22 to the courthouse and stop the marauding Indians. Civilian equipment and training lags 75 years behind our military capability and needs. If you want to prepare for military service, learn to code, not field strip your semi-automatic rifle.
The question at hand has nothing to do with hunting or protecting your family. It asks if civilian firearm ownership still supports the country's needs of a well regulated militia. The US doesn't need a pop-up army of farmers any more, therefore the 2nd amendment is outdated.
acronym 10/12/2017 12:39 PM
So your saying the opposing forces you mentioned are the only forces we have to fear that would keep a state from being "free"? No other government or country has ever disarmed its people and then pushed its agenda onto them?
We have no reason to fear our government. Ultimately, it asserts it's agenda and power through the will of the majority. Our civilized political debate is a check on the government. Media looking for scandal is a check on the government. Prosecutors making a name is a check on the government. Politicians who desire to be elected is a check on the government. If there is true injustice, we must exercise these methods and protect ourselves. The only reason we would need guns to defend ourselves from the government is if we are an oppressed minority. There are plenty of words for oppressed minorities rising up: terrorist, radical, traitor. I personally don't want an armed minority rising up and imposing it's will on all of us.
To argue that guns are needed to keep the government successful is folly. I can choose almost any other successful country in the world - none of them allow their citizens to be armed. North Korea? Nuclear state. China? Global manufacturing power house. UK? Australia? France? Spain? I don't know what they are good at, but they don't have an armed population either.
CZp10 wrote:What about the part that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? When does it stop being our right? What about all the Antifa people spreading hate? Should they lose their freedom of speech? Where exactly do we draw this line of what is and isn't outdated?
Oooo, I'm not arguing against the first amendment. Or the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th. They are all important parts of our democracy. It is only the need to have an armed population that has been usurped by media, twitface, police, swat, national guard, and the Navy (best of all branches).
We are currently watching the consequences of bearing arms while exercising our right to speech: violence. I should also remind us all that St. Ronald Regan participated in broad gun control in California as organized speakers armed themselves.
CZp10 wrote:I do not see how anyone could honestly say they believe the 2nd amendment is outdated without saying all our amendments are outdated.
Quite the contrary. The remaining rights in the constitution and it's amendments are critical to establishing the reason the 2nd is out dated. Without them, we would need to negotiate at gunpoint.
CZp10 wrote:Just because we don't have the same threats as you mentioned doesn't mean we don't have a government that would love to make us its slaves. Just look at how around Houston as well as many other cities/states conservative Pastors were/are being censored.
I haven't heard about censoring pastors unless you are referring to Houston's request for transcripts and notes in the context of discovery in a civil case. If I recall, the public outcry caused the city to revise it's discovery requests. No constitutional crisis. No guns. Just citizens applying pressure to their elected officials.
acronym 10/14/2017 10:43 AM