Yamaha Starbike Forum banner

1 - 20 of 150 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
"I will also fight any tyrannical government..."

That's the core reason for the 2nd amendment. An armed populace is the only protection from a tyrannical government.
You would last less than a minute if you decided to get into a confrontation with the government.
People think they will hold them off or something. Against a hundred armed troops with FA large caliber weapons?
Laughable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
You would last less than a minute if you decided to get into a confrontation with the government.
People think they will hold them off or something. Against a hundred armed troops with FA large caliber weapons?
Laughable.
I'm glad our forefathers didn't have that attitude back in 1775.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,387 Posts
There's a weird paradox in the constitution and bill of rights

on the one hand the USA was one of the first democracy's, where the people have full control to elect their own government and make their own laws

on the other hand, citizens are encouraged to arm themselves to be protected against a tyrannical form of government.. ?!

Its like, the people who wrote the 2nd amendment never read the constitution.

So... we elect our own government, and then if we don't like what its doing we all show up in Washington with our pistols and rifles and bowie knives and start spilling blood?!

Its almost like a comedy routine. I understand this was all highly experimental 240 years ago, and the people that started this giant social experiment had just broken free from a monarchy that was based on a religious justification, a sort of rule of god through a divinely appointed king. And then 1776, we decide to make our own laws, our own government, but just in case, everyone keep up your skill level with your personal weapons.

Its like the Wright brothers inventing the first airplane and thinking, "you know, if this does not work out, we need some mattresses or pillows on the ground.. or maybe we should fly it over a lake the first few years

and here we are 240 years later, and they are still handing out parachutes when you get on a $2B jet plane.

I feel like I should add, things really did all go to hell in 1861, when some American citizens believed they were being abused by the majority, took up arms, and did attack the federal government, and that went on for 4 years. So what good did it do for all those Americans in the southern states to keep their own arms, rise up against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government that was trying to end their way of life? Result was 620,000 dead, with millions more injured, entire cities laid waste, and the people of the southern states ended up worse than when it started.

So what does that mean? They were allowed to keep and bear arms, but entire states were not allowed to say "no, we want to elect our own government, we don't want any part with the northern states... Ok.. so they took up their arms

and the federal government responded with a full out war for 4 years against half the people in its own nation.

If it really does come down to the reality that self government only works as long as everyone keeps their weapons of war handy, so that at any given time for any reason at all, we have the right to start shooting each other

then we have accomplished nothing in the last 240 years. I'm not sure we can technically call such a living arrangement a civilization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,309 Posts
You would last less than a minute if you decided to get into a confrontation with the government.
People think they will hold them off or something. Against a hundred armed troops with FA large caliber weapons?
Laughable.
if troops were ordered to fire on their own country's citizens, would they? i have to believe they would need a pretty good reason to obey that order, i doubt they would blindly just follow it, they might even splinter in a revolution. it be about the reasons it started, troops have have families too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
First off the second amendment isn't an absolute, it can be repealed just like the 18th amendment was by the ratification of the 21st. Secondly, US troops are far better equipped than any private militia and certainly are far better trained and yes, US troops will fire on citizens... they merely have to be labelled 'terrorists', 'traitors' or 'dissidents'. Thirdly, this is no longer the age of telegraphs and physical means of monetary exchange in the USA, everything is digital and people and organizations can easily be crippled without having to fire a single shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
First off the second amendment isn't an absolute, it can be repealed just like the 18th amendment was by the ratification of the 21st. Secondly, US troops are far better equipped than any private militia and certainly are far better trained and yes, US troops will fire on citizens... they merely have to be labelled 'terrorists', 'traitors' or 'dissidents'. Thirdly, this is no longer the age of telegraphs and physical means of monetary exchange in the USA, everything is digital and people and organizations can easily be crippled without having to fire a single shot.
You say this like you would be willing to allow it to happen. I sir, will not. My individual involvement in a rebellion (if need be) may not amount to much, but I will stand up for what I believe in. All of the effort and victory in WW2 is for nothing if we allow our government to treat us as Hitler did Germany. As a matter of fact, I believe the soldiers and citizens from that era would be ashamed of the current state that, we the people, have allowed this country to slip into. I am ashamed that apparently the fighting spirit of this country's citizens has fallen so badly in less than a century. Political correctness has crippled this country. Heaven forbid you offend somebody. The liberals will always throw a tantrum about something, guns are just the target for now. They are literally saying " I don't like your guns, so you can't have them." What gall! That kind of behavior is seen in toddlers, it shouldn't be in adults. The solution is simple, if you don't like guns, don't buy one. But do not dare to try to take mine from me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
He's right. The second amendment isn't absolute and should have certain limitations to what private owners can posess.
You can't go into a movie theater and yell "fire" and say its your 1st amendment right. It's a limitation.
People do not need ar15s, ak47s, beta mags, drums, other types of military surplus firearms and extended capacity magazines.
You can't claim they are for hunting, sporting or home protection. Those types of weapons are designed to kill a lot of people quickly period.
You need home protection, get a handgun and make it a revolver made out of steel. Not plastic like what all the manufacturers are doing these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
As far as guns go without trying to get too political. I own guns and love guns. I would never give up my guns without a fight. But I do think we need gun reform in the form of better/more rigorous background checks. I support the ban on bump stocks unless you have an even more rigorous check and get a license like you have to for automatic weapons. "Assualt weapons" are just regular rifles with some back plastic. They are semi-auto just like pistols are. If you ban them, you get more crime period. Felons can't buy guns, but I am sure you can pull up your county law log and see at least one felon that was arrested on a gun charge. Criminals will still get guns and citizens will be unable to stop them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
You would last less than a minute if you decided to get into a confrontation with the government.
People think they will hold them off or something. Against a hundred armed troops with FA large caliber weapons?
Laughable.
That's not the plan. It's not a matter of standing off the government from inside my little garage. It's a matter of the government knowing the populace is armed and watching and that there will be resistance when they go too far.

Hopefully, there will be a large percentage of those armed troops who will refuse to shoot down their countrymen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
"My individual involvement in a rebellion (if need be) may not amount to much, but I will stand up for what I believe in."

Right on, bb.

BTW, back in the day, defeating the British was the longest of long shots. Few thought it possible. Most thought it laughable. Most thought the cost could never be worth the benefits. A few good men thought otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
"You can't claim they are for hunting, sporting or home protection. Those types of weapons are designed to kill a lot of people quickly period."

Correct. The second amendment isn't for hunting.
Correct. Everything the military has is designed to kill quickly and effectively. Everyone else is very, very limited as to what they can possess. I don't want to see any further restrictions on my rights.

I'm not sure we need any new legislation at all. It would be nice to see those in the FBI and Florida police and sherriffs deptarments who failed to do their duty get cashiered, maybe even have some civil litigation brought on them by the victim's survivors. That would go MUCH farther than any new law which wouldn't be enforced anyway, as we see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,387 Posts
Inscription on the Jefferson Memorial in DC, Southeast Portico:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-Excerpted from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

From Jefferson's perspective, he was never so arrogant as to believe that they could set down the constitution for the nation in such a way that it should never be changed for all future generations.

It was intentionally created with a means to be modified as each generation see's fit. Each generation faces its own problems, its own threats, and we have the duty to address them to the best of our abilities.

The founding fathers were just that, the founders. They were not gods destined to define scared laws or rules for our nation forever. That is our responsibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
"Its like, the people who wrote the 2nd amendment never read the constitution."

KCW,
I know that's hyperbolic since we both know it was the same people. They knew history much better than we do. They knew that history shows us over and over that men and governments are all corruptible and they all go bad eventually. They were living it. They stated their case in the Declaration of Independence "... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ... "

As we know they weren't stupid, they knew some level of force would be required. They added a protection in the constitution to make sure their progeny would have the tools to fight the next battle which they knew was inevitable. The second amendment isn't there so we can duck hunt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
"It was intentionally created with a means to be modified as each generation see's fit. Each generation faces its own problems, its own threats, and we have the duty to address them to the best of our abilities."

Tru dat. We do. We are. We've done that relatively successfully for a long time and we should be able to continue to do that for a long time. The civil war is the exception that proves the rule. 153 years later we are still here.

As a second amendment advocate, I say that claiming the same right they did in 1776 to abolish and reinstitute a government that has become destructive of our rights isn't the same as saying it is time to do it. But I'm not into unilateral disarmament, either. I think it is a good thing for our government to fear us a little. Or more than a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
"First off the second amendment isn't an absolute, it can be repealed just like the 18th amendment was by the ratification of the 21st."

True enough. The only real protection we have is to make sure the population is an educated and right thinking one. If not, self rule will pull the laws whichever way the political winds blow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Don't even bring up the british confrontation. Can't even compare it.
First off, they all had muskets.
They did not have FA weapons.
I love it when armchair patriots say "our founding fathers wrote it to allow it".
Bottom line is there is no need for any types of ARs, AKs or SKS types of weapons. They serve no purpose of any sorts other than putting up a wall of lead.
So you own those types of guns. What happens when they get stolen and serious crimes are committed. How will that affect you and victims?
I am not worried though. These weapons are on borrowed time. The newest tatooed and man bunned generation will make sure these weapons are banned completely.
All its going to take is another massacre or two and then you will see some radical changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
In case our liberal friends have forgotten, here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Argue the meaning all you like, but there it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
In my opinion guns are not the problem therefore making a gun illegal or a particular type of gun illegal is not the answer. If the laws we had now were enforced most of the people who use them to harm people would have never had them in the first place. Making drugs illegal has done nothing to fix our nations drug problem is a good example. The first murder happened in Genesis chapter 4 when Cain killed Able. In that story we see where Cain had a sin in his heart, the sin of jealousy. God told him that he had a choice, to do what was right by making the correct sacrifice or to do nothing. Then he warned Cain that if he did nothing that sin was as the door waiting to have "DOMINION" or control over him. Cain choose to do nothing and the sin he did not deal with led to him killing his brother with a rock. I feel sure he would have used a gun if he had one. He used a rock to kill but the rock did not kill. He used it because it was there. People kill not guns. We have all heard that before. If guns are not available then they will use something else. People are driving into crowds of people to kill and we are not trying to outlaw cars. Boston Marathon bomber used a Pressure Cooker what about them. The problem is in the heart not the weapon and only God can change the heart.
We have taken God out of many aspects of our society so what do we expect to happen? Do we need to make it harder for some people like those with mental illness or those who are one certain medication to get a gun? Probably so but maybe if we as a society worked on fixing the problem (heart) instead of the symptoms of the problem (killing) then we would have less killings.
 
1 - 20 of 150 Posts
Top