2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest

[Xavier_Onassis]

also, at the time "well regulated" was a phrase used to described something that was accurate or worked well. Like a "well regulated metronome."

========================

[Xavier_Onassis]

also, at the time "well regulated" was a phrase used to described something that was accurate or worked well. Like a "well regulated metronome."

========================================
It sounds like you are subjecting this to your interpretation.

If a metronome is well-regulated, someone built it as such, or maintains its regularity, or both.

How is a militia going to be "well-regulated" if no one is in charge, and no regulations are provided?

And again, firearms were a necessity to most of the people at the time the Constitution was written.

Most Americans do not need to hunt game to survive, nor are wild Indians about.

I really do not care if anyone owns a gun so long as they do not use it, especially on me.

[sirs]

You mean, like someone else built the firearm, but you, the individual get to "regulate it".  You're starting to get it

[Amianthus]

It sounds like you are subjecting this to your interpretation.

Sounds like you are grasping.

Here's a couple links with more info:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I really do not care if anyone owns a gun so long as they do not use it, especially on me.

So, people can own firearms as long as they lock them up and never use them? What would be the point?

[Universe Prince]

And again, firearms were a necessity to most of the people at the time the Constitution was written.

Most Americans do not need to hunt game to survive, nor are wild Indians about.

Xavier, you're not that ignorant. You know better, or you should.

Reasons for armed self-defense still exist and easily found in the news media.

But beyond that, the authors of the Bill of Rights were not merely trying to protect the right of people to hunt game or merely to protect themselves. Put it in context. Not that many years prior to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most if not all of the people who collaborated on those documents were involved in armed rebellion against the rule of Britain over the colonies.

Anyone who actually thinks the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is about hunting game or fighting off Indian attacks is willfully ignorant.

And don't give me that, but we couldn't defend against the army now, because yeah, we could. And trust me, if (I said 'if' you right-wingers) the liberals are right that the fascists are about to take over, when the new fascist regime is in place, the liberals will find renewed interest in the right to keep and bear arms. Suddenly the "assault weapons" ban will seem as stupid to them as it does to everyone else. And not because they'll be worried about hunting game or defending against Indian attacks.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them. Locking them up would be a good idea if there are little kids around the house, so as to prevent a Darwin Effect among the gun nuts.

It is indisputable that any government of this country could be overthrown with the sort of weapons that people are allowed to have. In Iraq, everyone was armed, and Saddam was not overthrown, despite the kleptocratic and brutal nature of his government, despite the fact that Iraq is a country with many more divisions in its body politic than the US. And Iraq lacked all manner of weapons that the US government has.

Do you really think that a guy with a even a military rifle has much chance against the electronic stun weapons that the Army has, or that he is going to be able to take out a predator drone? No one is going to overthrow the US government, no matter who is in charge, with the puny weapons of NRA members. Nor will it come to a situation where US troops will be asked to fire on citizens.The citizens can be repelled with all manner of nonlethal weapons, and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.

But continue to play with your damn guns. Just don't shoot in my direction, ok?

[Plane]

..........and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.

No.

Their oath is to protect the Constitution.

[Plane]

I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them. Locking them up would be a good idea if there are little kids around the house, so as to prevent a Darwin Effect among the gun nuts.

Thank you , it is nice that you are worried about us being diminished by our own idiocy.

How can we return the favor?

What can we gun nuts do to protect the willingly and willfully helpless against attacks that might produce a Darwin effect amoungst them?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I realize that the Marines are supposed to uphold the Constitution, but if ordered to attack riotous armed civilians with weapons they are told are non-lethal, I somehow do not trust that this would be entirely the case.

The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group. And I do not give either group, or the NRA for that matter, much chance against trained US military. Only if the military could be induced to JOIN the rebellious types could this be even modestly successful, and I don't think modestly would be enough.

Explain to me how the NRA could overthrow the govt. I doubt seriously that this could happen. In any serious conflict, legal firearms are toys these days. This was obvious in Iraq, where no one overthrew Saddam and nearly everyone was armed.And there are few people more willing to become martyrs than Shiite Muslims. You don't catch Americans beating their backs with knoves to show their devotion to anything, not even their Taryleton Filters, their Mountain Dew, Jesus, or even their Harleys.

[Plane]

I realize that the Marines are supposed to uphold the Constitution, but if ordered to attack riotous armed civilians with weapons they are told are non-lethal, I somehow do not trust that this would be entirely the case.

The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group. ................

Hahahahahaha

    If our military were entirely loyal to the government or a single governing person you would be quite right there would be no hope for any insurrection no matter how justified.

     Of the last three decades who was leading the big riots? Just askin.


During the Clinton administration there was a questioaire passed around amoung some Marines asking them how willing they would be to fire on fellow citizens , the outraged Marines refused to answer the poll .


    The Chineese Government had this problem in the Tienanmin massacre , the first load of soldiers refused to shoot , so they were replaced with soldiers from the hinterlands who were more loyal to the government than the people.


Consider Kent State where three decades ago there were four fatalitys that we still sing about. In China the casualtys were very much not counted and if a Chineese citizen were singing of them the government might sell his kidneys to an American.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They didn't have to call in any troops from the hinterlands to get troops that would fire on citizens at Kent State, did they?

Again. the point is that the government of the US, cannot be overthrown with the sort of weapons that citizens are allowed to have. So the argument that Americans need weapons to defend themselves from bad government is of no value.

Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.
Play with your stupid guns all you like, but the fact is that this is not a debate about guardians of democracy, it is a debate about macho macho men and the knowledge that their big swinging dicks are insufficient to win them respect.

So they buy Hummers and guns and even if they have teensy pencil dicks they can swagger around like they had bowling balls in their scroti.

[sirs]

In Iraq, everyone was armed, and Saddam was not overthrown, despite the kleptocratic and brutal nature of his government, despite the fact that Iraq is a country with many more divisions in its body politic than the US. And Iraq lacked all manner of weapons that the US government has.

Care to provide the evidence to that claim?  Your say so, just isn't going to cut it.  Not Saddam's Republican Guard, not Saddam's military, not Saddam's Government, but "everyone".  We await your proof

But continue to play with your damn guns. Just don't shoot in my direction, ok?

You don't "play" with Guns, and as long as you don't threaten me or my family, you have prescious little to worry about, from responsible gun owners

[Universe Prince]

Do you really think that a guy with a even a military rifle has much chance against the electronic stun weapons that the Army has, or that he is going to be able to take out a predator drone? No one is going to overthrow the US government, no matter who is in charge, with the puny weapons of NRA members. Nor will it come to a situation where US troops will be asked to fire on citizens.The citizens can be repelled with all manner of nonlethal weapons, and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.

You underestimate the ingenuity of people. You also apparently missed the point about not banning weapons. You think too small.

[Universe Prince]

Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.

Observe: The U.S. isn't Iraq.

[Plane]

Again. the point is that the government of the US, cannot be overthrown with the sort of weapons that citizens are allowed to have. So the argument that Americans need weapons to defend themselves from bad government is of no value.

Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.
Play with your stupid guns all you like, but the fact is that this is not a debate about guardians of democracy, it is a debate about macho macho men and the knowledge that their big swinging dicks are insufficient to win them respect.

That is a good point .

The second admendment doesn't say that the right to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed . I would have a lot of fun with a recoilless rifle , perhaps a surplus howitzer 105mm.

The NRA has  a long way to go yet, very few private owners have anything over a half inch bore.