• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An armed citizenry will protect us.

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Said this morning by Judge Napolitano on Fox.

That says it all. Another gun-free zone. Courageous and efficient law enforcement officers. Arrived too late. Of COURSE they did! That's why we call them "law enforcement" and not "armed guards."

I am beginning to think that the left constantly hammering on guns and the need to control them even more is unAmerican. Sinister even.

We are NEVER EVER going to keep guns away from bad guys who want guns.

So what option does that really leave to protect the citizenry? Seems obvious to me.
 
Joe Steel said:
Random and profile searches. We have to increase surveillance and the police have to stop the obvious threats.
Click to expand...

More power to "the state" and less to "the people." Guess it depends on who we need protection FROM. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
Said this morning by Judge Napolitano on Fox.

That says it all. Another gun-free zone. Courageous and efficient law enforcement officers. Arrived too late. Of COURSE they did! That's why we call them "law enforcement" and not "armed guards."

I am beginning to think that the left constantly hammering on guns and the need to control them even more is unAmerican. Sinister even.

We are NEVER EVER going to keep guns away from bad guys who want guns.

So what option does that really leave to protect the citizenry? Seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

It seems to me leftist ideology often is sinister.
 
MaggieD said:
So what option does that really leave to protect the citizenry? Seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

That is because it is obvious. An unarmed society is still not protected by the police from those who will obtain guns anyway, we have no choice but to fall back to our Constitutional protections. The 2nd Amendment stands.
 
Joe Steel said:
Random and profile searches. Increased surveillance. An active police force focused stopping the obvious threats.
Click to expand...

So, we just wad up the Constitution and score two points in the waste basket? :roll:
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is because it is obvious. An unarmed society is still not protected by the police from those who will obtain guns anyway, we have no choice but to fall back to our Constitutional protections. The 2nd Amendment stands.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And very well put.
 
countryboy said:
It seems to me leftist ideology often is sinister.
Click to expand...

I can be, but honestly the case usually boils down to lazy liberalism. "Doing something" about this matter boils down to my tag line, going after those who have not broken the law in the hope that those that want to will stay home. We know it does not work that way and odds are the response from Government is to take away rights from those who have no intention to break our laws.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is because it is obvious. An unarmed society is still not protected by the police from those who will obtain guns anyway, we have no choice but to fall back to our Constitutional protections. The 2nd Amendment stands.
Click to expand...

If we mean to use it, we have to ensure the members of the militia are well-regulated. We can't just allow guns to anyone who wants one.
 
Joe Steel said:
If we mean to use it, we have to ensure the members of the militia are well-regulated. We can't just allow guns to anyone who wants one.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court disagrees, consistently, with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I can be, but honestly the case usually boils down to lazy liberalism. "Doing something" about this matter boils down to my tag line, going after those who have not broken the law in the hope that those that want to will stay home. We know it does not work that way and odds are the response from Government is to take away rights from those who have no intention to break our laws.
Click to expand...

I used to believe that too. But I truly sense an inherent evil in leftist ideologues. There's no way they can all be lazy and unaware of the real harm their ideas literally do to people. I mean, just listen to some of the utterly ridiculous and callous comments made by leftists right here on DP. I just have to shake my head sometimes.
smiley-sad006.gif
 
Joe Steel said:
No. The Constitution, properly understood, is not a barrier to domestic tranquility.
Click to expand...

"Properly understood". :roll:

The Constitution expressly protects us against what you are suggesting.
 
MaggieD said:
Said this morning by Judge Napolitano on Fox.

That says it all. Another gun-free zone. Courageous and efficient law enforcement officers. Arrived too late. Of COURSE they did! That's why we call them "law enforcement" and not "armed guards."

I am beginning to think that the left constantly hammering on guns and the need to control them even more is unAmerican. Sinister even.

We are NEVER EVER going to keep guns away from bad guys who want guns.

So what option does that really leave to protect the citizenry? Seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Bad guys, gangsters tend to throw their guns away a lot. They can't keep the evidence on them. They need new guns all the time.

They, however, don't actually tend to be the ones who do all the killing.

It's the nuts who do the killing.

They can only do that because it's so easy to get guns in the US. Nuts will chnage their mind in a couple of hours. The can't get hold of guns when they are nuts.
 
Listen to Jim Jeffries. ( google Jim Jeffries guns. I dont think that I can post the clips here ) And the second amendment is outdated. And nothing special. Before WW2 most nations had militias. But we all realized that its actually insane to allow public militias.
 
Last edited:
Look, unless you change the constitution, you have a right to bear arms. That means you have a right to own and purchase guns.

Personally I grew up in the rural South in a family that fished all Summer and hunted from Fall to Spring. We had a house full of guns. Hell in deer season if you wanted to get something out of the deep freeze you probably would have had to pick up and move the .270 and 7mm mag off the lid. I have owned guns my whole life.

That all said it is frankly just absurd to argue that we are safer in this country because we have so many guns. There is a reason why we have the highest murder rate of any modern developed nation on earth and that is because we have 4% of the world's population and over 40% of the world's privately owned guns. There is a cost to many freedoms. For example, we have freedom of speech. One of the costs to society that we endure because of that freedom is putting up with people like the Fred Phelps bunch and the Klan. Similarly, we have the right to bear arms. One of the costs to society of that right is that we have a much higher murder rate than we other wise would. Now sure, if you are determined to kill someone, you will attempt it regardless of whether you have a gun or not. However, guns make it exponentially easier to do so. There is a reason why when we went hunting we did not use rocks, or knives, or homemade weapons. We used guns because its a much more efficient tool for killing.

I know there are a lot of people on the left that think we need to do something about all these guns in society. Well it aint going to happen. We are a nation that is full of guns. We are a nation where you have a right to own and purchase guns. That is the way it is. The notion that you could disarm this country of hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms is as stupid as the notion that you could someone round up 10 million plus illegals and deport every one of them. Its a fantasy. If you don't like living in a country that is full of guns, then you picked the wrong place to live and as long as we have a country that is full of guns, I am sure as hell going to own one too.
 
MaggieD said:
Said this morning by Judge Napolitano on Fox.

That says it all. Another gun-free zone. Courageous and efficient law enforcement officers. Arrived too late. Of COURSE they did! That's why we call them "law enforcement" and not "armed guards."

I am beginning to think that the left constantly hammering on guns and the need to control them even more is unAmerican. Sinister even.

We are NEVER EVER going to keep guns away from bad guys who want guns.

So what option does that really leave to protect the citizenry? Seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

So many examples where strict gun laws did not prevent mass shootings. But is an armed citizenry the answer? How do we know that the armed will react in a calm and rational manner when confronted with chaos? My guess is that the first reaction will be to protect oneself and shoot randomly at everyone who comes near.
Don't get me wrong. If I were in a situation such as the ones we witnessed this week alone, I would hope to have the means to protect myself and those around me. But, never having been in a situation like that, how do I know what I would do? Does anyone? I don't think there is anyone right answer.
 
countryboy said:
I used to believe that too. But I truly sense an inherent evil in leftist ideologues. There's no way they can all be lazy and unaware of the real harm their ideas literally do to people. I mean, just listen to some of the utterly ridiculous and callous comments made by leftists right here on DP. I just have to shake my head sometimes.
smiley-sad006.gif
Click to expand...

Not quite the definition I was going for, but I get your point.

What I mean by "lazy liberalism" is proposing a solution that sounds good, i.e. "feel good" legislation, that does not really address the issue. That is not necessarily sinister or evil, just a realization that the gun control debate has placed people into two distinct political categories (for lack of a better way to put it.) Those that believe we should keep the 2nd Amendment, and those that believe we should continue to chip away at it (or outright ignore / remove it.) Ideology as then taken over this debate to a point where there is plenty of avenue for "ridiculous and callous comments."

It is bound to get worse with each passing mass shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom