• 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!

Obama's response to a gun store owner's statement about the Second Amendment

Chomsky said:
Yep - those rights I so love & respect, are there to specifically protect the ability for our fellow citizens to speak & associate in ways many of us may find distasteful or wrong, as long as they do not speak or associate criminally.

The older I get, and the more I get to know it, the more I appreciate the amazing document our forefathers produced back in 1787!
Click to expand...
They were brilliant men, I can't think of another historical battle where the victors released power to their people. Yes there were issues yet unresolved but they left a framework in which to fix those loose ends. It is easy to defend that which is right, proper, or popular, the real challenge is in defending rights of those we find abhorrent and disgusting.
 
LaMidRighter said:
They were brilliant men, I can't think of another historical battle where the victors released power to their people. Yes there were issues yet unresolved but they left a framework in which to fix those loose ends. It is easy to defend that which is right, proper, or popular, the real challenge is in defending rights of those we find abhorrent and disgusting.
Click to expand...


The Constitution was far more democratic and egalitarian than many think but also more based on the institution of slavery. My good friend, Akhil Amar of Yale's law school noted that there were NO property requirements to hold office set forth in the constitution and most states did not require property qualifications to vote on ratification a radical concept which is the foundation of almost all democracy throughout the world. The concession to slavery was the electoral college where slave states got more electoral votes than they deserved: Va had less voters than Pa at that time but had more electoral votes.

and like it or not, the second amendment was about the citizenry being armed. period. not about states having militias or the federal government having any power to regulate privately owned small arms
 
LaMidRighter said:
They were brilliant men, I can't think of another historical battle where the victors released power to their people. Yes there were issues yet unresolved but they left a framework in which to fix those loose ends. It is easy to defend that which is right, proper, or popular, the real challenge is in defending rights of those we find abhorrent and disgusting.
Click to expand...
And thus it has been found, that by the grace of God & the 1A goes our debate forum! :2razz:
 
Dittohead not! said:
Plus in 1774 the colonialists had the ability to mount a successful armed revolt against the government. Today, not so much, not even with assault rifles.
Click to expand...

Whenever I hear something like this I can only smile and shake my head. Besides the points that Goshin brought up I'd like to bring to your attention the current war that we're in. The one called "The War on Terror". In it we are going against terrorists that essentially belong to no country. And we've been at this war for 15 years now. Tell me, how is this possible? If our military is so great then why are we still in this war? Those terrorists don't have all the things that our military does and yet we're STILL at it. And the funny thing here is that its not JUST our military that's involved in this WoT. Many other countries are all involved also and yet....15 years later....

Yeah....considering that, plus the points that Goshin brought up... I don't think putting down a rebellion is going to be near as easy as so many seem to think it will be. Particularly since the US already has wars on multiple fronts going on right now. Fighting a war on one front is easily handled (relatively speaking). Fighting a war on two fronts is unwise but doable. Fighting a war on 3 or more fronts is suicidal.

Frankly I actually do not mind if people continue to think the way that you do in this post. Underestimating ones enemy is always a bad thing. And I learned that in grade school via bullies. Plus, Sun Tzu was no slouch. ;)

PS: As Darth Vader would say: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.... ;) (yes, yes I went there! :mrgreen: )
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Debatable, there are subtleties and complexities involved. It's not as if the Gov can necessarily respond by unleashing Stealth Bombers or Predator Drones on the rebels, and where the military would stand on being used against civilians is a question mark.

Remember when the Soviets tried to use the military against civilian rebels, and the military refused? And the USSR fell?


All is not so cut and dried as it might seem.


And, of course, there's this:


“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Click to expand...

The citizen militia will not be called to war against the US military. If it ever got to the point where the US government were that corrupt, the citizen militia would fight side by side with the standing military.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, the bolded has been established precedent for decades, prior to the war on terror. It is a condition of release that known felons cannot associate with each other, I may not agree with it because I don't believe in permanent punishment but can see some reasoning behind it. Basically, it is the same logic as a sexual predator being prohibited from being in the company of persons who fit their predatory profile, supposed to be a preventative measure. Not equating the two by an stretch BTW.
Click to expand...

If they're felons, then they've lost rights by due process of law. If they aren't, then prohibiting them from hanging with their homies and wearing the gang's colors is contrary to the First Amendment, it seems to me. Not that we don't want to eradicate gangs, but in doing so, let's not lose our freedom.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whenever I hear something like this I can only smile and shake my head. Besides the points that Goshin brought up I'd like to bring to your attention the current war that we're in. The one called "The War on Terror". In it we are going against terrorists that essentially belong to no country. And we've been at this war for 15 years now. Tell me, how is this possible? If our military is so great then why are we still in this war? Those terrorists don't have all the things that our military does and yet we're STILL at it. And the funny thing here is that its not JUST our military that's involved in this WoT. Many other countries are all involved also and yet....15 years later....

Yeah....considering that, plus the points that Goshin brought up... I don't think putting down a rebellion is going to be near as easy as so many seem to think it will be. Particularly since the US already has wars on multiple fronts going on right now. Fighting a war on one front is easily handled (relatively speaking). Fighting a war on two fronts is unwise but doable. Fighting a war on 3 or more fronts is suicidal.

Frankly I actually do not mind if people continue to think the way that you do in this post. Underestimating ones enemy is always a bad thing. And I learned that in grade school via bullies. Plus, Sun Tzu was no slouch. ;)

PS: As Darth Vader would say: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.... ;) (yes, yes I went there! :mrgreen: )
Click to expand...

We can't even seem to mount a revolt at the ballot box and throw out the members of Congress we disapprove of. How could we possibly get a unified armed revolt against the government going?

Even if we did, the US situation would be like it is in Iraq and Syria, total chaos.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We can't even seem to mount a revolt at the ballot box and throw out the members of Congress we disapprove of. How could we possibly get a unified armed revolt against the government going?

Even if we did, the US situation would be like it is in Iraq and Syria, total chaos.
Click to expand...

The US has had a history of its citizens uniting behind something time and again when the occasion warranted it. See no reason to ignore that now. :)

As for chaos...war is always chaotic. Sad but true.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The US has had a history of its citizens uniting behind something time and again when the occasion warranted it. See no reason to ignore that now. :)

As for chaos...war is always chaotic. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

Examples?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Examples?
Click to expand...

Prohibition is a good one and even relates to guns. What eventually ended prohibition was people not only refusing to obey that law but also refusing to convict people that violated that law. Jury Nullification was used widely. Another one, though it doesn't relate to guns, 9/11. Country pulled together en masse for that. Oklahoma Bombing was another. Civil Rights Era is another. And there are many more examples.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and that taking away rights involves due process of law.

But, the war on terror, like the war on drugs, has shredded the Bill of Rights, and not just the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, these "wars" have definitely been used to keep us in fear so we won't protest so much about the violations. You're not excusing the attempted 2A violation because it's been done so much in other areas, right?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Prohibition is a good one and even relates to guns. What eventually ended prohibition was people not only refusing to obey that law but also refusing to convict people that violated that law. Jury Nullification was used widely. Another one, though it doesn't relate to guns, 9/11. Country pulled together en masse for that. Oklahoma Bombing was another. Civil Rights Era is another. And there are many more examples.
Click to expand...

OK, those are examples of enough citizens united for a common cause making positive changes. All of them were controversial in their day. None of them descended to armed revolution, fortunately for us.
 
Fishking said:
Yes, these "wars" have definitely been used to keep us in fear so we won't protest so much about the violations. You're not excusing the attempted 2A violation because it's been done so much in other areas, right?
Click to expand...

Right.

The other amendments need an entity like the NRA to watch out for them as well.
 
Fishking said:
Well, you have the ACLU for a lot of that stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. I wish they'd address the issue of asset forfeiture and of the other extra constitutional powers that have been usurped by the government of late.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, those are examples of enough citizens united for a common cause making positive changes. All of them were controversial in their day. None of them descended to armed revolution, fortunately for us.
Click to expand...

Yes, fortunately. And everyone hopes that it stays revolution free. Doesn't mean you dismiss the very possibility of it though. We HAVE had a civil war in this country after all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If they're felons, then they've lost rights by due process of law. If they aren't, then prohibiting them from hanging with their homies and wearing the gang's colors is contrary to the First Amendment, it seems to me. Not that we don't want to eradicate gangs, but in doing so, let's not lose our freedom.
Click to expand...
Correct, I for one don't believe in permanent punishment however. I think it is okay to have a temporary restriction on people released for violent offenses or gang activity, but they must be granted a relatively simple path to restoration.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes, fortunately. And everyone hopes that it stays revolution free. Doesn't mean you dismiss the very possibility of it though. We HAVE had a civil war in this country after all.
Click to expand...

There is always that possibility. In modern day America, such an armed revolt would be an unmitigated disaster.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, we do. I wish they'd address the issue of asset forfeiture and of the other extra constitutional powers that have been usurped by the government of late.
Click to expand...

do you know what area has given congress the most extra-judicial power?

some would say the FDR lap dog court's idiotic expansion of the commerce clause and that would be a good answer

but the biggest expansion of congress's power came from the 16th amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
do you know what area has given congress the most extra-judicial power?

some would say the FDR lap dog court's idiotic expansion of the commerce clause and that would be a good answer

but the biggest expansion of congress's power came from the 16th amendment
Click to expand...

You don't mess with the IRS, and that's a fact.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You don't mess with the IRS, and that's a fact.
Click to expand...

35 years ago, I read the legislative history behind the creation of the IRS and the 16th amendment. IIRC a senator from the Midwest noted that an income tax was inefficient and would require a bureaucracy while a national sales tax would be more efficient and would not. Another senator-maybe from the state of NY noted TRUE but that would not give us near as much power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom