• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
TurtleDude said:
Insurrections can be bad

so can government-just ask the 100 million or so people murdered by GOVERNMENT over the last century
Click to expand...

we're talking about the USA, not Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or China.

you do...understand the difference...yes?
 
Thunder said:
we're talking about the USA, not Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or China.

you do...understand the difference...yes?
Click to expand...

All government has a penchant for tyranny, if left unchecked it will certainly trend in that direction.
 
Ikari said:
All government has a penchant for tyranny, if left unchecked it will certainly trend in that direction.
Click to expand...

yes, and apparently some folks believe that if any more restrictions are placed upon gun-ownership in the USA, those politicians who vote for such laws, and those people who lobby & support such rules, should be killed.
 
TurtleDude said:
well trained marksmen with 338 caliber or so accurate rifles are the best weapon to use against a tyranny. You don't shoot at an M1 Abrams tank-you shoot at the scumbag politicians who ordered the tanks to attack your neighborhood
Click to expand...

who will send a predator drone to take you out.
 
Thunder said:
and yet, the 2nd refers to the well-regulated Militia, which according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, has as one of its purposes...to assist in the putting down of insurrections.


interesting huh?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, which was the basis for outlawing handguns in DC. The SCOTUS shot that one down, and didn't fire a shot.
 
Thunder said:
yes, and apparently some folks believe that if any more restrictions are placed upon gun-ownership in the USA, those politicians who vote for such laws, and those people who lobby & support such rules, should be killed.
Click to expand...

If the government errs too grievously for too long against our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to do away with that government and construct for ourselves a government which will better adhere to and protect our rights and liberties.

In short, if the government is doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear.
 
Ikari said:
If the government errs too grievously for too long against our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to do away with that government and construct for ourselves a government which will better adhere to and protect our rights and liberties.

In short, if the government is doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

and who gets to decide when they have erred too grievously?

who gets to decide when govt. actions should be opposed via non-violent means, or the assassination of Senators?
 
Thunder said:
and who gets to decide when they have erred too grievously?

who gets to decide when govt. actions should be opposed via non-violent means, or the assassination of Senators?
Click to expand...

The People aggregate. If the government acts improperly for too long, too many people will be driven to violence against it. If it can behave and keep those numbers down, it won't have to fear pissing off too many people and becoming a target.
 
Ikari said:
The People aggregate. If the government acts improperly for too long, too many people will be driven to violence against it. If it can behave and keep those numbers down, it won't have to fear pissing off too many people and becoming a target.
Click to expand...

a most excellent answer. One person declaring a rebellion is essentially the act of a lone wolf, a nutcase or an anarchist. ten million is a serious sign that the government needs to be torn down and rebuilt
 
Ikari said:
The People aggregate. If the government acts improperly for too long, too many people will be driven to violence against it. If it can behave and keep those numbers down, it won't have to fear pissing off too many people and becoming a target.
Click to expand...

so, if 10,000 Truthers decide that the time has come to take out the "true 9-11 perps", and march to Congress to assassinate leading Senators, you would support them?
 
Thunder said:
so, if 10,000 Truthers decide that the time has come to take out the "true 9-11 perps", and march to Congress to assassinate leading Senators, you would support them?
Click to expand...

is it your goal to avoid the point of this thread and divert it with such questions?

why don't you tell us YOUR position on the second amendment
 
Thunder said:
so, if 10,000 Truthers decide that the time has come to take out the "true 9-11 perps", and march to Congress to assassinate leading Senators, you would support them?
Click to expand...

If you aggregate up enough people to put forth an actual rebellion, then the government has obviously acted in a way to leave the aggregate with no other choice. Would I support any ol' revolt? No, it would depend on the how and why; which plays exactly into what I am saying. If enough people are pushed to the point in which they have no other choice than to revolt, and enough people can be garnered for a revolt; the revolt shall happen. The government should always ask itself when passing laws and enforcing them over us "Will this force the People to kill me?".

10000 truther may try, but it's not enough to actually rebel and others such as myself would say that it's not a reason for rebellion and would not join in. If the cause is just and warranted, you will see the numbers and support necessary to carry out a revolt.
 
The constitution strictly prohibits cutting off anyone's arms. Not even for the worst criminal offenses. In a few countries, there are various crimes for which arms can be cut off or indications that a child or person is a demon for which it is legal to cut off people's arms. All Americans have a constitution right to their arms in a literally strict interpretation. The constitution doesn't mention firearms or guns.

Of course, those claiming "strict interpretation" don't mean literal. They mean THEIR interpretation.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the peoples right to own firearms, banning guns would only hurt law abiding citizens because criminals won't follow the law.
 
Thunder said:
perhaps you should focus first on more peaceful & democratic ways of solving problems??

its just a thought.
Click to expand...

An out of control government does not use “peaceful & democratic ways” of violating the rights of its citizens. It sends men armed with guns, to take by those by force and violence who will not submit to the demands of government. It locks such people in prisons.

Violent crimes against the people require a violent response.
 
TurtleDude said:
is it your goal to avoid the point of this thread and divert it with such questions?

why don't you tell us YOUR position on the second amendment
Click to expand...

He already has, many times. In summary, he “fully supports the Second Amendment”, but then with the other tip of his forked tongue, he supports all manner of blatant violations against it.

3.split-tongue-forked-tongue-300x300.jpg
 
I'm pro Second Amendment, in that I think it recognizes an underlying moral principle that applies to the citizens of every nation.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
He already has, many times. In summary, he “fully supports the Second Amendment”, but then with the other tip of his forked tongue, he supports all manner of blatant violations against it.

View attachment 67120548
Click to expand...

Thunder hates the right to keep and bear arms. He has admitted that-he says NYC's idiotic licensing requirement law is proper
 
It cause me angst to read a defense of the second ammendment is in case you need to rise against the government. We as a people have the right to vote and it is our sole voice in government. In no way should violence be an answer to the qualms with the government. Assassinations are in no way helpful to a functioning government and if that is what you resort to then anarchy will have struck this nation. Civil Revolt has as much voice as violence (if not more) and leaves the government in a completely functional state.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
An out of control government does not use “peaceful & democratic ways” of violating the rights of its citizens. It sends men armed with guns, to take by those by force and violence who will not submit to the demands of government. It locks such people in prisons.

Violent crimes against the people require a violent response.
Click to expand...

People who claim guns are necessary to keep government in check are particularly dangerous people. Foolish too. Borrowing from the movie "The Aviator." The government beat Germany and Japan. Who are you thinking you and yours can stop the government with a gun?
 
TheLastIndependent said:
It cause me angst to read a defense of the second ammendment is in case you need to rise against the government. We as a people have the right to vote and it is our sole voice in government. In no way should violence be an answer to the qualms with the government. Assassinations are in no way helpful to a functioning government and if that is what you resort to then anarchy will have struck this nation. Civil Revolt has as much voice as violence (if not more) and leaves the government in a completely functional state.
Click to expand...

Every 2, 4 and 6 years Americans have an opportunity to have a non-violent revolution OR to not have a revolution. That's what elections are. On the fringe are people who if they don't get their way in the elections think they should then get their guns.
 
joko104 said:
People who claim guns are necessary to keep government in check are particularly dangerous people. Foolish too. Borrowing from the movie "The Aviator." The government beat Germany and Japan. Who are you thinking you and yours can stop the government with a gun?
Click to expand...

ask hughey long that question
 
Bob Blaylock said:
An out of control government does not use “peaceful & democratic ways” of violating the rights of its citizens. It sends men armed with guns, to take by those by force and violence who will not submit to the demands of government. It locks such people in prisons.

Violent crimes against the people require a violent response.
Click to expand...

Does it start by claiming the right to declare anyone a terrorist and lock them up without a trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom