- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
have you been reading the thread?
but of course, that's why I asked the question
have you been reading the thread?
but of course, that's why I asked the question
yes. Congress passed the Brady Bill, and folks who didn't like it put different people into power.
see? no need for mass-murder.
Did they repeal the Brady Bill?
No but the idiotic waiting period went down the toilet a it should
most background checks are completed while they're still on the phone.
Thus, military backing would be necessary in order to repeal the second. With full military support, It's not unreasonable to assume that 600 or so people could be protected from threats.
and no, we should not immediately resort to violence to address our political grievances. that is the resort of thugs & criminals.
Wouldn't military backing be necessary to repeal the second to begin with?
IF the majority of the people demanded that the 2nd amendment be repealed in its entirety, would you, Turtle, go alone with this ??So its gone from violent revolution for abolishing or violating the 2nd amendment to "rapes and pillages its own citizenry" that you'll stop with your 308?
This country would not exist if your way if thinking prevailed two centuries ago. Such cowardice may be what will ultimately doom this country.
There are plenty of modern day Tories who think the government is above all else and infallible. These people have always had a dependent mentalility since the beginning of civilized society and have always done their best to enjoy the powers that come with "being kept" by an authoritative nanny such as a king, the state, or politbureau.This country would not exist if your way if thinking prevailed two centuries ago. Such cowardice may be what will ultimately doom this country.
There are plenty of modern day Tories who think the government is above all else and infallible. These people have always had a dependent mentalility since the beginning of civilized society and have always done their best to enjoy the powers that come with "being kept" by an authoritative nanny such as a king, the state, or politbureau.
No but the idiotic waiting period went down the toilet a it should
Which disproves Thunder's point that you can simply elect new politicians to undo what was done.
its one thing to talk about immediately resorting to violence to oppose tyranny, when you live in the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, or Iran. these countries are/were police states, where political dissent was/is crushed with an iron fist.
But in the USA, Canada, Britain, France....we have the freedom & right to address political grievances loudly & peacefully, without any fear of having our rights trounced upon.
If legislation is passed in the USA that you do not like, you have MANY legal & peaceful methods to address these concerns, and change things to the way you like.
There is ZERO need to see deadly violence as the first & best way to address political grievances in the USA. Such is an attitude of an angry mob, who respects not democracy & peaceful coexistence. It is the attitude of fascists & terrorists, who first & foremost look towards violence to intimidate others into getting their way.
Its very unAmerican, and has no place in our society.
I agree with your first point completely, politicians would never risk a complete American disarmament without heavy backup. On the second point, while there may be 600 elected officials there are other targets in line as well. Even with the best technology people still find ways to get through the cracks and take opportunity shots at politicians, this is with a relatively sane populace that will not engage violence without a good reason. If, and of course this is a big if enough people felt that their last recourse was an armed attack the statistical probability of security breaches goes up incrementally. It's basically mid-level math which states the number of armed citizens with a signifigant percentage willing to engage severely stresses resources.
Obviously no one wants that but the logic and probability seems to fall with the populace.
No necessarily, no.
I understand your point, think about this further. We are talking about people who would need to have the courts and bureaucrats to enforce their will, after the first wave of losses you would see less people willing to risk and or sacrifice their lives getting shot for a tyrannical law. Also of note is the idea that these politicians would pretty much have to be sequestered in a central location to fully allocate resources and they obviously get stir crazy as evidenced at how quickly they leave Washington when session ends. I don't think most of these politicians have the stomach for a long, drawn out security detail with a terminus uncertain. To summarize, I truly don't think it would be in their best interest to test the waters.If they repealed the 2nd, I was assuming they'd be OK with the collateral damage that would be those other targets.
Ultimately, though, my point was that repealing the second would have no impact on repealing further amendments because in order to repeal the second, they'd have to have more than enough power to render it meaningless to begin with.
And of course Bob, the Tories must defend their masters else they lose their umbrella. They must demonize those looking to reign in tyranny and oppression in order to protect their special treatment, kind of like little pets of the state, they must do all they can to rabble rouse against the rights of people so that theiir masters will remain happy. These modern day Tories use words like rights where they have none, they try their best to sell disarmament under the transparently and patently false premises of public safety, they constantly contort the "social safety net" definition to fit the agenda, and they always hide behind "the people" that they so disdain.
The reason they cower so is because they know that once their masters tyranny ends, not only does their lifestyle as they have no actual use in polite and open society but they also know that they too could be called to answer for their empowerment of the tyrants and it scares them too. After all, tyrants and Tories tend to be cowards.
using violence to address political grievances, when peaceful & legal means exist, is a form of tyranny...and a form of terrorism.
killing people that you don't like, or that have views that you don't like, is murder.
its one thing to talk about immediately resorting to violence to oppose tyranny, when you live in the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, or Iran. these countries are/were police states, where political dissent was/is crushed with an iron fist.
But in the USA, Canada, Britain, France....we have the freedom & right to address political grievances loudly & peacefully, without any fear of having our rights trounced upon.
If legislation is passed in the USA that you do not like, you have MANY legal & peaceful methods to address these concerns, and change things to the way you like.
There is ZERO need to see deadly violence as the first & best way to address political grievances in the USA. Such is an attitude of an angry mob, who respects not democracy & peaceful coexistence. It is the attitude of fascists & terrorists, who first & foremost look towards violence to intimidate others into getting their way.
Its very unAmerican, and has no place in our society.
As others have pointed out, how would those repealing the amendment protect themselves from the danger imposed by the repeal?
Hmm it's unAmerican to advocate removing a tyrannical government.....
who said anything about tyranny?
the OP only talks about a future where the 2nd Amendment has been repealed. It says nothing about democracy, free speech, freedom of association, being destroyed.
and the fact is, if freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, and other democratic & peaceful means of addressing political grievances still exist, ONLY terrorists seek to change things through violence.
Let me say this again: if peaceful, legal, & influential means exist to address political grievances, only a terrorist seeks instead to use violent means to get his way.
When the government removes an unalienable (means it cannot be taken away) right then it has become a tyranny. I've already proven that freedom of expression has been destroyed by the DCMA earlier in this thread. Protesting peacefully puts you into a government database as possible terrorists which practically destroys that right. source in pdf It's nice of you to say that all of the people that fought the War of Independence are terrorists.
As for changing the government, when you have rampant computer voter fraud going on and the government enforcing a two party system it's very difficult to change the government. I point to the last 150 years of abuses heaped upon the American people by despotic government.