• 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!

would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

repeal the 2a

  • yes

    Votes: 13 9.8%
  • no

    Votes: 120 90.2%

  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
Repeal, no. It does however need some updating and clarity. I'm pretty sure in today's age we don't really need any militias.
 
Sky Chief:

Your last line still tramples on the First Ammendment. It is however nice to see that you're now impeaching politicians and firing those politicians who utter the unspeakable rather than hanging them.

Now your revised Second Amendment still has some ambiguities. Can an individual possess a stolen firearm or do you mean "own"? Can a firearm such as a bazooka, a light anti-tank missile launcher, an anti-aircraft missile manpad, or a flame-thrower be included in your protected list of fire arms. What about weapons which cannot be carried by one individual like a LCMG, a recoilless rifle, an automatic grenade launcher, a medium or heavy mortar, a TOW anti-tank missile system, an artillery piece or an armoured fighting vehicle. What constitutes a firearm in your mind? Going to the hyperbolic extreme, would a nuclear demolition pack be such a protected weapon?

The Second Amendment prevents the Federal Government from infringing upon the right of individuals to own and bear arms (firearms). What about state legislatures? Can they regulate and infringe upon gun-owners rights if the 14th Amendment is altered? After all the Second Amendment made it clear that it existed to supply citizen militia soldiers to well-regulated state militias and implied through the Federalist Papers and the Militia Acts that this was because the framers of the US constitution wanted to avoid relying on a professional, federally controlled standing army to protect the now federated states. But now you have a federally controlled professional military so is the Second Ammendment even relevant anymore in the sense that those who wrote it intended?

Finally if the right to own and bear arms/firearms is a basic human right which apply to all human beings then would you support a programme to arm with semi-automatic pistols and long arms all "undocumented" aliens residing in the United States and the similar arming of all children, be they aliens or citizens? What about criminals. If the right to bear arms is an inalienable and natural right then how can courts strip such rights from those convicted of crimes who have served their sentences?

I apologise for the rather rambling nature of this post, but not being a US citizen, I marvel at the glaring inconsistencies in American Constitutional Law when rights and ammendments clash.

Cheers.

Evilroddy.

"undocumented" aliens residing in the United States -illegal aliens do not have the same rights a US citizen has.
If the right to bear arms is an inalienable and natural right then how can courts strip such rights from those convicted of crimes who have served their sentences? One forfeits certain rights when they commit a felony. Currently, A convicted felon, even after they serve their sentence, cannot posses a firearm. I personally oppose that law.
One of the main argument here is the "may carry/shall carry" issue. On one side, we believe if you are a law abiding citizen, we should be able to carry.
On the other side, the "may issue", they believe that one must "prove a need" to carry a firearm. Here in Maryland, where I live, is may issue. In order to obtain a CCW, if you don't know somebody, you're wasting your time. I live in Baltimore. It's one of the most dangerous cities in the country. We've gone over 300 murders for the 5th year in a row. That's a city of 600,000 people! New York city had 289 last year, in a city of over 8,000,000 people! The "may issue" side believes that the framers of the constitution meant the 2a only for militia members. Not the ordinary citizen. Here's what Jefferson thought about the issue:

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764"


What part of Canada are you from? I've always wanted to go to Vancouver. I believe Curmudgeon lives out that way. I hear it's beautiful. My brother-in-law lives in Ontario. I've only been there once. Wasn't bad. It's a lot better than "harm city", where I live. :peace
 
Federal power to ban or restrict firearms is far less than states and as the 2nd Amendment incorporation is fleshed out, I expect state bans will start being stricken. States were intended to be the only authority to regulate firearms, not the federal government. And calling the weapon used in the Aurora shooting (btw 50 people were not killed by any stretch) high powered demonstrates a paucity of knowledge on your part. as to your zillions-you sound like an idiotic Californian politician who claimed with "ghost guns" you could shoot a "30 round clip in a second"

Again, do you REALLY think that I believe that ZILLIONS of shots can be fired in ONE FREAKING SECOND by ANY weapon known to men that is not out of a sci-fi film??? Really??? Are you THIS primitive???

Again, HOW LITERAL ARE YOU???

Do you understand something called A FIGURE OF SPEECH?? I suggest that you look it up. Google it. Use a dictionary. They are your friends.

No, I most definitely DON'T sound like an idiotic Californian. I simply sound to ANYBODY BUT A CONCRETE THINKER LIKE YOU as someone who is using a figure of speech.

Gee!

As for my knowledge of the fine characteristics of various weapons, guilty as charged. I have ZERO interest in weapons and have never owned one. And interestingly enough, I've never needed one. Still, I do support other citizens' desire to own weapons to protect themselves, their family, and their property. But they don't need a freaking bazooka.

Oh. Darn. I used a figure of speech again! Oh no! Now you'll go on and on being concrete again, and will go into a rant saying that nobody actually buys a bazooka, that they are not on sale in gun stores, and so on and so forth.

Hint: I didn't REALLY or LITERALLY mean an actual freaking bazooka. Get it? [Why do I ask? I know you don't.]
 
No.

Hard to shoot capitalists if you don't have guns, right?
 
actually 25% of the gun owners would give our military a serious beatdown given numbers, asymmetrical warfare and the fact many vets and AD military would side with gun owners in a civil war. And most of the military's most fearsome weapons could not be used.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to the civilian population in Syria, that tried to face their armed forces. Result: they got decimated. Sure, it took time, but nowadays the resistance to Assad's regime has been utterly killed out. And hey, their armed forces are 100 times weaker than ours.

A real civil war against a modern military means that the citizens will lose, guns or not.

And we're in hypothetical territory, so don't give me the idea that the military wouldn't be able to use the most fearsome weapons. Sure, I don't think they'd nuke American cities... but if we are going to the extreme and ridiculous scenario that the US Military would massively turn against the US population (which is what these paranoid militias ridiculously think will happen), then why not take it to the extreme that the Military would employ incendiary carpet bombing from the air and cluster bombs and bunk piercing bombs and missiles fired from fighter jets and navy ships and even chemical weapons? That's precisely what Assad did to his people. Let's see what good a household shotgun would do against this kind of assault.

And sure, regarding asymmetrical warfare, even our outstanding military has had trouble in attrition urban guerrilla kinds of conflits in places like Iraq and Afghanistan... But that's thousands of miles away from our own domestic bases and assets and supply lines, and the full use of our forces is often hindered by international politics and other complications. Now, suppose that a city like, say, San Diego decided to defy the Federal Government and declared all-out war on it. Let's suppose that in some bizarro world, the US government wouldn't hesitate to use any weapon against San Diego, maybe just short of a nuclear bomb (given that the latter has the inconvenient aspect of fallout clouds that move with the wind and would contaminate other non-revolting areas), regardless of any political implications or collateral damage. Do you really think that the city of San Diego would stand a chance, if 25% of their inhabitants owned shotguns? LOL. The next morning San Diego and its 25% of shotgun-totting idiots would be a pile of smoking ashes.

But, we're not Syria. This paranoia that the citizens need to arm themselves to the teeth because one day our government will send our armed forces after us, is utterly and completely ridiculous.

But if you want a ridiculous scenario, then have the balls to take it all the way and don't give me this "they wouldn't use their most fearsome weapons." My point is precisely that the armed forces DO HAVE those fearsome weapons, so if you want to believe that they'll ever come after you (hey, let me give you a hint: calm down, they won't), then if it's utter fantasy anyway, don't curtail their punch. If you want to be ridiculously paranoid, then at least have the decency of being paranoid all the way.

Because, see, you can't have the eggs and the omelette. Either the armed forces are weak and won't ever use their big weapons against our people - IN WHICH CASE YOU DON'T NEED MILICIAS - or they are a huge threat which is why you need milicias. But if you think that they are a huge threat, then, sorry buddy, but your shotguns won't stop them.

The bottom line is, allowing the citizens to have weapons to protect their lives and properties against the bad guys makes sense. But to think that they should arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves against the US government and against our military, is, well, ridiculous and unwarranted paranoia (not to forget, futile).

PS - LOL, by the way, I'm aware that it is actually not illegal to own a bazooka as long as you register it with ATF as a Destructive Device and pay all the taxes, including for each piece of its ammunition. But my point is, you don't really need one. Not in the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
actually 25% of the gun owners would give our military a serious beatdown given numbers, asymmetrical warfare and the fact many vets and AD military would side with gun owners in a civil war. And most of the military's most fearsome weapons could not be used.

The only thing that would give gun owners a chance is said military defections.

Further, to be honest, there is also very much a possibility that if fascism/autocracy were to come to the States, it could be overwhelmingly popular as per the rise of the Nazis in Germany, and as such the 2nd amendment would arm many more sympathizers than resisters, thus making it a potential net drag on the cause of liberty.
 
The only thing that would give gun owners a chance is said military defections.

Further, to be honest, there is also very much a possibility that if fascism/autocracy were to come to the States, it could be overwhelmingly popular as per the rise of the Nazis in Germany, and as such the 2nd amendment would arm many more sympathizers than resisters, thus making it a potential net drag on the cause of liberty.

Excellent point! But I'm sure these "thinkers" who are for freedom-defending militias have not thought of it this way... because, see, they aren't very smart to start with.
 
The Second Amendment is poorly written. It's much too ambiguous - it needs to be written clearly so we don't need a Court to tell us what it means.

Here's my proposed Amended amendment:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. . . Ever. . . I'm totally serious. . . Any lawmaker who infringes on this Right shall be punished to the full extent of the Law.

No limit on arms? Nuke devices? Claymore mines? Hand grenades and grenade launchers?
 
I think it's doubtful that heavy weaponry was what the founders had in mind when they referred to "arms". In the classical sense, arms refers to weapons that you can carry with your arms. Hence the name.

arm 2 (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
Arms - definition of arms by The Free Dictionary

The definition doesn't limit to what one can carry in their arms. So, neither would the law. Since they use definitions.
So nuke devices certainly is a constitutional right, if arms are not to be infringed or limited.
 
I said that in a different way. That, the 2a is a restriction on government, to not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. 2 ways of saying the same thing, our right to keep and bear arms does not come from the government.

Every so called right anyone has, comes from some form of gov't granting and enforcing said right.
Without the backing of an enforcing agent, any right can be infringed or repealed.
 
"undocumented" aliens residing in the United States -illegal aliens do not have the same rights a US citizen has.
If the right to bear arms is an inalienable and natural right then how can courts strip such rights from those convicted of crimes who have served their sentences? One forfeits certain rights when they commit a felony. Currently, A convicted felon, even after they serve their sentence, cannot posses a firearm. I personally oppose that law.
One of the main argument here is the "may carry/shall carry" issue. On one side, we believe if you are a law abiding citizen, we should be able to carry.
On the other side, the "may issue", they believe that one must "prove a need" to carry a firearm. Here in Maryland, where I live, is may issue. In order to obtain a CCW, if you don't know somebody, you're wasting your time. I live in Baltimore. It's one of the most dangerous cities in the country. We've gone over 300 murders for the 5th year in a row. That's a city of 600,000 people! New York city had 289 last year, in a city of over 8,000,000 people! The "may issue" side believes that the framers of the constitution meant the 2a only for militia members. Not the ordinary citizen. Here's what Jefferson thought about the issue:

Thomas Jefferson of Virginia:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764"


What part of Canada are you from? I've always wanted to go to Vancouver. I believe Curmudgeon lives out that way. I hear it's beautiful. My brother-in-law lives in Ontario. I've only been there once. Wasn't bad. It's a lot better than "harm city", where I live. :peace

mrdeltoid:

I'm from Montreal in the Province of Quebec originally but I now live in southern Ontario. Vancouver is great as is Victoria on Vancouver Island and the BC/Alberta net riot mountains are magnificent. I would also recommend Montreal and Quebec City, St. John's Newfoundland, Halifax Nova Scotia, Calgary Alberta and the National Capital Ottawa as excellent destinations.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The only thing that would give gun owners a chance is said military defections.

Further, to be honest, there is also very much a possibility that if fascism/autocracy were to come to the States, it could be overwhelmingly popular as per the rise of the Nazis in Germany, and as such the 2nd amendment would arm many more sympathizers than resisters, thus making it a potential net drag on the cause of liberty.

I doubt it but as Joe Strummer noted-the future is unwritten, so know your rights. Or in the case of fascism in the future-exercise your right to be well armed.
 
Yeah, sure. Tell that to the civilian population in Syria, that tried to face their armed forces. Result: they got decimated. Sure, it took time, but nowadays the resistance to Assad's regime has been utterly killed out. And hey, their armed forces are 100 times weaker than ours.

A real civil war against a modern military means that the citizens will lose, guns or not.

And we're in hypothetical territory, so don't give me the idea that the military wouldn't be able to use the most fearsome weapons. Sure, I don't think they'd nuke American cities... but if we are going to the extreme and ridiculous scenario that the US Military would massively turn against the US population (which is what these paranoid militias ridiculously think will happen), then why not take it to the extreme that the Military would employ incendiary carpet bombing from the air and cluster bombs and bunk piercing bombs and missiles fired from fighter jets and navy ships and even chemical weapons? That's precisely what Assad did to his people. Let's see what good a household shotgun would do against this kind of assault.

And sure, regarding asymmetrical warfare, even our outstanding military has had trouble in attrition urban guerrilla kinds of conflits in places like Iraq and Afghanistan... But that's thousands of miles away from our own domestic bases and assets and supply lines, and the full use of our forces is often hindered by international politics and other complications. Now, suppose that a city like, say, San Diego decided to defy the Federal Government and declared all-out war on it. Let's suppose that in some bizarro world, the US government wouldn't hesitate to use any weapon against San Diego, maybe just short of a nuclear bomb (given that the latter has the inconvenient aspect of fallout clouds that move with the wind and would contaminate other non-revolting areas), regardless of any political implications or collateral damage. Do you really think that the city of San Diego would stand a chance, if 25% of their inhabitants owned shotguns? LOL. The next morning San Diego and its 25% of shotgun-totting idiots would be a pile of smoking ashes.

But, we're not Syria. This paranoia that the citizens need to arm themselves to the teeth because one day our government will send our armed forces after us, is utterly and completely ridiculous.

But if you want a ridiculous scenario, then have the balls to take it all the way and don't give me this "they wouldn't use their most fearsome weapons." My point is precisely that the armed forces DO HAVE those fearsome weapons, so if you want to believe that they'll ever come after you (hey, let me give you a hint: calm down, they won't), then if it's utter fantasy anyway, don't curtail their punch. If you want to be ridiculously paranoid, then at least have the decency of being paranoid all the way.

Because, see, you can't have the eggs and the omelette. Either the armed forces are weak and won't ever use their big weapons against our people - IN WHICH CASE YOU DON'T NEED MILICIAS - or they are a huge threat which is why you need milicias. But if you think that they are a huge threat, then, sorry buddy, but your shotguns won't stop them.

The bottom line is, allowing the citizens to have weapons to protect their lives and properties against the bad guys makes sense. But to think that they should arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves against the US government and against our military, is, well, ridiculous and unwarranted paranoia (not to forget, futile).

PS - LOL, by the way, I'm aware that it is actually not illegal to own a bazooka as long as you register it with ATF as a Destructive Device and pay all the taxes, including for each piece of its ammunition. But my point is, you don't really need one. Not in the United States of America.

The military is not obligated to obey unlawful orders. 60 minutes did an interview a few years ago where they asked a bunch of , I believe they were Marine Corps officers, if they were ordered to go door to door for gun confiscation. To a man, they all said they would not follow an unlawful order, which is what that would be. Somebody posted that on this forum. I looked all over the net and I can't find it. Anyway, there are thousands of military trained veterans in the civilian population, like myself, who would join our military brothers in taking down any rouge government that attempted to disarm the citizens. And yes, it is a ridiculous scenario which would never happen. Sounds like a pretty good movie though.:peace
 
Every so called right anyone has, comes from some form of gov't granting and enforcing said right.
Without the backing of an enforcing agent, any right can be infringed or repealed.

The founding fathers believed that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The government that WE elect are to "secure these rights", but the rights themselves come from what the founders refer to as "our creator."
 
mrdeltoid:

I'm from Montreal in the Province of Quebec originally but I now live in southern Ontario. Vancouver is great as is Victoria on Vancouver Island and the BC/Alberta net riot mountains are magnificent. I would also recommend Montreal and Quebec City, St. John's Newfoundland, Halifax Nova Scotia, Calgary Alberta and the National Capital Ottawa as excellent destinations.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it greatly. I'm "hoping" that my youngest children will become more self sufficient, so the wife and I can travel. Canada is DEFINITELY on the itinerary. Perhaps you can give me a heads up on your gun laws. I don't want to make a bad first impression. An arrest would be pretty embarrassing to me. The small amount of time I was in Canada, gave me the impression that we would be much safer there than here. Thanks again Evilroddy.:peace:2wave:
 
If it's black and white, only yes, total repeal, or no, keep it exactly how it currently is, I'd have to vote yes to repealing it, so that's what I picked, for lack of a better option.
However, if the question allowed nuances with a third option to merely modify it without repealing it, then I'd go for the modification but would keep the amendment.

What I mean is, sure, good citizens should be allowed to bear arms to defend their lives and property from criminals, but nobody who is not in the military or special law enforcement units needs a military-grade weapon that fires zillions of shots in a second, so that the crazy person goes into a movie theater and kills 50 innocents. And dangerously mentally ill people or violent convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons, either. So, I'd like an amendment that more specifically dealt with what classes of weapons should be allowed, and what kind of people should be excluded from this right.

And the language about an armed milicia, interpreted as being in reference to the citizens being able to defend themselves from an abusive government, is kind of outdated. The way the modern military is set up, no milicia would ever be able to resist a full-blown assault by our well-equipped armed forces, so this phrasing is quite outdated and frankly useless. I don't think the sense of bearing arms is a need to protect ourselves from our own government, but rather, a need to protect ourselves from bad guys who might break into our homes to steal and rape.

Even if every single American owned big guns, if a tyrannic government decided to use the military (and assuming that the military would obey those orders) to violently repress the citizens, there is NOTHING these citizens, armed or not, could do to stop it.

At the time of the Founding Fathers, the existing weapons the armed forces could have, weren't much better than what a citizen could have. But today... how do you stop a fighter jet armed with bunk-piercing bombs, or a modern tank, merely with your household shotgun??

Sure you can stop a burglar with a shotgun... but our modern military? Don't make me laugh. Simply having phrasing in that sense doesn't make the citizens capable of facing our armed forces if they were to turn against us... so the phrasing is useless.
I think we can deconstruct your argument. No tyrant can ever order the US Armed forces into conflict against its citizens. That would be an unlawful order and it would never be followed. Wouldnt. Couldnt. Even logistically it couldnt happen. Ever military installation is dependent on a state supplied power grid. Most states have their own organized militias. there simply isnt a fear or concern that a president might become a tyrant or or military might stage a military uprising.

But...could there be breakdowns of law and order? Sure...and frankly...that isnt even that far a reach.

Could we ever reach a Constitutional crisis and have a majority vote against the Constitution and embrace something like Communism and and attempt impose Marshall Law? I dont know...when you see interviews with the increasing number of idiot leftists in this country...who knows what this country might look like in 20-30 years. SO would then there be a standing army ready to fight to ensure something like that didnt happen? Id say yes.

20-30 years ago, I would have thought nothing like what we are seeing today would happen in our country. 20-30 years ago even the most liberal democrats would shy away from the word socialist. Now...they revel in it. Who knows what the next 25-30 brings.
 
Thanks for the info. I appreciate it greatly. I'm "hoping" that my youngest children will become more self sufficient, so the wife and I can travel. Canada is DEFINITELY on the itinerary. Perhaps you can give me a heads up on your gun laws. I don't want to make a bad first impression. An arrest would be pretty embarrassing to me. The small amount of time I was in Canada, gave me the impression that we would be much safer there than here. Thanks again Evilroddy.:peace:2wave:

mrdeltoid:

These sites should cover everything you need to know. Hand guns are much more restricted than longarms like hunting rifles and shot guns. Semi-automatic longarms are tricky too.

Importing and Exporting Firearms (Individuals) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Firearm Users Visiting Canada - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
The military is not obligated to obey unlawful orders. 60 minutes did an interview a few years ago where they asked a bunch of , I believe they were Marine Corps officers, if they were ordered to go door to door for gun confiscation. To a man, they all said they would not follow an unlawful order, which is what that would be. Somebody posted that on this forum. I looked all over the net and I can't find it. Anyway, there are thousands of military trained veterans in the civilian population, like myself, who would join our military brothers in taking down any rouge government that attempted to disarm the citizens. And yes, it is a ridiculous scenario which would never happen. Sounds like a pretty good movie though.:peace

Fair enough, but see post #137. I said, "assuming that the Military would obey such orders." That was to signal that yes, I agree with you, which is one of the multiple reasons why this scenario would never happen. First of all, we'd have to have a president crazy enough to issue such orders. Second, then and there this rogue president might get removed by his own cabinet invoking the 25th amendment. Third, the Joint Chiefs might refuse to carry on. And fourth, like you said, if we were in such bizarro times that all three above still did not apply, I doubt that our great soldiers would obey orders to decimate fellow Americans by the millions.

But that's exactly my point... all this talk about militias armed to the teeth to protect the citizens against our own government and our own Military is BS. It will never happen.

While saying several times that it will never happen, I pushed the hypothetical farther, to say, and if it did, assuming that yes, despite all odds, the US Armed Forces would unleash a full-blown assault on the American people, then, getting armed militias wouldn't help, because our armed forces are just too powerful.

So, for two good reasons: one, it's ridiculous and it won't ever happen, and two, even if it did, the militia efforts would be futile, the conclusion is that there is NO NEED for militias, therefore, there is no need for regular citizens to own military-grade weaponry.

As a veteran (and thank you for your service, I love our veterans), wouldn't you agree?

Again, I'm FOR the 2nd Amendment in order to enable law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property against robbers, burglars, and rapists; and why not, for sport such as hunting and target practice. But I think the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten to make it clear that what applies to regular guns and shotguns and certain hunting rifles, should NOT apply to military-grade weapons.

Just as much as a regular citizen has no need for a shoulder-to-air missile launcher because a regular citizen has no business bringing down helicopters and airplanes from the air, he/she has no need for a full-blown machine gun-equivalent automatic assault rifle capable of firing multiple shots in a short time span. For what? For hunting deer????
 
I think we can deconstruct your argument. No tyrant can ever order the US Armed forces into conflict against its citizens. That would be an unlawful order and it would never be followed. Wouldnt. Couldnt. Even logistically it couldnt happen. Ever military installation is dependent on a state supplied power grid. Most states have their own organized militias. there simply isnt a fear or concern that a president might become a tyrant or or military might stage a military uprising.

But...could there be breakdowns of law and order? Sure...and frankly...that isnt even that far a reach.

Could we ever reach a Constitutional crisis and have a majority vote against the Constitution and embrace something like Communism and and attempt impose Marshall Law? I dont know...when you see interviews with the increasing number of idiot leftists in this country...who knows what this country might look like in 20-30 years. SO would then there be a standing army ready to fight to ensure something like that didnt happen? Id say yes.

20-30 years ago, I would have thought nothing like what we are seeing today would happen in our country. 20-30 years ago even the most liberal democrats would shy away from the word socialist. Now...they revel in it. Who knows what the next 25-30 brings.

See post #169.
I know that it wouldn't happen.
And to avoid the catastrophic scenario you are proposing, which I believe is unlikely, our regular military is more than sufficient. No need for militias.
Actually militias are usually manned by right-wing folks... If you think that far-leftists might endanger the country so much, then why not be fair and say that far-rightists might be a danger as well? Because I think a Nazi-stile white-supremacist uprising is more likely, the way things are going, than the leftists taking upon arms against the government... Actually leftists are not very fond of arms, and love big government.

The thing is, we're going through strange times, sure. If you read other posts of mine, you'll see that I abhor the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I don't like the far left. But I don't think they are about to overturn the government and make of the United States a Cuba-like country. That is not going to happen. They will make noise, try to pass into law big taxes for the rich, try to implement big governmental programs, sure. But implement communism by force? Come on. Not likely. We are the United States of America; not Bolivia or Cuba or Venezuela.

We're going through strange times from the right side too. I think our current president has issued many outrageous statements that are quite anti-democratic, such as extending his term, not accepting election results if he loses, etc - the way Banana Republic dictators behave. So, be fair, please: the risk comes from both sides.

Which is why I prefer the middle. I'm an independent moderate. You won't see any moderates preaching in favor of armed revolutions.
 
The founding fathers believed that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The government that WE elect are to "secure these rights", but the rights themselves come from what the founders refer to as "our creator."

Exactly. Those rights, 'need to be secured'. If not, they are nothing.

It's actually worded, 'their creator'. As each person could have a different creator. At least different definitions of creator.
 
I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no

It will never happen. At best, the LW anti-gunners will just chip away at our rights like they do everything else.

They could allow muskets which have to be buried 6 feet down under 500# of concrete but still claim they support gun rights and the Second Amendment.
 
The military is not obligated to obey unlawful orders. 60 minutes did an interview a few years ago where they asked a bunch of , I believe they were Marine Corps officers, if they were ordered to go door to door for gun confiscation. To a man, they all said they would not follow an unlawful order, which is what that would be. Somebody posted that on this forum. I looked all over the net and I can't find it. Anyway, there are thousands of military trained veterans in the civilian population, like myself, who would join our military brothers in taking down any rouge government that attempted to disarm the citizens. And yes, it is a ridiculous scenario which would never happen. Sounds like a pretty good movie though.:peace

I doubt there will be any confiscation any time soon. If ever. But ever is a long time and things always change.

And the gov't has all sorts or weapons that makes most peoples weapons equal to pea shooters.
 
See post #169.
I know that it wouldn't happen.
And to avoid the catastrophic scenario you are proposing, which I believe is unlikely, our regular military is more than sufficient. No need for militias.
Actually militias are usually manned by right-wing folks... If you think that far-leftists might endanger the country so much, then why not be fair and say that far-rightists might be a danger as well? Because I think a Nazi-stile white-supremacist uprising is more likely, the way things are going, than the leftists taking upon arms against the government... Actually leftists are not very fond of arms, and love big government.

The thing is, we're going through strange times, sure. If you read other posts of mine, you'll see that I abhor the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I don't like the far left. But I don't think they are about to overturn the government and make of the United States a Cuba-like country. That is not going to happen. They will make noise, try to pass into law big taxes for the rich, try to implement big governmental programs, sure. But implement communism by force? Come on. Not likely. We are the United States of America; not Bolivia or Cuba or Venezuela.

We're going through strange times from the right side too. I think our current president has issued many outrageous statements that are quite anti-democratic, such as extending his term, not accepting election results if he loses, etc - the way Banana Republic dictators behave. So, be fair, please: the risk comes from both sides.

Which is why I prefer the middle. I'm an independent moderate. You won't see any moderates preaching in favor of armed revolutions.
I dont think you understand the US code. You should look up 'militias'. There are 2 militias...the orgganized and unorganized militias. The State militia is the organized militia. The citizens are the unorganized militia.

And Id like to believe that the country wont devolve to the point of needing he unorganized militia...but I cant say with full confidence it wont happen or that there arent people actively trying to bring it about. Civil unrest is as much a threat to national security as a foreign invader.

In the meantime, the framers had the foresight to ensure that citizens have the means and intended for those citizens to assume the responsibility to be armed, well trained, and their weapons and munitions be well regulated...kept in good working order. Because while I dont think anything bad is going to happen in my lifetime, I wouldnt have believed idiot leftists in the US on college campuses and even within the democrat party would ever openly advocate for communism. So...who knows.
 
I think we can deconstruct your argument. No tyrant can ever order the US Armed forces into conflict against its citizens. That would be an unlawful order and it would never be followed. Wouldnt. Couldnt. Even logistically it couldnt happen. Ever military installation is dependent on a state supplied power grid. Most states have their own organized militias. there simply isnt a fear or concern that a president might become a tyrant or or military might stage a military uprising.

But...could there be breakdowns of law and order? Sure...and frankly...that isnt even that far a reach.

Could we ever reach a Constitutional crisis and have a majority vote against the Constitution and embrace something like Communism and and attempt impose Marshall Law? I dont know...when you see interviews with the increasing number of idiot leftists in this country...who knows what this country might look like in 20-30 years. SO would then there be a standing army ready to fight to ensure something like that didnt happen? Id say yes.

20-30 years ago, I would have thought nothing like what we are seeing today would happen in our country. 20-30 years ago even the most liberal democrats would shy away from the word socialist. Now...they revel in it. Who knows what the next 25-30 brings.

We've not had a divisive white nationalist as prez before. One who basically attacks 65% of Americans on a daily basis.

It's not the leftists you blame, its tRUMPers white nationalism. It's tRUMP who keeps talking about a civil war. You seem to be blinded from reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom