would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

[VanceMack]

Ill just consider this a win since Vance thinks trolling is a replacement for arguments.

:lamo

Yeah. Run. Fast.

 

[dairyair]

:lamo

You could literally see the spit flying from you when you were typing.

:violin:violin::cuckoo:

 

[GreatNews2night]

What I dont get is why people like you always devolve arguments regarding the 2nd Amendment and firearms into NOOKCLEAR WEEPONZ.

its just...dumb. Anything you might have ever said that wasnt dumb was just made dumb.

Well, yeah, it's dumb. It's dumb on purpose, duh! What I'm showing is how freaking RIDICULOUS this idea is. Actually it was said in all words in the very post you've quoted. Fish for this phrase, it is there: "just to show you how absurd it is." Do a word search and you'll find this phrase in the middle of the post you've just quoted.

Get it now?

I'm pushing the militia man's mindset to its full consequences, and showing how the whole thing is ridiculous; that's why I went for the full hyperbole. Because, where exactly do you draw the line?

But we don't even need to go all the way to nuclear bombs, like I lavishly demonstrated with the other pieces of data. Again, like I said above, even if you have an automatic assault rifle, you won't be able to stop a fighter jet coming at you. Or a tank. Or carpet bombing. Or a Blackhawk helicopter. Or a non-nuclear missile.

And to top it all, the military even has freaking NOOKCLEAR WEEPONZ... LOL

That's how ridiculous the militia mindset is.

And of course, the proponents will feel emasculated if this reality is shown to them. And they will then get defensive, and will unleash personal attacks. Expected and predictable.

The military is now so incredibly powerful, that it even has freaking atomic bombs... It is far superior to any militia, ALL THE WAY TO and INCLUDING an atomic bomb. It's no longer horses and muskets. This is why the idea that militias are needed to protect the citizens against the federal government and its armed forces, is UTTERLY dumb, like you said.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, yeah, it's dumb. It's dumb on purpose, duh! What I'm showing is how freaking RIDICULOUS this idea is. Actually it was said in all words in the very post you've quoted. Fish for this phrase, it is there: "just to show you how absurd it is." Do a word search and you'll find this phrase in the middle of the post you've just quoted.

Get it now?

I'm pushing the militia man's mindset to its full consequences, and showing how the whole thing is ridiculous; that's why I went for the full hyperbole. Because, where exactly do you draw the line?

But we don't even need to go all the way to nuclear bombs, like I lavishly demonstrated with the other pieces of data. Again, like I said above, even if you have an automatic assault rifle, you won't be able to stop a fighter jet coming at you. Or a tank. Or carpet bombing. Or a Blackhawk helicopter. Or a non-nuclear missile.

And to top it all, the military even has freaking NOOKCLEAR WEEPONZ... LOL

That's how ridiculous the militia mindset is.

And of course, the proponents will feel emasculated if this reality is shown to them. And they will then get defensive, and will unleash personal attacks. Expected and predictable.

The military is now so incredibly powerful, that it even has freaking atomic bombs... It is far superior to any militia, ALL THE WAY TO and INCLUDING an atomic bomb. It's no longer horses and muskets. This is why the idea that militias are needed to protect the citizens against the federal government and its armed forces, is UTTERLY dumb, like you said.

lets see-the government is going to Nuke Cleveland because some patriots shot a few storm troopers who were trying to confiscate firearms when the civil war over firearms starts?

 

[GreatNews2night]

lets see-the government is going to Nuke Cleveland because some patriots shot a few storm troopers who were trying to confiscate firearms when the civil war over firearms starts?

No, it won't. That's precisely my point. There will be no significant attack on American citizens coming from the federal armed forces. Ideas that it will happen are nothing more than misguided paranoia.

Every time I posted about it, I said that the scenario is ridiculous.

Now, my other point is, IF (and I know, unlike you, that it won't happen) in some bizarro (I used this word frequently) world, the government did just that, then no militias would be able to resist. Even without the government using nuclear weapons. Say, the gun-crazy redneck hillbillies militia men had a bunker in the middle of say, South Dakota, in some bizarre area, and they were armed to the teeth to resist the federal government. IF (again, it won't happen) their paranoia was justified and the Feds did want to come and kill them... well, one well placed bunker-busting bomb dropped from the air, and they'd be toast, regardless of their macho-man weapons.

So, what's exactly the justification for these military grade weapons in the hands of civilians? Because they won't stop the military. Not even close. Therefore, the whole thing is futile and preposterous.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, it won't. That's precisely my point. There will be no significant attack on American citizens coming from the federal armed forces. Ideas that it will happen are nothing more than misguided paranoia.

Every time I posted about it, I said that the scenario is ridiculous.

Now, my other point is, IF (and I know, unlike you, that it won't happen) in some bizarro (I used this word frequently) world, the government did just that, then no militias would be able to resist. Even without the government using nuclear weapons. Say, the gun-crazy redneck hillbillies militia men had a bunker in the middle of say, South Dakota, in some bizarre area, and they were armed to the teeth to resist the federal government. IF (again, it won't happen) their paranoia was justified and the Feds did want to come and kill them... well, one well placed bunker-busting bomb dropped from the air, and they'd be toast, regardless of their macho-man weapons.

So, what's exactly the justification for these military grade weapons in the hands of civilians? Because they won't stop the military. Not even close. Therefore, the whole thing is futile and preposterous.

if one tenth of the gun owners resisted confiscation with force of arms, the USA would no longer exist and the military would be destroyed.

 

[GreatNews2night]

if one tenth of the gun owners resisted confiscation with force of arms, the USA would no longer exist and the military would be destroyed.

This qualifies as one of the top 3 most absurd statements I've ever read on Debate Politics since I joined five years ago. Wow, bravo, you should get a trophy for it. Or maybe you should get into a Farmers Insurance commercial. Wow!

 

[Integrityrespec]

Vote in what manner? When will the average citizen who is not an office holder vote on anything of such importance as changing the US Constitution?

never vote for it. It will never meet an constitutional attempt to change it.

 

[VanceMack]

Well, yeah, it's dumb. It's dumb on purpose, duh! What I'm showing is how freaking RIDICULOUS this idea is. Actually it was said in all words in the very post you've quoted. Fish for this phrase, it is there: "just to show you how absurd it is." Do a word search and you'll find this phrase in the middle of the post you've just quoted.

Get it now?

I'm pushing the militia man's mindset to its full consequences, and showing how the whole thing is ridiculous; that's why I went for the full hyperbole. Because, where exactly do you draw the line?

But we don't even need to go all the way to nuclear bombs, like I lavishly demonstrated with the other pieces of data. Again, like I said above, even if you have an automatic assault rifle, you won't be able to stop a fighter jet coming at you. Or a tank. Or carpet bombing. Or a Blackhawk helicopter. Or a non-nuclear missile.

And to top it all, the military even has freaking NOOKCLEAR WEEPONZ... LOL

That's how ridiculous the militia mindset is.

And of course, the proponents will feel emasculated if this reality is shown to them. And they will then get defensive, and will unleash personal attacks. Expected and predictable.

The military is now so incredibly powerful, that it even has freaking atomic bombs... It is far superior to any militia, ALL THE WAY TO and INCLUDING an atomic bomb. It's no longer horses and muskets. This is why the idea that militias are needed to protect the citizens against the federal government and its armed forces, is UTTERLY dumb, like you said.

The problem with your intensely ridiculous frothy prattle is that I have said from the get go...there is no concern that the militia in the US will ever have to take on the military. So why you persist with your line of stupidity is something known only to you.

 

[dairyair]

if one tenth of the gun owners resisted confiscation with force of arms, the USA would no longer exist and the military would be destroyed.

There will never be a confiscation of arms. Unless of course, it's to confiscate nuke devices citizens have. Which the gov't can't confiscate either. There are NO restrictions to arms civilians can own per 2A.

 

[TurtleDude]

There will never be a confiscation of arms. Unless of course, it's to confiscate nuke devices citizens have. Which the gov't can't confiscate either. There are NO restrictions to arms civilians can own per 2A.

could you explain the bolded. It is subject to several interpretations

 

[TurtleDude]

This qualifies as one of the top 3 most absurd statements I've ever read on Debate Politics since I joined five years ago. Wow, bravo, you should get a trophy for it. Or maybe you should get into a Farmers Insurance commercial. Wow!

Well my LtC Green Beret nephew said that. And I agree with him. 20 million people trying to take out the government that started a civil war is going to be a really nightmare for the government. Tell us what credentials you have to dispute it.

 

[mrdeltoid]

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 can't argue with 99% of your post. Probably 100%, depending if you consider a semi-automatic rifle is military grade. I think we as citizens are covered by the 2a concerning rifles, shotguns and handguns. It's up to the individual on what they "need". Personally, I've lived through 2 riots here in Baltimore. In LA during the Rodney King riots, in the area where the stores were getting looted, the only ones that weren't looted were owned by Asian merchants. The reason is, they were on their roofs with rifles. Verrry visible. That's one situation where a semi-automatic weapons with 30 round magazines for instance, may be necessary. Great post by the way. eace

 

[mrdeltoid]

No, I understand. It's just that I'm talking about the unorganized, non-State militias (like the National Guard can be called a State-sponsored one; that's not what I'm talking about). I don't think we need the unorganized kind (the kind you can find in remote areas, made of paranoid hillbillies and gun-crazy rednecks). I think when the Framers established this phrasing, it was appropriate and proportional. But things have changed over the centuries, and these days, the armed forces are so powerful that unorganized militias are quite powerless by comparison... and frankly useless, and not needed. That's my point. A hypothetical need for citizen-driven, unorganized militias, should not be a justification for the second amendment. It's no longer applicable.

Look, while I don't like Sanders and Warren and AOC and all the far-left extremists like I said, I am a bit surprised that you are so upset that they openly advocate for something. What you are saying goes against the First Amendment. The good thing about this country is that even if I disagree with what they say, I'll fight for their right to say it.

So, they advocate for something and put themselves up for the people's consideration, through vote. If what they are proposing doesn't agree with the spirit of the people of this country, then what will happen is that people will defeat them in the elections.

Neither Sanders, nor Warren, nor AOC are inciting people to take up arms, overturn the government, and implement a communist dictatorship. They are merely exercising their freedom of speech and expressing their ideas. It's up to the people to pass judgment, and endorse their ideas by electing them to office, or reject them by not voting for them (I personally hope for the latter).

When militias start trying to force others to not say certain things... that's when we'll be in real trouble. I hope it never gets to that. So, for me, I'll say, "speak up, Senator Sanders; do express your ideas; but I won't vote for you; I think you are a moron with far-fetched vacuous populist ideas. This said, which is my opinion and I'm as free as you are to express it, I won't pick up arms to try to shut you up."

When Trump talks about incarcerating his political opponents, that's what is dangerous for our democratic republic. I think it's more dangerous than what some far-left lunatics say.

The National Guard has been activated for riots. They are also activated and deployed to combat units. They are pretty important. And while I respect your opinion, I take exception to the use of the term "hillbillys". I know nobody cares, but it is disrespectful to southern people. JMHO

 

[GreatNews2night]

if one tenth of the gun owners resisted confiscation with force of arms, the USA would no longer exist and the military would be destroyed.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, if it conforts you, as absurd as it is (if our military were that weak, it would have been destroyed multiple times in the foreign wars we got involved in - still standing, huh?)

 

[GreatNews2night]

Well my LtC Green Beret nephew said that. And I agree with him. 20 million people trying to take out the government that started a civil war is going to be a really nightmare for the government. Tell us what credentials you have to dispute it.

My credentials? Try that: I'm not stupid. I'm not paranoid. I'm not a gun-nut hillbilly/redneck. I have an ounce of common sense. Quite enough to dispute your RIDICULOUS scenario that common citizens would be able to utterly destroy the American military. :roll: Hint: professional armies of entire other countries have tried and failed. Last I checked, our military is still standing despite its multiple engagements in the 20th and 21st centuries, facing formidable foreign armies at times. Ever since, our military has become even MORE powerful.

Go on with your wet dreams, Rambo, if they comfort you. Whatever rocks your boat.

 

[GreatNews2night]

The National Guard has been activated for riots. They are also activated and deployed to combat units. They are pretty important. And while I respect your opinion, I take exception to the use of the term "hillbillys". I know nobody cares, but it is disrespectful to southern people. JMHO

Your politically correct objection to my language is dully noted.

And what gives you the impression that I don't consider the National Guard to be important? Where exactly did I give this impression? Please don't put words in my mouth. If you can interpret correctly what you read, I mentioned the National Guard, once, as an EXCEPTION to what I was saying. Have you read the phrase "that's not what I'm talking about" in reference to the National Guard? What part of that phrase you didn't understand??? It's right there in the very post that you've just quoted.

Of course the National Guard is important. What I find useless is NOT the National Guard (like I said), but a bunch of paranoid gun nuts somewhere in the woods calling themselves a militia and thinking that they need to keep a huge arsenal to fight off the federal government when they come for their guns (which won't happen - I remember all the paranoia that Obama would come for their guns, he never did).

 

[GreatNews2night]

The problem with your intensely ridiculous frothy prattle is that I have said from the get go...there is no concern that the militia in the US will ever have to take on the military. So why you persist with your line of stupidity is something known only to you.

Sure, pal. Whatever. Again, to clarify it for you and others, I'm NOT talking about official militias like the National Guard. I made it clear in one of my posts, once, then stopped repeating the point, and I see that some people mistook what I was saying as if it also applied to the National Guard.

Nothing against the National Guard, much the opposite.

What I'm talking about is a bunch of gun-nut rednecks in some remote wooded area calling themselves a militia and stocking up a huge arsenal to prepare themselves for the day when the feds will come for their guns and will confiscate their land. That's what is ridiculous. Get it?

 

[GreatNews2night]

I'm thinking, why in the hell am I wasting my time talking with you all? Frankly, I don't think your positions are even remotely rational (and that's my opinion; First Amendment and all, right? Or is just the Second one important?). Sorry to say it like this, but truth be told: I think they come from a paranoid mindset. As such, there is no possible argumentation. By definition, paranoid patterns of thought will be refractory to reality-based correction, so, trying to change such person's mind is an exercise in futility.

I don't know why I forgot about this, temporarily. Having remembered it now, I say, have you all a good night and a good life. I won't be returning to this thread. Over and out.

 

[TurtleDude]

My credentials? Try that: I'm not stupid. I'm not paranoid. I'm not a gun-nut hillbilly/redneck. I have an ounce of common sense. Quite enough to dispute your RIDICULOUS scenario that common citizens would be able to utterly destroy the American military. :roll: Hint: professional armies of entire other countries have tried and failed. Last I checked, our military is still standing despite its multiple engagements in the 20th and 21st centuries, facing formidable foreign armies at times. Ever since, our military has become even MORE powerful.

Go on with your wet dreams, Rambo, if they comfort you. Whatever rocks your boat.

in other words you are making stuff up. but I already knew that.

 

[TurtleDude]

My credentials? Try that: I'm not stupid. I'm not paranoid. I'm not a gun-nut hillbilly/redneck. I have an ounce of common sense. Quite enough to dispute your RIDICULOUS scenario that common citizens would be able to utterly destroy the American military. :roll: Hint: professional armies of entire other countries have tried and failed. Last I checked, our military is still standing despite its multiple engagements in the 20th and 21st centuries, facing formidable foreign armies at times. Ever since, our military has become even MORE powerful.

Go on with your wet dreams, Rambo, if they comfort you. Whatever rocks your boat.

you seem overly agitated when confronted with facts. How many active duty military are there in the USA right now?

 

[TurtleDude]

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????

if civilian police officers have them for self defense against criminals in civilian environments, then other civilians ought to have them. Your understanding of the second amendment is pathetic.

 

[VanceMack]

Sure, pal. Whatever. Again, to clarify it for you and others, I'm NOT talking about official militias like the National Guard. I made it clear in one of my posts, once, then stopped repeating the point, and I see that some people mistook what I was saying as if it also applied to the National Guard.

Nothing against the National Guard, much the opposite.

What I'm talking about is a bunch of gun-nut rednecks in some remote wooded area calling themselves a militia and stocking up a huge arsenal to prepare themselves for the day when the feds will come for their guns and will confiscate their land. That's what is ridiculous. Get it?

:lamo

You a re a crack up. You went on a ridiculous tirade arguing against a point no one else is making and when you have that made clear to you you just ignore your tirade like you werent the one that just made it.

I dont care if you dont like the red neck 'militias'. As long as they are out there staying within the law they frankly arent your business. And as long as idiot leftist twats dont promote gun bans then we wont have to worry about those weapons stockpiles either. So since we dont have to worry about THAT, then maybe you could concern yourself about the people that actually DO represent a threat day to day.

 

[VanceMack]

you seem overly agitated when confronted with facts. How many active duty military are there in the USA right now?

Right? He made a ridiculous argument apropos of nothing and then when that was called out he left in a huff.

 

[Lucky 1]

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.

Actually its not ambiguas at all......its thouroughy explained in the Federalist papers