im curious to know

[wincest]

how many of you changed you mind about firearms since the election?

[elias7]

2. Depends on whether you've changed your views on Trump

[wincest]

5. i have not

changed my views on that asshole that was elected.

however i have always been pro 2nd amendment/rkba

i hope this makes sense, if not feel free to ask me any question's.

[IndianaDave]

3. I own a firearm,

and it is still extremely dangerous and deadly. Clearly, according to the Second Amendment, the use of firearms should be - in the words of the Amendment - "well regulated." I have noticed that the NRA appears to be completely ignorant of the concept of the regulation of firearms, which is one reason that I refuse to join it or support it in any way.

The first thing I did when I bought my firearm was to take it to the local Police Department to register it and to be fingerprinted. I urge all responsible citizens to do the same. Trump has nothing to do with any of this. He is barely literate. He has provided no evidence that he has ever read read our Constitution, and he can barely function in the esteemed office he temporarily occupies. So, no, I have not changed my mind at all.

[wincest]

6. "to take it to the local Police Department to register it"

i respect your view, however i disagree.

well regulated means well trained/drilled. not gov. regulated.

im against registration because it allows a tyrannical gov. know who is armed.

45 has been compared to hitler.

i hope this make sense. if not, feel free to ask me any question.

[IndianaDave]

9. Even though Trump is - in the kindest term - unhinged,

he is not yet tyrannical. And if he ever becomes so, I'm firmly convinced that political action, not firearms, will be the solution. If we turn to weaponry to solve our internal problems, we have surrendered the power of democracy to base violence. But - regardless of any responses I receive from this reply - I know that this could become an interminable discussion, so this is the end of my dialog with you or any other interested persons. We could be on this topic for a hell of a long time. eom

[wincest]

10. thank you

for your reply

[HAB911]

11. The 2nd

does not legalize sedition or treason, it's there for you to fight FOR the government

[wincest]

12. have to disagree

the us colones did not fight for the gov. we fought against it.

in the civil war, the south fought against the gov.

SHAYS’ REBELLION http://www.history.com/topics/shays-rebellion

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

[HAB911]

13. as example

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/25/no-the-2nd-amendment-does-not-authorize-armed-sedition.html

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. re: "Before 1965, it would have occurred to precisely nobody...

...that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to organize private armies independent of the state."

Seriously? Perhaps you're unfamiliar: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14138208/ns/us_news-life/t/where-were-you-during-battle-athens/

[HAB911]

15. Anyway

You up against the 82nd Airborne is pretty laughable, isn't it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Taking a straw man for an ally isn't the wisest of tactics. n/t

[HAB911]

17. Straw man?

Anyone that thinks

Anyone that thinks the 2nd Amendment legalizes sedition/treason against the United States of America (82nd Airborne++++ and that peashooters against bazookas, F-18's, v.3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks is delusional, aren't they?

[Straw Man]

22. You called?

Last edited Sat Apr 1, 2017, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Straw man?

Anyone that thinks the 2nd Amendment legalizes sedition/treason against the United States of America (82nd Airborne++++ and that peashooters against bazookas, F-18's, v.3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks is delusional, aren't they?

And no one here does, except that straw man up there. ⇧

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. why ask me?

It seems apparent you don't trust my judgment.

[Marengo]

26. "Bazooka" is an archaic term, and general used only by those with limited knowledge and ....

Understanding of the subject.

[HAB911]

29. LOL!

Too funny

[Marengo]

37. Essentially my reaction towards someone who uses "bazooka". It is however useful in the sense...

That it indicates the individual's argument is likely not worth the time.

[HAB911]

38. if the use of bazooka is obsolete in your mind

it only bolsters my position, since the statement is still true, using obsolete technology

thank you.

[Marengo]

41. Ridiculous. On the contrary, it weakens you argument. Please do continue using the term though

As I said, it's useful in identifying who to ignore.

[HAB911]

43. Everyone loves Relational Similarities

A threat to ignore is to opposing opinions

as a bazooka or cruise missile is to a .45/AR15/anything you may own

[Marengo]

50. I noticed you haven't responded to any posts on asymmetrical warfare in this thread...

You seem to have the time. Why haven't you?

[HAB911]

51. I think you hold yourself

in too high regard

I doubt you can hold a candle to the VC

[Marengo]

54. Who is this "you" you are referring to?

[Marengo]

55. What are your qualifications for accurately assessing who can or cannot successfully engage...

An enemy in asymmetrical warfare?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. I submit that the very nature of asymmetrical warfare includes that any instance is successful.

Resistance is the natural enemy of tyranny. The idea of restricting the tools of resistance due to some doubt about qualifying resistance efforts as successful is best described as a brain-fart.

In the words of W. Churchill:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[Marengo]

59. Still very curious to know what qualifies you to accurately determine who may, or may not,...

Effectively engage an enemy in asymmetrical warfare. Why haven't you answered?

[wincest]

58. "A threat to ignore is to opposing opinions"

agree

[pablo_marmol]

61. Exactly. NT

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. As much as this may be a wasted effort, here's a perspective.

Where the government fears the people, there is liberty; where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The weight of history here is on the side of the government trusting the people. With that trust comes the people's responsibility to act within the law. This is the very basis for the idea of individual rights.

To address the 'tribe against the army' question: there is no scenario I can envision where a serviceman in the US would make war against his neighbors. However, should the time come as mentioned in the Declaration...

(That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.)

...I see at least as many service against the government as would be for it.

I don't trust government nor do politicians deserve any trust but I do trust our Guardsmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines.

[HAB911]

30. Sorry

but your/our peashooters will be worthless

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. "(Y)our/our peashooters will be worthless" Ahem. Just last week in Afghanistan:

Without benefit of tanks, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft, all of which the current Afghan
government possesses.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/23/afghan-taliban-seize-key-district-sangin-helmand-province

Afghan Taliban seize key district where UK lost 104 soldiers

The Taliban has captured a key district in Helmand province once considered the deadliest battlefield for British and US troops in Afghanistan.

The fall of Sangin on Thursday came amid the insurgents’ year-long push to expand their footprint in the Taliban heartland.

Since the withdrawal of Nato combat troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014 – and with only a smaller, US-led advise and training mission left behind – Sangin has been seen as a key test of whether Afghan security forces can hold off advancing Taliban fighters.

The town is totemic for the US and UK as both nations have both suffered heavy losses there, but the Taliban see it as a key strategic base

It seems your grasp of military tactics is on a par with your grasp of history and Constitutional law.

[sarisataka]

33. People have difficultly understanding

asymmetric warfare. Only a fool goes head to head with a much stronger opponent, but there are other ways to fight that min/max strengths and weaknesses.

Also what is lost is the idea a war must be won by conquering. Sometimes a side can win by simply not losing.

[yagotme]

47. Completely correct. History has proven this.

{cough} Viet Nam {cough}.

Us and the French.

{cough} Afghanistan {cough}

So far, mostly us, and Russia (The CCCP one).

[pablo_marmol]

62. "Sometimes a side can win by simply not losing."

For the win.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. I can't imagine why

Afghanistan, Vietnam, 9/11, Stuxnet... are all examples.
The Washington Navy Yard shooting, the activities of the French underground during WWII and many others show what determined but out numbered and out gunned groups can accomplish.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. I just can't remember that quote about learning from history

[yagotme]

48. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Something along those lines.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. I tossed my crystal ball after the last election

I don't think yours is working either. Have a nice day.

[wincest]

20. i would

prefer to fight, than just give up.

that's assuming it came to it.

i prefer not to fight.

i only believe in fighting to defend oneself and family.

in other words be quiet to get along.

[Marengo]

25. The common 18th century definition of "free state" could indicate either for or against...

Depending on the circumstances.

[sarisataka]

27. Say hypothetically Calexit happened

and California declares secession. The Federal government says that is illegal and will use force if needed to prevent secession.

California calls on armed citizens to join the militia to defend their Free State. D.C. government calls on armed citizens to resist any secession. Which government do they fight for?

[Marengo]

24. Are you required by law to register firearms where you live?

[Alice11111]

34. We need some people like you to start a RRA, Responsible

Rifle Association. You sound like a very reasonable person. Jason Kander could be the posterboy.

It would be a good way to fight back and make a good point. I don't own a gun. I'm certainty not opposed to hunters (even though I am a vegetarian) and collectors owning guns. Many women I know own guns because their houses were broken into. We need a counter organization that advocates the reasonable ownership of guns. The name itself is an advocation because it is in contrast to the values and misinterpretation of the Constitution by the NRA. I would help.

[Marengo]

42. What, in your view, constitutes reasonable gun ownership?

[Hangingon]

46. Called our police and our sheriff about registering my firearms

They explained that we do not do that. No they do not keep fingerprints of firearm owners. Glad I live here.

[caroldansen]

4. Not changing. It is written they that live by the sword shall die by the sword.

[wincest]

7. agree

those who live a violent life, shall die a violent life.

however owning weapons does not mean one lives a violent life.

hope this makes sense, if not feel free to ask me any question.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. re: "It is written they that live by the sword shall die by the sword."

What exactly would "live by the sword" mean?
The origin of that is from the story of the last supper and subsequent betrayal and arrest.

The Last Supper:
Matthew 26:
...
29 From now on I am not going to drink any wine, until I drink new wine with you in my Father’s kingdom.” 30 Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives.
...
36 Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane. When they got there, he told them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
...
50 Jesus replied, “My friend, why are you here?”
The men grabbed Jesus and arrested him.
51 One of Jesus' followers pulled out a sword. He struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.
52 But Jesus told him, “Put your sword away. Anyone who lives by fighting will die by fighting.

The follower who attacked with the sword attempted to resolve a problem with laws of the day and the conspiracy which led to the arrest and conviction of an innocent. Cunning and fabrication led to the death of someone who had not broken a law but was out of favor with those of influence and power.

An account of the same evening before leaving for the garden from Luke 22:
...
35 Jesus asked his disciples, “When I sent you out without a moneybag or a traveling bag or sandals, did you need anything?”
“No!” they answered.
36 Jesus told them, “But now, if you have a moneybag, take it with you. Also take a traveling bag, and if you don’t have a sword, sell some of your clothes and buy one.

Taking the whole of the related events of that evening in the admonitions to both 'sell some of one's clothes if need be to buy a sword' and 'not to live by the sword' it is my conclusion that the ownership and even use of a weapon isn't wrong. However, the unlawful use of the weapon, regardless of the intended end, is wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Perhaps you have another view

Have a nice day.

[sarisataka]

45. "It is written they that live by the sword shall die by the sword."

[ileus]

18. I've always been a 2A progressive democrat....ALWAYS.

[sarisataka]

19. Not in the least

Basic Rights are constant regardless of political change

[wincest]

21. agree

[lunamagica]

31. I have not

[MarvinGardens]

35. Not me.

The election made me realize that I am a Democrat, but I have always been in favor of RKBA.

[yagotme]

36. I have not.

Am supporter of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. ALL the rights.

[wincest]

49. "Am supporter of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. ALL the rights."

as am i.

thank you for your response.

includes
roe v. wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Obergefell v. Hodges, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
District of Columbia v. Heller, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
McDonald v. City of Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
Brown v. Board of Education,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[yagotme]

52. I actually got to meet Mr. McDonald,

and got a signed copy of his book. Good read for those liking motivational reading. He had a hard life early on, and I guess that is what made him want to fight so hard to keep what he had earned.

[pablo_marmol]

53. Still standing with (liberal) Kaili Joy Gray

I know I've posted this article a bazillion times, but it exposes the hypocrisy of the gun restriction crew exceedingly well:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Just a few points and issues

When we say:

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

...what we mean is these acts are against the law and you may suffer legal consequences for them.

I have a pet peeve about the very term "gun-control" because the only real control in the world is self-control. Referring to laws as "gun-control" has infected the thinking of the general public that these laws actually control something. They don't. Control is a myth. Why is it we don't call laws against murder "murder control"?

I suggest we move into the 21st century where an internet video can teach you to repair your clothes dryer, change your disc brake pads and build a full-auto rifle. Using archaic and inaccurate terminology in attempts to collect the thoughts and will of the people on an important topic only serve to confuse the issue and impede bringing any priorities to their legislators attention.

An exception to the 1A is prior restraint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

...is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression that prohibits particular instances of expression.
...
In some countries (e.g., United States, Argentina) prior restraint by the government is forbidden, subject to certain exceptions, by a constitution.

My view of the RKBA is that it is a logical consequence of the universal right to life in that a right to life implies a right to self-defense. I find it amusing that many refer to "frontier justice" and "lawless old West" saying that without laws on buying and carrying guns, it would be like the OK Corral. Tombstone, AZ in 1881 had gun control and restrictions on carrying in town which, in fact, was the cause for the famous shootout.

The more things change, the more they remain the same and, regardless of what may be demonstrated by the events of the day, lots of folks are seemingly unable to learn anything.

[pablo_marmol]

60. We might be on the same page on every book on the shelf.

Great post.

I have a pet peeve about the very term "gun-control" because........

Oh yeah --- so much wrong with this label that it's difficult to know where to begin. I wonder if there's ever been a thread dealing with it?

My view of the RKBA is that it is a logical consequence of the universal right to life in that a right to life implies a right to self-defense.

Yup. I think that ignorance relating to the ease at which criminals can obtain "large capacity clips" etc. leads restriction supporters to believe that bans are the answer. Whatever is easily available to criminals needs to be readily available to innocents -- to argue otherwise is immoral in the extreme. The genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Restriction supporters may never get this simple truth though.

The more things change, the more they remain the same and, regardless of what may be demonstrated by the events of the day, lots of folks are seemingly unable to learn anything.

Right -- the Backfire Effect. Maybe we should stop speaking truth to lies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. Thanks. I don't know about today but...

...in the past lawyers and doctors studied Latin simply because the vocabulary and grammar enabled the forming of thoughts into words with precision not merely an accuracy but in razor sharp and concise form. I have an appreciation for understanding a topic and being able to express relevant ideas in the language of the subject. Naming a law "...control" conveys the idea that control is the object.

If you tell folks for long enough that you can control crime and prevent the evil that scares them, some will begin to believe you.


Control is a myth.

Once you accept that the purpose of a law is to be a criteria upon which to base prosecution and conviction in court and not much more, you're on the right path.