General Discussion

baldguy

(36,649 posts)

174. The Founders feared a standing army much more than the remote possibility of domestic tyranny.

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 08:12 PM

Jul 2012

That's why they created the 2nd Amendment, to give the responsibility to defend the country to militias instead. And those militias were to be well-regulated - under the control of the govt on the local, state & ultimately, national level. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to create an artificial separation between the govt and the militias. This is a RW myth. The Founders knew & understood that in a functioning representative republic, the constituency served by both the govt and the militia are identical - it's THE PEOPLE.

The 2nd Amendment certainly is not there to allow a failed rent-a-cop to pretend he's John Wayne by blowing away a kid carrying nothing but a suspicious bag of Skittles. Or to allow crazies unlimited access to deadly firearms designed only to kill massive numbers of people. The old saying applies: the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The RW that's supplied the bullshit in your head seems to think it is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

183 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Simple - and serious - question - why is anything other than a handgun, shotgun or rifle needed? [View all] NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 OP

Suppose you have to overthrow the government? MrSlayer Jul 2012 #1

The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the govt, not overthrow it. baldguy Jul 2012 #24

This is why I love DU. DocMac Jul 2012 #28

Yes but try telling them that. MrSlayer Jul 2012 #68

Excellent point! thucythucy Jul 2012 #99

Do your history. Vattel Jul 2012 #113

"The Antifederalist Mysteries" ellisonz Jul 2012 #149

Hey, clueless: if you want to defend freedom & liberty baldguy Jul 2012 #151

Was there really a need for name calling? Chemisse Jul 2012 #162

A RWer quotes a RW fascist, trying to foster a RW extremist myth in favor of a RW policy baldguy Jul 2012 #165

Thats the supidest thing I.ve ever heard permatex Jul 2012 #156

Maybe because your head is full of RW bullshit. baldguy Jul 2012 #159

RW bullshit? permatex Jul 2012 #170

The Founders feared a standing army much more than the remote possibility of domestic tyranny. baldguy Jul 2012 #174

So again show me a majority of constitutional scholars that agrees with your position permatex Jul 2012 #175

Hilarious bongbong Jul 2012 #176

It's because they need authority figures to tell them what to think. baldguy Jul 2012 #178

Stock Talking Points for gun-relgionists bongbong Jul 2012 #179

That's exactly what they tell you, to which I respond.... Scuba Jul 2012 #78

i assert amfortas the hippie Jul 2012 #117

Sarcasm noted and appreciated. Welcome to DU. Scuba Jul 2012 #118

I remember someone saying.... rbixby Jul 2012 #152

LOL.... Iggy Jul 2012 #84

*sigh* (How soon we forget) You mean, like this? Zorra Jul 2012 #91

The examples you cite illustrate the absurdity of the thucythucy Jul 2012 #109

Those appear to be disingenuous half truths expressed for the sake of defending an untenable Zorra Jul 2012 #154

Let's see, you start off by accusing me thucythucy Jul 2012 #181

HA! It is absurd but many RW gun nuts sincerely believe that. DCBob Jul 2012 #97

Why? Profits for the arms industry, of course. (nt) scarletwoman Jul 2012 #2

That is a symptom of the disease. nt DocMac Jul 2012 #29

That is the basic choices. sarisataka Jul 2012 #3

What other weapons are you speaking of besides these? Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #4

anything multiple shot, automatic, rapid fire - anything other than really basic. NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #6

Automatic weapons are intensely regulated 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #13

Umm are you sure? Iggy Jul 2012 #85

I'm sure. His AR-15 wasn't a full auto weapon. Period. Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #89

You are sure because ... ??? panzerfaust Jul 2012 #94

I'm sure because if his AR-15 had been fully automatic it would have been huge news. Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #100

My solution? Same as two-time Republican Candidate for President Barry Goldwater's panzerfaust Jul 2012 #108

Great post! thucythucy Jul 2012 #182

And if his AR15 were automatic HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #135

Quite so. The vast majority of anti-gun posters on this topic obviously Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #138

Yes. Same hysteria that inspired witch-burning 400 years ago. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #142

You didn't read/comprehend Iggy Jul 2012 #95

Sure I did. You don't want and "regular" citizen to be able to own semiautomatic weapons. Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #98

Yes, sure 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #116

So you're speaking of banning anything the can fire more than a single shot without reloading? Johnny Rico Jul 2012 #72

"There are none more righteous than the ignorant" HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #140

Very good question. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #5

I am serious - really feel I need to be better educated - all part of getting to root causes. NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #7

It seems to me rrneck Jul 2012 #30

Those roots are deep. DocMac Jul 2012 #33

Thanks - and I do realize that. I know far more good people than assholes..... NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #34

Sleep well. Have no fear. nt DocMac Jul 2012 #43

Thanks - I did sleep well - I actually never have any fear! NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #77

"All the factors understood" Iggy Jul 2012 #86

To knock over a bank, or armored car... immoderate Jul 2012 #8

Nothing more is legitimately needed. Fuck the apologists who defend more. morningfog Jul 2012 #9

Right, could you point out the people on here 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #12

What other weapons are there 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #10

Should the caffeine content in iced tea be regulated? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #11

Is that a snark sandwich? nt DocMac Jul 2012 #44

All of it. I need *all* of the caffeine. Posteritatis Jul 2012 #52

Uh, and? jberryhill Jul 2012 #14

Hey Man,If the Gubmint comes for my guns, If Obama keeps trying to take my guns rustydog Jul 2012 #15

How? 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #16

who needa an AK-47 assault rifle? My 30-30 has a limited round capacity rustydog Jul 2012 #18

it is touchy, and my attempt at this post (not going too badly) is simply to learn. NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #21

Only 17% of gun owners hunt michreject Jul 2012 #70

"who needa an AK-47 assault rifle" . . . not the kid in CO 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #166

It would not have done a thing Mojorabbit Jul 2012 #146

Hobbyists and collectors like to have different types and varieties. uppityperson Jul 2012 #17

I guess - but if they get used (which they seem to), it goes beyond hobbyists.... NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #19

Some people like gardening. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #41

That'd apply to pistols as much as automatic rifles Posteritatis Jul 2012 #50

No. And not even those without an extensive mental health examination. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #20

Why is anything besides a VW bug, a minivan and a truck needed? OffWithTheirHeads Jul 2012 #22

You can't harm 70 people with a car. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #23

Sure you can. n/t ohheckyeah Jul 2012 #25

You don't get out much, do you? (NSFW picture) Tejas Jul 2012 #62

Actually, there was an incident in Santa Monica, CA coalition_unwilling Jul 2012 #67

I thought of that immediately obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #80

strictly speaking, you are stating logic - but.... NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #26

Bows and arrows were designed to kill. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #45

yes, that's fine - and I choose to not participate in any of those either. NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #75

Thats my point. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #128

show me where I am trying to fit everyone into my box. I am listening and reading and NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #129

Well, you said you didn't understand fascination with guns. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #136

Yes, I did say that - which is why I started the thread, so I could learn. I am not judging, NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #148

Well, I didnt mean to imply that. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #153

agreed. n/t NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #155

Well, I respect the fact that you are really trying to understand the issue OffWithTheirHeads Jul 2012 #51

I am not passing judgement - and I don't need to go to a shooting range because NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #73

I commend you for your intellectual curiosity HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #157

thanks, I try - don't always succeed but try. NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #158

My weapon of choice is the hand grenade. geckosfeet Jul 2012 #27

Don't milk it! nt DocMac Jul 2012 #32

An AR15 is a rifle. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #31

I get the impression that you are DocMac Jul 2012 #36

I dont think it gets any slower than to tell them an AR15 is a rifle, HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #39

Ok. Have the two of you come to a conclussion? DocMac Jul 2012 #40

I think people have the right to own and use firearms for sport, pleasure, and defense if necessary. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #48

And I think people should leave their guns at DocMac Jul 2012 #54

I defend myself by staying out of situations where I need to defend myself. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #65

That's bullshit. DocMac Jul 2012 #66

Dude, you're unhinged. Whats your problem? HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #69

I am not a dude. DocMac Jul 2012 #71

What does the poster being a woman have to do with anything? obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #81

It wouldn't be a stretch for DocMac Jul 2012 #82

You know different women than I do obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #120

The response was not rude or mean. Just the facts. WTF is your issue? Calm down. n-t Logical Jul 2012 #92

Maybe you just didn't get the answer DocMac Jul 2012 #103

You are the one trying to create an "issue" where there is none. Quit.... Logical Jul 2012 #105

I like searching on how to "convert" AR-15's. Pholus Jul 2012 #83

Yes, and there are lots of kits to modify Mustangs to 800 hp. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #150

So the highest rate of fire is about oneupmanship? Pholus Jul 2012 #167

My neighbors like to one-up me on their lawns HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #168

You made me laugh. Pholus Jul 2012 #169

A Springfield is a hundred year old design HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #171

Well at some point your Mustang isn't street legal anymore either. Pholus Jul 2012 #172

Mustang was an example, I dont own one. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #173

No, the AR-15 is an ASSAULT rifle (but some are carbines) panzerfaust Jul 2012 #90

Jesus Christ, another post discussing automatic weapons where none existed in the shooting. n-t Logical Jul 2012 #93

You missed the target. panzerfaust Jul 2012 #101

How do you define "assault style"? Serious question..... Logical Jul 2012 #104

Drop-in auto sears are regulated as machineguns, and are not cheap. slackmaster Jul 2012 #96

When machineguns are outlawed ... panzerfaust Jul 2012 #110

Repeating a LIE doesn't make it true slackmaster Jul 2012 #115

Permits for automatic weapons are very difficult to get. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #134

Because they are cool. (not snark, i promiss) chknltl Jul 2012 #35

good food for thought (and many points for creativity and effort!). thanks... NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #37

The 'cool' factor is one i've yet to see discussed. nt. chknltl Jul 2012 #38

There is an element of that. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #42

Not a trained asassin, just crazed kid. DocMac Jul 2012 #47

BTW, Columbine is the State flower. nt DocMac Jul 2012 #58

No disagreement. Wasn't even talking about him. That said... chknltl Jul 2012 #59

And it's very much one, and every bit as valid a reason as others, too Posteritatis Jul 2012 #53

Some say all you need is a .38 snubbie, 10/22 rifle and a wheelbarrow. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #46

Some people are right. DocMac Jul 2012 #49

Because there is an outmoded belief that Loudly Jul 2012 #55

So no citizens of any country should ever go to war against their government? RegieRocker Jul 2012 #125

The Bush family and the Neocons. Checks and balances. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2012 #56

You think that people armed with assault rifles can take on the US ARMY???? Zoeisright Jul 2012 #60

Who suggested that? Tejas Jul 2012 #63

Die on feet > live on knees Fire Walk With Me Jul 2012 #64

"assault rifle" is a media term GarroHorus Jul 2012 #121

So good to see a sane response here. RegieRocker Jul 2012 #127

I feel you! DocMac Jul 2012 #61

Mayor Bloomberg's bodyguards carry machineguns, ask him. Tejas Jul 2012 #57

ITA. nt raccoon Jul 2012 #74

This has been a worthwhile/interesting exchange - thanks to all for taking it seriously, NRaleighLiberal Jul 2012 #76

Assault weapons are not needed and should be against the law. nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2012 #79

I hope it's okay to piggyback here with my own question re: military veterans & guns OneGrassRoot Jul 2012 #87

I am a former NRA member - and still enjoy shooting - BUT ... panzerfaust Jul 2012 #88

looking for former NRA members backstory Nov 2012 #183

The NRA says we should have AR-15s because the gov't won't let the citizens have nuclear weapons. leveymg Jul 2012 #102

A AR-15 RegieRocker Jul 2012 #106

Unlike an AR-15, a bolt-action rifle can't be easily adapted for full auto fire. leveymg Jul 2012 #107

Bolt action rifles are a rare breed these days. nt GarroHorus Jul 2012 #122

This person wants a ban RegieRocker Jul 2012 #123

Yeah, right, nearly half of all weapons in circulation. GarroHorus Jul 2012 #130

I was referring to leveymg RegieRocker Jul 2012 #131

Aren't semiautos way more than half at this point? Posteritatis Jul 2012 #132

Pretty much. n/t GarroHorus Jul 2012 #139

I cant cite the figures, but I think you are correct. HooptieWagon Jul 2012 #160

No semi automatic weapon RegieRocker Jul 2012 #124

All (or nearly all) semi-auto pistols and rifles can be converted into assault rifles leveymg Jul 2012 #137

Plenty RegieRocker Jul 2012 #141

Sounds like the sort of "will destroy the Party" argument that sustained Jim Crow. leveymg Jul 2012 #143

I am already aware RegieRocker Jul 2012 #144

I am always wary of those who confuse their opinions with "the truth" leveymg Jul 2012 #145

You have no argument RegieRocker Jul 2012 #147

Fully automatic rifles are NOT illegal for civilians to own ... spin Jul 2012 #180

I've always thought a good compromise would be banning handguns. raouldukelives Jul 2012 #111

Compare with Canada RC Jul 2012 #133

I have no problem with heavily regulated handgun ownership. Marrah_G Jul 2012 #112

Did the second amendment specify the type of gun? Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2012 #114

You do realize James Holmes went into the theater with a handgun, shotgun, and rifle... GarroHorus Jul 2012 #119

You need a 100 round magazine if you want to shoot at bees. n/t Ian David Jul 2012 #126

After losing 30 + acres to feral hogs I bought an AR-15 Redford Jul 2012 #161

... which is just a rifle REP Jul 2012 #164

While it would not have prevented this particular tragedy, I agree with you 100%. Chemisse Jul 2012 #163

well if this has already been said sorry for the duplication cindyperry2010 Jul 2012 #177