User Tag List

First 4445253545556 Last

Results 531 to 540 of 561

  1. #531
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    See, your founding fathers were smarter than you. Because they knew that what is right for the people today will not necessarily be right for the people tomorrow, they allowed for the constitution to be amended. If one day the majority wants a ban on guns, you will have to obey - or leave for Africa.
    This will be a true test of democracy. I can't imagine it being pretty, but if we reach a point where there really are so few people and so few politicians willing to argue for gun rights, imagine how few will actually actively resist if it does happen... I say the casualties will be minimal and the number of violent deaths will only decline from a temporary high in the wake of such an amendment.

    Something about the Bill of Rights though, people seem to like it.

  2. #532
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Yes they were smart. (smarter than me... I'll let history decide that one)

    If they thought the Second Amendment wouldn't be important in 50 years, they could have instituted the provision in a more easily repealed fashion.

    It's much easier to repeal a law than it is to rewrite an amendment.

    Why make it the second amendment then if its so unimportant.

    The only more important in the eyes of the founders than the right to defend oneself, was the right to express one's opinions (especially if they happen to oppose the sitting government).

  3. #533
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Yes they were smart. (smarter than me... I'll let history decide that one)

    If they thought the Second Amendment wouldn't be important in 50 years, they could have instituted the provision in a more easily repealed fashion.

    It's much easier to repeal a law than it is to rewrite an amendment.

    Why make it the second amendment then if its so unimportant.

    The only more important in the eyes of the founders than the right to defend oneself, was the right to express one's opinions (especially if they happen to oppose the sitting government).
    Why wouldn't we change an amendment? We have done so in the past. To think it can't happen again is just silly. We decide what is important, not some founding fathers that haven't been alive for 200 years. It makes the nation seem less like a cult and more like something we're a real part of.

  4. #534
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Really?? You don't see it?
    Oh I do, I just also see that there is more than a grain of truth to it.

    The reason I'm here is that this shit matters to me.

    I wouldn't spend the time I do on the politics subforum if it didn't.

  5. #535
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'm not a strict constructionist Bear.

    And am fine with Amending the constitution.

    The problem is, that I don't see the institutional problems that necessitate a right to bear arms, disappearing in my lifetime.

  6. #536
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Our military consists more than 1 million people, but less than 2.

    We have over 80 million gun owning families. Most of whom live in densely populated areas.

    The political blowback from bombing one suberb would be more than our gov't could endure.

    They would have to, using soldiers on the ground, go house to house to remove firearms.

    The logistical implications of having that kind of military presence on US soil are insurmountable.
    LOL. I wasn't suggesting that the government would go house-to-house to remove firearms. Of course that would be impractical.

    I was suggesting that if you tried to stage a serious rebellion against government authority, and a whole city decided to rebel or something, they could easily crush it with sheer force. Did the government or the rebels win the Civil War? The government won back then, just due to being more industrialized and efficient, despite the rebels having half the US and some brilliant military commanders on their side. Do you think they would have more trouble now than they did back then? They could just use an EMP and make it REALLY easy to win, because then they would have all the technology and information on their side. Passion does not make up for a strategic disadvantage like that. And I'm just talking about the weapons that we KNOW of.

    Before you use the British as an example, let me remind you that they had the disadvantage of having to cross the Atlantic Ocean in order to do anything.

    There's no need to go house-to-house to remove firearms, because if they were rebelling, they would be out in the streets with their guns prepared to shoot at any soldiers that appeared. If the citizens aren't rebelling, there's no practical reason to try and take firearms away from them in the first place. In fact, leaving the guns in place benefits them at present, because it pacifies the NRA crowd that clings to them.

  7. #537
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post

    The problem is, that I don't see the institutional problems that necessitate a right to bear arms, disappearing in my lifetime.
    Not with that pessimistic attitude

  8. #538
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    If they thought the Second Amendment wouldn't be important in 50 years, they could have instituted the provision in a more easily repealed fashion.
    They could not foresee everything; of that, however, they were aware.

  9. #539
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Lol.

    Rebels emply Guerilla warfare, and would hide within the populace rendering your assumption of a large organized anti gov't force irrelevant.

    Let's see if we still have the 2nd Amendment in 50 years.

    I'll let our future do the rest of the talking for me.

    This is tiresome.

    Have fun agreeing with each other all afternoon.

  10. #540
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Now you're talking about a subset, minority of gun-owners going against the will of the people in this hypothetical future. We could call them anarchists, but anarchy is so early 20th century. We probably wouldn't call them terrorists, because that too will be out of style. We should come up with a new word for these usurpers that strike down their own countrymen from the shadows. I bet they wouldn't be looked upon fondly at all by the population.

Similar Threads

  1. Teachers stage fake gun attack on kids
    By digesthisickness in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 04:35 PM
  2. I've got issues...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 10:28 PM
  3. Iraq-Bound Soldier Hires Hitman To Shoot Him
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO