And what makes some believe that they can take down most well-funded and -armed military in the world with shotguns and assault rifles?
Hi, Justin as for the Second Amendment, it did have an explicit purpose at one time of putting the powers that be on notice that the people will move forcibly against tyranny if it raises its ugly head once again. But today, its emphasis seems more to me like a right wing threat to bring down Government, if the traditional democratic process fails to provide their desires as to how the country is run. That is unacceptable. Can conservatives cling to the Second amendment but ignore the rest of the Bill of Rights/Constitution? I have certainly wondered about that....
To caricature supporters of the Second Amendment as those seeking to "take down most well-funded and -armed military in the world with shotguns and assault rifles" is most problematic.
Do you really think that supporters of the Second Amendment can all be categorized as anti-government?
Because that is exactly how they frame it. Cold dead hands. They quiver in their boots at conspiracies they tell each other about a tyrannical govt coming for their precious toys.
It's their motto, I'm not imagining it.
And no, not everysingle person with a firearm is anti-govt.
Tyrannical government is always a possibility with government. Angels do not run governments, humans do. Who brutalized the Indians, enslaved the Africans, murdered Jews, Armenians, Kulaks, etc...? Governments. Lefties bristle whenever the phrase "American Exceptionalism" is uttered but believe, beyond all reason, that somehow the government of the United States is some how the greatest exception in human history. It is the only government incapable of abusing its power, silliness abounds on the left.
Umm, no. We have a little thing called self-governance. The people cannot be separated from self-governance by very definition. "Exceptional" is ridiculous. Nothing about where you happened to e born makes you exceptional.
And...our form of gov't is not exceptional either. Over 80% of the world is democratically run...
We were first, no doubt.
But how exactly are we better - aside from military spending?
I wonder if any American is actually anti-government? "To be pro-limited government," as the FOUNDERS were, has become "To be anti-government." It is a distortion beyond reason.
You make a great point. Many liberals think that conservatives are against the government. We're not against government. We're against large, intrusive, and wasteful governments.
Unfortunately, many conservatives are cherry-picking what government intrusion means or does not mean.
For example: How can small government, non-intrusive government conservatives support laws that regulate same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, the right to die, divorce, etc.?
Isn't it anathema---if one is a true conservative, to suggest that the government can reach into our personal lives and regulate our most private conduct?
Conservatives do believe in minimal government regulation though. That's the point. If we didn't cherry pick those issues that we believe need regulation, we wouldn't really be conservatives; we'd be anarchists, people opposed to any regulation.
Even so, many true conservatives are opposed to regulating several of the issues you mentioned. Frankly, I don't care what people do behind closed doors at home, for the most part.
Because it's been done before... a few times.
History has shown time and time again that military superiority is, in no way, a guarantee of victory.
Sun Tzu gives a clue as to how it has been done. It is not the size or strength of an army that determines victory it is the will of the people to fight a war. Vietnam was a failure not because the Viet Cong and the NVA were a superior force but because the American people had lost the will to fight.
Point being that right wing nut jobs are more than willing to murder millions of fellow Americans so they can keep their toys that no one is trying to take from them.
All the while ignoring the actual problems with this country. The 2nd Amendment gun nuts think that so long as they have their rifle everything will be okay in the end. All the while our other rights are being trampled upon.
It's the same as evangelical climate denial - *god will deal with it in the end, so why should we worry about it now?*
No, the actual point is that "right wing nuts" is the fall back position for lefties who gladly abuse power. Witness the multiple stories about the IRS, the Justice Department, the EPA all abusing the power that lefties so love. Witness the expansion of the Patriot Act under Obama. But it is all about "right wing nuts." HILARIOUS.
Please, go on about the IRS. Faux news didn't tell you that liberals were targeted also, a liberal group was the only one to lose tax-exempt status, and a CONSERVATIVE IRS worker was behind it all. Try again.
So poorly informed, so irrational, so funny. Tne Faux News thing is so cute, as if everyone watches Fox. Lefties are so narrow minded and so full of false and silly assumptions.
Well aren't you clever. "Nuh-uh" is not a valid argument. Try being specific, kiddo.
(I'll go even further on GP - John Shafer is the self-described "conservative republican" who was behind the "scandal". Lois Lerner was the supervisor who the right-wing wanted to flog even though her conservative underling was the culprit.
John Shafer - google it.
Not much point in that, casting pearls before swine and all.
I think we should ban liberals and democrats. From what I have found, it's democratic controlled cities that have the most gun violence. Fanatical Left Wing Gun Violence Perpetrators, does not fit into the partisan fantasy world they live in unfortunately.
Good thinking. We should let the fanatical right wing idiots, oops I mean patriots, handle things. They know what's up. Limbaugh 2016!
In case you haven't noticed, democracy and democrat are entwined by very definition. Conservatism by definition means opposition to progress.
No, you confuse change with progress. Obamacare is change, but it's not progress, for example.
By the way, conservatives have absolutely no problem with change; liberals love to think that we do have a problem with progress and change. We'd love to change many things: the president, America's budget, Obamacare, entitlements, the debt, the deficit, taxes, abortion laws, over regulation, failed education policies, energy reliance on other nations, etc.
We want progress too.
Conservatism does not mean "by definition" opposition to progress.
Conservative progress is possible just as liberal regression is possible.
And why is a conversation about the Second Amendment devolving into one about entitlements and economics.
I think supporters of the Second Amendment should avoid being sucked into unrelated discussions; discussions that can be used and are used to do little more than disparage.
Now ain't that American: Ban everything you don't agree with.
Sometimes I wonder...no I don't.
Gun nuts? Right wing-nuts?
You know, maybe a little bit of learning would do you well.
Not all people who embrace the Second Amendment are "nuts" or right-wing or even conservative or Conservative.
If you don't believe that the Second Amendment is valid---if you believe that the Founding Fathers erred in their judgment when granting a civilian right to keep/bear arms, then work to have the Second Amendment nullified with another Amendment to the Constitution as was done with the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution which nullified the 18th Amendment.
I already answered your question. First of all, my dad has guns, my best friend carries daily (and works at "guns & ammo", btw), and I've owned a handgun (plus numerous bb guns) in the past. Plus I was certified marksman with an m-16.
There is a difference between gun-owners and gun-nuts.
A gun-owner is someone who owns a gun and treats it respectfully. Gun-nuts bring their assault rifles to rallies meant to intimidate mothers against gun violence, are convinced that the gov't wants to take their guns, and can't wait to wage war (treason) against the United States with their rifles (often used to compensate for small members, btw).
Your original post appeared to paint all 2nd amendment supporters as gun nuts. There are "nuts" on both sides of the fence. You used a very broad brush to paint any 2nd amendment supporter as a "gun nut"
Now you say your dad had guns. Was he a "gun nut?"
Are all your gun-owning friends "gun nuts?"
You say you owned a handgun, are/were you a "gun nut?"
Are you qualifying your original post to be directed at the "gun nuts," (yes, I admit they exist), or are you sticking by your apparent statement that anyone that supports the 2nd amendment is a "gun nut?"
Perhaps you were intending to discuss extremists as you see on TV like "Doomsday Preppers" or something from from faux H2 History channel?
There are extreme nut cases for every issue, wouldn't you be more comfortable qualifying your statements? Especially since you admit your family and yourself are 2nd amendment "partakers?"
Did you have a point? I've been pretty clear on this subject.
Americans have the right to own firearms (which I have in the past), and some of my acquaintances are gun owners as well...
Sound like a 180-degree turn to me from the gun owner equals wing-nut of his previous comments.
Some people do not understand their own minds.
I don't have a problem of people owning guns. My problem is idiots owning guns. Thinking Billy Bob and his beer buddies are going to take on a, or any, tyrannical government with their AR-15s and Duck Dynasty designer shotguns, need to lay off the moonshine. Keep in mind, under Hitler, Jews were allowed to own firearms (they were banned from manufacturing them). How'd did that go? There were a few Jewish uprisings in Poland, but they never stood a chance against the SS who had better toys.
Billy Bob and his beer buddies with rifle and shotguns are not killing people %-wise. Democrat and liberal controlled cities have the worst gun violence and with handguns.
Truth, really is bothersome to lefty/ liberal fanatics.
I have seen parrots with a bigger vocabulary than lefty weirdos. Faux news, right wingers, Koch brothers, We want Change. Who can have a rational, adult debate or conversation with mentalities that act like 2 year olds?
Your point seems to be that poor people kill each other. Your solution seems to be that we take guns away from the poor.
If your brain was functional, you would realize that poverty and the lack of financial mobility can only produce poverty-ridden children with basically zero opportunity and thus no consequence (if you are condemned at birth to permanent destitution, in what way could u possibly be further punished?). When opportunity and mobility are closed off... what would folks then do to make money, when the standard routes are shuttered?
Did you have a point?
Tiny opinions for tiny minds, the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw held out longer than FRANCE and France had more men, more tanks and more artillery than the Germans. Crunch on that.
You forgot to say that France was Vichyst meaning traitor. Petain at the head of France obeyed to the Germans. It explained why. Furthermore Germans made reprisals to any killing of German soldiers. The resistance movement was different from the army, it was independent.
It's really not too complicated. One can own a firearm without believing that their trigger finger is the be-all end-all. Gun ownership and intellect are obviously not mutually exclusive.
I've explained numerous times who gun-nuts are; they think the gov't is coming for their guns. They retreat to the woods (or internet) and tell each other how much they hate... everything around them.
With all due respect, you seriously do not understand what "gun nuts" believe. If you were to speak to most of the people you refer to as "gun nuts," you'd find that most of these same people are just as adamant about the first and fourth amendments. You only hear about the second amendment.
Oh, I get it just fine. Right-wing hate groups (militias, often white-supremacy) have exploded in numbers since 2009 (hmmm, what changed in 2009 again?...).
The vast majority of gun-nuts (opposed to every-day gun-owners) were already anti-gov't - now their standing as the majority is being threatened (majority race - and gun ownership breaks down to basically white rural folks; black urbanites own relatively few guns), so they retreat to the woods where they get hard telling each other how much they hate the changing world around them.
But no need to worry, they still have their precious rifles that makes them feel safe.
Guns are the solution to exactly nothing.
This is a civilized nation, we get to vote. We have peaceful transitions of power based upon those votes. The people have the power to create whatever kind of country we choose at the ballot box and with our 1st Amendment rights to speak and assemble. Violence solves nothing. And guns only create more violence, that is what they are made for, it is the singular purpose.
You say this as if it can never change. German civilization was much older. Japanese older still and Italian even older than that. All had elective and peaceful means of government transition. Lefties believe in such irrational and funny things.
Be careful what you wish for.
They banned hand guns here in the UK after the 1996 Dunblane massacre, all it has achieved is to stop responsible adults owning a guns. Criminals don't give a toss for the law and continue to own and use hand guns at will. I do believe the incidents of shootings and the use of illegal weapons has gone up and is still rising.
For a country who were born of the gun I think its a little strange that people are talking about restricting or banning the ownership of fire arms.
Governments kill more innocent people than anyone. Why don't you go take their guns and stop with the libel?
Because we have a right to own a firearm in this country. Even Scalia says their are restrictions. There is no need to open-carry in urban settings - but if I lived out in the middle of nowhere in Montana and no law-enforcement is close by, I would certainly NEED a firearm for protection. Unfortunately, guns are over 40x more likely to harm a friend/family member than to be used against an intruder. They do far far far more harm than good in most real-life circumstances.
The problem is that many folks with tiny intellects believe that their rifle is a viable substitute for winning elections.
Why else would they be so darned afraid of someone taking their precious guns - when no politician has EVER suggested that we confiscate weapons from citizens. EVER.
Open carry is stupid. A lefty claiming Antonin Scalia said something in an attempt to defend a silly position is so entertaining. And for a guy who demands that others answer and be specific you certainly ignored the question.
I already answered your idiotic question, and now I am starting to question why I bothered. I stated that the 2nd Amendment is why. I didn't mention that the logistics of confiscation would be nigh-on impossible.
Lets see what your nonsensical fears amount to - kicking down doors and flipping over mattresses, breaking safes and cavity searches, scouring the entire country with metal detectors and uncovering every bleep, patting down gramma and new-borns. All of which amounts to illegal search and seizure - and all of which would be slapped down by the SCOTUS...
Nut-jobs don't seem to understand that it is logistically impossible, aside from being politically impossible - to take everyones guns. And that assumes that someone wants to confiscate guns (which again, no serious politician has EVER proposed). EVER.
Nut-jobs get hard off of the stories they tell each other - not realizing that the gun-manufacturing lobby (NRA) is behind all of this propaganda, which only serves to make more and more and more money for gun-manufacturers. BTW, gun-ownership is at an all-time low, and is shrinking and shrinking by the year. We simply have mentally-obtuse nut-jobs with larger and larger arsenals.
If you have this completely wrong, one must wonder how much more you have wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- … -1993.aspx
http://www.livescience.com/17737-privat … aphic.html
http://www.nssfblog.com/infographic-gun … ales-rise/
Oops, my mistake. I responded to an earlier post thinking you might be open to a rational discussion. I now see I was wrong.
Just ignore mu intrusion.
There are plenty of nut-job controlists too, people who want to abolish the second amendment and confiscate arms. You say that you understand the difference between most gun owners and nut jobs but seem to keep droning about a small percentage of gun owners. What's the point? Both sides have their extremists. There are plenty of people with tiny intellects on the left too, the kind that think that the abolishment of guns will result in a lollypop and rainbow kind of world where people dance through the tulip fields and hold hands with total strangers. That kind of intellect and naiveté runs pretty deep on the other side's extremity. We have balance. Why don't we talk about the majority of Americans who fall somewhere in the middle?
Gun ownership data in the United States---at least the US where I live:
A poll done by THE ECONOMIST shows: "That 39 percent of American households own guns, which represents a five percent increase over the number of gun owning households in 2012."
People who own guns, should do so responsibly. If they don't and people get hurt, that is unfortunate and awful. What is even more awful though, is an unarmed America that could become subject someday to a tyrannical or some other form of government if not an outright enemy, and without the possibility of fighting back. Our country has been too comfortable for so long, and people could care less about history, we are kind of a big target.
I still think that even if Americans had no guns, they would unite and fight with sticks and rocks to not go down without fighting. I think there is an observable response to people being encouraged to lose their guns shaming those that want them or those having them, etc. It is having the opposite effect, or so it seems, lol.
What right-winger (as you claim) are "willing to murder millions of fellow Americans so they can keep their toys that no one is trying to take from them"?
Are you one of those who thinks that if we regulate guns into some virtual non-existence that criminals will not have guns and will not commit gun violence?
What are you talking about?
What I am not understanding is why your posts go from support of the Second Amendment and claims of being a gun owner---or at least having a best friend or something that is a gun owner, to claims that right wing-nuts are killing Americans in order to keep their toys?
Poor guerrilla armies have fairly routinely done just that, with the help of the general population.
The second amendment isn't about taking down the government for the majority of Americans.
I actually agree that many Americans have allowed the government to usurp its authority and diminish our rights, but I believe that this is not limited to the fourth amendment.
If a tyrannical government was wanting to take over, (Even if they have all power at their disposal a 100x over), it is a wonderful thing to have still gone down fighting back a little bit than not being able to fight back at all.
When you say surrender do you mean Americans gave up something knowing what it was? Was the Patriot Act and recent revelations with NSA rights to listen and gather personal information what you are talking about? As to the Patriot Act the government scared congress half to death following the original 911 attacks and took advantage of our weakened state. They rushed the bill through and once in place will be impossible to repeal. Once they take away a right it is gone for good. The only repealed amendment to the constitution to date was the 18th with regards to alcohol. Shows you where our heads at. Rahm Emmanuel said “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” As far as the guns go I like the idea that a police officer has to think twice before barging someone's door open just because he has a suspicion. I no longer own guns but I think there is no reason why you would need to take them away from somebody who is responsible with their use. Besides the government has done such a bang up job of getting guns out the criminals hands haven't they?
Remember, the Obama administration has expanded government power under the Patriot Act, wants an internet "kill switch," and has sought control over the content of the internet.
"I earnestly pray that the Omnipotent Being who has not deserted the cause of America in the hour of its extremest hazard, will never yield so fair a heritage of freedom a prey to Anarchy or Despotism."
The whole spying thing would not mean the same if we had a government who had boundaries and could be trusted to honor them. But just as the NSA has expanded their powers who is to say they won't use the information for a business cohort or a politician looking for dirt on an opponent? That is the crux of the matter and I don't trust them even this much. We are getting squeezed on all sides and the result will be like a gulag in the end.
Why do so many say that "Hey, I'm no terrorist - why should I care"? Because the next elected official (or next guy running for office) who wants to speak out (against defense contractors or surveillance contractors, arms manufactures and profiteers of efficient murder, Koch and Monsanto-style polluters, billionaire bankers and pharmaceutical CEOs) will be blackmailed into shutting up and promoting corporate profits above all else. Which one of our two political parties already has done... Job creators!!!
If our next elected opens up his mouth and dares act upon his words, he will be assassinated. Our history speaks for itself.
If, for a reason or another, the state falls into dereliction like it is in Detroit in a microeconomic fashion and the government represses rebellion then those assault weapons will have their purpose.
What does our government ordered by the elite fear so much that they have to muzzle the population?
Which Army are you referring to? If your are referring to the United States Army, what makes you think they'll have to? I am a Veteran, and do you actually think our Army would fire upon our own citizens? We swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the president. That's why he is destroying the Army and building his own mercenaries like Hitler's Brownshirts. Why do you think he's in need of money? Fight the debt ceiling, demand a balanced budget, Refuse to pay anymore taxes and don't sign up for Obama-stupid. Every penny of your hard-earned money is used to destroy America, not build it.
You who defend the government had best do a bit more research; look up something called "Operation Paperclip", and you will find how and why hundreds, perhaps thousands of high-ranking Nazii scientists and officials were smuggled into the US; how many of them were placed in high positions .How they helped develop such things as sarin gas, psy-ops, the Manhattan project, and nasty biochemical weapons the government pretends doesn't Know how they got into Saddam Hussein's hands. Look harder, and you will find it was some of our major industrialists like Henry Ford, Morgan, and Prescott Bush that INVENTED the Third Reich and helped finance Hitler's rise to power; that the Reich wasn't defeated--Germany was. I think that would make a good hub, eventually. Anyway, recall that the Nazi's were a "Socialist" party, and perhaps you can figure out what's happening to the US tofay and why there are so many lies and deceptions coming out of Washington.
by GA Anderson 11 months ago
Admittedly I am a Constitution admirer. I think it is one of the most brilliantly created documents ever. In my mind, the Constitution is the frame that the house that is America is built onj.There has been much conversation about the Second Amendment being outdated, and not...
by flacoinohio 5 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Anish Patel 6 years ago
Is it time to get rid of the Second Amendment?The right to bear arms, does it still make sense in today's world?
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are...
by Sooner28 6 years ago
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012 … t-mix?liteThis officer openly declares he doesn't like the Constitution.
by jgrimes331 2 years ago
Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution? If we are going to have the right to bear arms, shouldn't the "burden" in...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|