Reply to Filibuster for Gun Safety

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Filibuster for Gun Safety"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Here is the problem with having to prove to the government that I am sane:  it is an affront to my sensibilities that I am guilty (of insanity) by default until I can prove otherwise.

That is obnoxious. Criminals certainly are not going to abide by any such limitatoins but we law-abiding citizens will have to just as they have to in Chicago and DC where the criminals can pretty much gun down anyone they want with impunity because the attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment make it difficult to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I know there are limitations on the right to bear arms just as there are with freedom of speech but the two are not comparable:  a person should be able to have as many and of any type of arm for self defence, collecting, or just to feel safe.

Furthermore, the citizenry should be armed with military grade weaponry to send a clear message to the government:  you try to mess with us and you see Orlando?  Well, try to get uppity and tyrannical and it will be the senate floor, supreme court room, or the house of reps where you'll see the gunning down.

A government that has a healthy fear of its citizens is a good thing because it prevents evil leaders from acting with impunity like it has so many times with the kings of Europe and the communist dictators of the world[/quote]

Okay, I don't agree with you my self, but I'm way more sympathetic to many of the arguments you are making because people I love, like my DH, agree with some of them.

But as you've stated things, it goes too far.  The two things that stand out to me are:

(1) You seem to implying that you're willing to accept more restrictions on the First Amendment than the Second.  What?!  Why?  That makes no sense at all.  Can you explain this?

(2) What do you mean by "military grade weaponry" and going to Capitol building?  You realize that the government has tanks, surface to air missiles, and nuclear weapons, right?  I actually get the desire to have weapons to protect yourself from the government, it's baked into our nation's history.  But we already accept the military having better weapons than we do.  If you're intention is just to take a stand, I guarantee that you can do pretty well with a revolver and a hunting rifle.  If you want to launch a full on attack on the US government, you're already pretty screwed due to limitations I'm pretty sure you wouldn't disagree with.[/quote]

#1  I am not willing to accept any restrictions upon the First Amendment.  You can yell Fire!" in a theater if you want to but there are consequences if someone gets hurt.  Just because it is illegal does not mean someone cannot do it.
Furthermore, you can bear arms can go shoot and kill someone and that would be murder, but to try and ban all guns thinking it will prevent murder or mass shootings is not the correct path of action. It opens the door where all the citizens are disarmed which is a very dangers state because it removes a barrier to prevent, should it occur, a vain, rapacious, evil, Emperor Nero kind of person doing as he pleases.  If you think some people are not as evil now as they were during the Roman Empire times, or the Age of Kings, well, you are mistaken:  they are still just as evil, still make plots to get all the power they can to run roughshod over whomever it fancies them to run roughshod over.

An armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny.  It does not mean it will stop tyranny led by a determined leader to wage war on We the People but it is a deterrent.

#2  Military grade weaponry is automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers, psy-ops, anti-air missiles and so forth that, when in the hands of hundreds of millions of citizens would outnumber the regular armed forces and act as a deterrent to the government from stomping on the citizens in any way it wants like Stalin did.  It would not stop the government if it wanted to wipe out such citizens but there would be a cost involved and a cowardly, tyrannical leader is unlikely to want to pay the price for such a "victory".

It is not possible for a mob of citizens who are not trained soldiers to conduct a successful military campaign against soldiers led by West Point graduates who have at their disposal almost unlimited finances and  logistics to support a campaign in the field lasting for as many years as necessary.  It is not going to happen and as far as I know, never in the history of warfare have irregular troops in a lengthy campaign  bested trained veterans except in very small and unusual circumstances. It just does not happen.

It simply is not possible for ordinary citizens to form themselves into platoons, divisions, corps, and armies and march into DC and take it over.  That is never going to happen.  General Washington, even with his trained troops, and the nearly useless irregulars, men who were mostly "fair weather soldiers" who did not have the endurance to spend months in the field,  almost did not win.  Only the timely arrival of the French fleet to bottle up the British on the peninsula was final victory able to be attained.

My argument against Gun Control is to prevent the final elimination of the 2nd amendment in the name of "safety".  I admit there may be holes in my argument as it is not something I have thought deeply about, do not give it much thought. But when I hear every time a shooting occurs the problem is guns and we need to stop people having them, red flags go up in my mind.  That is it really.  I am not some kook hunkering down in a bunker with 100 lbs of canned meat wondering when mean ole Uncle Sam's gonna get me.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics