Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[John Doe]

As far as self-righteous lectures go, that one was pretty good. A lot better than yours. I mean, two sentences? C'mon. Put a little effort into it.

Idiot.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

I didn't say that. You asked me to argue a negative. I simply asked you to do the same.

I'll make it an easier question: can you give me a a good reason I shouldn't own a nuclear bomb if I never intend to use it?

By the way, I also asked you to name a single instance, in 200+ years, that a gathering of armed citizens took on the U.S. government and came out ahead.

Is there a reason you avoided answering that one?

If you were asking me the inverse to my original question it would be "give me a good reason to allow somone to own a gun". I never said anything about nukes, and I dont think there is any reason for somone to own one.

By the way you did not ask me to name shit, you asked Sonny Limatina. But for the sake of discussion no there is no instance where armed citizens took on the government. That is just somthing people dream about, but if just 5% of the population were to do so....it would be a win.

Now, you have yet to answer me. Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own guns for sport as well as the defense of my self, my family and my property?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

If you were asking me the inverse to my original question it would be "give me a good reason to allow somone to own a gun". I never said anything about nukes, and I dont think there is any reason for somone to own one.

By the way you did not ask me to name shit, you asked Sonny Limatina. But for the sake of discussion no there is no instance where armed citizens took on the government. That is just somthing people dream about, but if just 5% of the population were to do so....it would be a win.

Now, you have yet to answer me. Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own guns for sport as well as the defense of my self, my family and my property?

Ok, I can see this is going to take some work. First of all, I'm Sonny Limatina. If you're going to have a discussion, it wouldn't hurt to know which poster you're talking to.

Second of all, I wasn't asking the inverse of your question, and never said I was. I asked a rhetorically identical question: you wanted me to argue a negative. I asked you to do the same.

I'll still accept an answer to it. The question was, give me a good reason I should not own a nuclear weapon, if I do not intend to use it to harm anyone. "There's no reason to own one" is not answer to that question, it simply restates the question. Give a reason--a good one. Why should I not be allowed to own a nuclear weapon in the privacy of my own home, if I have no malicious intent for it?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Ok, I can see this is going to take some work. First of all, I'm Sonny Limatina. If you're going to have a discussion, it wouldn't hurt to know which poster you're talking to.

Second of all, I wasn't asking the inverse of your question, and never said I was. I asked a rhetorically identical question: you wanted me to argue a negative. I asked you to do the same.

I'll still accept an answer to it. The question was, give me a good reason I should not own a nuclear weapon, if I do not intend to use it to harm anyone. "There's no reason to own one" is not answer to that question, it simply restates the question. Give a reason--a good one. Why should I not be allowed to own a nuclear weapon in the privacy of my own home, if I have no malicious intent for it?

sorry, you originally asked richard_daily when armed citizens ever took on the government.

So by giving me a "retorically identical question" are you saying that both questions have the same answer (lacking a proper answer)? or are you saying that just like a nuke or other WMD there is no good reason to own a gun?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

sorry, you originally asked richard_daily when armed citizens ever took on the government.

So by giving me a "retorically identical question" are you saying that both questions have the same answer (lacking a proper answer)? or are you saying that just like a nuke or other WMD there is no good reason to own a gun?

Richard Daily made the statement that the right to bear arms was an important one for keeping the government in check. I asked for an example of where that has been the case, in practice, in the nation's entire 200+ year history.

I also said that people fall back on the second amendment when what they really mean is, I want my guns, and you'd better not try to take them away from me.

You seem to fall into that latter category. Since you do, you asked me to argue the negative--"tell me why I shouldn't have my guns." The reason you took that approach is that you believe you should have them, and there will not be a reason that I could provide that would convince you otherwise.

That's a rhetorical trap. So I set one in return. Any answer you gave to my question would have applied to guns just as easily.

Do I think they're the same? No. Do I think you've asked the wrong question, and in doing so, could I have turned your arguments against you? Yes.

Here's my question. If, 200 years later, guns are no longer a reasonable weapon in the fight against government authoritarianism, and never have been, not even once, why aren't people arguing for a better means of self-defense against that government? Why stick with guns? It's the only killing machine we regard with such awe in this country. If it's not working for its original purpose, why stick with it?

 

[Weird Harold]

...give me a good reason I should not own a nuclear weapon, if I do not intend to use it to harm anyone. ...

If you have the expertise, equipment, and facilities to maintain live nuclear bombs in safe and secure conditions, then you should be able to collect them.

However, since nuclear bombs that are not maintained in safe and secure conditions are a danger to anyone in the vicinity -- even if they are unlikely to create nuclear explosion if neglected -- I think it is reasonable to require some sort of special license to own one or more. Something similar to the special license required to own a fully automatic firearm, for example, bearing in mind the potential casualties of a fully automatic firearm is likely to be less than a hundred where even a low level nuclear incident can endanger thousands if not tens of thousands.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

If you have the expertise, equipment, and facilities to maintain live nuclear bombs in safe and secure conditions, then you should be able to collect them.

However, since nuclear bombs that are not maintained in safe and secure conditions are a danger to anyone in the vicinity -- even if they are unlikely to create nuclear explosion if neglected -- I think it is reasonable to require some sort of special license to own one or more. Something similar to the special license required to own a fully automatic firearm, for example, bearing in mind the potential casualties of a fully automatic firearm is likely to be less than a hundred where even a low level nuclear incident can endanger thousands if not tens of thousands.

OK, good response. Now that I'm aware of the risks, I've decided that I would, in fact, like to collect one or more nuclear weapons. Can you let me know which government agency issues the appropriate license for citizen-ownership of nuclear arms?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Richard Daily made the statement that the right to bear arms was an important one for keeping the government in check. I asked for an example of where that has been the case, in practice, in the nation's entire 200+ year history.

I also said that people fall back on the second amendment when what they really mean is, I want my guns, and you'd better not try to take them away from me.

You seem to fall into that latter category. Since you do, you asked me to argue the negative--"tell me why I shouldn't have my guns." The reason you took that approach is that you believe you should have them, and there will not be a reason that I could provide that would convince you otherwise.

That's a rhetorical trap. So I set one in return. Any answer you gave to my question would have applied to guns just as easily.

Do I think they're the same? No. Do I think you've asked the wrong question, and in doing so, could I have turned your arguments against you? Yes.

Here's my question. If, 200 years later, guns are no longer a reasonable weapon in the fight against government authoritarianism, and never have been, not even once, why aren't people arguing for a better means of self-defense against that government? Why stick with guns? It's the only killing machine we regard with such awe in this country. If it's not working for its original purpose, why stick with it?

ok I understand where you are coming from, and I do fall in the latter category only because I feel that everyone has the right to self defense. Could you turn my arguments against me in an all or nothing context sure, but not in a practical sense because there is nothing defensive or practical about keeping a personal nuke that the gov dose not already have covered.

As far as arguing for a better means of self defense against our government, I agree with you because Americans are far too soft, and don't have a the stomach for an armed rebellion against our gov. Why keep the 2A? Because violent crimes occur, and people should have the right to defend themselves against a violent attacker.

 

[Weird Harold]

OK, good response. Now that I'm aware of the risks, I've decided that I would, in fact, like to collect one or more nuclear weapons. Can you let me know which government agency issues the appropriate license for citizen-ownership of nuclear arms?

That would be the AEC.

I hope you've got a lot of loose change, because Nuclear Weapons aren't cheap and those who have them aren't anxious to sell them.

More to the point of this thread, there is a huge difference between "should" and "could" -- and an even bigger difference between theory and practice.

More realistically, you should be able to own as much high nitrate fertilizer and fuel oil as you can fit into your garden shed or barn, but you can't because high nitrate fertilizer is a "hazardous material" and has been since Port Arthur TX was leveled by a shipload of fertilizer. (it has also been a controlled substance since Timothy McVey blew up the Murrow federal building in OK City.)

 

[Byron In Exile]

No, it looks like you're confusing every person's freedom of speech with each person's freedom of religion. Any religious symbol on a government building, or public prayer administered by a public official (like a teacher or school principal) carries with it the weight of government sanction, and is deemed a preference for that particular religion over all others.

No, it looks like you're an idiot.

Go count the religious words and symbols on a dollar bill.

Also, did you mean to say this?

or

or

or

Yes.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

No, it looks like you're an idiot.

Go count the religious words and symbols on a dollar bill.


Yes.

None of that shit started untill the reconstruction era....and there are a lot of people out there trying to get all the god shit taken off our money.

 

[Byron In Exile]

None of that shit started untill the reconstruction era....and there are a lot of people out there trying to get all the god shit taken off our money.

Perhaps you could quit your day job and join them.

 

[Slowlane]

It is not beyond me, but it does seem to be beyond the ACLU's policy makers.

I can certainly agree with that.

 

[richard_daily]

Yes, that was supposed to be the theory. But in 200-odd years, can you think of a single instance where armed Americans have taken on the U.S. government and come out ahead?

It's the second amendment. Third was against forced-quartering of soldiers.

Together, they are the two amendments with the least ongoing relevance to actual daily life--as it has turned out to be lived--in our country.

The only reason it's unpopular to say that is because people want to own guns, and fuck anyone who has a good reason for them not to.

It's not a theory, it's practice... every day of every year.

The populace doesn't need to rise up and fight people in the street for it to be effective.

Besides, the majority of the people who have done that (just about exclusively right wing nut-jobs) have had some severe detachment from reality... sort of like the tea party as a whole, but that's another story for another time.

 

[richard_daily]

Richard Daily made the statement that the right to bear arms was an important one for keeping the government in check. I asked for an example of where that has been the case, in practice, in the nation's entire 200+ year history.

I also said that people fall back on the second amendment when what they really mean is, I want my guns, and you'd better not try to take them away from me.

You seem to fall into that latter category. Since you do, you asked me to argue the negative--"tell me why I shouldn't have my guns." The reason you took that approach is that you believe you should have them, and there will not be a reason that I could provide that would convince you otherwise.

That's a rhetorical trap. So I set one in return. Any answer you gave to my question would have applied to guns just as easily.

Do I think they're the same? No. Do I think you've asked the wrong question, and in doing so, could I have turned your arguments against you? Yes.

Here's my question. If, 200 years later, guns are no longer a reasonable weapon in the fight against government authoritarianism, and never have been, not even once, why aren't people arguing for a better means of self-defense against that government? Why stick with guns? It's the only killing machine we regard with such awe in this country. If it's not working for its original purpose, why stick with it?

So you trust the guns in the hands of the government, but not in the hands of the general populace, or are you attempting to imply something else?

Perhaps you have a firm trust in authoritarian government, but I never have, and I never will.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Perhaps you could quit your day job and join them.

I'm retired military, no day job....all I do is go to school, party and fuck. However the idea of joining an organization that wants to maintain a separation of church and state is not a bad idea.

 

[eyer]

I'm retired military, no day job....all I do is go to school, party and fuck.

If you don't mind me asking, frizzle - how old are you?

_________________________________________

They shoot lawyers, don't they?

 

[Freebear]

Libs only love themselves. Thats Libbing the Lifestlye!

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

If you don't mind me asking, frizzle - how old are you?

_________________________________________

They shoot lawyers, don't they?

26 years old.

 

[eyer]

26 years old.

Thanks for answering and not freaking out that I might be getting too inquisitive.

I just wondered 'cause you have this tendency to make me think when I read some of your stuff...

...and I thank you for that, too.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Thanks for answering and not freaking out that I might be getting too inquisitive.

I just wondered 'cause you have this tendency to make me think when I read some of your stuff...

...and I thank you for that, too.

DO I NORMALLY FREAK OUT?? DO I!!!!??? HUA???? lol J/k

well, thanks.

 

[eyer]

What's really funny, tho, is that I was just over in another thread where Killswitch used your age to lamely attack you...and I felt kinda responsible for outing you, Son.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

What's really funny, tho, is that I was just over in another thread where Killswitch used your age to lamely attack you...and I felt kinda responsible for outing you, Son.

No worries man, he can bash my age and talk all the shit he want's.....I have had and currently still have a pretty bitchin life for a 26 y/o guy. At the very least I had the willpower to quit smoking cold turkey.