Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Hold the phone. Are you talking about the typical soldier that carries a bunch of gear and follows orders, or were you talking about rich playboys like George Bush that show up now and then to fly cool planes and shit before vacationing in the Bahamas?

I was thinking more like proto-Marxists who fled to Oxford...

... as well as the Manchurian Marxist-in-Training.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Same reason most of America thought we lost Tet...

... and then LBJ (like Obama) nixed Westmoreland's request for enough troops to administer the coup de grâce...



We have to defeat the intellectuals to have a chance with their fellow fanatics...

Good to see you. Wat's up?

Good to see you, too. Good to be visible.



Life's a rollercoaster - nothing new there. Ah reckon so . . . .

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

yup





*spit*

 

[Saint Peter]

I was thinking more like proto-Marxists who fled to Oxford...

... as well as the Manchurian Marxist-in-Training.

When the bullet hits the boner they are peas in a pod.

However, the majority of the armed forces do not come from money. Most of them are poor kids from working class families. Put your political spin on it as you always do. It changes nothing.

The poor supplying the military with manpower has been around for thousands of years.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It's not fer eatin' - it's just fer lookin' through.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You can't have it both ways.





Poor, or working class...?

Actually, a lot of them come from the middle-class. Let's not spend the morning playing the oxy-game...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's not fer eatin' - it's just fer lookin' through.

We're all civilized now.




People are sneaking up on us Right and Left...

 

[Saint Peter]

You can't have it both ways.





Poor, or working class...?

Actually, a lot of them come from the middle-class. Let's not spend the morning playing the oxy-game...

The working poor. It is not so hard to understand.

Is your Little Pumpkin going to join the Marines? I doubt it.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

We're all civilized now.




People are sneaking up on us Right and Left...

They freed mah horse. They got him pullin' a wagon up there in Kansas, I'll bet.

 

[sufisaint]

Supporters of the Second Amendment make all kinds of aspersions towards the idea that gun ownership is a protection against a tyrannical government. In today's day and age, that's ridiculous. No citizens militia armed with legally obtained weapons is going to form up and succeed in overthrowing a government backed by the most powerful military in the world. The limitations that our society has already accepted on the ownership of arms has guaranteed that already. So the aspersion is either a complete falsehood or a delusion.

So if you've already accepted that this is a falsehood, that we've already denuded the Second Amendment beyond our Founders' intent, then is it so much of a push to argue that gun ownership isn't needed in our society? In the 18th and 19th centuries gun ownership was necessary on the frontier for self-protection. Today? We live in a highly regulated and highly policed society. Gun ownership is no longer necessary, nor can it protect against a tyrannical government. So what's left is personal pleasure in having that kind of power in your hands versus the risk of death or serious bodily injury from accidents and hotheads. I think the risk isn't worth it. There have been a spate of murder-suicides in my area lately. Every one just makes me sick.

The classic "you cannot beat the military with small arms in a war" arguement, therefore you have no right to protect yourself against the government or criminals. First off, there is a big difference between winning a battle and occupying a country, let alone trying to govern one in which a society can function so it can actually pay its soldiers. How about this, I give you a tank and I will take an ak-47. You spend a few million building it, I spend about 400 dollars on mine and lets another 400.00 on ammo. You have to pay for training from company, you have to pay a few hundred for rounds. You need mechanics to fix the tank, you have to pay for fuel and you have to transport the tank to my area and have fuel availaible. You need at least 50 people to support you just to drive your tank to my house. And when I see you coming, I slip out the back and go over to my neighbors, but since you don't know which one i guess you start firing on their houses as well. Well, maybe you need to track me with a satillite with infrared technology, then call in air support to get me before I leave the house. Now you spent another couple of millions. But I can go out few with my 400 dollar gun and shut the whole city down with just a few shots at the right time and place. Now try doing that when 20 or so million armed citizens are doin the same. It just not cost effective, you cannot do it over months let alone years. We cannot even do it in Iraq, with a small number of combatants, let alone if it was here internally crippling our economy so China would not lend us the money so we could do it on "credit". I won't waste my time anymore going into this....Just because you can win battles does not mean you can occupy and control a country, let alone your own country with armed citizens. That is exactly why all dictators and communist countries outlaw guns.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The working poor. It is not so hard to understand.

Is your Little Pumpkin going to join the Marines? I doubt it.

Her best friend is following her siblings into the Air Force...




They are not "the working poor."

But you hold on to your cherished myths...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

They freed mah horse. They got him pullin' a wagon up there in Kansas, I'll bet.

By now, he's a skeleton...




Those poor pilgrims had to eat too.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

By now, he's a skeleton...




Those poor pilgrims had to eat too.

He's got the sun at his back - that oughta give 'im an edge.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Bad day to be a Comanchero...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

No me mata, no me mata . . .

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Funny how some can toss all "liberals" into a pile and say one thing about them, but cry foul if the same thing is done to their Tea Party in return.

Signed,
Ulaven_Demorte, concealed weapon toting liberal.

 

[Liar]

Yep, it's kinda bizarre, this "libruls hate the 2nd amendment and want to take yer guns" meme. Most American liberals and progressives I know, are in full support of all the amendments, including the 2nd. They are almost all also gun owners. Some are even NRA members.

While I'm sure that those who DO want to ban guns are found mainly on the left, they seem to be a fringe minority.

 

[statsultan]

The classic "you cannot beat the military with small arms in a war" arguement, therefore you have no right to protect yourself against the government or criminals. First off, there is a big difference between winning a battle and occupying a country, let alone trying to govern one in which a society can function so it can actually pay its soldiers. How about this, I give you a tank and I will take an ak-47. You spend a few million building it, I spend about 400 dollars on mine and lets another 400.00 on ammo. You have to pay for training from company, you have to pay a few hundred for rounds. You need mechanics to fix the tank, you have to pay for fuel and you have to transport the tank to my area and have fuel availaible. You need at least 50 people to support you just to drive your tank to my house. And when I see you coming, I slip out the back and go over to my neighbors, but since you don't know which one i guess you start firing on their houses as well. Well, maybe you need to track me with a satillite with infrared technology, then call in air support to get me before I leave the house. Now you spent another couple of millions. But I can go out few with my 400 dollar gun and shut the whole city down with just a few shots at the right time and place. Now try doing that when 20 or so million armed citizens are doin the same. It just not cost effective, you cannot do it over months let alone years. We cannot even do it in Iraq, with a small number of combatants, let alone if it was here internally crippling our economy so China would not lend us the money so we could do it on "credit". I won't waste my time anymore going into this....Just because you can win battles does not mean you can occupy and control a country, let alone your own country with armed citizens. That is exactly why all dictators and communist countries outlaw guns.

So I assume you think the Civil War was a good thing? So good that you're willing to have another?

But I agree that this entire argument is moot. Regardless of the reasons why I'd like to see guns banned, I have already stated that the only way that would (or should) be legal is by amending the Constitution, and our citizenry is NEVER going to let that happen -- probably ever again for any reason, but especially not to limit or repeal the 2nd A.

 

[statsultan]

If that were true, Obama would not have announced his huge cuts in military personnel...

Could you please provide a link to that (hopefully, to a reputable news organization)?

I KNOW!

Let's recruit MEXICANS! Give them half the wage and a promise of citizenship! It's how the Romans kept their army stocked and the Germans under their thumb!

Actually, serving in the U.S. military is a path to citizenship for immigrants. LINK

 

[Weird Harold]

...In the 18th and 19th centuries gun ownership was necessary on the frontier for self-protection. Today? We live in a highly regulated and highly policed society. ...

Here speaks a "city kid" who probably lives in a gated and guarded community with a police substation next door.

Fortunately, "highly regulated and highly policed" isn't the state of affairs in most of the country and if that were the case, it would be the kind of situation the Founders intended american citizens be able to resist -- whether by the power of the press or the power of the gun.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

So I assume you think the Civil War was a good thing? So good that you're willing to have another?.

You my friend are seriously confused as far as the differences of a civil war and an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government are concerned.
No one wants a civil war, but there are a numbers of people who would gladly stand and fight, exercising their constitutional OBLIGATION to abolish our government should it become tyrannical and oppressive. Why do you think there are more country boys and vet’s on the DHLS’s “suspected terrorist” watch list than there are Muslim extremist? The gov is far more scared of vet’s and home grown terrorist than they are of some habibi extremist organization. One mans patriot is anothers terrorist.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You my friend are seriously confused as far as the differences of a civil war and an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government are concerned.
No one wants a civil war, but there are a numbers of people who would gladly stand and fight, exercising their constitutional OBLIGATION to abolish our government should it become tyrannical and oppressive. Why do you think there are more country boys and vet’s on the DHLS’s “suspected terrorist” watch list than there are Muslim extremist? The gov is far more scared of vet’s and home grown terrorist than they are of some habibi extremist organization. One mans patriot is anothers terrorist.

The bolded above sounds like one of those made-up statistics. Can you show anything that backs that up? Not a prisonplanet type citation please.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

The bolded above sounds like one of those made-up statistics. Can you show anything that backs that up? Not a prisonplanet type citation please.

Did you know that 67% of all statistics are bullshit? not that what I gave was a statistic but what I said was wrong, and for that I apologize. Department of Homeland Bullshit claims US citizens only make up 5% of the list. I made that mistake….the watch list “scrutinizes” Americans most according to.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/860000-name-lon/

There are also many other articles out there about the terrorist watch list on the web. I just know that everyone who has had any advanced combat training in the military and even a number of SWAT/EOD/Bomb Squad members all end up on that shit list after they leave their respective organizations.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

Now why do you think the gov would place vets and cops who have sniper/CQB/explosives/special warfare training but are otherwise upstanding model US citizens on a list like that? Because the gov is SCARED shitless of those people and what they are capable of. So label them a terrorist, use the patriot act to keep tabs on them and if shit did hit the fan on the domestic front they would be the FIRST people detained and held. 50 years ago they screamed "communist" and fear mongered the people into giving the gov more control, now they do the exact same thing with "terrorist" to keep that fear and control going.

 

[statsultan]

You my friend are seriously confused as far as the differences of a civil war and an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government are concerned.
No one wants a civil war, but there are a numbers of people who would gladly stand and fight, exercising their constitutional OBLIGATION to abolish our government should it become tyrannical and oppressive. Why do you think there are more country boys and vet’s on the DHLS’s “suspected terrorist” watch list than there are Muslim extremist? The gov is far more scared of vet’s and home grown terrorist than they are of some habibi extremist organization. One mans patriot is anothers terrorist.

You don't think the Southerners circa 1860 viewed the Federal Government as "Tyrranical"? Really?

The only difference between a civil war and an armed insurrection is the number of people involved.