- Feb 5, 2013
- 39,384
- 40,868
i havent heard or seen that, there was talk of a second shooter since there were 2 windows busted on 32nd floor
Shooting Reported at Las Vegas Casino Hotel
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by EddieDoyers,
- Start date
- Dec 25, 2003
- 43,235
- 28,446
I agree that something should be done to curb the ease of access to guns for American citizens, but to play devil's advocate for a second, what changed that made the 2nd amendment not about protecting your freedom from a tyrannical government. It's definitely more complex than people make it out to be sometimes. Do we really trust this government enough, did something happen between then and now that makes us as a people comfortable enough to say that we'll never have to defend ourselves from our government using force?
Now, this is not a question to those who want to impose stricter laws around purchasing and licensing, but to those who want to ban guns outright. To put a lot of power and control into the hands of a government and more specifically an administration and president who have time and time again shown us that our rights don't really mean much.
Now, this is not a question to those who want to impose stricter laws around purchasing and licensing, but to those who want to ban guns outright. To put a lot of power and control into the hands of a government and more specifically an administration and president who have time and time again shown us that our rights don't really mean much.
- May 3, 2009
- 10,298
- 26,749
yes.
- Dec 25, 2003
- 43,235
- 28,446
In fairness, a lot of republicans or 'originalists' believe that context doesn't really play a role, and there should be limited interpretation going on with the words of the constitution. Apparently, that's a valid argument that gets thrown around. That times changing have no impact on the interpretation of the constitution.
- Oct 10, 2008
- 10,756
- 9,096
and they're lying about it because.......?
- Aug 27, 2015
- 1,044
- 392
Yes, I'm a Libertarian.
I don't think the government is currently tyrannical, or definitely will enslave us, but I believe the 2nd Amendment is there to help keep that from happening. I don't live in fear or really even have any anxiety about that happening anytime soon. But to ignore history (Hitler @ 12.5 mil, Stalin @ 20 mil, and Mao @ 40 mil, in particular) and willingly give up that deterrent would be beyond foolish.
I agree that the first, second, and third steps in dealing with problems should be accomplished with words and democracy, as you said. Only as a last, last resort would one even consider having to resort to violence.
Yes, the Constitution can be amended. As it is now, the 2nd Amendment, while vague to some, is still a valid part of the Constitution. ("Shall not be infringed" seems pretty straightforward to me.) If the will of the American people at some point in the future is that that protection be disbanded, yes, it can be done.
I'll think about your last question and answer in another post after lunch.
- Oct 10, 2008
- 10,756
- 9,096
Dudes really think they'll be able to resist "government enslavement" with their trusty ar-15?
You can't be that dumb fam.
You can't be that dumb fam.
- Dec 25, 2003
- 43,235
- 28,446
Was this in response to me?
Personally, I don't think it's about whether or not you'd succeed...it's about giving citizens a fighting chance to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Now whether or not that is a valid worry today may be up for debate, and the use of the 2nd amendment today definitely doesn't reflect this at all. So it's definitely a lot more complex than I'm making it out to be now. And that's also not to say that it'll EVER come to revolution, but to overlook the possibility or just breeze by because of the idea that you wouldn't be able to defend yourself from the government with an AR is shortsighted.
I think the teaching of this material plays a major role in how we interpret them today. I remember learning about the 2nd amendment and why it was necessary at the time. It kind of blew my mind how far we've got from it's initial purpose.
- Jun 7, 2008
- 3,766
- 7,672
photos of the gun...
- Jun 7, 2005
- 1,950
- 839
I had a good minute to think about it this morning watching Morning Joe, and I think he hit the nail on the head.
Why do so many Americans own "assault rifles" ?
People are afraid. White people are afraid they're losing their position in this country. Look at the period between 2000-2010
2001 - 9/11 attacks
2002 - war in Afghanistan
2003 - war in Iraq
2005- - Katrina
2008 - housing bubble bursts
2009 - economic collapse
I think after all that, a lot of Americans saw the it as the decline of the America they knew. Look at American politics now. Everything is politicized and everyone is sticking with their tribe and there's no real discourse. I bought my first AR right before the 2008 election, mostly because I saw a lot of things that had me genuinely scared. I remember hearing the rhetoric of sheriffs and militia groups saying if Barrack Obama was elected it would lead to civil war, or a race war, or some other type of civil discord.
I also understand why many people there are no practical purposes for an AR, AK, or other .mil style rifle. Even if you took away the sporting purpose of the AR (i.e. it's cheap, dependable, ammo commonly available, easily customizable, accurate, light) there are still people out (especially in rural communities) there that use firearms because theres a legit need. I won't ever have to worry about feral dogs, coyotes, or wolves killing my live stock (that one depends on for food and money, i.e. survival), but for a lot of people, that's something they have to worry about. If something bad happens to me, i'll generally have a police officer at my door within a few minutes. For people that live in rural communities, a police call could take 45 minutes to an hour.
In the old days, the everyman rifle was a lever action action chambered in 30-30 with 8 rounds in the tube. Just like everything else, the everyman rifle has turned into a smaller, lighter, more effective machine that gave us the proliferation of the AR 15 as America's rifle.
I don't know if there's an answer. I heard someone say this is a problem we cannot solve, but we can manage it. I think I agree with that, with where we are now.
Why do so many Americans own "assault rifles" ?
People are afraid. White people are afraid they're losing their position in this country. Look at the period between 2000-2010
2001 - 9/11 attacks
2002 - war in Afghanistan
2003 - war in Iraq
2005- - Katrina
2008 - housing bubble bursts
2009 - economic collapse
I think after all that, a lot of Americans saw the it as the decline of the America they knew. Look at American politics now. Everything is politicized and everyone is sticking with their tribe and there's no real discourse. I bought my first AR right before the 2008 election, mostly because I saw a lot of things that had me genuinely scared. I remember hearing the rhetoric of sheriffs and militia groups saying if Barrack Obama was elected it would lead to civil war, or a race war, or some other type of civil discord.
I also understand why many people there are no practical purposes for an AR, AK, or other .mil style rifle. Even if you took away the sporting purpose of the AR (i.e. it's cheap, dependable, ammo commonly available, easily customizable, accurate, light) there are still people out (especially in rural communities) there that use firearms because theres a legit need. I won't ever have to worry about feral dogs, coyotes, or wolves killing my live stock (that one depends on for food and money, i.e. survival), but for a lot of people, that's something they have to worry about. If something bad happens to me, i'll generally have a police officer at my door within a few minutes. For people that live in rural communities, a police call could take 45 minutes to an hour.
In the old days, the everyman rifle was a lever action action chambered in 30-30 with 8 rounds in the tube. Just like everything else, the everyman rifle has turned into a smaller, lighter, more effective machine that gave us the proliferation of the AR 15 as America's rifle.
I don't know if there's an answer. I heard someone say this is a problem we cannot solve, but we can manage it. I think I agree with that, with where we are now.
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,838
- 38,457
I do not believe it can be solved but it could certainly be improved.
- Jan 2, 2010
- 82,803
- 118,348
Agree with DL. I don't get how somebody is able to buy that type of ****.
- Dec 27, 2014
- 35,508
- 78,086
Even though it's ridiculous to envision a Hunger Games type dystopian United States, hypothetically there would still be legal firearms in circulation to resist the "tyrants." Not that it would matter.
- Mar 31, 2005
- 5,712
- 1,019
The guy was using a BUMP STOCK. A $99 device that attaches to the AR rifle which makes it easy for him to fire it as an automatic. When you buy that bump stock, it even comes with a letter from the ATF stating that it's not regulated as a fire arm.
https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
So I can only hope all this anger and resentment against guns can also be directed to the ATF as to why these types of add-ons are available for purchase by mail order!
How long were the Bundy Clan able to occupy that Oregon Govt own wildlife refuge?
https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
So I can only hope all this anger and resentment against guns can also be directed to the ATF as to why these types of add-ons are available for purchase by mail order!
How long were the Bundy Clan able to occupy that Oregon Govt own wildlife refuge?
- Jul 1, 2016
- 5,891
- 12,009
that's a damn good point. they held down that compound for a solid month. I will say the theory behind 2A does have some merit.
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- Apr 3, 2012
- 46,208
- 23,878
Who's mans is this
- Feb 11, 2013
- 15,173
- 13,361
i dont think a govt that would be trying to enslave their people would be going about it the right way... theyd prolly fly drones to take you out quickly
- Jan 16, 2011
- 14,978
- 36,355
Having a non-homogeneous army ensures that if the country were to turn on itself, the government would lose some ability to respond with force as the people rises and the military eventually splits. If there is to be a civil war, it will not be fought with civilian versions of military equipment; It will be fought with military-grade weapons distributed to those who rebel against the government by defecting military members and whichever external forces benefit from the fall of the US government.
As long as the US military doesn't restrict those able to serve on the basis of race/sexual orientation/gender/etc... I have no problems living in this country without guns for the purpose of keeping the government in check. Keeping up with the politics and voting accordingly is much more effective in my opinion (as long as you're not the only person doing it).
Well, law enforcement didn't engage them for a while. Contrast that to the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia.
- Dec 27, 2014
- 35,508
- 78,086
As did the Branch Davidians in Waco. As soon as the Feds decided to launch an assault it was over. 2A would have merit if we were a 3rd world country.
- Jul 1, 2016
- 5,891
- 12,009
oh trust and believe I know a government facility held by Dash-Americans would get a drone onsite faster than a beach wedding. just saying that that particular incident was a point in favor, logically speaking.
- Apr 3, 2014
- 3,903
- 5,011
This isn't 1776. Today, any firearm compared to the type of weapons the government possess - calling it a "fighting chance" is laughable. It's like throwing a sheep to fight a tiger and saying that the sheep has a chance because it has hooves.
- Dec 25, 2003
- 43,235
- 28,446
So is the solution to just forget about the right to bear arms because it isn't 1776.
I'm not speaking on actual instances or situations where citizens succeed in destroying a tyrannical government with limited resources and weaponry. I'm more interested in the overall purpose and intention of the amendment when it was included, and how it impacts us now.
Once again, the only responses I seem to get when I put forward a possible solution or adjustment (from both sides of the argument) is 'well, that won't work.'
So should we forget about the conversation completely? Because anytime someone pokes a hole in my argument, no one really offers a counter or an opinion outside of 'I think you're wrong.'
This is an extremely complex issue, and to throw your hands up (not directed at you necessarily) and say that any attempt to correct or adjust is futile is easy.
- Apr 15, 2004
- 44,371
- 74,064
So the shooter wired 100k to the Philippines
- Feb 25, 2010
- 24,952
- 23,299
- Dec 27, 2014
- 35,508
- 78,086
