2nd Amendment Rocks!

By Lloyd the Idiot

As wonderful as our First Amendment rights are, every time I see a foreign insurrection where the masses are armed against a repressive regime with literally  nothing more than sticks and stones, I thank God for our right to bear arms.


Comments

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “There is NO justification or cause that would allow a Gov’t to confiscate arms.”

    REALLY? If a group of people were planning to say storm the Congress with a cache of arms, the government would not have cause to confiscate those arms? What if, say South Carolina suddenly called up a state militia (armed with their own weapons) and say marched on Fort Jackson. Could the government move in and confiscate their weapons? NO justification? I think not.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    ‘“How many citizens does it take to decide if the government is acting as a tyrant and justifies force against the government?”
    Somewhere between 1 and 300 million.’

    There you have it, ed, 2 people can – in G Stone’s warped world – decide the government is acting as a tyrant and would be justified to use violence against the government of the US. Let’s hope G. Stone never gets his hands on a nuke, eh?

  • G. Stone says:

    REALLY? If a group of people were planning to say storm the Congress with a cache of arms, the government would not have cause to confiscate those arms? What if, say South Carolina suddenly called up a state militia (armed with their own weapons) and say marched on Fort Jackson. Could the government move in and confiscate their weapons? NO justification? I think not.

    You have jumped the shark, 30 cars and a burning bus.

    I am surprised you didn’t give me the Mexican Drug Runners meeting the Gambino mob with plans to set up a meth lab as an example. Your a dolt. I expect this from you your the same guy who makes the why can’t we have a tank argument when talking about handguns. You should be embarrassed.

    You know the context here, yet you bypass it in order to make an ass of yourself. You inserted conspiracy in order to make a point. Your examples require a group to conspire to break the law, or commit an act. The residents of New Orleans did not 1. Conspire with one another 2. Did not do anything that the Gov’t could construe as illegal. Their private property was confiscated based on the Gov’ts paranoia of what they feared might happen in response to their own failure.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “You inserted conspiracy in order to make a point. ”

    Hmmm, kind of like envisioning a cabal taking over the government of the US from within that would require armed civilian uprising, eh Gstone.

    Remember, it was YOU who used the absolute of:

    “There is NO justification or cause that would allow a Gov’t to confiscate arms.”

    Care to qualify that statement?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    G, I’m no referee in this thread, but you are losing this one. There are a number of reason to confiscate someone’s weapons lawfully.

    “Lawfully” is the key.

    You have shifted the context to the New Orleans situation, which I agree was an unlawful act by the authorities there. Further, I would strenuously argue against adding a law to make that kind of act lawful. Whether we need to make that act unlawful (your comment about Virginia’s new law) seems a bit odd. It would seem to be unlawful already (2A), and I believe may actually undercut 2A positions, but that’s another debate.

  • G. Stone says:

    ED

    Your smarter than this and I hope have enough gray matter to understand the context of the original conversation. My first assertion or example was that of Katrina, no shift occurred. I used Katrina as an example and at the time noted the differences while connecting it to the larger discussion. The conversation never included illegal activity. We were not discussing possible conspiracies to overthrow the gov’t, succession by a southern state or the inter workings of the Gambino Crime family. The conversation is and was about the Gov’t confiscating firearms from individuals, unconnected citizens under the color of Gov’t in the middle of one of the largest natural disasters in our nations history. To suggest that my original assertion is not correct and valid because that same gov’t can and should confiscate firearms from crooks and mobsters is silly. It is a no shit moment. However some such as Troll make a living casting myself and others who believe in the freedom as personified by the @A as extreme. This of course is absurd and should be dismissed on its face, however they continue to try. He wanted so badly for me to defend one of his own ridiculous counter assertions as my own and when I don’t bite he goes back under the bridge where he belongs. I will say I am a bit surprised you have injected yourself into and on the losing side of the issue in as much as you seem to agree with me that what happened in Katrina in violation of the 2A. I take it one step further aside from being illegal, it was cruel to seize that which might keep a citizen alive and offer nothing in its place. They took their only defense and then left them defenseless. Forget for one second that they were confiscating firearms, and insert some other form of private property. This should outrage every one , not just advocates for the 2A.

  • G. Stone says:

    The real issue here is the destruction of the BS myth that Gov’t will NEVER take our guns, they already did.

    Anyone want to guess what happened to all those guns ? Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of guns ? They were stored in such a way that they were ruined, hundreds were destroyed and hundreds more were lost. Virtually none were returned to their lawful owner and those that were lucky enough to get them back discovered they were rendered worthless. The guns were rusted, broken and smashed. No compensation was offered by the City of NO, the State of LA or the feds , all of which had a hand in the confiscation process. I am ashamed to say that many private EP agents such as myself were deputized by the US Marshall Service and took part in the confiscation under direct orders from the Justice Dept and the Dept of Homeland Security. It was the Bush administration who gave these unlawful orders and violated the rights of thousands of citizens. Had I been one of those deputized Marshall I would have been fired for not obeying an unlawful order. Some guys on the ground did protest the orders but were over ruled at every turn. This was a very sad chapter in the Katrina disaster.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “The conversation is and was about the Gov’t confiscating firearms from individuals, unconnected citizens under the color of Gov’t in the middle of one of the largest natural disasters in our nations history.”

    I think this is where the thread got sideways.

    Lloyd s post was about the Second Amendment role in keeping a “non-political check on governments.” Not about the government taking arms away during a natural disaster.

    It sort of became that for you, and didn’t for the Troll. So you are arguing two different points.

    1. G, do you believe the Second Amendment is a non-political check on government?

    2. If so, how does this mechanism work?

  • G.Stone says:

    In short yes, althought not exactly in the way the FF’s might have imagined.
    The effectivness of it as a tool against tyranny has been diminished over time due to the advancements in arms that can be brought to bare by the “state “. However, the 2a and the extent to which the people are armed keep that advantage in check.

    After WW2 Japanese military leaders were asked why did you not follow up with an attack on the American main land. The short answer was, Are you kidding all those bastards have guns.We would have had to slug it out with the American army and every citizen. No thank you.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Well, your first paragraph begins to answer the question. Your second paragraph is just as relevant as mentioning Katrina to the question.

    I’m getting the sense you really don’t want to examine this check on government/tyranny thing more. I wouldn’t either. You have to define tyranny, then you have to define what actions are Constitutional, unless you want to suspend some or all of the Constitution.

    It gets to be a messy thought experiment.

    So without going into the thought experiment, I have to agree with the Troll. Our institutions and the insistence in the Rule of Law is our check against tyranny. Possession of firearms are not.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    Of course they might not have though that had THEY had the nukes….

    With each year that passes and each advancement in the military industrial complex, the roll of the 2nd in our protection from enemies within and without becomes more and more irrelevant. At this point the argument for the need to arm the civilians for purposes of a militia is ridiculous. The primary reason (aside from recreational) that 2nd supporters REALLY want their guns is for their own perceived need to self-protect from criminals and the related desire to enact vigilante justice. I am not so sure THAT is what the FF had in mind with this enumerated right.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Eric, the self-protection position is a pretty good argument and one that I support.

    Going nuclear with the argument is almost like Godwining the thread. Where 2A folks draw their lines with regard to the definition of Arms is always interesting to me. They are — shall we say — liberal with the definition and the breadth of the Amendment. Then very strict with regard to other portions of the document.

  • G. Stone says:

    …….to enact vigilante justice……..

    This is why your to be ignored.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    Sound great to me, greg. Feel free to start anytime you like.

Leave Comment