Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2019, 06:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I find it amusing when people who brag about being "law abiding citizens" support citizens taking up arms against law enforcement officers and soldiers.  Who gets to decide when a citizen has the right to shoot a law enforcement officer?


I agree that people who want to outlaw all guns are irrational, but not because I think they should use them against police officers and soldiers.

I don’t personally know anyone who’s made that argument.

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2019, 06:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I find it amusing when people who brag about being "law abiding citizens" support citizens taking up arms against law enforcement officers and soldiers.  Who gets to decide when a citizen has the right to shoot a law enforcement officer?

I agree that people who want to outlaw all guns are irrational, but not because I think they should use them against police officers and soldiers.

If soldiers or police are part of an oppressive government in which a citizen militia must rise up to overthrow, then it may be necessary. This was, after all, the intention of the founding fathers when you read their writings. Of course, how many would remain with the police or military? Hard to say. Look at the situation in Venezuela where plenty of police and military are among the ranks of the non-loyalist side.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don’t personally know anyone who’s made that argument.

You may not know them personally ( ), but you are definitely aware of their opinions.

"We have to have our guns to fight against our own government when they try to oppress us."

The only question is "Who gets to decide when the government is trying to oppress us?"  Apparently many gunowners believe that taking away their guns is "oppression" that justifies taking up arms against police and soldiers.

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You may not know them personally ( ), but you are definitely aware of their opinions.

"We have to have our guns to fight against our own government when they try to oppress us."

The only question is "Who gets to decide when the government is trying to oppress us?"  Apparently many gunowners believe that taking away their guns is "oppression" that justifies taking up arms against police and soldiers.

Do you disagree that this is a reason for gun ownership? That it is the reason that it was made a right in the Constitution? Debate interpretations all you want, the intention is clear based upon the context from the framers. The Second Amendment is in place to ensure the people have recourse against the government if it becomes tyrannical. Virginians take that shit seriously.

[fredtoast]

(05-17-2019, 07:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you disagree that this is a reason for gun ownership? That it is the reason that it was made a right in the Constitution? Debate interpretations all you want, the intention is clear based upon the context from the framers. The Second Amendment is in place to ensure the people have recourse against the government if it becomes tyrannical. Virginians take that shit seriously.

No.  The militia was needed to fight Indians and foreign enemies.

The Constitution makes it clear that treason in punishable by death, so I don't see how you could argue they were protecting the peoples right to commit an offense that was punishable by death.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2019, 11:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  The militia was needed to fight Indians and foreign enemies.

The Constitution makes it clear that treason in punishable by death, so I don't see how you could argue they were protecting the peoples right to commit an offense that was punishable by death.

I can argue that based upon the writings of the framers putting the 2A into context as being a bulwark against tyranny.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2019, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can argue that based upon the writings of the framers putting the 2A into context as being a bulwark against tyranny.

You are a bigger history buff than I, but from what I have read the founding fathers always talked about the militia being organized and fighting FOR the government instead of rising up against it.

It was impossible for us to have a tyrannical government under the Constitution so I don't see how they could contemplate 2nd Amendment Constitutional protection having any meaning in regard to fighting tyranny.  If there was a rise of a tyrannical government then any Constitutional amendment would be meaningless.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2019, 05:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are a bigger history buff than I, but from what I have read the founding fathers always talked about the militia being organized and fighting FOR the government instead of rising up against it.

It was impossible for us to have a tyrannical government under the Constitution so I don't see how they could contemplate 2nd Amendment Constitutional protection having any meaning in regard to fighting tyranny.  If there was a rise of a tyrannical government then any Constitutional amendment would be meaningless.

Indeed, the amendments would then become meaningless and there would be cause for revolt. It would be a good thing that up until that point the citizenry had been allowed to remain armed, would it not?

Look, I will not disagree that one large component of the 2A is to allow for protection of the country in case of war. The founders feared a standing army because of the risks to liberty that it brought with it and so a militia was more acceptable. They also, though, saw the need for an armed citizenry because with it is an inherent equality of the people. They came from a society in which only the more well off were allowed to be armed, and that was used as an oppressive tool against the lower classes. An armed populous is a way to ensure the democratic representation of the people, at least that was the thought process during the time.

Now, with a standing army and a militarized police force, there is even more reason for the citizenry to be armed. Not less. The government having the power of life and death over its citizens is not a democratic ideal, it should be the other way around. Giving up the right to firearm ownership for security/order is something more in line with conservative ideology, even, when looking at the original and modern dilemmas of government.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I think Bel has done an outstanding job enlightening Fred on this subject. I would add only one thing; The Framers intended the "militia" described in the second to be all men in the country able to fight. The SCOTUS has upheld this view well over a hundred years ago. Seeing as we live in a more egalitarian age now I think we should also include women in that definition as well. Unless you object to such equality, Fred?