The Second Amendment is useless

The Second Amendment is useless

This is a discussion on The Second Amendment is useless within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Feeling a little bummed right now so I wrote this rather depressing hit piece on the 2A. Or is it reverse psychology? --------------------------------- The Second ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51
  1. #1
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135

    The Second Amendment is useless

    Feeling a little bummed right now so I wrote this rather depressing hit piece on the 2A. Or is it reverse psychology?

    ---------------------------------

    The Second Amendment is in place to provide the means and legitimacy of armed rebellion and revolt. Such action must meet a certain ill-defined standard, which is the limiting of essential freedoms by the Federal government. The Declaration of Independence is our guiding document of why armed revolt may be necessary. It could have been written yesterday, changing just a few words and names. The Constitution, however, prohibits armed revolt (Article 3 Section 3 "Treason"), and it was born of the same manner of men who signed the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is also arguably a more 'official' document of the USA than is the Declaration, issued many years before the USA was formed. While some may argue that an amendment supersedes the original document, this is not quite true here, as the Bill of Rights were a kept promise of inclusion from the time of the original signing.

    If the Founding Fathers were to return to us today, they would not recognize this country, and would wonder why we have let it become what it is.

    In the history of the USA no group has challenged the Federal government for control through armed revolt. The War Between the States was a military action to sustain the Union more than it was an armed secession. Never was it a revolt.

    For what purpose will the People use the Second Amendment; for what purposes would there be widespread confederation? How many of the People must unite before the Federal government crushes the movement? How many of the People must unite before the Federal government cedes? How many of the People have the stomach for domestic battle? How will the People organize? What battle strategy will they utilize? Where will their bases be? How will the People know when it is time to fight, and how will they know it is too late?

    For what purpose would an attorney use the Second Amendment as a defense? Would the judiciary, or the People, accept such a defense?

    We have a modern professional military within our own borders, the militia will not be fighting any battles on the front lines inside the USA.

    We have a Supreme Court Decision (Heller), the Firearm Owner's Protection Act and other principles of law that protect our right to own firearms. No one will be taking our guns.

    Perhaps a few revolts along the way would have benefited our nation. They would have kept the Federal government on notice that we are in charge, and kept the People in practice and attuned to the occasional necessity of refreshing out Liberty Tree with Franklin's 'blood of patriots and tyrants'.

    I can not today see any scenario when a modern militia movement will stand up to the Federal government. The Second Amendment will never be used, therefore it is useless.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!


  2. #2
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The Second Amendment is in place to provide the means and legitimacy of armed rebellion and revolt. Such action must meet a certain ill-defined standard, which is the limiting of essential freedoms by the Federal government.
    That is wrong, as you convince yourself a little later on. The Second Amendment was never intended to provide the means to overthrow the government. It was forced on the Republic so that states would be able to form militias to defend the union of states. The Second is simply a prohibition on the Federal government, nothing more.

    The Declaration of Independence is our guiding document of why armed revolt may be necessary. It could have been written yesterday, changing just a few words and names.
    This is also misguided. The Declaration of Independence is the guiding document as to why we declared independence from the monarchal tyranny. Again, nothing more. It could be rewritten, if people chose, but it will then lose all of its meaning.

    The Constitution, however, prohibits armed revolt (Article 3 Section 3 "Treason"), and it was born of the same manner of men who signed the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is also arguably a more 'official' document of the USA than is the Declaration, issued many years before the USA was formed. While some may argue that an amendment supersedes the original document, this is not quite true here, as the Bill of Rights were a kept promise of inclusion from the time of the original signing.
    That is correct. Treason is against the Constitution as is insurrection. The United States will put down any armed revolt, which is why the talk of revolution here and elsewhere has no place in the Republic.

    If the Founding Fathers were to return to us today, they would not recognize this country, and would wonder why we have let it become what it is.
    That is true. The people have allowed the Federal government more power than was envisioned. Unfortunately many, even most here, want the Federal government to make every decision in our personal lives. The concept of the United States is....wait for it...united states. It is not an overarching Federal government that controls the states. It is the states that have empowered the Federal government.

    In the history of the USA no group has challenged the Federal government for control through armed revolt. The War Between the States was a military action to sustain the Union more than it was an armed secession. Never was it a revolt.
    That is true.

    For what purpose will the People use the Second Amendment;
    The Second Amendment is a prohibition on the Federal government. It is not a tool to be used. It is a guiding principle, which has never been violated. (Except for the short lived AWB.)

    for what purposes would there be widespread confederation?
    Only to ensure state's rights, but liberals and libertarians are uninerested in pursuing the principles of the Founders.

    How many of the People must unite before the Federal government crushes the movement?
    The answer is one. Anyone who commits treason or criminally acts against Federal w will be caught and prosecuted.

    How many of the People must unite before the Federal government cedes?
    This is the question that is most easily answered. 51%.

    How many of the People have the stomach for domestic battle?
    I know I will fight to serve the United States. Oh, you were talking about the enemy. Sorry...

    For what purpose would an attorney use the Second Amendment as a defense? Would the judiciary, or the People, accept such a defense?
    Defense of what? Attacking the United States?

    We have a Supreme Court Decision (Heller), the Firearm Owner's Protection Act and other principles of law that protect our right to own firearms. No one will be taking our guns.
    That is correct. No one is coming to take our guns. Not now. Not in the future. Unless we are so weakened by policies as to be defeated by the enemy, which so many discount now because of our great military and intelligence successes.

    Perhaps a few revolts along the way would have benefited our nation. They would have kept the Federal government on notice that we are in charge, and kept the People in practice and attuned to the occasional necessity of refreshing out Liberty Tree with Franklin's 'blood of patriots and tyrants'.
    I think it was Jefferson who wanted to overthrow the government because his ideas were soundly defeated at the outset. The truth is that we are in charge. The People. Us. That you disagree with the direction our nation has taken has but one viable response. Convince your neighbors to elect politicians that will promote American values. It really is that simple.

    I can not today see any scenario when a modern militia movement will stand up to the Federal government. The Second Amendment will never be used, therefore it is useless.
    Yes, the Second Amendment is useless. It provides no power to the limited, enumerated powers of the Federal government.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,135
    Thank you SelfDefense for that response. SO far 94 views and no one else wants in to the debate?
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  4. #4
    Member Array MaineRussian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    SO far 94 views and no one else wants in to the debate?
    Because it is far easier to bash the Government, Democrats, Republicans, AK47's, Glocks, and on and on in one sentence than it is to present an actual coherent reason as to why one holds that opinion.

    For example: All Democrats are idiots. The AK is FAR superior to the AR! SHTF is coming next month!

    Now I'm sure you will ask me why I didn't contribute to your debate. Well, I joined this forum to learn as I don't know enough about what is going on. Give me time to absorb and then I will freely join in to debates with facts to back me up.

    Just my 2 cents.....

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,785
    Self Defense : I read 1/2 of your post and couldn't go any further.... because at that point I could not disagree with you more.

    I think ya'all need to go back and read what the hell was really going on in England for about 200 yrs prior to the American Revolution. You will see there, the reason for many of the things in the Constitution from property rights, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment.

    I read alot of letters written by my 13th great grandfather who came to Pennsylvania in 1687. IN one , he was writing friends / family in England, which essentially was telling them a family friend had died...... but , because no-one knew with the chaos, wars, etc. going on that any of his family there would even be alive, he willed his things to people in America. The Govt was highly "restrictive" and used force to insure them.... if they wanted your property, it was taken... if you wife and daughter were raped in the Process (as happened in one relative's case, and when he tried to stop them he was shot and killed), so what.

    George Fox (Quaker religion) was put in prison because his views (which compare a lot to what ended up the Constitution) of fighting for "people's rights and resistance to a tyrannical Govt" incorporated in his religious views (all men are created equal ) ... resulted in him going to prison a few times.

    The 2nd Amendment, was "key" in over-throwing the Govt if tyranny over-took the Govt, and in protecting yourself FROM the Govt..... they figured an armed populace could not be "forced" as they had to put up with having NO rights at all. The VERY IDEA that EVERY PERSON had RIGHTS.... was unheard of until then. That thought had not even crossed people's minds in charge of the Govt (incl the King, etc.).

    What would they think about today ? READ !!!!! Look at the world they lived in, and then ask that question..... you'll have your answer.

  6. #6
    Member Array Tombstone55's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Self Defense : I read 1/2 of your post and couldn't go any further.... because at that point I could not disagree with you more.

    I think ya'all need to go back and read what the hell was really going on in England for about 200 yrs prior to the American Revolution. You will see there, the reason for many of the things in the Constitution from property rights, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment.

    I read alot of letters written by my 13th great grandfather who came to Pennsylvania in 1687. IN one , he was writing friends / family in England, which essentially was telling them a family friend had died...... but , because no-one knew with the chaos, wars, etc. going on that any of his family there would even be alive, he willed his things to people in America. The Govt was highly "restrictive" and used force to insure them.... if they wanted your property, it was taken... if you wife and daughter were raped in the Process (as happened in one relative's case, and when he tried to stop them he was shot and killed), so what.

    George Fox (Quaker religion) was put in prison because his views (which compare a lot to what ended up the Constitution) of fighting for "people's rights and resistance to a tyrannical Govt" incorporated in his religious views (all men are created equal ) ... resulted in him going to prison a few times.

    The 2nd Amendment, was "key" in over-throwing the Govt if tyranny over-took the Govt, and in protecting yourself FROM the Govt..... they figured an armed populace could not be "forced" as they had to put up with having NO rights at all. The VERY IDEA that EVERY PERSON had RIGHTS.... was unheard of until then. That thought had not even crossed people's minds in charge of the Govt (incl the King, etc.).

    What would they think about today ? READ !!!!! Look at the world they lived in, and then ask that question..... you'll have your answer.
    Right on brother!!

  7. #7
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Self Defense : I read 1/2 of your post and couldn't go any further.... because at that point I could not disagree with you more.
    Since I don't know which parts you read it is difficult to respond. Do you always stop reading other's opinions because you disagree?

    I think ya'all need to go back and read what the hell was really going on in England for about 200 yrs prior to the American Revolution. You will see there, the reason for many of the things in the Constitution from property rights, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment.
    It is certainly true that many people and even more now do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights. The government does not grant rights. The entire nonsense of the Bill of Rights is superfluous and adds nothing to our form of government, which is what the Constitution defines. The Bill of Rights was nothing more than political appeasement to ensure the Constitution would be unanimously ratified.

    I read alot of letters written by my 13th great grandfather who came to Pennsylvania in 1687. IN one , he was writing friends / family in England, which essentially was telling them a family friend had died...... but , because no-one knew with the chaos, wars, etc. going on that any of his family there would even be alive, he willed his things to people in America. The Govt was highly "restrictive" and used force to insure them.... if they wanted your property, it was taken... if you wife and daughter were raped in the Process (as happened in one relative's case, and when he tried to stop them he was shot and killed), so what.
    Why do you continue to compare the monarchy of England with the Constitutional Republic of the United States?

    The 2nd Amendment, was "key" in over-throwing the Govt if tyranny over-took the Govt, and in protecting yourself FROM the Govt..... they figured an armed populace could not be "forced" as they had to put up with having NO rights at all.
    That is simply false. I suggest reviewing the ngressional debates concerning the Second Amentment. It had nothing to do with overthrowing the government. Absolutely nothing. It was intended to ensure the frightened anti-Federalists that the Federal government would not disarm the state militias. Of course, that power never existed anyway so it was much ado about nothing.

    What would they think about today ? READ !!!!! Look at the world they lived in, and then ask that question..... you'll have your answer.
    I am not understanding what question you are asking.

    They (who?) would think about reading?

    It is absurd to think that the newly created government wanted the people to overthrow it.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    Lets see when it comes to 2A, I understand it simply. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." After fighting a 2 year long war where the government militias had tried to disarm the public I would make dang certain that the people not a tyrannical government militia had arms. That's one thing that people gloss over, the British forces were often Americans that were loyal to the crown.
    Second of all is the fact the purpose clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Is separated. Considering the fact that militias were the main force of all military might of the day, and that large standing armies were often the tool of oppressive governments. I think our founders wanted a militia based national defense, with a very small standing army.
    Also the use of the word State, instead of country, or other such wording of a large nation shows an early aversion to a completely federal system, but more of a nation of individual States. All of which are separate, but united in certain limited ways. Thus to avoid a overly centralized government that could more easily be taken over and turn tyrannical.
    Last edited by TerriLi; May 25th, 2009 at 12:52 AM. Reason: Typo fixing.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

    Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.

  9. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    Thus to avoid a overly centralized government that could more easily be taken over and turn tyrannical.
    Well, the Civil War pretty much took care of that and settled it.

    Now we have an overly centralized government that is becoming more tryrannical with each passing president. It's a government that is out of control and it is doing things that it was never meant to do.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #10
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Well, the Civil War pretty much took care of that and settled it.
    The Civil War did not change the Constitution (other than the 13-15 Amendments.) It did not fundamentally change the Republic of the United States. It did not obviate the Tenth Amendment.

    Now we have an overly centralized government that is becoming more tryrannical with each passing president. It's a government that is out of control and it is doing things that it was never meant to do.
    No, the government is not tyrannical in any sense of the word. It is disturbing that some use that word while not understanding what real governmental tyranny represents. We are, by far, the most free people on Earth. We have a government of the people and by the people. We have frequent elections and states that are experiments in self government. Some fail (like California) and other states learn fro the failures as wellas the successes of other states.

    Yes, the Federal government is out of control because that is what the people want. The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives have succeeded in granting powers to the government that were never intended.

    Of the named offending groups, it is the libertarians that are creating the greatest harm. Under the guise of 'rights' they encourage and empower the judicial branch to tyrannize the population, delegating the People's responsibilities to five robed oligarchs to make their decisions for them. Since they are aligned with the liberals it is difficult to implement the ideals of the Founders of our Federalist government.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    No, the government is not tyrannical in any sense of the word. It is disturbing that some use that word while not understanding what real governmental tyranny represents.
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, the Federal government is out of control because that is what the people want.
    Isn't this a textbook definition of the tyranny of the majority?

  12. #12
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackeagle View Post
    Isn't this a textbook definition of the tyranny of the majority?
    No. It is the choice of the majority. No one is being marched to concentration camps. No one is being starved. No one is being denied medical treatment. There is no tyranny.

    Of course, people think the democratic process is flawed, which it is. The Founders understood the dangers and developed a Constitutional Republic instead. That is not to say the majority should be ignored. It provides a representative government that has checks and balances to prevent any branch from being out of control. Today, the liberal and libertarians firmy believe the Judicial Branch trumps the other two branches. We have read that time and again on this forum. Some think that the Supreme Court can overrule and negate a law passed by Congress simply by opining that it is unconstitutional. The Court has no such power.

    In fact, there is significant support for a law (maybe a Constitutional Amendment) that a super majority of Congress can overturn a Supreme Court opinion. I think that would be a welcome Amendment by and for the People and I wholeheatedly support that effort. It is completely in line with the Founders intent, who specifically designed the Judicial Branch as the weakest of the branches. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78:

    Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
    We need to return the government to the People, even though we are currently in a time where the People are making bad choices. I believe in the future of the nation.

    Again, the word tyranny is completely misused.

  13. #13
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,913
    [The Civil War did not change the Constitution (other than the 13-15 Amendments.) It did not fundamentally change the Republic of the United States. It did not obviate the Tenth Amendment.
    Wrong. It wiped out states rights, among other things.It incorporated the Federal Government, and everything that the South feared came to be. Even today we have seen discussion of several states leaving the Union because of the heavy handed tactics of a Federal Government that is hostile to the beliefs of many people.All is not well, and if you think it is, you are putting your head in the sand.

    No, the government is not tyrannical in any sense of the word.
    Don't think so? Try not paying your property tax for a few years and you will learn the definition of tyranny first hand.


    Yes, the Federal government is out of control because that is what the people want.
    NO ONE wants the Federal Government to be out of control. Saying that people want it, because we have it, is like saying Mr.John Public wanted to die because he was speeding when he lost control of his vehicle and got killed.

    It just doesn't work that way.

    The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives have succeeded in granting powers to the government that were never intended.
    I don't know why you see Libertarians as such a threat to society. They have the least amount of influence and their party is basically insignificant in the big scheme of things.

    Along with most of your rhetoric, it just doesn't make any sense. You call the group with the LEAST influence a threat, yet you say that most of the people want to be controlled and most of them probably cant even spell Libertarian.

    Which one is it?

    Of the named offending groups, it is the libertarians that are creating the greatest harm. Under the guise of 'rights' they encourage and empower the judicial branch to tyrannize the population, delegating the People's responsibilities to five robed oligarchs to make their decisions for them. Since they are aligned with the liberals it is difficult to implement the ideals of the Founders of our Federalist government.
    I think you are confused. I actually know several Libertarians and there is nothing liberal about them. In fact, even suggesting to one that they are liberal is a good way to put your fighting skills to the test.

    Perhaps you think they are a threat because they actually know what they want, unlike the fools that vote for those that promise them a free ride?If the Libertarians didn't embrace the free"drug"use platform, they probably would be the biggest party with the most influence.Is that what scares you?

    Or is the fact that you could lose your livelihood if the Federal Government comes apart at the seams and society and the lifestyles that we enjoy today cease to exist? Living in a vacuum,and believing a lie wont change any of that. Worshiping the Federal Government and believing that things are out of control because the people really want it that way shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.

    As for the intent of the topic, if the the Second Amendment was as useless as the OP thinks says it was, we would be like every other country in the world where private ownership of weapons is either illegal or severely restricted.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY reason that we can still possess guns. It is the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Judges,Governors, Mayors,and every other legislator that fears the very thing that could stop them from either acting like Dictators or becoming one that continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment piece by piece,little by little.Look at the present administration.

    If the Second was useless, would they spend any time trash talking it every chance they get? Would they walk across the street to stomp on it if it meant nothing? I think not.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a total dictatorship. When the people have had enough, then, and only then will they work together to fix it, with force if need be. Will they be successful? Could they be successful?

    Only God above knows the answer to that one.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #14
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    It is MHO that the Second Amendment isn't only about keeping our government in check, I believe that we as the militia (not the National Guard) are duty bound to supplement our national forces, military, LEO, etc., in times of need or attack. The military would have to mobilize, and the LEO may be under manned. If an attack such as the one in Mumbai happened here, it will be individuals from the CC community that will be some of the first responders, this is why I think the 2A is just a relevant today as it was when written, Just MO.

  15. #15
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Wrong. It wiped out states rights, among other things.It incorporated the Federal Government, and everything that the South feared came to be. Even today we have seen discussion of several states leaving the Union because of the heavy handed tactics of a Federal Government that is hostile to the beliefs of many people.All is not well, and if you think it is, you are putting your head in the sand.
    I never said all was well. Only that the Federal government is still directed by the Constitution, no matter how it is misshaped to suit political purposes. What I am saying is that states are sovereign and there is a growing Tenth Amendment movement to ensure people understand the principles that SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO EVERY SCHOOL CHILD. The Civil War did not change the fundamental principles of the United States. Wrongly, the Civil War enforced a national (and correct concept) on the states and rightly forced the states to continue the Union. Of course, the states that seceeded did not have to take part in Congress, but they did.

    Don't think so? Try not paying your property tax for a few years and you will learn the definition of tyranny first hand.
    That is not tyranny. That is obeying the law the people enacted. That is the problem here. ome think that duly passed legislation, the will of the people, is tyrannical simply because some people disagree. I don't like driving 55 MPH but when that is the speed limit I do not complain that it is tyranny.

    NO ONE wants the Federal Government to be out of control. Saying that people want it, because we have it, is like saying Mr.John Public wanted to die because he was speeding when he lost control of his vehicle and got killed.
    No, they don't want it out of control they want it to control. Many of us understand that a controlling central government, not abiding the limited powers the states provided to the Federal government, is out of control.

    I don't know why you see Libertarians as such a threat to society. They have the least amount of influence and their party is basically insignificant in the big scheme of things.
    I think that ignored the reality. As the 'greens' that voted for Nader probably prevented Gore from becoming President, the libertarians allowed Soetoro to become president. Voting for out of touch people like Paul and Barr makes it so the domestic enemy can control the government. Intentionally doing so makes those people no better than liberals, certainly. Worse, libertarians want the Judicial Branch to rule the nation. They delegate the People's responsibility to five appointed oligarchs. I have never seen groups so enthralled with suing and using the judicial branch to further their goals as libertarians and liberals.

    Along with most of your rhetoric, it just doesn't make any sense. You call the group with the LEAST influence a threat, yet you say that most of the people want to be controlled and most of them probably cant even spell Libertarian.
    Many of the voters cannot speak English, no less spell libertarian.

    I think you are confused. I actually know several Libertarians and there is nothing liberal about them. In fact, even suggesting to one that they are liberal is a good way to put your fighting skills to the test.
    I think the debate is a good way to demonstrate that many of the same goals and means to achieve them are shared by both groups. I have found that every libertarian disagrees, which is why I attempt to make them see the error of their ways.

    Perhaps you think they are a threat because they actually know what they want, unlike the fools that vote for those that promise them a free ride?
    No, I think they are a threat the same way he Federalists realized the anti-Federalists were a threat to the Republic. The commonalities may be a given. The distinctions are all important.

    If the Libertarians didn't embrace the free"drug"use platform, they probably would be the biggest party with the most influence.Is that what scares you?
    It is not just the immoral leanings of libertarians. It is they have no concept or respect for society. They think that they can solely determine whose rights are violated and if they are violated, thus they support abortion, drug use, no borders and are against any form of regulation that helps the public. They are nconcerned with the effect they have on society.

    Or is the fact that you could lose your livelihood if the Federal Government comes apart at the seams and society and the lifestyles that we enjoy today cease to exist?
    Not the former, though I expect libertarians join liberals in wanting to dismantle national defense but the latter, where the anti-Federalist principles would, in fact, cause our lifestyles to deterirate markedly.


    Worshiping the Federal Government and believing that things are out of control because the people really want it that way shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.
    You seem to be describing the libertarian reliance on the Judicial Branch to determine our rights and that the states and indivduals should be completely controlled by the robed oligarchs. That is worship. Worship with the hope the gods will rule in your favor.

    As for the intent of the topic, if the the Second Amendment was as useless as the OP thinks says it was, we would be like every other country in the world where private ownership of weapons is either illegal or severely restricted.
    There has not been a single time in our history that the Federal government as tried to confiscate weapons. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with that. It is the principles of the Republic that allow us the freedom to defend ourselves and our nation as is written in virtually every state constitution.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY reason that we can still possess guns.
    Nonsense. The Arizona constitution protects my right to keep and bear arms.

    It is the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Judges,Governors, Mayors,and every other legislator that fears the very thing that could stop them from either acting like Dictators or becoming one that continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment piece by piece,little by little.Look at the present administration.
    Yes, look at the present Congress. They just passed a gun friendly law. The Court recently opined that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. The fact is that throughout our history there has never been a time when the people wanted to disarm themselves. Never. And since we are the governent it will never happen in the future, either.

    If the Second was useless, would they spend any time trash talking it every chance they get? Would they walk across the street to stomp on it if it meant nothing? I think not.
    Kids kick a can along the street. Does that make the can valuable? You are forgetting that gun rights have been expanded. States have enacted concealed carry laws and created 'Castle Doctrine' laws. The fear on this forum is not dissimilar to the fears of the anti-Federalists, people who do not fully understand our form of government.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a total dictatorship. When the people have had enough, then, and only then will they work together to fix it, with force if need be. Will they be successful? Could they be successful?
    No, insurrection and rebellion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The ONLY thing standing in the way of dictatorship is the Constitutionally enabled elections that occur every two years. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with preserving our Republic.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. CCW permit will be useless now?
    By Northface in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  3. A Useless Feature
    By Euclidean in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2005, 05:10 PM
  4. .17 - useless?
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
  5. Useless Information
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment useless

,
amendment 7 useless?
,
amendment that are useless
,
amendments that are pointless
,
amendments that are useless
,

armed revolt declaration of independence

,
constitution of independence second amendment
,
is the 2nd amendment useless
,
second amendment useless
,

the second amendment is useless

,
what amendment 2 is useless
,
why is the second amendment useless
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors