Trump hints that Clinton should be assassinated!

[Captain America]

That is quite plainly, a lie. There are MANY people 'coming for' the guns owned by law abiding citizens. If you don't know that you are ignorant. If you deny it you are a liar. From California to New York democrats are working to pass laws (and in some cases have already passed those laws) banning a large number of people's guns.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

View attachment 67205545

 

[JumpinJack]

I'm beginning to think Trump is just trolling the whole world; if not then he really is dangerous. Now he has suggested that the '2nd amendment' is an option to stop Clinton picking supreme court judges.

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

We all know what he meant when he said that. A not so subtle threat. This is a worrying new low in US politics: A presidential nominee suggesting the assassination of his opponent.

And Trump supporters will defend him... again.

This lets everyone know who Trump's supporters are. A couple of intense supporters are no doubt loading their "2nd amendment" tools.

This is truly shocking and should require that he be pulled from the election immediately.

 

[JumpinJack]

He was talking about how if they vote for trump maybe there is something they can do to stop Hillary and her pick of judges.

No. The scenario was after she was elected. It's clear what the intent was. Palin did something similar. Trump and Palin are very similar, seems to me.

 

[matchlight]

Laws that are in place should be obeyed, at least for the time being, because 300M interpretations of the law means chaos. However, that does not mean outdated laws should not be challenged, and changed if deemed necessary. This is really not rocket science. Authorities no longer send debtors to prison, arrest gays, or forbid interracial sex. As our knowledge base and understanding of society and self (hopefully) increases, so too should the law, which should be a servant to society, not some inscribed tablet that must never be touched or changed.

You make reference to rights under the constitution, but many of those rights have changed over the years- they are not fixed. Blacks are now considered people, as are aboriginals, women can vote and do other things in society, couldn't drink (for a while) now we can again. Times change, and the rules of society often to too.

There is nothing sacred about the 2nd amendment, although some lobbyists and extremes will insist there is. It was a no-brainer when first imagined, as most in the country lived a rural or small settlement life, and guns were needed to supplement food supplies, guard against wild animals, and provide safety against the continual friction with aboriginal tribes. Even if the person in question was not needed for a militia, a gun was a logical tool to have. Today the absurdity of having a nation armed to the teeth in a crowded, complex, urban society is made very evident each week, as another mass shooting and tragedy informs Americans of the consequences of slack gun laws.

I have no contempt for freedom of speech, but I do have contempt for gun nuts that cower behind an image of Davy Crockett, or Marshall Dillon, while the kids down the street are getting blown away by an M-16.

It was exactly because the men who framed the Constitution knew very well that conditions would inevitably change that they built into the document four processes for amending it. They devoted an entire article to these processes--Article V. Collectivists and other un-American types would rather ignore amending the Constitution legitimately, and instead do it by shortcut--and illegitimately--through federal judges who share their disrespect for the Constitution.

Seeing the contempt you have for the fundamental, individual right protected by the Second Amendment, I think you should try to repeal that amendment.

 

[Aristaeus]

He was talking about how if they vote for trump maybe there is something they can do to stop Hillary and her pick of judges.

I don't think that is a valid interpretation of what he said:

a) His scenario was post election
b) Why would only the votes of 2nd amendment people be able to stop her and no-one else's votes?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I'll say this for Trump, he is a typical Republican. He's nothing but vague when it comes to his policies. So all he's got is 'build a wall' and 'they're coming for your guns', typical Republican BS and scare mongering.

It's been a long time since any Republican has actually tried to govern and fix things. All they got is division and bogeymen.

 

[Ganesh]

It was exactly because the men who framed the Constitution knew very well that conditions would inevitably change that they built into the document four processes for amending it. They devoted an entire article to these processes--Article V. Collectivists and other un-American types would rather ignore amending the Constitution legitimately, and instead do it by shortcut--and illegitimately--through federal judges who share their disrespect for the Constitution.

Seeing the contempt you have for the fundamental, individual right protected by the Second Amendment, I think you should try to repeal that amendment.

Fine, then let's make some changes. But please let's not (perhaps not you, but many) hide behind the notion that whatever was thought in 1791 is still sacrosanct today.

And you are quite wrong about legal interpretations being un-American. A legal opinion on legislation is one of the foundations of democracy, in the US and similar nations, and is particularly relevant in this case, where ambiguous language leaves plenty of room for alternate views. Did they mean an armed militia, or just the population in general? If a militia, then one as we would see it today( the national guard, army reserve) trained, vetted, and supervised, or a militia as then conceived, basically ever able bodied man who could grab a gun? What sort of arms? In those days, arms meant a flintlock, sword, or bayonet. Today the term arms can mean anything from a pistol to a nuclear missile.

Language can be a slippery thing, which is why lawyers drive BMWs and holiday in Tuscany. Just passing legislation and thinking everyone will know what it means never has been, and never will be sufficient.

 

[Chillfolks]

I don't think that is a valid interpretation of what he said:

a) His scenario was post election
b) Why would only the votes of 2nd amendment people be able to stop her and no-one else's votes?

The call to vote was so the horrific scenario of Hillary and her political judges stripping away gun owners rights can be stopped.* The whole blurb is about gun owners loosing rights, so that is why he was talking to the 2nd supporters. It would be stupid If He had been talking about gun rights then said but you people that oppose abortion can stop her maybe.

I understand the how and why anti Trump folks are jumping on this poor choice of words and trying to make it out to be a federal crime.* It's the same thing anti Hillary folks do every time an email comes out. Politics is ugly.

 

[matchlight]

Did they mean an armed militia, or just the population in general? If a militia, then one as we would see it today( the national guard, army reserve) trained, vetted, and supervised, or a militia as then conceived, basically ever able bodied man who could grab a gun? What sort of arms? In those days, arms meant a flintlock, sword, or bayonet. Today the term arms can mean anything from a pistol to a nuclear missile.

If you had read D.C. v. Heller, you would know that Justice Scalia's opinion for the majority addressed and resolved the very questions you claim are still unresolved. Scalia explained exactly what the Second Amendment meant by a "militia," and what persons the term, as used in the Second Amendment, apples to today. He also explained exactly what the amendment meant by "arms," and what he found shows that your assertion--that the meaning of the term "arms" as used in that amendment has changed since 1791, and that it now includes such things as nuclear missiles--is false.

"Before addressing the verbs 'keep' and 'bear,' we interpret their object: 'Arms.' The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today . . . The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

 

[Captain America]

I'll say this for Trump, he is a typical Republican. He's nothing but vague when it comes to his policies. So all he's got is 'build a wall' and 'they're coming for your guns', typical Republican BS and scare mongering.

It's been a long time since any Republican has actually tried to govern and fix things. All they got is division and bogeymen.

Some people need that. Those folks might be attracted to the GOP line of thinking. Humanoids are as different as snowflakes. What makes perfect sense to me might sound like crazy talk to the person standing next to me. And vice versa.

The best any of us can do is TRY to be as tolerant to other people as we can possibly be and hope the same courtesy is extended back to us.

Sometimes's life's a bitch but it's better than the alternative. On that, I would hope we could all agree.

 

[Captain America]

Beyond what Trump said or didn't say. Or what Trump meant or didn't mean.

How many times have we heard some pro-gun person say, "They will take my gun when they pull my dead finger from the trigger."?

Countless times we have been informed by those, that might be labeled as "2nd Amendment People," that they would never peacefully surrender their arms.

I am not saying Trump was suggesting or encouraging violence. Perhaps, he is just pointing out and communicating the thoughts and sentiments of the "2nd Amendment People."

Given the expressed opinions of our esteemed "2nd Amendment" people we have here in our DP community, could anyone say that Trump was really that far off?

Just a passing thought.

 

[Ganesh]

If you had read D.C. v. Heller, you would know that Justice Scalia's opinion for the majority addressed and resolved the very questions you claim are still unresolved. Scalia explained exactly what the Second Amendment meant by a "militia," and what persons the term, as used in the Second Amendment, apples to today. He also explained exactly what the amendment meant by "arms," and what he found shows that your assertion--that the meaning of the term "arms" as used in that amendment has changed since 1791, and that it now includes such things as nuclear missiles--is false.

"Before addressing the verbs 'keep' and 'bear,' we interpret their object: 'Arms.' The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today . . . The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

So let's see here, it is un-American if a judge attempts to pass an opinion on the sacrosanct writings in the constitution that may change the way we look at them, unless of course they are changed in ways you find favorable. Is that it? Previous rulings interpreted the 2nd to refer to an organized militia, not anybody and everybody. Are they un-American for making the leap of logic that because arms and militia are linked in the text, the writers did indeed mean an armed militia? In fact it was Scalia that departed from long standing precedent in his opinion, and many disagree with him.

The definition of arms is an even more ridiculous example of twisted logic. Arms have always referred to weaponry, military or otherwise, from the farmer-soldiers with pitchforks in the middle ages to laser armed satellites today. Even authorities in the 18th century were clear about this, proscribing the type of weapons citizens should own in order to be able to show up for a mobilization if required.

The notion of an armed, peasant militia made sense in 1791, when there was a fear the Brits might come back and force people to drink tea and pay taxes, and there was neither the technology nor the resources to mount a forceful standing defense. Today allowing all to have arms, and call them a real or potential militia, from the street gangs in Chicago, to the Mafia in New Jersey, to the paranoid survivalists in Idaho, to the cowboy wannabes Colorado, or the last days crazies in Florida, and certainly not least the troubled and withdrawn 17 years olds who need counselling much more than an M-16, is a definite recipe for disaster. Only a fool thinks they are safer in a society awash in guns and paranoid about who is going to pull theirs out first.

 

[matchlight]

Previous rulings interpreted the 2nd to refer to an organized militia, not anybody and everybody.

Justice Scalia and four other justices in Heller did not agree with your assertion. If you think they were wrong, identify those "previous rulings" and cite the text where the Court said what you claim.

Are they un-American for making the leap of logic that because arms and militia are linked in the text, the writers did indeed mean an armed militia?

They are simply wrong, as was Justice Stevens.

In fact it was Scalia that departed from long standing precedent in his opinion

Of course there was no such precedent to depart from, and no amount of your assertions to the contrary can change that fact.

and many disagree with him.

Let them. However much undemocratic people may lament the fact, it is the majority opinion in Heller that is the law.

The definition of arms is an even more ridiculous example of twisted logic. Arms have always referred to weaponry, military or otherwise, from the farmer-soldiers with pitchforks in the middle ages to laser armed satellites today. Even authorities in the 18th century were clear about this, proscribing the type of weapons citizens should own in order to be able to show up for a mobilization if required.

The relevant question is not what the term "arms" may mean as a general proposition, but rather what "arms" means as used in the Second Amendment. I consider Justice Scalia's analysis of that question more persuasive than yours.

The notion of an armed, peasant militia made sense in 1791, when there was a fear the Brits might come back and force people to drink tea and pay taxes, and there was neither the technology nor the resources to mount a forceful standing defense. Today allowing all to have arms, and call them a real or potential militia, from the street gangs in Chicago, to the Mafia in New Jersey, to the paranoid survivalists in Idaho, to the cowboy wannabes Colorado, or the last days crazies in Florida, and certainly not least the troubled and withdrawn 17 years olds who need counselling much more than an M-16, is a definite recipe for disaster. Only a fool thinks they are safer in a society awash in guns and paranoid about who is going to pull theirs out first.

The authority of the Second Amendment does not depend on whether you like what if allows. In interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is not concerned with whether its interpretations tend to support policies you happen to favor. If that cold fact peeves you, you can work toward getting the Second Amendment repealed; you can lump it; or you can move to a country where the regulation of firearms is more to your liking.

 

[Mr Person]

What is it with this fantasy about wanting to fight some oppressive American government that doesn't exist and hasn't existed for some 230+ years? I really want to know how you people see this coming about. Obama didn't take your guns. Not a single one. Instead you've allowed yourselves to be manipulated to buy even more guns and become even more afraid of a threat that doesn't exist.

Yet now you support the closest thing to a tyrant that's existed in possibly the entire history of the U.S. It's so weird.

Home run.

 

[Visbek]

Justice Scalia and four other justices in Heller did not agree with your assertion. If you think they were wrong, identify those "previous rulings" and cite the text where the Court said what you claim.

He could do that. Or, he could point you to Stevens' dissent. Or, Bryer's dissent in McDonald. Or, numerous historical analyses published in the wake of Heller.

They are simply wrong, as was Justice Stevens.

Yes, assertion is always a convincing argument.

Of course there was no such precedent to depart from, and no amount of your assertions to the contrary can change that fact.

You do yourself no favors with such claims. It is obvious that Scalia was departing from the status quo, and Stevens was asserting it. Why else would we consider the ruling to be notable?

Let them. However much undemocratic people may lament the fact, it is the majority opinion in Heller that is the law.

I'm so glad you agree that majority opinions by the SCOTUS are legitimate, regardless of the content of the ruling. I'll make sure to remind you of your view here, when discussing majority rulings with which you disagree.

The relevant question is not what the term "arms" may mean as a general proposition, but rather what "arms" means as used in the Second Amendment. I consider Justice Scalia's analysis of that question more persuasive than yours.

Yes, I'm sure there is no bias whatsoever there.

Of course, it is still the case that on a practical level, Heller had very little effect; as already noted, few existing gun control laws have been overturned after Heller. Who'da thunk it?

 

[Ganesh]

The authority of the Second Amendment does not depend on whether you like what if allows. In interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is not concerned with whether its interpretations tend to support policies you happen to favor. If that cold fact peeves you, you can work toward getting the Second Amendment repealed; you can lump it; or you can move to a country where the regulation of firearms is more to your liking.

There is a third option, which is to apply a little intelligence and common sense to this hoopla about the constitution. Whether the writers meant that a militia was to be something like we envision it today, or basically every adult male, or everyone and his dog, it matters not. There is no possible way that arming all people in the country in the pretense that they are minutemen waiting for someone to make their day, or a dictator to arise in Washington, is going to do anything but lead to exactly the sort of tragedies that are in fact now occurring on a daily basis.

I suspect that many of those that make so much ado about the 2nd amendment are actually hiding out. They are hiding their ignorance about the reality of the fanciful notion a dictator taking over, and the even more fanciful notion of them being able to do much about it with their squirrel gun and ad hoc militias. They are hiding their own immaturity and lack of development in their desire to play with lethal weapons, and revel in Hollywood scenarios, rather than assign lethality to its adult locations. They are hiding their own fears and laziness in dealing with the very real problems of race relation, inequality, and other social problems that can and do lead to violence, and instead are content to load up the shotgun, and lock the door.

 

[matchlight]

There is a third option, which is to apply a little intelligence and common sense to this hoopla about the constitution. Whether the writers meant that a militia was to be something like we envision it today, or basically every adult male, or everyone and his dog, it matters not. There is no possible way that arming all people in the country in the pretense that they are minutemen waiting for someone to make their day, or a dictator to arise in Washington, is going to do anything but lead to exactly the sort of tragedies that are in fact now occurring on a daily basis.

I suspect that many of those that make so much ado about the 2nd amendment are actually hiding out. They are hiding their ignorance about the reality of the fanciful notion a dictator taking over, and the even more fanciful notion of them being able to do much about it with their squirrel gun and ad hoc militias. They are hiding their own immaturity and lack of development in their desire to play with lethal weapons, and revel in Hollywood scenarios, rather than assign lethality to its adult locations. They are hiding their own fears and laziness in dealing with the very real problems of race relation, inequality, and other social problems that can and do lead to violence, and instead are content to load up the shotgun, and lock the door.

Having seen you make your disregard for the Constitution clear, I'm not surprised to see that you don't use a capital "C" in referring to it.

Justice Scalia applies a great deal of intelligence and common sense in interpreting the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller. It is one of the most rigorously researched, footnoted, and reasoned Supreme Court decisions I have ever studied, and I have studied hundreds of them. Your assertion that what the people who wrote the amendment intended by it "matters not" is ridiculous. What they meant could hardly be more relevant, and that is exactly why so much of the majority opinion in Heller is devoted to determining that question. When the Supreme Court interprets any part of the Constitution, its job is to declare the law--not to further whatever policies you and your friends may find noble and wondrous.

I suspect that many of those who so glibly deride the individual, fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment are actually ignorant people who have never read a page of either Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, and wouldn't understand what they were reading if they had bothered to try. The Daily Kos and MSNBC are more their speed. They may well be trying to hide their immaturity and lack of intellectual development, as well as their undemocratic, totalitarian tendencies. Many of these people ironically identify themselves as "liberals," when their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law shows they are the very opposite of liberal.

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental, as the Court has made clear in Heller and McDonald. The Court has further made clear that this individual right was widely recognized as fundamental in England by the end of the 17th century; and that in this country, it predates the Constitution and exists independent of it. Contrary to your assertion, whether the types of firearms the right applies to would be militarily effective is irrelevant, as Justice Scalia pointed out in Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
(emphasis added)

 

[Ganesh]

Having seen you make your disregard for the Constitution clear, I'm not surprised to see that you don't use a capital "C" in referring to it.

Justice Scalia applies a great deal of intelligence and common sense in interpreting the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller. It is one of the most rigorously researched, footnoted, and reasoned Supreme Court decisions I have ever studied, and I have studied hundreds of them. Your assertion that what the people who wrote the amendment intended by it "matters not" is ridiculous. What they meant could hardly be more relevant, and that is exactly why so much of the majority opinion in Heller is devoted to determining that question. When the Supreme Court interprets any part of the Constitution, its job is to declare the law--not to further whatever policies you and your friends may find noble and wondrous.

I suspect that many of those who so glibly deride the individual, fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment are actually ignorant people who have never read a page of either Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, and wouldn't understand what they were reading if they had bothered to try. The Daily Kos and MSNBC are more their speed. They may well be trying to hide their immaturity and lack of intellectual development, as well as their undemocratic, totalitarian tendencies. Many of these people ironically identify themselves as "liberals," when their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law shows they are the very opposite of liberal.

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental, as the Court has made clear in Heller and McDonald. The Court has further made clear that this individual right was widely recognized as fundamental in England by the end of the 17th century; and that in this country, it predates the Constitution and exists independent of it. Contrary to your assertion, whether the types of firearms the right applies to would be militarily effective is irrelevant, as Justice Scalia pointed out in Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
(emphasis added)

Your reply merely reiterates that the Scalia opinion is the be all and end all of the matter, and is to be held up in front of oneself in the manner of a religious icon, so that all before can drop to their knees and absorb the wisdom.

I don't doubt that the judgement was researched and thoroughly considered. However, it is just one legal opinion. And indeed, it is an opinion on a couple of phrases that are considerably ambiguous. If a new intern at a law office ever used such language to write a legal document, he would have been sent back to school for some remedial training in law and in the English language. This is not to be derogatory, but conditions were quite different 230 years ago, and to the writers of the piece it may have seemed totally self-evident in meaning. But nothing stays the same forever, and today we have a different reality.

The opinion also falls short of iconic status when one considers that it was far from unanimous. Four in the court agreed with Scalia, and four disagreed. And needless to say, there are many prominent people outside the supreme court also in disagreement.

The constitution is a tool for the benefit of the people, not a stone tablet descended from Mount Sinai. Whatever the intent of the writers in 1791, an armed populace is, and has proved to be, highly problematic. When six year olds are getting slaughtered in the their schoolroom, when crazies packing M-16s lurk about political meetings, when the police must assume that whoever they talk to or pull over in their car may be, and quite likely are armed with a lethal weapon, then society has a problem. The courageous will try to do something about it. The less so may want to hide behind scraps of paper, or sociological judgements from two and a third centuries ago.

 

[Ahlevah]

Only a fool thinks they are safer in a society awash in guns and paranoid about who is going to pull theirs out first.

I live in a state where a law-abiding citizen's car is considered an extension of his home and he can legally carry a loaded firearm. He can carry a concealed weapon in his home or place of business. Anyone who can pass a background check can carry a concealed weapon in public or legally own a fully-automatic weapon, as in a true assault weapon or machine gun. I fee safe here. I wouldn't, however, in some areas of Chicago, even with Illinois' rather restrictive gun laws.

Guns aren't the problem. It's the people who misuse them, like the criminals preying on innocents and each other in the city's streets. You really are naive if you think outlawing guns will keep them out of the hands of the criminals fueling much of this mayhem. Look at how well prohibition has worked with heroin and cocaine. We don't live on an island in this country and we already have hundreds of millions of firearms within the public domain.

With so much at stake for criminal enterprises, including control of the drug trade, they will get their weapons while outlawing them just leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless.

http://cryptome.org/gangs/gangster.pdf

The gang feud that led to Tyshawn Lee's slaying - Chicago Tribune

 

[matchlight]

Your reply merely reiterates that the Scalia opinion is the be all and end all of the matter, and is to be held up in front of oneself in the manner of a religious icon, so that all before can drop to their knees and absorb the wisdom.

I don't doubt that the judgement was researched and thoroughly considered. However, it is just one legal opinion. And indeed, it is an opinion on a couple of phrases that are considerably ambiguous. If a new intern at a law office ever used such language to write a legal document, he would have been sent back to school for some remedial training in law and in the English language. This is not to be derogatory, but conditions were quite different 230 years ago, and to the writers of the piece it may have seemed totally self-evident in meaning. But nothing stays the same forever, and today we have a different reality.

The opinion also falls short of iconic status when one considers that it was far from unanimous. Four in the court agreed with Scalia, and four disagreed. And needless to say, there are many prominent people outside the supreme court also in disagreement.

The constitution is a tool for the benefit of the people, not a stone tablet descended from Mount Sinai. Whatever the intent of the writers in 1791, an armed populace is, and has proved to be, highly problematic. When six year olds are getting slaughtered in the their schoolroom, when crazies packing M-16s lurk about political meetings, when the police must assume that whoever they talk to or pull over in their car may be, and quite likely are armed with a lethal weapon, then society has a problem. The courageous will try to do something about it. The less so may want to hide behind scraps of paper, or sociological judgements from two and a third centuries ago.

To support the Constitution of the United States is in no way to "hide behind scraps of paper." That Constitution was purposely designed, if not quite to be a stone tablet, to be very hard to change. That is in the nature of constitutions. A constitution that changed with every passing whim would not really be a constitution at all, but nothing more than a set of suggested guidelines for government. If you don't like the Second Amendment, and believe that an armed citizenry creates unacceptable problems, you can work to repeal it.

But people who are hostile to the right protected by the Second Amendment should be careful not to cut corners. Any group of persons that tries to neuter the individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms illegitimately, through the back door, should consider very seriously the possibility that armed citizens will resist them by force. The Second Amendment, among other things, is a bulwark against tyranny. Like millions of other Americans, I would as willingly use force, if necessary, to resist an attempt to infringe the right to keep and bear arms, as I would to resist an attempt to abridge other fundamental rights, for example the right to free speech and the right to vote. Anyone who tries to deprive Americans of those individual liberties, which roughly a million Americans have died to defend in wars, has made himself a tyrant. And he should expect a free people to deal with him as tyrants deserve.

 

[Ganesh]

To support the Constitution of the United States is in no way to "hide behind scraps of paper." That Constitution was purposely designed, if not quite to be a stone tablet, to be very hard to change. That is in the nature of constitutions. A constitution that changed with every passing whim would not really be a constitution at all, but nothing more than a set of suggested guidelines for government. If you don't like the Second Amendment, and believe that an armed citizenry creates unacceptable problems, you can work to repeal it.

But people who are hostile to the right protected by the Second Amendment should be careful not to cut corners. Any group of persons that tries to neuter the individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms illegitimately, through the back door, should consider very seriously the possibility that armed citizens will resist them by force. The Second Amendment, among other things, is a bulwark against tyranny. Like millions of other Americans, I would as willingly use force, if necessary, to resist an attempt to infringe the right to keep and bear arms, as I would to resist an attempt to abridge other fundamental rights, for example the right to free speech and the right to vote. Anyone who tries to deprive Americans of those individual liberties, which roughly a million Americans have died to defend in wars, has made himself a tyrant. And he should expect a free people to deal with him as tyrants deserve.

Ah yes, the hoary old image of Davy Crockett holding off the G-men who have come to steal his guns and ravish his women. Americans take great stock in fantasies, and this is one of the most enduring, captured and promoted by Hollywood, and stoked by the NRA, gun manufacturers, and assorted malcontents and paranoids. It was an idea that may have had some merit in 1791, but is nonsensical today.

No group of disconnected civilians with personal arms could hold off a determined military today. It is simply not going to happen. Your plan is what, shoot a few Marines and policemen, and then go down to Wal Mart and buy some more ammo? And how many followers do you imagine you will recruit for your suicide squad? The power of spin, and the level of education is such in the US today that left wing candidates are eliminated from the running before people get a chance to vote. And an emotionally troubled and ignorant megalomaniac is considered a good choice for the top job by about 40% of the electorate. Your choices are limited to corporate lite, or corporate crazy, yet most think this is an ideal democracy. How tough do you think it would be for an actual tyrant to sway a populace in these times?

But you are right that laws cannot be changed on a whim. Process must be followed. Education usually precedes political change though, which is a tough prospect in this case.

 

[Conservative]

Wonder what the family of Ambassador Stevens and this woman thinks about Hillary??

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA