• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I don't Fear Obama taking away Guns

Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
198
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Plenty of talk of Obama taking away Gun rights; but hey, I'm not concerned about it. Why? If your dumb and weak enough not to fight back a right that supersedes any Corporate Sponsored President, Law or mandate--you deserve it.

We are the Government, when you stop being vigil about it, you gave up and will get what you deserve. Come to think of it, many Americans of all political genre have given up decades ago and like a whiner will complain high heaven about it, and will be the first in line to turn in the guns--nothing new under the sun.
 
I'm still wary on this subject. On one hand President-elect Obama's record for gun control borders on the insane. He has been in favor of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) since before his candidacy but that suddenly disappeared or was buried shortly after the start. His speech telling people that we shouldn't be afraid, that he favors gun ownership "within limits" marred the entire event. Hence the mass panic we've seen lately (friend just dropped $150 on an AR-15 stripped lower).

On the other hand the AWB really pissed off alot of people and politicians realized that many staunch democrats and swing voters are proud gun owners. Since that point many have handled that issue lightly and some have even taken a be pro-gun stance. In Texas alone we have many dems who list themselves as lifetime NRA members in their resumes. Its almost political suicide in some places.

The big worry is the fact that you've got a Democrat controlled House, Senate, and Presidency and many are worried that the politicians will get too full on themselves basking in the "chosen one" glow that they might actually rekindle the AWB. History has shown that politicians have short memories which is leading to a panic (there was a 1hr waiting line at the gunshow for the lowers...there's never been a line).

Of course it doesn't help the Obama is packing a majority of his cabinet and advisory board with former Clinton folks or picking Rahm as a CoS.
 
Plenty of talk of Obama taking away Gun rights; but hey, I'm not concerned about it. Why? If your dumb and weak enough not to fight back a right that supersedes any Corporate Sponsored President, Law or mandate--you deserve it.

We are the Government, when you stop being vigil about it, you gave up and will get what you deserve. Come to think of it, many Americans of all political genre have given up decades ago and like a whiner will complain high heaven about it, and will be the first in line to turn in the guns--nothing new under the sun.

Are you saying that Obama won't take away guns because there will be an armed revolt if he does?
 
Well the whole premise of the right to bear arms is more or less to ensure that the populace has the capacity to defend itself from an overbearing, unrepresentative oppressive government. Aka, our ability to blow away an American soldier doing the will of the government. Now, if we didn't have guns, then we'd, in theory, be forced to ensure that our government doesn't become the monster that our guns are suppose to protect us from.

So it is better that we have firearms to kill the soldiers of the fascist government and overthrow that government or that we are forced to ensure our government doesn't become fascist?
 
So it is better that we have firearms to kill the soldiers of the fascist government and overthrow that government or that we are forced to ensure our government doesn't become fascist?


The answer is both. If the first fails then the second is the last and most extreme measure. However, making that step in the extreme is something that even the most die hard gun nut is hesitant to do especially if the president legally voted into office or the measure was passed in a freely elected Congress.
 
Well the whole premise of the right to bear arms is more or less to ensure that the populace has the capacity to defend itself from an overbearing, unrepresentative oppressive government. Aka, our ability to blow away an American soldier doing the will of the government. Now, if we didn't have guns, then we'd, in theory, be forced to ensure that our government doesn't become the monster that our guns are suppose to protect us from.

So it is better that we have firearms to kill the soldiers of the fascist government and overthrow that government or that we are forced to ensure our government doesn't become fascist?

Going head to head with rangers isn't the solution. Lining up some politician who ordered tanks to attack say Columbus, through the scope of your barrett 50 caliber long range target interdiction rifle is more realistic.
 
Well the whole premise of the right to bear arms is more or less to ensure that the populace has the capacity to defend itself from an overbearing, unrepresentative oppressive government. Aka, our ability to blow away an American soldier doing the will of the government. Now, if we didn't have guns, then we'd, in theory, be forced to ensure that our government doesn't become the monster that our guns are suppose to protect us from.

So it is better that we have firearms to kill the soldiers of the fascist government and overthrow that government or that we are forced to ensure our government doesn't become fascist?

I don't really buy that as a valid second ammendment argument. I'm sure that that was a large part of the founder's intent, but in modern America the thought that the civilian citizens could fight off the US Army is a bit daft. If a leader were to successfully mobilize the armed forces against the citizens of this country anything that would stop them is illegal now anyway. Look at Iraq - bombs are the only effective weapons the resistance has, and those are illegal in the US anyway. The gap between military technology and consumer arms is infinitely larger than it was in the 1700's.

Don't get me wrong - I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but if you're keeping your guns so that you can fight off a tyrannical American military you're just pissing into the wind
 
Don't get me wrong - I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but if you're keeping your guns so that you can fight off a tyrannical American military you're just pissing into the wind

Uh... yeah. :lol:
It didn't work too well at Ruby Ridge.
Or Mount Carmel.
 
I don't really buy that as a valid second ammendment argument. I'm sure that that was a large part of the founder's intent, but in modern America the thought that the civilian citizens could fight off the US Army is a bit daft. If a leader were to successfully mobilize the armed forces against the citizens of this country anything that would stop them is illegal now anyway. Look at Iraq - bombs are the only effective weapons the resistance has, and those are illegal in the US anyway. The gap between military technology and consumer arms is infinitely larger than it was in the 1700's.

Don't get me wrong - I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but if you're keeping your guns so that you can fight off a tyrannical American military you're just pissing into the wind

Sigh...I'm growing tired of debunking this argument. Instead of rehashing my entire position I'll simply state that as a former infantry Marine who is well-versed in counter-insurgency operations and methodologies there is nothing daft about effectively waging war against a tyrannical government; it can be done. And for your information the materials used to make those "bombs" are available at every supermarket or hardware store in America, hence their specific name - improvised explosive devices. While in Iraq we had an IED send a seventeen tonne armored vehicle over twenty feet into the air, so their effectiveness cannot be questioned.
 
Sigh...I'm growing tired of debunking this argument. Instead of rehashing my entire position I'll simply state that as a former infantry Marine who is well-versed in counter-insurgency operations and methodologies there is nothing daft about effectively waging war against a tyrannical government; it can be done.

An insurgency could be pretty effective, but IMO (and you would apparently know better than I) but that's all it would be. An insurgency with no chance of actually protecting the nation against the might of the US military

And for your information the materials used to make those "bombs" are available at every supermarket or hardware store in America, hence their specific name - improvised explosive devices. While in Iraq we had an IED send a seventeen tonne armored vehicle over twenty feet into the air, so their effectiveness cannot be questioned.

Please reread my post, I am not saying that IED's are ineffective. I'm saying that IED's are the only truly effective weapon the Iraqi insurgents have, and those are illegal anyway. Of course the materials are legal, but so are the ingredients for meth. The weapon (a bomb) is illegal. My point is that even if the government turned on the people, the effective weapons are already illegal. A blanket ban on guns would only have so much impact on a resistance against a government turned tyrannical, and fear of such is a bad argument in favor of the second Amendment .
 
An insurgency could be pretty effective, but IMO (and you would apparently know better than I) but that's all it would be. An insurgency with no chance of actually protecting the nation against the might of the US military


Some of the military might rebel and join the insurgency (can you imagine teenage kids having to kill their own fathers over this on orders from the government?)

But the US military would have an unending supply of replacements in the form of immigrants from other countries. Absolutely unending. Much like how the Yankees won the civil war with Hessian, Irish, and Italian immigrant soldiers.
 
Some of the military might rebel and join the insurgency (can you imagine teenage kids having to kill their own fathers over this on orders from the government?)

My posts assume that whoever is in power was able to successfully mobilize the military against the citizens. In reality, I think that the American soldier's loyalty belongs more to their country (read the people) than their government. The difficulty of getting Americans to kill Americans would be a bigger roadblock to tyranny than the gun Joe Sixpack has stashed in his house IMO.
 
An insurgency could be pretty effective, but IMO (and you would apparently know better than I) but that's all it would be. An insurgency with no chance of actually protecting the nation against the might of the US military.

Eventually the insurgency would win out. Yes, they could not directly engage the military and perhaps there would be some dark times but ultimately they would attain victory. Thus is the nature of a rebellion.

Please reread my post, I am not saying that IED's are ineffective.I'm saying that IED's are the only truly effective weapon the Iraqi insurgents have, and those are illegal anyway. Of course the materials are legal, but so are the ingredients for meth. The weapon (a bomb) is illegal. My point is that even if the government turned on the people, the effective weapons are already illegal. A blanket ban on guns would only have so much impact on a resistance against a government turned tyrannical, and fear of such is a bad argument in favor of the second Amendment .

Just because they are illegal now doesn't mean it would be difficult to manufacture them after the fact. IED's are crude but effective. Not only that but there are plenty of effective weapons other than IED's. Long to medium range rifles can be used with devestating effect on ground patrols, especially when one has an intimate knowledge of how they operate. Not to mention the military's reliance on technology in general. That would be one of their greatest weaknesses. Hackers would have a field day.
 
I don't really buy that as a valid second ammendment argument.

Currently? Of course not. I was talking about the intent of the founders.

Don't get me wrong - I'm pro 2nd Ammendment, but if you're keeping your guns so that you can fight off a tyrannical American military you're just pissing into the wind

No disagreement. How can civilians fight off long range missiles? They can't. But the original rational for the amendment is still valid and the primary point was that we should be focusing on keeping our government clean and working for the people rather then stockpiling weapons to overthrow it.
 
Are you saying that Obama won't take away guns because there will be an armed revolt if he does?
What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for? Did you know that the right to keep and bears arms exists with or without the 2nd Amendment? Why, because there is not explicit power in the Constitution whereby the Federal Government can control arms.

Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
 
Last edited:
I think that the American soldier's loyalty belongs more to their country (read the people) than their government.

I would like you to Google the "Bonus March" and see how soldiers killed WW1 vets at DC, who were the few in command? Patton and MacArthur.

American History 101​



US Military wouldn't shoot or aid shooting of US citizens.? They already have:


Over 500 Federal personnel (federal marshals, FBI and ATF agents, US Army soldiers, some of whom had just returned from the killing fields in Iraq) surrounded the Weaver home; and above in the sky flew US Air Force planes and personnel. 1/4 Inch:* Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge Idaho

"They (Delta Force) were shooting people who were coming out of the building," the source described. He said they considered Waco an opportunity for training.
"A source confirmed the Night Stalkers and Delta Force were involved in the raid at Waco."

The military's new cowboys?

Future FBI HRT (Hostage Resuce Team) snipers first attend training at the USMC's Scout/Sniper School, which is also located on the grounds of Quantico. Untitled Document

The Ohio National Guard in 1970 shot to death 4 students of Kent State and wounded 9 others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

Who was Lou Horiuchi, the Fed agent scum who whot Vicki Weaver (in the head) as she held her infant? A graduate of West Point.
 
Sigh...I'm growing tired of debunking this argument. Instead of rehashing my entire position I'll simply state that as a former infantry Marine who is well-versed in counter-insurgency operations and methodologies there is nothing daft about effectively waging war against a tyrannical government; it can be done. And for your information the materials used to make those "bombs" are available at every supermarket or hardware store in America, hence their specific name - improvised explosive devices. While in Iraq we had an IED send a seventeen tonne armored vehicle over twenty feet into the air, so their effectiveness cannot be questioned.

Exactly. Just ask Timothy McVeigh how hard it is to make a really effective large scale explosive.


Personally, I have the knowledgbe necessary to make a large scale explosive myself just from all the college science classes I took while majoring in Physics. That combined with expeirence as a craftsman means I can fabricate fairly complicated weaponry as well without any help at all.

I wouldn't do so, because I'm not like that, but I'm sure that my knowledge and skillset is not even remotely close to being unique.
 
No disagreement. How can civilians fight off long range missiles? They can't. But the original rational for the amendment is still valid and the primary point was that we should be focusing on keeping our government clean and working for the people rather then stockpiling weapons to overthrow it.

RAWR!!! What good is a long range missile when you don't have a target?
 
WTF?!?!?!?

Are you Bowser from SuperMarioBos now?

I wish! Do you know how many women would want to sleep with me?
 
One of the biggest problems with tanks, missiles, and even JDAM's is that they cause incredible collateral damage. Collateral damage in a US neighborhood is practically political suicide. The psychological aspects of asking soldiers to engage citizens in a rural or urban environment is also fairly immense especially given the chance that some will have friends and relatives in the area.

While bombs are illegal in the US, they are ironically illegal in Iraq. In fact contractors have to have teir 3 clearance from the government of Iraq to carry "destructive devices" such as 40mm grenade launchers. Many of the insurgent bombs are in fact homemade and there are plenty of video's showing them making them from scratch. Heck youtube has a large number of instructional videos on how to make your own explosives including Mercury of Fulminate and AN/FO or even PETN.


The situation is of course going to vary depending on the reasons for the revolt, the number of people involved, and political backing for both sides. Small skirmishes like Ruby Ridge or Waco can be passed off as a law enforcement issue. However, if something has garnered enough attention to require intervention beyond the National Guard then you're really opening a can of "what if" worms. Something like this is what leads to a possible 2nd civil war.
 
I think most people, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have all interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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.

The only true intent behind this amendment was to allow the people to form militia groups in order to defend themselves against state, federal or even foreign aggressors. The history behind the rational not only to this amendment but also to how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted same is very interesting, if not clearly definded in this linked summary article on the 2nd Amendment.

In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court has take the first and last portions of the amendment and interpreted it to mean:

1) that the people have the right to form militia groups to defend themselves against aggressors to the state inwhich they live; and,

2) that individual free men have the right to bear firearms, primarily in support of forming such militia groups, but also in defense of one's self and for one's survival, i.e., to hunt.

Where things have gotten twisted, IMO, is where "individuals" have assumed that their right to bear arms means ownership of just about any "trigger" weapon they damned well choose from a simple hand gun to an assault riffle. It's madness!

The problem, IMO, is individuals have exploited this Constituational amendment to their own liking. It's no longer "I need a gun to defend myself in case I or my loved ones are attacked or my property is under siege" or "I need a riffle so that I can hunt". Now, it's "I have the right to own any weapon I damned well please that propels a small caliber projectile that doesn't explode nor destroy half a city block!" It's madness!

I have no problem with the American people's right to bear arms. What I do have a problem with is the people purchase weapondry of every assortment and using their 2nd Amendment right as a valid argument to do so. Again, It's madness!, not to mention very unreasonable, IMO.

I applaud the effort to modify the 2nd Amendment so that it would be more applicable to what's happening in today's social climate. Clearly, the "people" are no longer needed to form militia groups; that's the job of the National Guard as ordered by each state's governor. The only valid argument to the 2nd Amendment now is can the people continue to own guns, and if so, to what extent are they allowed to own them? Should the Constitution limit "arms" to hand guns and hunting riffles? Should gun collectors also be included? If so, to what extent?

Efforts have been made to restrict gun ownership and justifiably so. What possibly rational could one individual provide for owning any type of assault riffle? Or a wide assortment of hand guns? Collector? Maybe, but then the laws should be changed to define what "collectable weaponry" truly is, and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should be modified to support "gun collections" as a hobby and be the only rational for owning such weapons. Otherwise, IMO, using the 2nd Amendment for the sake of gun ownership of such magnitude has gotten way out of hand!! The concept of the Amendment has, thus, been severely skewed!!
 
The right to buy any of the weapons existed before the constitution was created. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION was that pre-existing right modified so as to allow the Federal government the power to regulate them?

What possible reason should a civilian police officer have an assault rifle? FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THAT I WOULD. for self defense.
 
I think most people, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have all interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly.



The only true intent behind this amendment was to allow the people to form militia groups in order to defend themselves against state, federal or even foreign aggressors. The history behind the rational not only to this amendment but also to how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted same is very interesting, if not clearly definded in this linked summary article on the 2nd Amendment.

In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court has take the first and last portions of the amendment and interpreted it to mean:

1) that the people have the right to form militia groups to defend themselves against aggressors to the state inwhich they live; and,

2) that individual free men have the right to bear firearms, primarily in support of forming such militia groups, but also in defense of one's self and for one's survival, i.e., to hunt.

Where things have gotten twisted, IMO, is where "individuals" have assumed that their right to bear arms means ownership of just about any "trigger" weapon they damned well choose from a simple hand gun to an assault riffle. It's madness!

The problem, IMO, is individuals have exploited this Constituational amendment to their own liking. It's no longer "I need a gun to defend myself in case I or my loved ones are attacked or my property is under siege" or "I need a riffle so that I can hunt". Now, it's "I have the right to own any weapon I damned well please that propels a small caliber projectile that doesn't explode nor destroy half a city block!" It's madness!

I have no problem with the American people's right to bear arms. What I do have a problem with is the people purchase weapondry of every assortment and using their 2nd Amendment right as a valid argument to do so. Again, It's madness!, not to mention very unreasonable, IMO.

I applaud the effort to modify the 2nd Amendment so that it would be more applicable to what's happening in today's social climate. Clearly, the "people" are no longer needed to form militia groups; that's the job of the National Guard as ordered by each state's governor. The only valid argument to the 2nd Amendment now is can the people continue to own guns, and if so, to what extent are they allowed to own them? Should the Constitution limit "arms" to hand guns and hunting riffles? Should gun collectors also be included? If so, to what extent?

Efforts have been made to restrict gun ownership and justifiably so. What possibly rational could one individual provide for owning any type of assault riffle? Or a wide assortment of hand guns? Collector? Maybe, but then the laws should be changed to define what "collectable weaponry" truly is, and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should be modified to support "gun collections" as a hobby and be the only rational for owning such weapons. Otherwise, IMO, using the 2nd Amendment for the sake of gun ownership of such magnitude has gotten way out of hand!! The concept of the Amendment has, thus, been severely skewed!!
No one is suggesting you have the right to own tanks or artillery but automatic weapons are different. They are individual weaponry and do not explode. They are useful for self-defence against individuals and gov't.

I suggest Americans never allow their gov't to do what the bastards here in Britain have done to our rights. DO NOT GIVE AN INCH!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom