Sell me on the 2nd ammendment!

[DarkPhoenix]

Okay that makes sense. I just don't see the need for a fully automatic weapon, if you know how to fire it. I digress, as this has nothing to do with the initial post at hand.

My apologies.

[Phrost]

Fully automatic weapons are more useful for squad tactics than they are for individuals anyway.

And to further enlighten you, the average deer rifle round packs more power than the M-16/M-4 or AK-47. Some states won't even let you hunt deer with them because they're too underpowered to kill cleanly.

[pauli]

Okay that makes sense. I just don't see the need for a fully automatic weapon, if you know how to fire it. I digress, as this has nothing to do with the initial post at hand.

My apologies.

it does get to part of the 'debate.'

analogously: i don't see the need for religion, but i don't question the right of others to believe differently.

[Mtripp]

it does get to part of the 'debate.'

analogously: i don't see the need for religion, but i don't question the right of others to believe differently.

It isn't religion. Therein comes much confusion.

The concept of "God" in terms of the constitution is quite different than the one in Church.

In the context of the constitution, it means our "rights" come from something bigger and beyond us and our Government. If our rights come from the State, then the State can take them away as they see fit. If they come from "God" then they are beyond the hands of the State, and our rights can not be denied.

Hense the use of the term "God" and "Creator" in the Constitution.

[Mr. Machette]

the second amendment is the guarantor of the first.

This. The second amendment is there in case the rest of them are violated.

It is literally the last resort check against government oppression. I honestly believe, as did our founders, that it is a necessary component of a free state. Your country should have a "second amendment". Most don't because it grants vast power to the citizens. Governments deal in control, thus they loath to no be in control.

Another interesting thing you should consider if you want to understand the "American" P.O.V. of our bill of rights, is that the constitution itself does not "grant" these rights. They are seen as "natural rites" inherent to every individual. The bill of rights simply enumerates and affirms them. That is liberty in a nutshell. The free individual, realizing their freedom, and acting upon it.

Thus, destruction of the constitution does not invalidate the bill of rights. In fact, it only proves how necessary those rights are to the freedom of the individual, and society at large.

And that itself is the heart of our national identity. Freedom. Self determination. The ideal of a society where no individual is hindered by tyranny,, or at the very least is entitled to fight against tyranny.

It doesn't always work that way, but I like to think we try. The verry concept of individual freedom has allowed many of us to become apathetic enough, that they we longer appreciate, or understand where we got the freedom to be political slackers in the first place.

Sorry to rant on, but to understand the necessity of the 2nd, you must understand the core philosophies that lead to the bill of rights in the first place.

Good luck!:icon_thum

[Robstafarian]

the second amendment is the guarantor of the first.

Bullshit! If the Second Amendment was truly the guarantor of the First, all those violations of the First Amendment that took place during the Bush administration wouldn't have happened. I know this is Sociocide material, so I'll leave the details out of this post, but one thing the last decade has certainly proved is the truth of something George Carlin said in his last HBO special (paraphrased here): "You don't have any rights, no matter what's written on a piece of paper. All you have is a set of temporary privileges. They are temporary; they can be taken away at any time. No piece of paper in a glass case 1,000 miles away is going to stop a cop from cracking your skull or the phone company from tapping your phone calls."

To appreciate the Second Amendment you must first ask yourself several questions. Do I have rights? Where do my rights come from? Who secures these rights for me?
If your answers are Yes, God, me. Then you can appreciate the Second Amendment

What the **** does God have to do with owning a firearm or appreciating the Second Amendement?!

Moreover, and this is key, I am sure the founders had no idea about radio, television, or the internet when they framed the first amendment... but no one is suggesting it doesn't apply to them.

The FCC has been denying that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to radio and television for decades. Furthermore, Circuit courts and the Supreme Court have been stumbling over First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights (to name but a few) in the context of telephones, computers, or the internet for almost a century.

As stated the Second Amendment, essentially guarantees the First Amendment, to ensure the populous has the ability to regain control of their government should the government decide to not listen to its constituency.

There was a thread about this on Sociocide, which I admittedly have barely begun to read, but I think it goes without saying that any chance a citizens' revolt has of succeeding hinges on the armed forces revolting as well. As the line in Patton goes, "I believe we were discussing air superiority."

[Mr. Machette]

It depends on what you want to know.

How I learned it was that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizenry to be armed to protect their homes and their country, should it be needed. I am a big supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, but I don't think the founding fathers had assault rifles in mind when they wrote it. Who the hell needs an AK47 to hunt in the woods, unless you are hunting other soldiers.

Are we talking about hunting, or defending the nation against tyranny?

Notice there is no mention of game or sport in the second. It's all about having a big stick to use against the enemies of freedom, foreign or domestic.

It is my opinion, and the SCOTUS agrees with me, that they intended it to apply to the current military weapons on the field at any given time. How do you defend a free state in the 21st century with smooth bore muskets? Think about it man.

[Robstafarian]

It isn't religion. Therein comes much confusion.

The concept of "God" in terms of the constitution is quite different than the one in Church.

In the context of the constitution, it means our "rights" come from something bigger and beyond us and our Government. If our rights come from the State, then the State can take them away as they see fit. If they come from "God" then they are beyond the hands of the State, and our rights can not be denied.

Hense the use of the term "God" and "Creator" in the Constitution.

This is a bullshit cop out. Saying that these rights come from nature can be easily done, even in that era of English, without invoking the name of God (note the capitalization) or stating that existence began due to the actions of a Creator (again, note the capitalization) who had any sort of cognizance.

[Snake Plissken]

There was a thread about this on Sociocide, which I admittedly have barely begun to read, but I think it goes without saying that any chance a citizens' revolt has of succeeding hinges on the armed forces revolting as well. As the line in Patton goes, "I believe we were discussing air superiority."

The concept of the Armed Forces as a sentient being is the problem. The Armed Forces are the citizens, as is the concept of the Government, and the individual soldiers would begin to peel off as it began affecting their respective communities.

The farther up the commission scale you go, the more you have invested in the concept of the Armed Forces succeeding and the less you might care about the communities you are supposed to be protecting.

[Mtripp]

Wow... so much anger, and so much leftist clap trap

<<<If the Second Amendment was truly the guarantor of the First, all those violations of the First Amendment that took place during the Bush administration wouldn't have happened.>>>

What might those violations be? I seem to recall our current President signing off on the same ones you are speaking of....

<<<George Carlin said in his last HBO special (paraphrased here): "You don't have any rights, no matter what's written on a piece of paper. All you have is a set of temporary privileges. They are temporary; they can be taken away at any time. No piece of paper in a glass case 1,000 miles away is going to stop a cop from cracking your skull or the phone company from tapping your phone calls.>>>

I would suggest that for every Cop cracking a skull, there are hundreds of gang bangers killing each other. For all the concern about "racist cops," I notice black on black crime is killing WAY more young black men. As to tapping the phone; goes back to Hoffa, and who was the president when that happened?

<<<What the **** does God have to do with owning a firearm or appreciating the Second Amendement?>>>

I spoke to that; but lets not let that get in the way of your rant.


<<<The FCC has been denying that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to radio and television for decades. Furthermore, Circuit courts and the Supreme Court have been stumbling over First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights (to name but a few) in the context of telephones, computers, or the internet for almost a century.>>>

Could you please name the case law that says the first amendment does NOT apply to TV or Radio or Internet? I must have missed it.

You know, the red state/blue state thing is bad enough outside of Bullshido, that it seems to be now on every single section here is beyond the pale and mars what once was a nice place to visit.