The 2nd Amendment

Indie

In the context of my theories, if you don’t understand that context read the theories. The point I’m making is that many seem to support the 2nd amendment out of fear and many other pro-gunners defend the 2A by promoting fear.

I’m asking why not try and remove the fear.

I’ve also pointed out that many pro-gunners seem to have social, economic and political views that don’t seem to be directed at removing the fears but actually seem aimed at making a bad situation worse.

But as we have gone through at length on many occasions that it is very likely that your rather extreme right wing views would make that less likely and would probably make a bad situation a lot worse.

 

Meagain

This is the thing, I think they are fantasists, delusional, paranoid, a lot of them are driven by imagined conspiracy theories, others have a individualistic mindset that can lead them to have an overestimation of their own importance and abilities.

And they often have attitudes and a mentality that feeds their fears and makes them feel they need guns for protection.

 

Sig

But what is the ‘message’ I mean from what I can tell from your right wing views, you seem to want to make a bad situation worse.

I’ll ask again –

How would you arrange healthcare cover in your country?

How do you know (as you have indicated) that people on assistance are their out of their own making and how would you help them?

Why do you think most people in hardship are there because they are lazy scroungers?

 

Sig

How do you now they wouldn’t? They have in the past.

In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilized without pay. Two years later, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, then the capital, surrounded the State House where the U.S. Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans from the national capital.[wiki]

In 1932 the Bonus Army camped out in Washington DC many of them were veterans of WWI it was the Great Depression and they were desperate and suffering great hardship and so they were looking for assistance from the government. When the police couldn’t evict them the army was sent in -

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"
After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. [wiki]

Those were ex-soldiers like yourself - seeking help, not even revolting, but the army followed its orders.

 

Deviate

The thing is that I get a lot of this ‘you are wrong because I say you are wrong’ and petty insults but nobody actually seems able to produce a rational or reasonable counter argument.

No it hasn’t, many claim it but when asked none has been able to produce any evidence, beyond pointing to yet another ‘you’re wrong because I say you are wrong’ statement.

 

Deviate

What I’m saying is that while guns may go some way to alleviate ones fear it is unlikely to tackle its underlying cause.

LOL – and you say I sound simple minded?

Or maybe you just haven’t actually being reading my posts?

The point I’m making is that it often seems to me that often many pro-gunners see guns as a way of either dealing with and/or ignoring the social, economic and cultural problems within their society.

So that they go – look at these bad things, I need my gun – rather than asking - why are these bad things happening what is wrong with my society.

 

It's hard to read every one of your posts when they all say the same thing at length. You sound like a broken record most of the time.

Let me ask you something. What have you done in your life or what do you do to incite positive change or improve your own society?

You are quick to cast stones because some of us may be ready to kill rather than be killed. Now, that is entirely unrelated to community outreach. So once again, what have you done?

 

1. Well, fear never comes to mind at all in my support of the 2nd amendment.
I think what I and others have been trying to explain to you is that fear is not something experienced until or unless an event occurs that promotes it, and being prepared for the unexpected is not irrational forethought. In hindsight it may prove to have been unnecessary. I wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle, but to date it has proven to have been worn unnecessarily, but I continue to do so. Do I fear falling? Not at all, but I consider it a possibility which could occur beyond my control, for reasons unknown.
Obviously you seem to believe your social, economic, and political views would put an end to fear? No more rapes, robberies or life threatening situations?

2. Yes, we have gone through many things at length, and perhaps if you're views weren't so far to the Left mine wouldn't appear to be extreme and to the Right.

As a moderator, you seem intent on diverting every thread away from its posted topic into advancing a Socialistic form of government, which tends to result in little more than facetious responses once the topic has been made irrelevant.

Perhaps you, a moderator, above all should read and adhere to the rules applicable to all others.

 

Deviate

As I’ve pointed out many, many times, I find I have to repeat myself because people dodge answering questions or fail to address what been presented.

I’ve tried to do the right thing (and I’d admit I’ve not always succeed). You would need to be a lot more specific.

But why do you fear being killed to such an extent that you feel you need lethal weapons to defend yourself?

 

Indie

You have mentioned getting killed, getting badly beaten up, getting stabbed to death, others have mentioned rape and murder and needing to kill or be killed. But in all that there is absolutely no fear, not even a hint of it, just manly fortitude and preparation for the attack.

But if there is no fear of the attack why do you feel you need a lethal weapon? Why be prepared for an attack you don’t fear?

A crash helmet was designed specifically to protect the head; I suppose it could be used as a weapon but…

Guns were designed for war to kill or maim other human beings.

One of the points I’m making is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to see the difference.

 

I thought you meant size. My mistake.

The popularity and legalities of the war are irrelevant. You simply wouldn't see the same level of bitching if the casualty rates, on our end, were lower. That said, Americans have weak stomachs, and don't care that we are killing far, far more casualties on our enemy than they inflict on us. I don't think that stomach will be any less weak if the fighting where taking place on our shores, against our own people.

It all depends on the scenario and the forces driving such a rebellion, revolt, etc....

1968 wasn't an uprising. It was a series of riots, unpopular riots at that, and nothing more. You give what happened far more credit than it deserves.

Never? Dangerous word, never.

The military isn't controlled by civilian laws and never has been. Our military is governed by the UCMJ.


1968 wasn't an uprising. It was a series of riots, unpopular riots at that, and nothing more. You give what happened far more credit than it deserves.

So what?

I disagree because, depending on the scenario, the US government cannot always count on the US military to side with it.

 

Sig

What scenario?

I mean what do you think would instigate a general mutiny by US military forces?

*
Also

When would you/they act?

What for you would be the trigger?

In such eventuality what do you think your/their guns are going to accomplish and how?

 

They are if you take them in conjunction with everything else I typed. Stop cherry picking what I post and taking it out of context.

Indeed, and that is what we're doing. We're talking hypothetical scenarios

Yes, that would be an uprising. Uprisings are coordinated, and have a clearly defined leadership and agenda. The riots of 68 didn't.

You said the military is controlled by civilian laws. It isn't. It has civilian leadership but is subject to military law, otherwise known as the UCMJ. Do your homework

I read what you said it is logically flawed. They didn't have TV, radios, or the internet when the 1st Amendment was written. Does that mean what the founders wrote only applies to media that existed in the late 18th century.

 

Sig


Have you actually got an argument to back up your fantasy?


Because you seem to be all huff and puff, lacking in any substance.

 

meagain

Exactly

 

I agree, but not for a reason that you're going to like. If a US President were to order a suspension of the US Constitution and declare an absolute dictatorship, even temporarily, I do not believe that Pentagon leaders would follow his orders.

Some historians say that following 9-11, George W. Bush seriously contemplated suspending the Constitution, under the advisement of Dick Cheney, until order had been restored. I don't believe there was any reasonable chance that top US military leaders would have supported such a move. They would have been bound by duty to oppose him, having sworn an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Such an order would have made the President an enemy of the United States, in the eyes of the law.

 

[FONT=&quot]Any such scenarios would not happen in a vacuum, I don’t think any President could just announce something like marshal law without any reason and I can’t think of any realistic context in which it would be allowed. Maybe if a mass uprising was in progress but then the question would be why is a mass uprising happening, and why wasn’t it dealt with before it got so bad (as has happened in the US with previous civil unrest).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Even a ‘Seven Days in May’ type military coup seems unlikely without some context, I can only think of one such plan the Business Plot* of 1933 but even then “the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable”. I don’t think they could have pulled it off. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I could see a very, very unlikely scenario where a military coup might happen if say a socialist president and congress was elected into power, but then I’d guess that the right wing pro-gunners would probably be on the side of the coup.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is the ‘cold dead hand’ argument - that if tough gun control was brought in then the pro-gunners would rebel, but I’d say when? Let’s say someone had three handguns, a shot gun, two rifles and an AR-15. What if a law said they had to give up the AR-15, would they refuse? They would still have all the other guns. What if the police were sent to collect it, would they shoot the innocent police officer who’s just doing their job? Would people see the ‘rebel’ as a hero or criminal? I have a feeling it would be the latter. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What about if laws were voted in that said gun owners were limited to only one handgun, what then? What about only one rifle? How about they had to have a licence and to get the licence they had to have a psychological evaluation? [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]*The Business Plot was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims. In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible. No one was prosecuted.[wiki][/FONT]