And the sandy hook shooter wouldn't have been stopped by either proposal. But never let a good tragedy go to waste, right?at this hyperbolic asshole. I think the extent of the proposed legislation after sandy hook was universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I'd hardly call that a ban on guns.
nm
Why is there always some gun legislation proposed after a shooting? You seem ok with it. Therefore free speech legislation proposed after riots seems to be inline with things you are already ok with.
Without one you cannot protect the other. The 1st and 2nd Amendments go hand in hand. I don't feel compelled to chase the red herring of "pick a right to support".
the destruction of the administrative state may not be as popular as you think. however technocratic and paternalistic, it takes care of people. they'll miss the goodies.
how often have US citizens used guns within their own country to secure domestic liberty versus free speech in the normal political process?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-27-2017 at 10:59 PM.
I did say normal political process. you changed the question.
when was the last time the US faced an exogenous or internal threat that could only be answered by individual citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?
I am ok with universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I believe these to be a reasonable limits on the second amendment.
Conversely, I think the limits outlined in the OP are flatly uncons utional.
It's really that simple. You're free to disagree and we can openly engage and debate our differences. Unfortunately, You're too much of a pussy to even take a position on the OP.
in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?
Well there were the brave men who took over the bird station. Made a famous stand until the craving for twinkees brought them down.
Cliven Bundy, and many other American heroes. The list is quite exhaustive.
The guy that hid under the tarp and got shot, martyred himself for the 2nd amendment. The bikers in Waco exerted their influence over Waco and protested by shooting each other. Then the police shot them for good measure. Chicago has made a statistical Security statement of sorts by shooting each other and bystanders. The religious nuts in Waco made an Alamo type massacre possible. Just to illustrate the government could use overwhelming force.
I didn't say pick one. I only asked which is more intrinsic to political liberty in the normal course of events.
self-defense against criminals isn't insignificant.
protecting one's life and one's home with guns is traditional. less necessary now than at any time in our history, but it's an element of liberty, not to be disdained.
Well in some of the cases I mentioned it's kinda difficult to tell who the criminals are. So the tactic of labeling the other side criminals can be conveniently used to shoot each other.
I would argue the 2nd Amendment is less important for collective freedom than free speech. Free speech and public opinion sway the state in ways individualized gun ownership does not.
for better and for worse, that's part of the traditional liberty.
The term "which is more" infers "one", which only two are offered.
You suppose the democratic process would exist without threat of force.
I'm talking about the present order, not some hypothetical one. Do you suppose the state trembles in fear of the martial force of the citizenry?
Seems to me it's more pliable to political expression than the implied force of the country.
tangentially: in the present juncture, would gun owners more likely ally with a tyrannical state against goty liberals and hippies, or take arms against it?
What has political expression ever done to quell tyranny without the threat of opposing force?
I tend to think most Americans would close ranks against a tyrannical government, because difference of political opinion doesn't separate family when tyranny has historical implications, not just talking points. The hippies and liberals wouldn't be able to do much. Most of the military is conservative, and I tend to think they would refuse to attack their own people.
Martial force? Gun toting citizens making it happen with their guns?
In US History much has been done for the sake of collective freedom without the threat of martial force.
Civil rights for women and non-whites in the 20th century was accomplished (mostly) without martial force. Many rights have been bestowed legislatively and judicially, and yes, by dint of changing social mores.
Do you deny it?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-28-2017 at 12:03 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
