2
2
0
Banding the Second Amendment makes sense to you to where criminals get to kill the free innocent law-abiding people who cannot protect themselves because of the abolishment of the Second Amendment. If this makes sense to you, then we are definitely on a different page of freedom, we have a big problem.
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 5
The second amendment isn't just to defend from invasion it's primary purpose is a check against oppression.
"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."
"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."
(2)
(0)
I hear this argument a lot, but the second amendment wasn’t written so people could defend themselves against criminals: it was written so the States could field a military force to defend the nation without having to maintain a standing Army. A lot of things have changed since 1787. We now have a standing Army the lines of which the Founding Fathers never dreamed and Guard and Reserve have taken up the duties formerly the responsibility of the local militia. That said, I’m not one to support grabbing guns, but I can support better gun laws.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ Keith FitzPatrick, CPIM, CSCP "Never dreamed" ... and never wanted - which is why they didn't set aside continual funding for a standing Army. It was intentional. I like how we can pontificate about how great the Founding Fathers were and how much smarter than are than us... until it's something we disagree with, then, that idea is out the window. (Not you, Keith, but I hear it a lot.)
(0)
(0)
Is there an argument out there to "band" the Second Amendment? Is this is reference to something specific?
However, keep in mind that MOST of the other "First-World" nations (similar to the US), have much more strict gun control laws and there aren't a bunch of criminals killing innocent law-abiding people with any more regularity than in the US - in fact, most of them have lower homicide rates than the US.
If your pro-gun argument is based on homicide rates and violence, it will fail. The only was the pro-gun argument wins is by playing the "Constitution" card and ignoring everything else.
As for freedom, the United States SAYS it's big on it, but recent studies by independent groups show that the US isn't even in the Top 10 nations for individual freedom.
However, keep in mind that MOST of the other "First-World" nations (similar to the US), have much more strict gun control laws and there aren't a bunch of criminals killing innocent law-abiding people with any more regularity than in the US - in fact, most of them have lower homicide rates than the US.
If your pro-gun argument is based on homicide rates and violence, it will fail. The only was the pro-gun argument wins is by playing the "Constitution" card and ignoring everything else.
As for freedom, the United States SAYS it's big on it, but recent studies by independent groups show that the US isn't even in the Top 10 nations for individual freedom.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ (Join to see) - I'm sure you can see how that article is intentionally misleading, right? Why don't we back it up to 2000 and take the numbers? The article intentionally starts the clock at the largest French terrorist attack and tries to relate it to the average - which it isn't. But, like I said, let's take the numbers back to 2000 and when we include the 2000+ casualties on 9-11, the US is back on top - that's fair, right? No, it's not - but that's exactly the type of slanted evidence this article uses as the only thing to support it's claim.
But I'm sure you knew that already. =)
But I'm sure you knew that already. =)
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - It's not misleading it's an old article, just a few months older than the original data. But I understand your confusion being that it's three years after the fact now. But no 9-11 wasn't a shooting, nor was it counted as murder, so it wouldn't be in this topic but you have a point with the leading data that is how persuasive articles are in their nature.
What I can remember is during USAEUR meeting where the French generals couldn't support joint training missions because "half of their military was deployed within their own borders." For instances just like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/07/car-packed-with-gas-cylinders-found-near-notre-dame-in-paris
What I can remember is during USAEUR meeting where the French generals couldn't support joint training missions because "half of their military was deployed within their own borders." For instances just like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/07/car-packed-with-gas-cylinders-found-near-notre-dame-in-paris
Woman, 19, sought after car with gas cylinders found near Notre-Dame in Paris
The ‘radicalised’ daughter of the car’s owner was known to police for intending to travel to Syria
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MAJ (Join to see) - I wasn't confused, I saw the date differences and really wasn't concerned. If you recall, the high body count at the French attack included both firearms an explosives and was considered a terrorist act - like 9-11 - not civilian on civilian violence that would make sense for comparison. That was my issue with it being misleading.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - And why does in your mind a terrorist attack not entitle you to self defense? Trying to tie your last statement with the original "If your pro-gun argument is based on homicide rates and violence, it will fail. The only was the pro-gun argument wins is by playing the "Constitution" card and ignoring everything else."
Seems to me this violence certainly supports the idea that a well regulated militia is a necessity of a free state.
Seems to me this violence certainly supports the idea that a well regulated militia is a necessity of a free state.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next