UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 737030  
Subject: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/23/2013 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2013/01/tiananmen-square-acti...

23 years ago, I was a college freshman exercising my freedom of speech and assembly in Tian’anmen Square, much like we are doing here today. We grew frustrated by the restriction of personal freedoms and the corrupted Chinese government, and we thought peaceful protest would make the country better. Our young passion and patriotism was crushed by hails of full metal jackets out of AK47’s. (Some AK purists here would argue they were really type 56’s). We could not fight back, because we did not have an inch of iron in our hands, to borrow a Chinese expression: we were unarmed.

Gun owners like us often say: the Second Amendment is the protector against a tyrannical government. Some may argument that a man with a rifle is no match to the military machines of today, so such beliefs are no longer relevant. However, 20 million peaceful Beijing citizens in 1989, sure wished that they had a few million rifles in their hands!

Freedom is not free. Liberty has costs. We recognize that in this free society, criminals or mentally deranged could get weapons and murder the innocents. The answer, however, is not to disarm the law abiding citizens. Not only criminals and the deranged will violate the laws anyway, but more importantly, when a government turns criminal, when a government turns deranged, the body count will not be five, ten or twenty, but hundreds, like in Tian’anmen Square, or millions, counted in the 90-year history of the Chinese Communist Party.

Our constitutional republic may look fuzzy and loving today (if you think so, I’ve got a TSA agent you should meet), but keep in mind that absolute power corrupts absolutely! And when a government has monopoly on guns, it has absolute power!

Do you know that the Chinese Constitution guarantees almost all the nice things we have here? It is written that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of speech and religion, they have human and property rights, and that such rights cannot be taken away without due process of the law. And do you know what? Chinese people do not have the right to keep and bear arms. I assure you all those nice guarantees, are not worth the paper they are printed on, because when the government has all the guns, they have all the rights.

I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in 2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man.

Now suppose the 20 million Beijing citizens had had a few million rifles, how many rounds should they have been ALLOWED to load into their magazines? 10? 7? How about 3?

Never, never, never give up the fight, my friends. It may be a small step that you give up your rifle, or a 30-round magazine, but it will be a giant leap in the destruction of this great republic.
----------------------------------------------------------
That was...........AWESOME!
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 667957 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/23/2013 4:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That was...........AWESOME!

Absolutely! Next: have him explain why Saddam Hussein managed to be a ruthless dictator for a generation in Iraq, when Iraqis were free to own guns, and many were required by law to have guns in their homes. At the end of his regime, there were more guns in homes in Iraq than there were people in homes. Somehow Saddam managed to hang on.

Maybe the line that it keeps the dictators in line is just a bunch of hogwash? I realize this is another one of those unfortunate "fact" things that fails to align with your preconceived notions, but I keep hoping you will someday start using logic rather than soundbites as a basis of your decision making.

Faint hope, probably.
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 667979 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/23/2013 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
GoofyDoofus: Next: have him explain why Saddam Hussein managed to be a ruthless dictator for a generation in Iraq, when Iraqis were free to own guns, and many were required by law to have guns in their homes. At the end of his regime, there were more guns in homes in Iraq than there were people in homes. Somehow Saddam managed to hang on.

Credible citation, please.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 667998 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/23/2013 7:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
OK. Enough. The Second Amendment is not the protector against a tyrannical government. it just isn't. Never was.

No one has any right under any part of the Constitution to use arms to oppose some government law or policy on the basis that it constitutes tyranny. The Constitution gives no one the right to go to war against the government.

The Second Amendment is about facilitating national defense against external threats and internal rebellions through state-raised militias, thereby eliminating the need for a standing national army, which was viewed as expensive and a possible threat if created.

All the rest of this stuff is lazy thinking, self-gratifying, but not relevant in a Constitutional discussion, no matter how badly the speaker wants it to be otherwise.

Now. Time to batten down the hatches. Be warned, I am armed with an electric pen, mightier than the sword or an AK-47.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668009 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/23/2013 8:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
You're simply wrong.

The Federalists constantly and consistently opined about the need for citizens to be armed against their own government. After all, they had just shed blood to get the Brits off their back.

The way things are going in the good ol' U S of A, I agree with them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668068 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 10:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Gun owners like us often say: the Second Amendment is the protector against a tyrannical government. Some may argument that a man with a rifle is no match to the military machines of today, so such beliefs are no longer relevant. However, 20 million peaceful Beijing citizens in 1989, sure wished that they had a few million rifles in their hands!


If 20 million peaceful Beijing citizens had been protesting in 1989, the Chinese government would probably have fallen. Unfortunately, it seems to have been 100,000 or so (0.5%).
If this forlorn minority had been armed, they would have been massacred even harder.
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668074 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
If 20 million peaceful Beijing citizens had been protesting in 1989, the Chinese government would probably have fallen. Unfortunately, it seems to have been 100,000 or so (0.5%).
If this forlorn minority had been armed, they would have been massacred even harder.
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.
--------------------------------------------------
How do you say hayseed in German?:

One gun-control argument I’ve always had trouble understanding, never more so than now, is the idea that millions of citizens armed with pistols and rifles as a bulwark against tyranny might as well give those weapons up because they’re no match for a modern military with tanks and planes. Really? Since when is guerrilla warfare a sure loser, even against a sophisticated, well-equipped army? Until the Awakening changed the dynamic in Anbar province, Iraqi Sunnis were doing okay holding out against the world’s hyperpower. The Taliban crawls on to this day after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and may well end up back in control once the U.S. finally gives up and withdraws. The point of Petraeus-style counterinsurgency doctrine, I thought, is that even the most well-trained, well-equipped force can’t pacify a population through brute strength. It’s one thing to believe worrying about martial law here is silly, it’s another to believe that an attempt at martial law would inevitably succeed.
-------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668080 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 11:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Since when is guerrilla warfare a sure loser, even against a sophisticated, well-equipped army? Until the Awakening changed the dynamic in Anbar province, Iraqi Sunnis were doing okay holding out against the world’s hyperpower.


Alright 2828, let me ask if you can see yourself agreeing that this statement is a good idea:

"And then we're going to grab a bunch of rifles and we'll fight it out with the Marines."
.
.
.
Does that sound like a good idea?

The Iraqi Sunnis would have done better against the US Army WITHOUT guns, because in firefights, they DIED. HORRIBLY. TYPICALLY ALL OF THEM.
I remember reading an interesting article about how there were no veteran resistance fighters because the casualty rate of any engagement tended to approach 100%.
What the insurgency did, what was effective, was IEDs, mortars, RPGs, etc.
The "gun" part of the insurgency was always pretty suicidal. Well, I guess the guns were useful in massacring Shi'ites.


The point of Petraeus-style counterinsurgency doctrine, I thought, is that even the most well-trained, well-equipped force can’t pacify a population through brute strength.

A Petraeus-style counterinsurgency is only necessary if the military isn't willing to massacre vast swaths of the population in going suppressing the resistance.
Stalin and Saddam for example suppressed several uprisings successfully, if necessary, they just exterminated a good part of the population concerned.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668081 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 11:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
You're pretty schizo Advo. I remember back in the day when you were crying about creating more terrorists, now it seems you're saying insurgencies don't stand a chance.

What are your thoughts about the french creating more terrorists in Mali? Or is this a "good war" <g>.

The shifting sands of being a liberal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668082 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You're pretty schizo Advo. I remember back in the day when you were crying about creating more terrorists, now it seems you're saying insurgencies don't stand a chance.


If you're willing to kill EVERYONE, terrorism isn't that much of a concern. It seems like the Russians even finally got Chechnya under control, and they only had to kill 25% or so of the population.

The problem is that this is not an option for the US.
The thing is - if you face a government/tyrant who is willing to kill a substantial portion of the population and who has an effective military, an insurgency doesn't stand a chance (unless you have large-scale support from the outside with heavy modern weaponry, training, etc. and don't mind losing a substantial part of the population during the struggle as in Afghanistan). Still, Stalin would have "won" the war in Afghanistan because he would have just killed everyone, if necessary. It's just not possible to win a guerrilla war against a Stalin or a Saddam.

If the government/tyrant is NOT willing to massacre the population (such as is the case with the US military in Iraq), you don't NEED weapons, an unarmed uprising is going to be the most effective option.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ResNullius Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668083 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 11:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 17
If the government/tyrant is NOT willing to massacre the population (such as is the case with the US military in Iraq), you don't NEED weapons, an unarmed uprising is going to be the most effective option.

You must be dumb as a post to think this. The US military in Iraq was not harmed by unarmed civilians, but by well armed terrorist who were will to kill thousands of innocent women and children in order to kill one America. The end justified the means to the terrorist. What's a few thousand civilian one way or the other. I can't believe how totally stupid liberals are when it comes to almost any subject at all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668084 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 11:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

You must be dumb as a post to think this. The US military in Iraq was not harmed by unarmed civilians, but by well armed terrorist who were will to kill thousands of innocent women and children in order to kill one America. The end justified the means to the terrorist. What's a few thousand civilian one way or the other. I can't believe how totally stupid liberals are when it comes to almost any subject at all.


Please re-read this sentence you completely misunderstood it.

If the government/tyrant is NOT willing to massacre the population (such as is the case with the US military in Iraq), you don't NEED weapons, an unarmed uprising is going to be the most effective option.

My point is that if the Iraqis really wanted the US out of Iraq, they should have resisted the occupation through unarmed means. If millions of unarmed Iraqis had organized sitdowns around US military bases, the occupation wouldn't have lasted very long.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ResNullius Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668102 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My point is that if the Iraqis really wanted the US out of Iraq, they should have resisted the occupation through unarmed means. If millions of unarmed Iraqis had organized sitdowns around US military bases, the occupation wouldn't have lasted very long.

You know what? You're right. I guess I must be getting to close to the post myself.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2828 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668103 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
The thing is - if you face a government/tyrant who is willing to kill a substantial portion of the population and who has an effective military, an insurgency doesn't stand a chance (unless you have large-scale support from the outside with heavy modern weaponry, training, etc. and don't mind losing a substantial part of the population during the struggle as in Afghanistan). Still, Stalin would have "won" the war in Afghanistan because he would have just killed everyone, if necessary. It's just not possible to win a guerrilla war against a Stalin or a Saddam.
-------------------------------------------------------
This post was about the US. I'd say that the government would be less willing to kill anyone if the population were well armed. Much like that quote about an armed american behind every blade of grass. Once you start whittling down the 2nd amendment over time, and a government knows each person who has a one shot musket, and the future population knows less and less of what freedom is as they sip their 6oz Coca Cola then i could see something like that happening.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668106 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.

Wrong. It's an individual, inherent right that is the only defense you have against a government's forces, whether a modern army or rock throwing monkey soldiers.

How exactly is being disarmed preferrable to being armed while defending yourself from, well, anyone? The odds of success may be long at any rate, but they're far longer if you're utterly helpless. As such your argument is hardly persuasive.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668114 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If millions of unarmed Iraqis had organized sitdowns around US military bases, the occupation wouldn't have lasted very long.

How does one organize "millions" of Iraqis? Peaceful protesters couldn't do it with the Million Man March, either. It's like trying to herd cats. Can't be done.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668120 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Notice how all the "Bush is creating more terrorists" and "The US Army can't possibly defeat all the insurgency" people are now crapping on the 2nd Amendment by arguing the opposite?

Hi-freaking-larious.

BTW, haters of the 2nd Amendment: When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. The fundamental right enshrined in Heller was not only that right to bear arms...but also for self-defense.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668122 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The shifting sands of being a liberal.
__________________________

It's shifting alright. Sands? Wrong texture, wrong color(unless you are sick) and definitely wrong aroma unless you are near a sewage treatment center.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jim2B Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668184 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/24/2013 10:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
One gun-control argument I’ve always had trouble understanding, never more so than now, is the idea that millions of citizens armed with pistols and rifles as a bulwark against tyranny might as well give those weapons up because they’re no match for a modern military with tanks and planes.

I hear this one a lot.

"Citizens equipped with modern assault rifles are not match for a modern army" so you might as well give up the rifles

It is really hard to have a meaningful discussion with someone that they would put forth such an argument.

It is really hard to believe that someone could be so stupid as to believe that the citizens would be better off fighting a modern army with NO weapons?!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668195 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 12:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I hear this one a lot. "Citizens equipped with modern assault rifles are not match for a modern army" so you might as well give up the rifles. It is really hard to have a meaningful discussion with someone that they would put forth such an argument. It is really hard to believe that someone could be so stupid as to believe that the citizens would be better off fighting a modern army with NO weapons?!" - Jim
-------------------


The truth is that I don't own and shoot guns because I am necessarily planning on killing another human being. I like guns because I like shooting animals and eating them.

Using the gun as home protection is just sort of a side benefit that crosses my mind once in a while - but it's not my main reason for owning guns.

I just like shooting guns. It's fun to aim at stuff and hit what your aiming at. I especially like shooting rifles with scopes and being able to hit something really small from a long distance away. It's cool. It satisfies the evolutionary hunter gatherer in me. I mean lets face it, most of the last 200,000 years of human existence was spent living as hunter gatherers.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668199 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 12:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If the government/tyrant is NOT willing to massacre the population (such as is the case with the US military in Iraq)



Well, the US military was certainly willing to massacre an entire retreating Iraqi convoy in '92 simply because a US general wanted to blow something up.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: THEMATHISNEAR Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668222 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 9:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
If 20 million peaceful Beijing citizens had been protesting in 1989, the Chinese government would probably have fallen. Unfortunately, it seems to have been 100,000 or so (0.5%).
If this forlorn minority had been armed, they would have been massacred even harder.
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.


Your whole line of thinking is utterly bizarre. It's as if you left out the sentence 'resistance is futile'.

There are 300 million guns in America, if we can believe the media reports (which is always a concern, I'll grant you, but let's go with it). There are over 300 million people. Let's say that the Government gets more tyrannical. Let's say 1/3 of the population is paying attention (you know, most of the ones that voted for Romney). Do you think even Big Brother Owebama, with as much power as he could possibly grab, would try to suppress or kill 100 million armed Americans scattered from sea to shining sea? From whom would he get the resources to fund such an operation?

I don't know where you're going with this, because you're so far off the map of reality that I don't even know where you are now.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668229 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 9:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.

A thousand bees can chase away a gorilla.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668233 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 9:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Next: have him explain why Saddam Hussein managed to be a ruthless dictator for a generation in Iraq, when Iraqis were free to own guns, and many were required by law to have guns in their homes.

Guns without ammo is merely a doorstop.

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668237 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 9:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
If this forlorn minority had been armed, they would have been massacred even harder.
The 2nd amendment as a political right is just of no use in the face of a modern army.


What I find ironic about the Lib/Dem argument is that they don't recognize a famous quote from one of their own heroes.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao

JLC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668246 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao

Remembers the days when libs proudly carried around Mao's little red book.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668281 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/25/2013 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Wrong. It's an individual, inherent right that is the only defense you have against a government's forces

Sorry, Colovion, but the need to defend your home from criminally-minded citizens is different than the right to oppose the government with force. The latter does not exist. Article Three calls it Treason.

The Constitution gives you plenty of ways to oppose government over-reaching. To call what you think of as over-reaching by the name of tyranny is verbal overkill and not accurate or useful. It is not common sense, either. And it allies you with anyone on the Left or Right who argues that the only response to the status quo is to take up arms against the tyrant.

Sounds like George Wallace and John Wilkes Booth, not to mention John Brown.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668864 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/29/2013 12:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nope. You are wrong. On a number of fronts. The Federalists always wanted a federal army. But that's a minor point. The Constitution was created in the wake of Shay's Rebellion, which was put down by state militias, aka organized, state-run armies.

Your "armed against the federal government" is a fantasy, not true. Not what drove the decisions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Dwdonhoff Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668942 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/29/2013 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Hi Joel,

Nope. You are wrong. On a number of fronts. The Federalists always wanted a federal army. But that's a minor point. The Constitution was created in the wake of Shay's Rebellion, which was put down by state militias, aka organized, state-run armies.
Your "armed against the federal government" is a fantasy, not true. Not what drove the decisions.


Nope, you're wrong;
http://boards.fool.com/would-you-mind-supporting-your-assert...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 669022 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/29/2013 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Shay's Rebellion was a rebellion against "government tyranny." So was the Whiskey Rebellion. One came before the Constitution, one after. Neither was supported generally at the time nor seen as legal or proper. Both were put down by militias, by which I mean the organized armies of the several individual states.

These are facts. Quoting people like Patrick Henry and Lee and other Virginians as proof I am wrong, and suggesting that this expresses the range of individual positions and thought that went into the compromise called the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, is not a very strong position to hold. Its like suggesting that if you read the views of the NRA on gun control, you have read everything that is on point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ascenzm Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 669078 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/29/2013 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in 2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man.


Bravo!

This is an example of a person we should be letting into America and who should become an American citizen.

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Art53 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 669087 of 737030
Subject: Re: Tiananmen Square Activist On 2nd Amendment Date: 1/29/2013 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in 2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man."


It's something to kill animals to eat. Also it's tremendous fun to shoot stuff. It gives me a good feeling when I can hit a target that is a long way away. I have also used my rifle to kill varmints that need killing.

Art

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (32) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement