“The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions”
Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity…
Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
And FDR, Kennedy, Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che and all the others the left idolize. Well they still have Castro and Hugo at least for a little while anyway. It’s strange that the left only consider our founders ideas antiquated. Never theirs and never their idols.
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM
come on… randome example:
this may have been true in the age of front-loaded guns and cavalry charges. it’s obviously wrong today. i could go on.
sesquipedalian on December 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM
That statement has to be high on the all-time list of Hot Gas Troll dumb non sequiturs. “Yeah, man! Your gun is totally threatening my free speech!” Huh? Doesn’t matter – sounds righteous.
The Count on December 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Far kinder than it was to your heroes of the Soviet progressive state. That lasted what? 70 years and your precious socialism revealed itself for the failed idea it is. Of course it was never about the policies, but rather an attempt to utilize the worst in human nature as a vehicle to propel themselves to power over their fellow man, and hold it with iron force. The Founders understood that aspect of human nature very well, having lived it.
Disarming the population was essential to that power grab by the elites, which is why we are having this discussion right now isn’t it?
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Human nature hasn’t changed.
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Cannon fodder, plankton banks, gnats, rats.
They are made into worm food, instantly, when the tyrants are fully in place. The tyrants hate weasels more than anyone. Otherwise they could never be dicatators.
Schadenfreude on December 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Ah sesquidogshit is here, spinning like a top. Does it not have a life?
wargamer6 on December 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM
I asked what is your reasoning to conclude they’re wrong, not why you disagree with their conclusion. Per this:
Why do you conclude it wasn’t about individual gun owners when the framers and the text say it is? Or rather, what compelling argument convinced you what the actual text says and what all the framers say is not what it and they say?
anuts on December 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM
You’re right, it’s more like 1933. And you are them.
GWB on December 28, 2012 at 3:27 PM
The Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan, with the US on its way out. Iraq, Syria, Libya, France out of Algeria, the US out of Vietnam and all largely accomplished by small arms and poorly trained militia.
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Sons of Liberty. It has kind of a ring to it!
claudius on December 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM
All of these old Liberal Congresscritters trying to violate our Constitutional Rights, are the same ones, who as members of “the counter-culture” in the 60s and 70s whined and cried about the Establishment violating their’s.
Disgustingly ironic, huh?
kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Wow. Crazy person much?
People who have jobs make fun of the libtard sitting in his parent’s basement, so in his crazy-ass little brain that somehow gets twisted around to mean that we’re all trying to MURDER him!
So when this one steals his mommy’s gun and mows down her daycare center, just like all the other times, there won’t be a doubt in his mind that it’s in self-defense.
logis on December 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM
I’d hoped that it would evolve, into more freedom and liberty, for all. Instead the fools subjugate themselves, volens, into modern day plantations.
It’s the saddest thing about ‘humanity’ and ‘civilization’, two super-hyped terms.
Schadenfreude on December 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Please explain how asking, “How does my owning a gun threaten your free speech?” rate as a “Hot Gas Troll dumb non sequiturs”
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM
the founders were not infallible and the document they created should not be fetishized.
slavery was written into the original document.
another instant win.
sesquipedalian on December 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Actually, you’re right for once – if you’re one of those looking to take us down the road to fascism or communism. Because the only person being intimidated by that sign is an authoritarian government.
GWB on December 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Out one side of his mouth, he says it’s anachronistic. Out the other, the language is misunderstood and refers to modern-day armies.
With socialists, it’s about stripping you of your rights by any means necessary. They have no integrity. They’re just a bunch of thugs.
The Count on December 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM
??? Where do you come up with this stuff?
No wonder you get your ass kicked here. I think you’re operating on a fifth grade level.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Dr. Frank Enstine on December 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM
No, no, The Count meant that sesqui’s statement made the hall of stupidity, among so many exemplars.
Schadenfreude on December 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM
I think the defense of a lot of people on this blog for second amendment in the current day and age goes kind of like this – even though our federally governed military has weapons vastly more powerful than what could have been imagined in 1776, if the government ever dares to use them on the populace, it will stir the “conscience” of the people and create the conditions ripe for a revolt.
To which I say:
(1) the government that starts using weapons against its people probably does not care about the revolt of the “conscience”. Frankly, with the country so divided, do you even believe a majority will care if it does come to a head in such a fashion?
(2) currently, the government’s intelligence network is so abnormally powerful (because of policies significantly aided by the defense hawks) that even the thought of a revolt can be tracked with a decent degree of precision. Do you really believe that some cool weapons in the hands of people will stop the government from quelling such a protest?
In short, given the massive technological advances made in both weapons as well as intelligence gathering, the very idea of having an “easily gathered armed militia” is almost as fantastic as unicorns and fairies. Please feel free to refute this.
peter_griffin on December 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM
And yet you are too stupid to see that you are using your right to free speech to threaten my right to keep and bear arms.
Well, maybe you aren’t that stupid… Maybe you are just that hypocritical.
Go change your diaper and relax. There is no one here that is going to shoot you for your words.
LegendHasIt on December 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM
You obviously have not a clue about military strategy and tactics.
GWB on December 28, 2012 at 3:36 PM
the constitution was written by learned men who not only studied but lived through a TYRANNICAL government. Who’s history since before the birth of christ showed that every government sooner or later falls to the power hungery. These “clueless” people not only understood and lived through it they were among the first to overthrow such government and install a new government to entrust their hard won freedoms too.
human nature has not changed in thousands of years and it hasn’t changed in the last 250 years. the constitution wasn’t written for “tactics” and it wasn’t written to solve every little problem of a free people.
It was written by educated men (something we no longer have in this world) who understood human nature front and backwards to ensure the hard won freedom they had gained for themselves, for the people and for their children and their children’s children and for the ages would never again fall under the sway of a of TYRANNICAL government.
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM
The non sequitur I was referring to was Sesamestreet’s statement about guns threatening free speech – not hawk’s inquiry about how that makes any sense.
The Count on December 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM
sesquipedalian doesn’t have a clue about a lot of things.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Human nature cannot evolve, it can only be compensated for with laws that utilize its darker nature for good purposes. Socialism and liberalism try to deny that nature and fail, while free enterprise use that nature for the good of society.
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:40 PM
If that’s the case then Marx is absolutely clueless about the modern world and the Communist Manifesto should be ignored. We should also ignore geometry since it was conceptualized thousands of years ago.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM
I guess I see Sessy’s point: getting your ass kicked in an argument this badly is tantamount to getting shot.
The Count on December 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM
You know, it could be the ‘gun nuts’ that are maintaining the freedoms you still have. (Sorry if someone’s already posted something similar: I had to leave the thread and find a page that does not have the HOTAIR icon over the login link)
affenhauer on December 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM
You really are as ignorant as the day is long aren’t you?
Couldn’t you at least try to verify some of your ‘facts’ because spouting off with them?
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM
hamilton was right then and is right now. As the military outpaced the miltia’s and individuals arms and the government passed “common sense” gun control. Our freedoms dwindled and the fear of the population by the politicians dwindled. we are less free today because of your “common sense gun control”
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Dead serious here for a minute: schools actually do teach this kind of batsh1t craziness nowadays. But it doesn’t end in the fifth grade; there are freaking Liberal Arts PHD’s who are still having this exact same infantile propaganda pounded into their heads every day.
He’ll just keep repeating the same mindless screed over and over again, because a government employee once patted him on the head for it. That’s the only kind of “self-esteem” the average moonbat will ever experience.
logis on December 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM
I think this is comparing apples and oranges. What you are discussing here is the futility of “mission creep” in defense strategy. Our objective in Afghanistan was to destroy the Al Queada presence in that region and deliver a mortal blow to the people who protected them. That objective has already been achieved. Hence, our continued presence only goes to incite the locals and generate a populist backlash. *All* of the cases you describe above which involve US are a result of our government’s ill-defined mission objectives.
As for foreign governments where people tend to overthrow regimes, the level of discontent that it takes to create popular support for such an action is unthinkable. Do you think Syria or Lybia had a Second Amendment? Do you think its absence prevented the rise of a populist movement? If conditions in US move to the point where a significant majority feel the government needs to be overthrown, it will happen with or without the Second Amendment. However, I think you underestimate the magnitude of popular support you would need for something like that to happen. Heck, a majority just re-elected Obama – if things were so anti-establishment, do you think it would have ever happened? I don’t see any significant populist backlash in US in the near future – at least I definitely hope not.
peter_griffin on December 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Therefore, according to you, we should relax the gun control laws to allow the body of citizens access to arms little, if at all, inferior to that available to the military.
I can safely assume you don’t support that. Do you even think about what you are writing?
Fenris on December 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM
This is interesting
Schadenfreude on December 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Why refute it? It’s your opinion.
Mine is there are millions are gun owners, and you’d have to have the entire military and law enforcement on the side of the government. That is unlikely. Sure they have superior firepower, but they don’t have numbers and they need people willing to kill their neighbors. More than likely you’d see some military refuse or use that superior firepower against the government.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM
You are correct, as Assad is learning currently and as the Soviets learned in Afghanistan.
dogsoldier on December 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM
peter_griffin on December 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Are you saying that Americans do not have the right to own guns?
Because your posts are strictly dealing with the imbalace of firepower between the citizenry and the Government.
Just for clafication’s sake.
kingsjester on December 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM
It appears you are also ignorant of current events in Syria and elsewhere. Wow.
dogsoldier on December 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM
I have the same problem, AND the HA bitmap is also obscuring half the submit button.
dogsoldier on December 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM
It doesn’t alter the basic point that small arms and poorly trained militia denied the well trained, well equipped militaries the accomplishment of their mission, creeped or otherwise.
Yes it would. Access to weapons in some form or another is absolutely essential to victory which is why so many western governments are flooding the place with weapons. Without those weapons those rebellions are dead in the water.
I am sorry, but without a well armed citizenry, or an external weapons and ammunition supply, no rebellion is going anywhere.
sharrukin on December 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Not every colonist supported revolution. Plus, the British had tremendous advantages in firepower and men. We won.
darwin on December 28, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Ya well, I wasn’t commenting on what I support. But I’m sure he doesn’t support access to full auto rifles.
Fenris on December 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM
in both the revolution war and the civil war the population split into thirds. A 1/3rd was on one side 1/3rd was on the other and a 1/3rd wished no part in the battle. It doe not take a “majority”. It simply takes a majority of those against the government + those that don’t care either way.
Right now polls show 80% of the population is against the political class. The politicians keeps them sperate by phony crisis and blaming the other guy. But if only 15% of dems and 15% of GOPers come to a conclusion that the elites in power are the problem and the ballot box is no longer secure and a means to save thier freedoms from those self same elites then their will be an armed insurrection. After that it depends on the amount who joins or who fights it. You don’t understand how revolutions occur at all. It doesn’t take many to start one nor many to carry one to a successfull conclusion.
unseen on December 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM
We still use Napoleonic tactics to win modern wars. Much of the organizational structure of our modern military is based on Napoleon’s.
War is war. Humans are humans.
spmat on December 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM
If I understand your opinion correctly, you assume that a majority, if not all, of the gun owners will believe in your cause when the “time comes”, whatever that may mean. I think you may be surprised.
You may do well to remember US has more weapons than the rest of the world put together, as well as the best intelligence network. Even Soviets, at the best of their times, did not have anywhere close to such an infrastructure.
peter_griffin on December 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Then why did they allow individuals to own guns?
xblade on December 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Ummmm, Twitter and guns.
Do I need to add more?
hawksruleva on December 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »