Author Topic: Democrat statement (Read 429 times)

Terror · « **on:** October 01, 2004, 11:30:07 AM »

From this Article: (Registration required) (Use BugMeNot )

http://www.dailyorange.com/news/2004/09/30/Opinion/College.Republicans.And.College.Democrats.Debate.Gun.Control-737169.shtml

I can't believe anyone would say "The Second Amendment is an archaic notion that does not apply to today's society.", even a Democrat. It is like saying the Bill of Rights is not worth the paper it's written on. Now, ok they are just "college kids", but to outright say an Article of the Bill of Rights is "archaic" and "does not apply" is taking things out to the extreme edge!

Terror

ra · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2004, 11:36:07 AM »

That sounds like something Lisa Simpson said in one episode. Are you sure this isn't an Onion type thing? Democrats are not honest enough to spit directly on the 2nd amendment.

ra

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 01, 2004, 11:52:05 AM »

God I love being here at college. It's fun smacking the occasional democrat down. But when there's 7 of them around you, it just makes it that much more satisfying to prove them all wrong.

Blooz · « **Reply #3 on:** October 01, 2004, 11:55:12 AM »

It's just someone else that doesn't understand what it's for and that without the Second Amendment the other 26 wouldn't last long.

The founding fathers understood tyranny and because they were so wise to limit government power we today have no real concept of it.

Those that excersize their First Amentment rights to tear down the Second Amendment are part of the "it can't happen here" crowd and put their faith in the government and police forces to protect their person and property.

Horn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 01, 2004, 12:19:02 PM »

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

-MZ- · « **Reply #5 on:** October 01, 2004, 12:37:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Next time you have a dispute with them, draw down on a cop and let us know how that works out for you.

Sandman · « **Reply #6 on:** October 01, 2004, 01:03:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

You're going to need bigger guns.

oboe · « **Reply #7 on:** October 01, 2004, 02:02:39 PM »

Makes sense to me - with a large standing army, with the National Guard reserves, we really don't have "militias" anymore in the Revolutionary War times sense. I don't think the National Guard members have to bring their own guns when they deploy.

If I understand their position correctly, gun owners want to keep the right to bear arms uninfringed because they value guns for self-protection, and to keep the government honest. (Good Luck!

I wish they'd amend the 2nd amendment to address those concerns, plain and simple. The 'militia' pretext of the 2nd amendment is just confusing nowadays, IMO.

Horn · « **Reply #8 on:** October 01, 2004, 02:06:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -MZ-
Next time you have a dispute with them, draw down on a cop and let us know how that works out for you.

Wow, I didn't know Cops=Government. If I were you I wouldn't pull a gun on a cop.

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2004, 10:59:56 AM »

if the government needs defending against then a large portion of the army and the cops will be on the side of the people. Armed citizens will dominate the outcome of such a conflict. Unarmed citizens will be herded like sheep.

lazs

TweetyBird · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2004, 04:06:48 PM »

Er Laz, it didn't work in the Civil War, and the military's toys have gotten much better since then. I doubt your .45 will stop the tanks, but heh- go for it - everyone needs a hobby.

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2004, 10:50:43 AM »

why would I use a .45? The civil war? The civil war was two armies devided by geography.

It is naive to think that a tyrannical government with halfhearted support of it's military and police could deal with 100's of Ok city bombings and thousands upon thousands of snipers without making themselves even more tyrannical and losing even more ground. a couple of guys in airliners disrupted the country for weeks.... one guy with a fertilizer filled van did the same... a couple of guys with a wore out chevy and a bushmaster had the capital terrorized for months.

imagine all these events happening at once and continuously and multiplied by hundreds.

lazs

Scootter · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2004, 11:34:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

imagine all these events happening at once and continuously and multiplied by hundreds.

lazs

I would rather not.

But point made, the government would be overturned by other insiders in the government and with the two houses of lawmakers and the continuing complete constitution it would never get to this. The authors of the constitution and designers of our government were very wise indeed, the system they set up really prevents a tyrant form taking over.

However to say passing gun laws will prevent lawbreakers and terrorists from doing bad things with guns is absurd, things should not be banned because of how they look (20 percent of the autos on the road would be banned).

Remember the assault weapons were banned not on how they functioned but on how they looked, and that is stupid.

lazs2 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2004, 11:39:42 AM »

scooter... I would rather not imagine it either. I hope that our government never gets so tyrannical that it is possible... I believe that armed citizens do a great deal to keep this from happening.

my point is simply that an unpopular and tyrannical government stands very little chance against an armed citizenry in the U.S.

lazs

Scootter · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2004, 11:58:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
scooter... I would rather not imagine it either. I hope that our government never gets so tyrannical that it is possible... I believe that armed citizens do a great deal to keep this from happening.

my point is simply that an unpopular and tyrannical government stands very little chance against an armed citizenry in the U.S.

lazs

I agree and as a firearm hobbyist I see this with a bit of bias. I however know with our form of government a tyrant taking over would be impossible, unless he could get darn near everyone in DC to go along with him, and getting DC to agree on a time for lunch is impossible.