is the 2d amendment a relic of the past?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - is the 2d amendment a relic of the past?

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:24:07 AM EDT

with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:29:33 AM EDT

[#1]

I dont know, is the Bill Of Rights really that signifigant? Maybe we should just hand over all our Rights and we can be like Russia or China.

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:37:03 AM EDT

[#2]

The 2nd amendment provides the means to resist tyranny but the mindset that embraces the need to be armed and resist tyranny is the true strength. With both the will and the means an armed citizenry would never need to collectively use those arms. Remove either one and you guarantee that they will be needed.

Rich V

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:54:27 AM EDT

[#3]

I think I understand your question.........but the skill to use a firearm is more important than owning one.

Why worry about the 2nd Amendment..........the entire Constitution and Declaration of Independence have been abrogated, so why worry about a part of it.

We should have exercised our rights to topple the corruption about 20+ years ago.

It's only going to get worse.............why wait.

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Does Congress "represent" you?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

40+ % of your paycheck goes to taxes.

The national borders go unguarded while the Congress debates the next "right" they can take away from your family under the pretext of "HOMELAND SECURITY".

The local transvestite-Child molester has more "rights" than you do!

What are we waiting for?

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:55:00 AM EDT

[#4]

Once they have nano-tube body armor, yeah, pretty much

Posted: 12/24/2005 4:06:42 AM EDT

[#5]

That's the beauty of the 2nd ammendment; the whole of our population is armed. As stated, the milita is the population; the founding fathers knew this would prevent any tyranical form of govt. from siezing power. Exactly the reason tyrants sieze arms from citizens soon after siezing power.

It is totally relevent ; it is the only ammendment that guarentees all the others. With no 2nd, certainly would be no first.

Posted: 12/24/2005 4:55:32 AM EDT

[#6]

The Second Amendment is the more significant today than any other time. True are arm forces has more firepower, tanks, and planes. The US Army has about one million soldiers, which include retired, active duty, reserve and guard. Even if they all decide to support a suppression of our rights. (Not very likely since the oath we take is to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.) They are still just one million fighting there own families. I’m not sure on exact numbers of people with firearms, but I’m sure it is well over 120 million. Even with the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, there is not enough firepower to suppress the population. If we had mercenary armed forces or had no firearms but black powder single shot we might have reason to worry. But as a member of the Armed Forces let me assure you our top priority is to up hold the U.S. Constriction not whoever is in power. That may change in the future, but all of the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman, I’ve ever met in 20 plus years in the military feel the same way I do. The rights of U.S. citizens must be protected.

Posted: 12/24/2005 4:57:26 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The 2nd amendment provides the means to resist tyranny but the mindset that embraces the need to be armed and resist tyranny is the true strength. With both the will and the means an armed citizenry would never need to collectively use those arms. Remove either one and you guarantee that they will be needed.

Rich V

Very well said.

Posted: 12/24/2005 5:06:40 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

First off, you need to remember one important concept: The ENTIRE Constitution is a relic from the past. When it wants to, the .gov simply ignores it, pushes it into a corner and puts a "Dunce" hat on it. The days of adhereing to the Constitution are longgggg gone, brother. History. The final nail in the coffin was the ERA. Folks who were around in the '70s know precisely what I mean. The Equal Rights Amendment was allowed to circumvent the established process of amending the Constitution, AND IT STILL FAILED TO PASS. When that proposed amendment failed to pass, even after ignoring the strict and clear process of passing amendments by those who were pushing the agenda, the US Constitution was relegated to the trash heap of history.

The Constitution in its entirety, not just our beloved 2nd Amendment, is a relic of the past.

Posted: 12/24/2005 5:14:45 AM EDT

[#9]

I don't think you all "got" the jist of the question. He is asking if the 2nd matters because. 1) The US military has such a huge amount of firepower that if we revolted would having rifles make a difference? Would the military just wipe us out using tanks and bombs? I for one would hope that the military and police would disobey any commands to harm US citizens.

Posted: 12/24/2005 5:17:56 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

First off, you need to remember one important concept: The ENTIRE Constitution is a relic from the past. When it wants to, the .gov simply ignores it, pushes it into a corner and puts a "Dunce" hat on it. The days of adhereing to the Constitution are longgggg gone, brother. History. The final nail in the coffin was the ERA. Folks who were around in the '70s know precisely what I mean. The Equal Rights Amendment was allowed to circumvent the established process of amending the Constitution, AND IT STILL FAILED TO PASS. When that proposed amendment failed to pass, even after ignoring the strict and clear process of passing amendments by those who were pushing the agenda, the US Constitution was relegated to the trash heap of history.

The Constitution in its entirety, not just our beloved 2nd Amendment, is a relic of the past.

This is an important point. Recall prohibitionism: in the early 20th century, they realized it was both necessary and proper to pass a constitutional amendment to regulate alcoholic beverages.

In the latter half of the 20th century (and arguably the first half, as that's when the war on drugs really began), they simply said "Nahh -- we'll pass whatever anti-drug legislation we feel like". They no longer felt the need to get an amendment to the Constitution because it (specifically the limits on Congress' powers) is pretty much ignored these days.

Posted: 12/24/2005 5:20:42 AM EDT

[#11]

Shit stinks...always has always will.A man attempting to impose HIS will on EVERYONE has always been with us.Representative, democratically elected governments being given their authority and mandate to govern under a "Constitution" ...."Of ,by,and for the people"....is a somewhat "new" idea. One of the "turning points" of "our" Constitution is the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.The first RIGHT is to be able to say pretty much whatever you want. The second RIGHT is there to add strength and support to the First. Fortunately the kommiei lbtards are more interested in "Bareback Mountains" than in weapons training.......for the moment.

Posted: 12/24/2005 5:23:35 AM EDT

[#12]

It is not the super power of the goverment controled armed forces of our country that would prevent the right of the people to excersize the 2nd ammendment right to take back the land...it is the mindset of the nation...the years of cultural (mental) changes that have succeded in removing the values/ morals required of a free people to discern right from wrong, to recognise evil and fight it by all means...like the frog in the slowly heating pan of water, we've been indoctrinated...and id do mean WE. Even AR15.COM is rife with examples of posts from "gun right consertivies" that hold liberal views..If you went to public school since the 1940's you've been brainwashed. The Liberals are united because they all believe the same lie, we conservitives are fractured because we believe SOME of the lie...God help us! (and that's the direction I look my fellow AR15.com'ers, may we still have a merry Christmas!)

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:05:48 PM EDT

[#13]

The second amendment got castrated the second the government told us what kind of weapons we're allowed to have.

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:18:38 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

I'll gladly exercise my right to own as many good ones as I please.

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:18:45 PM EDT

[#15]

What i really hate is those jerk offs who scoff about "tyrannical" Gov't s siezing power, like oh yeah that can't happen here this is AMerica!

Then they say things like It cant happen because we can vote now and are a democracy!

What idiots! When the founders made America THEY created voting and DEmocracy so why then would they need a 2nd amendment if they did'nt feel it was nessessary along side voting and democracy?? NAzi germany and Soviet Russia ALSO had voting, those retards seem to forget that!

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:24:39 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Which of these would you consider an asset in guerilla warfare

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:31:16 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

YES.

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:40:25 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:41:51 PM EDT

[#19]

Originally Asked By sigarkar:
is the 2d amendment a relic of the past?

Not in my house.

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Nope.

I don't keep lousy firearms.

Only keep the 100% reliable ones.

In that case, the answer is, "Yes."

EDIT:

Just read southeast beat me to the 'lousy' joke.

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:42:55 PM EDT

[#20]

Its needed more now than ever and will be used again im sure

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:53:24 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Which of these would you consider an asset in guerilla warfare

NANO-FIBER ARMOR - that will stop most any rifle round you or I are allowed to own.

Posted: 12/24/2005 1:59:57 PM EDT

[#22]

All forms of armor have their weak points. This is just as true today as in medieval times.

That's why you need to learn to shoot well so you can go for the head!

Posted: 12/24/2005 2:06:49 PM EDT

[#23]

If you give up the Second, then the rest will soon follow.

Posted: 12/24/2005 2:26:53 PM EDT

[#24]

All you need is a determined populace and some rifles. When highly effective body armor exists, then maybe it won't matter. But, until then, you can always use guerilla tactics and escalate the ammount of firepower at your disposal, via five finger dicount from a lifeless tank crew.her

(this is not a threat, just a hypothetical, nothing to see here, plz don't arrest me, thinkpol)

Posted: 12/24/2005 2:30:16 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

... Are you one of those kids rumored to have overrun the site lately?

Posted: 12/24/2005 2:42:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

Which of these would you consider an asset in guerilla warfare

NANO-FIBER ARMOR - that will stop most any rifle round you or I are allowed to own.

If you wont have a rifle, Why would anyone be shooting at you?
BTW ,My bullets and your bullets are not the bullets that are going to be whizzing by your head

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:29:26 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I I for one would hope that the military and police would disobey any commands to harm US citizens.

With the aftermath of Katrina and the chaos of New Orleans just a few months past how can you even think such a thing ? When the unarmed sheeple needed protection the cops weren't there. The first organized thing they did was try to disarm the law abiding citizens. Remember the black 60'ish school teacher that got the shit beat out of him ?

There are quite a few cops that have lost touch with the ' To serve and protect ' motto of the professional leo.

All the gun owning jokers that are constantly deriding the NRA need to be joining up. The NRA proved their worth and mettle right there.

rj

Posted: 12/24/2005 3:46:37 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The 2nd amendment provides the means to resist tyranny but the mindset that embraces the need to be armed and resist tyranny is the true strength. With both the will and the means an armed citizenry would never need to collectively use those arms. Remove either one and you guarantee that they will be needed.

Rich V

I agree. As long as we have the means and the will they will back off. Once they perceive weakness it is over.
That is why the infringements that have occurred were during the 30's, the 60's and the 90's when the socialist movement was strong and they perceived weakness on our part.

Quoted:

The Constitution in its entirety, not just our beloved 2nd Amendment, is a relic of the past.

I disagree.
Not as long as we are alive. Socialists and .gov JBTs might think so but they are going to get the surprise of their lives one of these days. Count on it.

Posted: 12/24/2005 4:19:02 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

It still applies. If you dont think it does get a little education on tactics. Here is a good book which is interesting and a good read on guerilla warfare which actually happened on US soil.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/030680865X/qid=1135473179/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8600999-1081560?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Posted: 12/24/2005 4:22:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

I think the insurgents in Iraq have shown that lousy rifles can be quite bothersome to US military forces.

Posted: 12/25/2005 5:49:33 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The Second Amendment is the more significant today than any other time. True are arm forces has more firepower, tanks, and planes. The US Army has about one million soldiers, which include retired, active duty, reserve and guard. Even if they all decide to support a suppression of our rights. (Not very likely since the oath we take is to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.) They are still just one million fighting there own families. I’m not sure on exact numbers of people with firearms, but I’m sure it is well over 120 million. Even with the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, there is not enough firepower to suppress the population. If we had mercenary armed forces or had no firearms but black powder single shot we might have reason to worry. But as a member of the Armed Forces let me assure you our top priority is to up hold the U.S. Constriction not whoever is in power. That may change in the future, but all of the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman, I’ve ever met in 20 plus years in the military feel the same way I do. The rights of U.S. citizens must be protected.

i appreciate that, however, at what point does the majority of those enlisted actually act together? it does not seem reasonable to rely on military personnel to all do the 'right thing' at the right time in concert.

Posted: 12/25/2005 5:51:17 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

First off, you need to remember one important concept: The ENTIRE Constitution is a relic from the past. When it wants to, the .gov simply ignores it, pushes it into a corner and puts a "Dunce" hat on it. The days of adhereing to the Constitution are longgggg gone, brother. History. The final nail in the coffin was the ERA. Folks who were around in the '70s know precisely what I mean. The Equal Rights Amendment was allowed to circumvent the established process of amending the Constitution, AND IT STILL FAILED TO PASS. When that proposed amendment failed to pass, even after ignoring the strict and clear process of passing amendments by those who were pushing the agenda, the US Constitution was relegated to the trash heap of history.

The Constitution in its entirety, not just our beloved 2nd Amendment, is a relic of the past.

i was quite young then and do not know the details.

Posted: 12/25/2005 5:54:06 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
If you give up the Second, then the rest will soon follow.

i never implied we should give it up. i just wonder if it's enough.

Posted: 12/25/2005 5:57:25 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

I think the insurgents in Iraq have shown that lousy rifles can be quite bothersome to US military forces.

yes, but merely bothersome. despite being driven by religious fervor and surrounded by friendly, supportive nations, they are losing.

Posted: 12/25/2005 6:09:17 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
with the .gov's firepower, technology, intelligence gathering ability, etc., is the ability to own a lousy rifle really that significant?

I think the insurgents in Iraq have shown that lousy rifles can be quite bothersome to US military forces.

yes, but merely bothersome. despite being driven by religious fervor and surrounded by friendly, supportive nations, they are losing.

Their numbers are not exactly comparable to the potential U.S. resistance numbers nor do they have terrain features for concealment, They are limited to blending into the populace in urban settings. They are actually doing quite well considering their limitations but they should die screaming all the same.

Posted: 12/25/2005 6:11:28 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

they should die screaming all the same.

Indeed.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - is the 2d amendment a relic of the past?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us