Naturally, the most intelligent and articulate poster is regarded as a fool by the rabble that populate this forum. No one has proffered a reasonable counter argument to Piezoe's observations that arms today include weaponry that no sane person would expect a citizen to own: Nukes, biological and chemical weapons, cluster bombs, etc. Is the 2nd amendment a blank check to possess any kind of arm? And all this hyper over reaction by the right isn't about the 2nd amendment. They don't even understand the 2nd amendment. A Democracy and a republican state is structured to prevent tyranny and it has worked well. We vote out the old and in the new. The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in there to prevent a crazy President from creating a tyranny. When President overreachs his authority, the Democratic process pushes them back. (Perhaps that will be the case in Wisconsin if a President decides to use the executive branch to circumvent Congress and the Supreme court in firearms control, but Obama has done NOTHING so far. However, the bill as it is written now will probably be deemed unconstitional by the Supreme Court.) The 2nd amendment was designed to both allow states to respond quickly to foreign threats and to internal ones such as uprisings. In the latter case for example, if too many LEAPUPS band together and decide it's time for civil war, then a level headed and armed citizenry could defeat them. But we don't need that. The police can do it. But again, the hard right isn't really concerned about the Constitution. They are concerned about power and want to drown out reasoned voices in a civil debate. Think Alex Jones. The want to fan the flames of paranoia and exploit the insecurities of people. Thus the need to paint the opposition as Stalinist. That's why this mantra of fighting "tyranny" is being repeated by the lemmings on websites everywhere. The best way to get the hard right to get behind gun control is to fully arm minorities. If all the blacks and Hispanics were to arm themselves to the teeth and start openly carrying guns where allowed, the white politicians would issue new gun control laws faster than Lucrum could scream "THE NIGGER'S GOT A GUN!" It happened in California in 1967. The Black Panthers began carrying firearms openly, and legally. They even marched into the State Capitol bearing arms. The legislature quickly pass new gun control laws. And the Governor signed the bill faster than Lucrum could scream...well you know. That Governor was Ronald Reagan.
"Rabble"? Comments such as this cause you to lose credibility. There is a large portion of the US that falls into your characterization of "rabble". Use of the Black Panthers, a terrorist outfit, proves nothing, as cities were set on flames in the 1960s, and I personally witnessed that in my hometown , so please spare us your treatise on what the 2nd Amendment means, you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
First. The Founding Fathers considered you and yours rabble. That's why they invented the Electoral College. Second. You're an ignoramus. The Black Panthers were not anything akin to a terrorist group. Third. What does a riot in 1965 or 1967 have to do with gun control today? Gun control is not, nor has ever been gun abolition. No one is arguing to strip citizens of the means of self defense. The conversation is about what is a reasonable and balanced framework for gun ownership. You were pissing in your pants when the blacks rioted back then and you are glad you have guns today to protect yourself in the event of a similar event today. Fine. You want those rioters today to wield cannons and assault rifles? You grew up in the ghetto or on the border of the ghetto, I presume. Sounds like you haven't traveled very far in the intervening five decades. Take your red herrings and go back to the cellar.
That is almost certainly true. Although the reason(s) wouldn't just be the advancement in arms technology. But an attempt by our inept out of control liberty crushing government to circumvent the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Hence one of the many reasons so many like me are so dead set against any additional infringements. Most of us believe the 22,000 infringements already in place are more than enough.
I don't know why I took your troll bait and responded, because you just can't argue with "stupid". By the way my direct ancestors are from Virginia and North Carolina, going back to the Mayflower. How about yours? I thought so.
This might surprise you, Lucrum, but your post above hit home with me. That's why I send a little money off to BORDC each month. I am not one of the anarchists here. In fact I'm an advocate for good government. When government steps out of line, I don't want to destroy it, I want to make it better. We need good government, one with fewer, better laws. We have a lot of work to do to get there!
I guess I had a mistaken impression of you. Because, when I said the Founding Fathers considered you and yours rabble, I didn't mean it literally! Thank you for clarifying! LOL!
The astonishing anger exhibited by liberals in P&R can only be attributed to their disbelief that having a far left-wing President doesn't give them the power to make everyone around them live as they think they should. Liberals like this character think they are smarter than everyone else and so they should be able to make everyone live lifestyles that they approve of. The arrogance is monumental. As other have said, if you lack the chops to amend the constitution then you aren't going to influence anyone. I'll live my life lawfully and in compliance with that document. When the government begins to circumvent or erode the constitution I'll do just what the Founders had in mind. Those guys didn't trust *any* government so they built-in the ultimate check and balance, an armed citizenry. If the Obama regime thinks it will simply decree that the constitution be violated I think they are in for a bit of a shock.