I support the 2nd amendment

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I support the 2nd amendment. 

This means if a female who got an abortion wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from tyranny, that's their right. 

If a BLM supporter wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect themselves from police, I would support their right to do that.

If an undocumented immigrant wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from a tyrannical government (like ICE), I would support that.

The 2nd amendment isn't just for conservatives to act all tough with their guns.  The 2nd amendment exists to protect from tyranny.  It just so happens that most of the groups that are enduring tyranny now are on the left generally.

So does the right support the 2nd amendment for these groups?  Or are they going to be gun grabbing bootlickers to the government?  Because bootlicking authority is unamerican.
#2
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition. 

TYRANNY: a state under cruel and oppressive government.
Does this sound like America? If not, then the second amendment does not support the use of guns against the american police.

Furthermore, the second amendment is talking about a militia fighting tyrani, not individuals. The writers obviously did not mean for guns to be used by any crazy person who believes they are being oppressed. And given that certain modern weapons easilly allows massacres in ONE pair of wrong hands, whilst old weapons would need a large number of organized soldiers to achieve the same damage, it is safe to say that the founding fathers  made no statement about which modern weapons should or should not be permitted. With regards to modern militaries, there are drones, misiles, tanks and fighter jets; all of which are illegal for commercial markets. Thus, in practize, there is no armed militia capable of fighting tyranny in the US. If the government became tyrannical, any opposition would be slaughtered by the largest and most well-equiped military in the history of mankind. Keeping this perspective in mind, the second ammendment is hardly justifying the freedom of any American citizens to buy effective tools for creating death and destruction --- fighting the currrent US police is wrong.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
If an undocumented immigrant wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from a tyrannical government (like ICE), I would support that.
This is where your post lost the plot.

While I don't support a brutal approach to illegal immigration (I prioritise integration over 'elimination'), I cannot fathom how you think the 2nd amendment would cover this, let alone the other things you mentioned.

If America had pro-life laws and someone wanted an abortion are you saying that shooting the cops down that enforce the law is 2nd amendment?

I agree with what Benjamin said but I also think that, in practise, the 2nd amendment is no longer about the government. You need a gun to defend against lunatics who can legally and also easily illegally get guns in the US these days. I resent that being the reality but it is the reality nonetheless.

It doesn't make me a hypocrite to say I'd own a gun if I had to, in the US. I'd try my level best not to need to though. It's the same as saying I'd own and practise with a blade of some kind whether I was a peasant or a Samurai, in oldschool Japan. I'm a person who prioritises defense over anything.

I have educated myself on how hackers and such get information and do what they do. I never use it for black hat purposes, I use it to better protect myself and anyone close to me who will take my advice, against hackers.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America.
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny.  If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.

The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition. 

TYRANNY: a state under cruel and oppressive government.

Does this sound like America? If not, then the second amendment does not support the use of guns against the american police.
It does for undocumented immigrants, females who get abortions (if abortion is banned), and black people if the police are trying to kill them.

 If the government became tyrannical, any opposition would be slaughtered by the largest and most well-equiped military in the history of mankind.
The government currently is tyranical in Australlia because of their lockdowns.  But they don't have the 2nd amendment, so they are able to enforce their lockdown and commit police brutality on their citizens.
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@RM

I cannot fathom how you think the 2nd amendment would cover this, let alone the other things you mentioned.
The 2nd amendment would protect undocumented immigrants from tyranny.

If America had pro-life laws and someone wanted an abortion are you saying that shooting the cops down that enforce the law is 2nd amendment?
If someone gets an abortion illegally in this hypothetical America and the cops try to arrest the person, shooting the cops in self defense is using your 2nd amendment right to protect your freedom.

You need a gun to defend against lunatics who can legally and also easily illegally get guns in the US these days.
If this was the sole reason for the 2nd amendment, I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.  For instance, murder is something endured by less than 1% of the US population.  If your that worried about getting murdered, you should never drive a car again because your odds of dying in a car accident are higher.


#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Thus, in practize, there is no armed militia capable of fighting tyranny in the US. If the government became tyrannical, any opposition would be slaughtered by the largest and most well-equiped military in the history of mankind.
I would heavily disagree. Look at Afghanistan and Vietnam for example. 
#7
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
The second ammendment does not justify using weapons against the police force enforcing the democratically forged laws of America. One can't just call whatever law or system one dislikes "tyrannical" when the word has a precise definition. 
Tyranny is defined by the person holding the gun. You say they can’t just call whatever law or system whatever they want… ok, so feel free to stop them.

Keeping this perspective in mind, the second ammendment is hardly justifying the freedom of any American citizens to buy effective tools for creating death and destruction
It really does though. When reasonable conversation is no longer an option to solve disputes, violence is the only mediator left. The second amendment as interpreted gives the citizenry the power and means to decide that reasonable conversation is no longer an option. So you can disagree with the conclusions one draws about whether “2nd amendment remedies” are appropriate, but you cannot claim the second amendment doesn’t justify it.

#8
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
If an undocumented immigrant wants to use their 2nd amendment right to protect from a tyrannical government (like ICE), I would support that.

Illegal immigrants aren't citizens and therefore don't have second amendment rights lmfao.

Interesting to see you support foreign criminals killing ICE agents enforcing federal laws, though.
#9
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny.  If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny which either isn’t accountable (I.e. a foreign invading force) or refuses to be accountable to the Constitution (i.e. an insurrectionist). Police officers are ultimately accountable to the Constitution, so your hypothetical is operating outside the intent of the Constitution. It is an example of unlawful behavior, in other words.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I would heavily disagree. Look at Afghanistan and Vietnam for example. 
We also defeated a superior British army with a well rounded militia. The most powerful army in the world at the time.

Regarding illegal aliens, the Constitution holds no jurisdiction over illegal invaders, including the 2nd amendment.

The Constitution protects American citizens from an oppressive government. Everyone else is fucked.
#11
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment exists to defend against tyranny. If that means shooting police officers who try to arrest you for an unjust law, so be it.
Where in the second ammendment is tyranny mentioned? And where is it written that individuals have a right to murder police offisers based on their perception of a given law? 
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
Does it say that Police Officers have a right to murder other "individuals", based upon their perception of a given law?

The constitution should have been written for all "individuals", and not just for Police Officers.

After all a Police Officer is a just an individual.....Isn't it?
#13
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
After all a Police Officer is a just an individual.....Isn't it?
Nope. The police force is backed by the authority of the entire nation through the democratically elected government and the country's laws. Shooting at the police means you no longer recognizes the authority of the American republic and its laws. Only criminals, terrorists, rebels or alike shoot at the police. The second ammendment specifically mentions "a well-regulated militia". Why is that? Because if the American government truly was tyrranical then it wouldn't be individuals, but organized groups who opposed their oppression. The abscence of such a rebellion indicates that America has NOT tread outside of the boundaries of democracy.
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Benjamin
 Well....Whether or not America has tread outside the boundaries of democracy is very much open to debate.

And I doubt that the entire nation agrees with you.

Nonetheless, you are implying that a tyrannical Police Force is wholly justified, because of the second amendment.

And a "well regulated militia" is a very woolly proposition indeed....Throwing up all sorts of possibilities.

And what or who, decides who is what....For example, when is a rebel not a well regulated militia person and when is a well regulated militia person not a terrorist.

I suppose those sorts of decisions are left to the tyrannical Police Force.


Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Illegal immigrants aren't citizens and therefore don't have second amendment rights lmfao.
The constitution states “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It the founding fathers wished to exclude non citizens, then they would have replaced the word people with the word citizens.  Just like if they wanted to ban open carry, they wouldn’t have said, “The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms”.

You didn’t address the females that got abortions or BLM supporters.
Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
Where in the second ammendment is tyranny mentioned?
“A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE …”.  The all capped portion I think means to defend against tyranny.
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@cristo71
The 2nd amendment was written in case the government became tyrannical.  There are left wing ways that the government has become tyrannical (such as with abortion restrictions, immigration restrictions, jailing people for weed use and police brutality) and there are right wing ways the government has become tyrannical (like vaccine mandates and jailing people for vaping).  The 2nd amendment exists to prevent government from taking our freedom whether that freedom is backed by the left or the right.
#18
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 2nd amendment was written in case the government became tyrannical.
That is not entirely correct. It was written to reduce the need for a large standing army, and to decentralize the national defense among the states. It was feared that a large standing army would enable tyranny in various ways. I suggest checking out the Federalist Papers on the subject and maybe even the Anti-federalist Papers (they REALLY feared centralized power).
#19
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
You didn’t address the females that got abortions or BLM supporters.
While those were both terrible examples, I have no obligation to respond to every part of your post.

The constitution states “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It the founding fathers wished to exclude non citizens, then they would have replaced the word people with the word citizens.  Just like if they wanted to ban open carry, they wouldn’t have said, “The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms”.
That’s kinda how Constitutions work. They apply to citizens of that respective country.

For instance, we don’t give the same rights to foreign terrorists that we give to domestic citizens.

If an illegal alien has a gun in the US, he or she must have done one illegal thing. Either they smuggled a gun into the country or they illegally bought one here


#20
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Notice how the security of the free state is compromised by the fact that many random citizens wield guns they use against other citizens and the police. 


Don't come here pretending a hypothetical BLM shootout with the police would be constitutional.
#21
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
So does the right support the 2nd amendment for these groups?  Or are they going to be gun grabbing bootlickers to the government?  Because bootlicking authority is unamerican.
No, it doesnt apply to illegal aliens who arent citizens.

No, it doesnt apply to BLM terrorists

No, it doesnt apply to females wanting an abortion, thats completely irrelevant

your vision is completely different than was intended
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, it doesnt apply to illegal aliens who arent citizens.

No, it doesnt apply to BLM terrorists

No, it doesnt apply to females wanting an abortion, thats completely irrelevant
Why not?  Are you a gun grabbing libtard now?

The 2nd amendment isn't only for conservatives to defend against tyranny.  It's also for left groups to defend against tyranny, you gun grabbing libtard; trying to take people's 2nd amendment rights away from them because you don't like their politics.  Sounds like something a communist would do.  :)
Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
Notice how the security of the free state is compromised by the fact that many random citizens wield guns they use against other citizens and the police. 
Free state, meaning freedom from oppressive and tyranical governments.

Not only conservatives have guns!
#24
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
This is what happens when people make reference to some piece of paper telling them what their rights are, instead of using reason. The right to bear arms is not only an extension of property rights, but it's also an extension of one's right to one's person, in that one has discretion to use any means to effectively stop a threat and/or act of aggression toward him or herself. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if one is a "citizen" or if an individual is part of a "well-regulated militia"; possessing firearms in and of itself does not pose a threat, nor does it constitute an act of aggression despite the horror stories perpetuated by the mainstream media.
#25
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is a "libtard"?
Topic's author
#26
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Athias
I was making a joke.  It's often the right who uses the term, "libtard" to describe a liberal with retarted opinions (like anti 2A opinions).  I'd figure I'd make a parody of that when Dr. Frankin thinks that females who get abortions, BLM supporters, and undocumented immigrants should be stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

Conclusion: The right only supports the 2nd amendment for like minded conservatives.  I support the 2nd amendment for any victimless circumstance, whether it's backed by the left or backed by the right.
#27
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
How does "the security of the free state" translate into "gun down the police if you dislike a new state policy"?
Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Benjamin
It's security of a FREE state.  In order to keep a state free, the government and the police officers by extension need to be scared of an armed populace so they don't enforce tyranny.

If I dislike a policy by the state a little bit, the state isn't going to be gunned down over it.  For instance, if taxes are raised by 10% among every income group to pay off the debt, people probably won't LIKE that, but it's not enough to start a revolution.  It's only when the government does something absolutely HORRIBLE that is despised by huge portions of the population that the government is going to have to be scared people using their 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment won't prevent the government from doing something that is merely a little bit bad.  For example, my state abolished the death penalty for murder.  I disagree with this, but it isn't something so horrible that I start a revolution over it.  The 2nd amendment is designed to prevent the government from doing something absolutely Horrible and it forces the government to come to a consensus not strongly despised by too many people within the place they are governing in order to prevent a revolution (by building consensus).

A country without gun rights can have a government that doesn't depend on consensus to get laws passed.  Such a country can rely on one party rule and minor parties don't get much done.  This is how California (a place where semi-automatic guns are banned) is able to achieve reliable one-party rule by locking down their entire state, and the citizens can't challenge the government because if every republican and every independent voted for the republican nominee, the democrat nominee would still win.  Gavin Newsom can pass almost any piece of left wing legislation (no matter how radical) and the Californian populace can't do anything about it because they banned semi automatic guns.  If Greg Abbott wanted to do something like significently restrict abortion, since Texas is way more gun friendly, democrat gun owners can protest with semi automatic guns to scare the government into giving people liberty.

But even Texan liberal women don't want to arm themselves, so Texas is going to become anti Roe V Wade and there is nothing that will happen because of it because the left is too cowardly to arm themselves.
#29
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Murder of police and politicians is not "using the 2nd ammendment --- its called a coup. Secondly, America is NOT the freest most democratic nation in the world DESPITE the population being armed to their teeth and having a history of disliked presidents being assasinated. Furthermore, every other democracy is doing just fine without fear of armed citizens. There is no connection between your argument and real life.


What standard would you even use when judging whether or not a government is tyranical. Corruption, lies and broken promises has been a major problem in the US for quite some time now, yet nobody has used their guns to reform the system. And why would anyone, the military and the police are organized and with far superior weapons and tactics. Nobody wants to die fighting their own nation --- yet someone is willing to slaughter schools and alike.

Unrestricted guns is a BS policy, but you can't claim that Americans have a right to gun down their government, written into their government founding document.
#30
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
guess im a gun-grabbing libtard because I dont want criminals to have guns