[B0ycey]

@ArthurTandy1?

Which alias are you?

Big Steve or Libertarian353

Bit too articulate for Big Steve. I'm going for Libertarian353

[XogGyux]

@ArthurTandy1?

Which alias are you?

Big Steve or Libertarian353

Bit too articulate for Big Steve. I'm going for Libertarian353

LOL, I have been thinking along the same lines

[Patrickov]

The Founding Fathers didn't like militias, it was just a way to save money. They hoped the militias would slow an invading army long enough for them to put together an army, a real fighting force.

But now we have the most powerful military in the world, and our reserve forces, the National Guard, make any militia look silly, and very obsolete..

Governmental abuse is very rampant somewhere in the world. It will be far easier to build democracy in those places if there are someone who can kill off those who resist change by oppressing others. The Second Amendment has to stay to preserve a means to stop the United States descending into them.

Besides, your argument on the strength difference between the military and (possible) militia is merely a technical reality. The Second Amendment is more about preserving the legal possibility to build a militia comparable to regular military in power.

You may see me as against gun control, but I think no one will actually argue against gun control, just that how it should be done. The spirit of the Amendment is that no limit should be from the initiative of the government, but what if the People agree to place a limit to protect themselves?

[ckaihatsu]

but what if the People agree to place a limit to protect themselves?

I say that this kind of scenario winds up in 'Purge Day', possibly 24/7/365.

The Purge
2013
R
1h 25m

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2184339/

[Patrickov]

I say that this kind of scenario winds up in 'Purge Day', possibly 24/7/365.

Most thoughts which involve killing commoners are petty and irrelevant to what we are talking about.

EDIT: Unless it's part of the purge to cleanse the world of wrongdoers, but in that case I'd say existing due process is necessary, and it's counterproductive to kill those with less power than to ruin people's lives.

[ckaihatsu]

Most thoughts which involve killing commoners are petty and irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Okay, so what kind of 'issue' are we talking about here?

[Patrickov]

Okay, so what kind of 'issue' are we talking about here?

We are talking about whether Second Amendment is still useful today.

My take is a "yes", but I am trying to address the concerns raised by member "late".

Therefore, I suggested that, for the case of United States, gun control should be a bottom-up initiative.

[late]

Besides, your argument on the strength difference between the military and (possible) militia is merely a technical reality.

Thanks for the laugh.

[ckaihatsu]

We are talking about whether Second Amendment is still useful today.

My take is a "yes", but I am trying to address the concerns raised by member "late".

Therefore, I suggested that, for the case of United States, gun control should be a bottom-up initiative.

Okay, thanks, but what are the social *issues* that can be addressed through widespread gun ownership -- ?

[Patrickov]

But what are the social *issues* that can be addressed through widespread gun ownership -- ?

Two things:
1. What words from me made you think I am advocating "widespread gun ownership"?
2. Even "widespread gun ownership" is different from "widespread gun usage" -- now that's the part where education would be useful.

[Patrickov]

Thanks for the laugh.

Why do you think I am trolling or making a foolish comment, seriously?

[ckaihatsu]

Two things:
1. What words from me made you think I am advocating "widespread gun ownership"?
2. Even "widespread gun ownership" is different from "widespread gun usage" -- now that's the part where education would be useful.

Okay, go ahead -- please elaborate if you like.

[Patrickov]

Okay, go ahead -- please elaborate if you like.

My first point is a question. Please answer that first.

And from what you've just said, I have one more question now: What do you want me to elaborate?

[ckaihatsu]

My first point is a question. Please answer that first.

1. What words from me made you think I am advocating "widespread gun ownership"?

Please go ahead and *clarify*, then.

And from what you've just said, I have one more question now: What do you want me to elaborate?

Let me rephrase: If I want to join two boards together I use a hammer and nails, and the 'issue' of the boards is then solved. What 'issue' in society is being addressed with the tool of 'guns' -- ? In other words -- guns, *why*?

[late]

Why do you think I am trolling or making a foolish comment, seriously?

Because if the military went after American insurgents, it would be a very, very, very short fight.

And no, I don't think of you as a troll, just misinformed.

[ckaihatsu]

Anticipating a zombie apocalypse -- ?

[Rancid]

The OP is a jackass. Probably one of these MAGA morons from pofo of Christmas past.

[Drlee]

I don't believe you are up to that task. He has already made himself more foolish than I imagined possible.

He is a tedious little twit, isn't he. I wonder if his mother knows he is playing on the computer again. So much potential and then this happens. Must break the dear lady's heart.

[Patrickov]

Let me rephrase: If I want to join two boards together I use a hammer and nails, and the 'issue' of the boards is then solved. What 'issue' in society is being addressed with the tool of 'guns' -- ? In other words -- guns, *why*?

We never know when laws or other peaceful means cease to function as an effective check against power abuse.
This is why a provision of firearm ownership (or any other necessary weapon) should never be revoked.

[Patrickov]

Because if the military went after American insurgents, it would be a very, very, very short fight.

I won't assume insurgency would always be inferior to military all the time, and even if it is, it doesn't mean that the fight (if exists) will always end very shortly with a military victory.

What you are stating is true, but (technically) only true for now. No one knows what would happen in the future.