Second Amendment Extremist View?
- Thread starter triggerhappy2006
- Start date
Trigger,
This would have been a very good opportunity to show some thinking instead of emotional reaction.
I agree that the first argument should have been,
If, however, he indicates that a proper repeal of the amendment was performed, then there is a follow-up answer.
If a professor argues that the 2nd amendment only prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating firearms, then we have even more fun.
The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, via the 14th Amendment is necesary only because of a single, questionable decision. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) held that the bill of rights limitations applied only to the federal government and not to the states. So between 1833 and 1868, when the 14th was ratified (actually longer than that) you could be arrested by local or state authorities for speaking your mind on a street corner. In fact, many people were so arrested, especially for unpopular ideas or sentiments.
It wasn't until the early 20th Century that "civil rights" were forced onto the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court.
Further, the decisions in Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in Presser 116 U.S. 252 (1886), were built on the framework of Barron v Baltimore, saying that the 2nd Amendment only restricted Congress, not the states.
This would have been a very good opportunity to show some thinking instead of emotional reaction.
I agree that the first argument should have been,
Any statute passed by congress which lies in opposition to the constitution, including the amendments, is null and void. Thus, such a statute has no force of law and attempts to enforce it are outside the authority of the government. It becomes, in essence, a crime committed by the government.
If, however, he indicates that a proper repeal of the amendment was performed, then there is a follow-up answer.
Should the 2nd amendment be wiped away, Congress and state legislatures would no longer have much reason to fear the people whom they are supposed to serve. As shown in the U.K., once people were disarmed, it took less than a year before it's legislative body proposed to cease trial-by-jury if the offense was punishiable by less than 4 years in prison. No doubt free speech would be abolished next here, along with warrants being required.
If a professor argues that the 2nd amendment only prohibits Congress, not the states, from regulating firearms, then we have even more fun.
The application of the Bill of Rights to the states, via the 14th Amendment is necesary only because of a single, questionable decision. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) held that the bill of rights limitations applied only to the federal government and not to the states. So between 1833 and 1868, when the 14th was ratified (actually longer than that) you could be arrested by local or state authorities for speaking your mind on a street corner. In fact, many people were so arrested, especially for unpopular ideas or sentiments.
It wasn't until the early 20th Century that "civil rights" were forced onto the states through the incorporation doctrine of the Supreme Court.
Further, the decisions in Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) in Presser 116 U.S. 252 (1886), were built on the framework of Barron v Baltimore, saying that the 2nd Amendment only restricted Congress, not the states.
Well, it doesn't hurt to start out with civil disobedience and waiting for the mid-term elections you know. Saves everyone a lot of trouble if things work out the way they should. Did you mention civil disobedience at all? "Molon Labe" is for when all the other options have been exhausted because it's the worst option.
It also makes you no different from the men and women who are fighting on our side in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's hardly the case, unless you are engaging in political assassinations, deliberately targeting civilian populations who don't agree with you, or engaging in high profile violence intended to publicize your cause. The prof would have a point if lots of anti-gun activists/politicians had been assassinated and there were lots of car bombings in the districts of politicians who support gun control. This isn't going on so your prof needs to study the word "terrorist" again. I can name numerous anti-gun activists who have agitated vehemently against gun ownership for decades on end in the US. They are safe from their sworn enemies IMHO.
Just because Captain Hyperbole is running the class and you don't agree with him doesn't mean YOU can't objectively make your case to him and the class even if he won't be objective himself. Furthermore, if the professor indulges in exaggeration, mockery, and demonization too much he'll wreck whatever argument he has in the first place. The hard part is not getting so whizzed off at the prof that you can't be rational yourself.
2nd Amendment activism should be on a spectrum. If guns were thoroughly banned it would be better to try to undo the damage using political and legal action first because the casus belli for the pro-gun side is stronger if the government acts like your professor wants and drops JDAMs on the houses of some pro-gun activists who haven't done anything violent to further their beliefs.
2Old2Change
New member
Given the state you presently reside in, this type thinking goes along with the territory, dontcha think?
I'd think if you were enrolled in a mid-west or southern university, the staff along with the students, would have a more liberal point of view. Just my humble thoughts.
I'd think if you were enrolled in a mid-west or southern university, the staff along with the students, would have a more liberal point of view. Just my humble thoughts.
defining a couple of things
To set a couple of things straight (I am trying to get this out before the thread is shut down).
An artillery piece is an article of a military fighting unit, and designed for utilization in that capacity. Because it is necessary to train a crew of soldiers to operate a cannon, and other personnel for fire support (i.e., forward observers, transport beds, fire-control), it is rarely used in an act of terrorism. Artillery pieces and explosive devices are two very different things. Artillery fire is used in the capacity of a war-situation under the direction and control a military authority. Terror tactics (the fire-bombing of Dresden) and acts of terrorism (the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) are two different things.
para. One of the reasons General Washington insisted on a standing army during the War of Independence was to help in legitimizing the young republic. He knew that it would take more than a collection of dissidents firing behind trees to convince the French that we were a nation to be reckoned. While the minutemen of New England were arguably terrorists, they were operating under the auspice of State (colonial) direction. The Declaration of Independence and the mustering of troops into the Continental Army solidified their status as legitimate combatants. A captured soldier of a national army is entitled to civil protection, sound treatment and the safeguarding of his well being. A terrorist is a criminal and not entitled to the guarentees under the rules of war.
- JKHolman
To set a couple of things straight (I am trying to get this out before the thread is shut down).
An artillery piece is an article of a military fighting unit, and designed for utilization in that capacity. Because it is necessary to train a crew of soldiers to operate a cannon, and other personnel for fire support (i.e., forward observers, transport beds, fire-control), it is rarely used in an act of terrorism. Artillery pieces and explosive devices are two very different things. Artillery fire is used in the capacity of a war-situation under the direction and control a military authority. Terror tactics (the fire-bombing of Dresden) and acts of terrorism (the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) are two different things.
para. One of the reasons General Washington insisted on a standing army during the War of Independence was to help in legitimizing the young republic. He knew that it would take more than a collection of dissidents firing behind trees to convince the French that we were a nation to be reckoned. While the minutemen of New England were arguably terrorists, they were operating under the auspice of State (colonial) direction. The Declaration of Independence and the mustering of troops into the Continental Army solidified their status as legitimate combatants. A captured soldier of a national army is entitled to civil protection, sound treatment and the safeguarding of his well being. A terrorist is a criminal and not entitled to the guarentees under the rules of war.
- JKHolman
Major Dave (retired)
New member
Moral equivalency
Triggerhappy,
When I was a prison guard in Texas, an inmate saw my military belt buckle, and wanted to know if I had ever killed anyone in a war. I told him that in my two tours in Vietnam, I had killed several enemy soldiers. To which he gleefully replied, "Then you are a murderer, the same as me!"
I told him that there was no equivalency when comparing someone who kills a little old lady for her Social Security check, so he can buy drugs, and a soldier fighting for freedom for citizens of a foreign country. He couldn't see the difference!
The criminal justifies his self-serving violence, and considers it to be the same as protecting others and trying to ensure their freedom.The professor equates the soldier to the terrorist. Faulty logic from the criminal and the professor.
Another Texas inmate gave me a clear insight into the criminal attitude toward gun control. It was the year Texas Governor Ann Richards (D) was approached about the possible enactment of Concealed Carry laws for the citizens of Texas. She said if the legislature passed such laws, she would veto it. She also refused to allow a non-binding referendum to be placed on the ballot of the upcoming elections.
Since the issue of CC was getting so much news media coverage, I knew the inmates were seeing it discussed on the TV's in their dayrooms, so I started taking a little opinion poll among the inmates about the subject. None of the inmates liked the idea of armed citizens, and one of them summed it up with this statement:
"It ain't no fun to hunt when the rabbit's got a gun!!!"
To a man (I must have discussed the issue with 30 or 40 inmates), they all said they would continue to carry guns when they were released from prison, even though they would be guilty of "Felon In Possession Of A Firearm", a felony crime punishable with a 5 to 20 year prison sentence. They all said they needed to carry a firearm to protect themselves - the same reason a law-abiding citizen wants to carry!
To summarize, the criminal:
1) Intends to keep his guns
2) Wants "the rabbits" to be helpless (disarmed)
These are not theories, they come from face-to-face conversations with actual convicted felons in a medium security prison.
P.S. Ann Richards lost her re-election bid - she was defeated by George W somebody!!! He encouraged the Texas legislature to pass a CC law, which they did, and he promptly signed it. Now, about 300,000* Texas "rabbits got guns", and violent crime has been reduced (murder down 52%, rape down 22%).
*These are not exact figures.
To prepare for the professors next attempt to humiliate you, go to these web sites:
www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm
www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup060100
You can also do a google search for rising crime rates in Britain, and Australia, due to gun bans. Violent crime against homeowners has skyrocketed in both countries as a result. Also, search for stats on Washington DC crime rates being the highest in the nation due to gun bans.
In short, in only about half an hour on the internet, you should be able to discover and print out a ream of info discrediting gun bans. Give all members of your class a copy of 3 or 4 of these internet articles, and the professor will have very little rebuttal available - other than typical liberal emotional panic and fear mongering, IMHO
Triggerhappy,
When I was a prison guard in Texas, an inmate saw my military belt buckle, and wanted to know if I had ever killed anyone in a war. I told him that in my two tours in Vietnam, I had killed several enemy soldiers. To which he gleefully replied, "Then you are a murderer, the same as me!"
I told him that there was no equivalency when comparing someone who kills a little old lady for her Social Security check, so he can buy drugs, and a soldier fighting for freedom for citizens of a foreign country. He couldn't see the difference!
The criminal justifies his self-serving violence, and considers it to be the same as protecting others and trying to ensure their freedom.The professor equates the soldier to the terrorist. Faulty logic from the criminal and the professor.
Another Texas inmate gave me a clear insight into the criminal attitude toward gun control. It was the year Texas Governor Ann Richards (D) was approached about the possible enactment of Concealed Carry laws for the citizens of Texas. She said if the legislature passed such laws, she would veto it. She also refused to allow a non-binding referendum to be placed on the ballot of the upcoming elections.
Since the issue of CC was getting so much news media coverage, I knew the inmates were seeing it discussed on the TV's in their dayrooms, so I started taking a little opinion poll among the inmates about the subject. None of the inmates liked the idea of armed citizens, and one of them summed it up with this statement:
"It ain't no fun to hunt when the rabbit's got a gun!!!"
To a man (I must have discussed the issue with 30 or 40 inmates), they all said they would continue to carry guns when they were released from prison, even though they would be guilty of "Felon In Possession Of A Firearm", a felony crime punishable with a 5 to 20 year prison sentence. They all said they needed to carry a firearm to protect themselves - the same reason a law-abiding citizen wants to carry!
To summarize, the criminal:
1) Intends to keep his guns
2) Wants "the rabbits" to be helpless (disarmed)
These are not theories, they come from face-to-face conversations with actual convicted felons in a medium security prison.
P.S. Ann Richards lost her re-election bid - she was defeated by George W somebody!!! He encouraged the Texas legislature to pass a CC law, which they did, and he promptly signed it. Now, about 300,000* Texas "rabbits got guns", and violent crime has been reduced (murder down 52%, rape down 22%).
*These are not exact figures.
To prepare for the professors next attempt to humiliate you, go to these web sites:
www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm
www.ncpa.org/oped/dupont/dup060100
You can also do a google search for rising crime rates in Britain, and Australia, due to gun bans. Violent crime against homeowners has skyrocketed in both countries as a result. Also, search for stats on Washington DC crime rates being the highest in the nation due to gun bans.
In short, in only about half an hour on the internet, you should be able to discover and print out a ream of info discrediting gun bans. Give all members of your class a copy of 3 or 4 of these internet articles, and the professor will have very little rebuttal available - other than typical liberal emotional panic and fear mongering, IMHO
Last edited:
SUNY school?
Never surrender to such a moron. You leave the class and he won, not in your eyes and you could care less about his eyes but in the eyes of those whose brains are full of mush and know no better.
You left, he stayed, he must be right. That is how your classmates who know no better will see it.
I went to a fairly conservative school. Engineers, pilots and a very large AF ROTC program (just behind that fancy school in CO). Still we had our share of fruit loops in the humanities department. One sociology and history prof was a WWII vet from the Pacific and had the more "practical" mindset. His history final had a question which was "Your professor feels the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justified, give two reasons he gave in class."
Then there was the PETA fanatic who also considered the Swiss the ultimate pinnacle of society because "they are non-violent and always neutral." Still I never missed one of his philosophy classes and:
made a point of wearing an NRA shirt,
explained to him why the Swiss Guard for the Vatican were mercenaries considered to bloodthirsty by the rest of the world to use and were therefore forbidden working for anyone but the Vatican and as guards,
why it is easy to be neutral at the top of a mountain,
the mandatory military service in Switzerland,
the presence of a fully automatic weapon in the home of every Swiss male between 18 and 42,
that the financial contribution to conservation in this nation by hunters far outweighs that of those who supposedly are trying to save said animals.
that only in African nations which have established controlled harvesting of game do such animals thrive thanks to the revenue they generate and the benefit they become to the population.
on and on.
I NEVER walked out. Winning in his eyes or yours is not important. Winning in the eyes of the undecided or those who are open to reason IS important.
As far as his calling you a terrorist, I would tell him that you are going to report that statement to the administration, the NRA and the media, and any alumni groups you can contact. A full apology from him in front of the class is warranted. what is more:
and what exactly are our troops killing and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan if not our BELIEFS?
Never surrender to such a moron. You leave the class and he won, not in your eyes and you could care less about his eyes but in the eyes of those whose brains are full of mush and know no better.
You left, he stayed, he must be right. That is how your classmates who know no better will see it.
I went to a fairly conservative school. Engineers, pilots and a very large AF ROTC program (just behind that fancy school in CO). Still we had our share of fruit loops in the humanities department. One sociology and history prof was a WWII vet from the Pacific and had the more "practical" mindset. His history final had a question which was "Your professor feels the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justified, give two reasons he gave in class."
Then there was the PETA fanatic who also considered the Swiss the ultimate pinnacle of society because "they are non-violent and always neutral." Still I never missed one of his philosophy classes and:
made a point of wearing an NRA shirt,
explained to him why the Swiss Guard for the Vatican were mercenaries considered to bloodthirsty by the rest of the world to use and were therefore forbidden working for anyone but the Vatican and as guards,
why it is easy to be neutral at the top of a mountain,
the mandatory military service in Switzerland,
the presence of a fully automatic weapon in the home of every Swiss male between 18 and 42,
that the financial contribution to conservation in this nation by hunters far outweighs that of those who supposedly are trying to save said animals.
that only in African nations which have established controlled harvesting of game do such animals thrive thanks to the revenue they generate and the benefit they become to the population.
on and on.
I NEVER walked out. Winning in his eyes or yours is not important. Winning in the eyes of the undecided or those who are open to reason IS important.
As far as his calling you a terrorist, I would tell him that you are going to report that statement to the administration, the NRA and the media, and any alumni groups you can contact. A full apology from him in front of the class is warranted. what is more:
and what exactly are our troops killing and dying for in Iraq and Afghanistan if not our BELIEFS?
The professor is a problem, as are most. I'm tempted to refer to a scene from a recent movie as to the state of academia, but it's inseperable from the movie's political message, so I'll refrain.
In any case, there is another problem that the gun community regularly fails to identify. It's the PR angle. It's easier to convince a reasonable non-shooter that 2A advocates are extremists, than to convince the same person that anti-gunners are extremist. That's because 2A advocates must necessarily refuse to compromise, recognizing the gradual erosion that will eventually result in the extinction of gun rights. Time is on the side of anti-gunners, and each successive generation, they can convince the increasing numbers of non-shooters that their proposed restrictions and and limitations are reasonable and serve noble purposes, and opposing them is thus unreasonable.
Arguing won't work. It takes too much time, too much thought, too much effort, on behalf of an otherwise apathetic person to understand the point of view of the 2A advocate.
But you can help. Get people out shooting. Make new shooters, or at least show anti-2A folks that guns don't turn them into maniacs or create their own accidents. Show people that the existing restrictions are nonsensical and ineffective. And explain to them the need to avoid making small concessions, as history shows that it's a gradual effort to whittle gun rights down to nothing. Exposure and understanding are the only hopes to win the PR war, which is already critically important only going to get more important in the future.
In any case, there is another problem that the gun community regularly fails to identify. It's the PR angle. It's easier to convince a reasonable non-shooter that 2A advocates are extremists, than to convince the same person that anti-gunners are extremist. That's because 2A advocates must necessarily refuse to compromise, recognizing the gradual erosion that will eventually result in the extinction of gun rights. Time is on the side of anti-gunners, and each successive generation, they can convince the increasing numbers of non-shooters that their proposed restrictions and and limitations are reasonable and serve noble purposes, and opposing them is thus unreasonable.
Arguing won't work. It takes too much time, too much thought, too much effort, on behalf of an otherwise apathetic person to understand the point of view of the 2A advocate.
But you can help. Get people out shooting. Make new shooters, or at least show anti-2A folks that guns don't turn them into maniacs or create their own accidents. Show people that the existing restrictions are nonsensical and ineffective. And explain to them the need to avoid making small concessions, as history shows that it's a gradual effort to whittle gun rights down to nothing. Exposure and understanding are the only hopes to win the PR war, which is already critically important only going to get more important in the future.