Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

So thats a no, he hasn't voted to repeal the Second Amendment.

Indeed it is, but I was responding to this statement you made...

 Frazzled wrote:

please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

...which is not directly related to the 2nd Amendment, or the repeal of any Amendment. Rather it is directly related to a change in any of the 1st 10 Amendments and, in a portion of your post I did not quote, whether or not a politician favoring such a change could remain in office.

Harry Reid supported a change to the Bill of Rights, and Harry Reid is still in office.

 Frazzled wrote:
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

 dogma wrote:
Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.

 Frazzled wrote:
When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?

 dogma wrote:
He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

That's some pretty good moving of the goalposts there. As always, a rousing game of pigeon chess.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.

Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

 dogma wrote:
Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.

 Frazzled wrote:
When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?

 dogma wrote:
He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

That's some pretty good moving of the goalposts there. As always, a rousing game of pigeon chess.

Ok, then I'll restate. Please show me where Reid voted (in a real vote) to repeal any of the Bill of Rights.

Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.

Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.

I never made the argument that it is politically possible today. I made the argument that it would be legal to repeal it.

I will also repeat my statement that anyone who screams "I can have guns because Constitution" from one side of their mouth and "if there is a constitutional amendment against guns then I will start a war" out of the other side is an idiot.

 Ouze wrote:
Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?

Oh agreed. thats all I am saying.

EDIT: Was that not how I was coming across?

Well, there you go. We're all happy now.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.

Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.

I never made the argument that it is politically possible today. I made the argument that it would be legal to repeal it.

I will also repeat my statement that anyone who screams "I can have guns because Constitution" from one side of their mouth and "if there is a constitutional amendment against guns then I will start a war" out of the other side is an idiot.

True. The constitution doesn't give people rights, it restricts the ability of the government to infringe on our pre-existing inalienable rights.

Prestor Jon wrote:


True. The constitution doesn't give people rights, it restricts the ability of the government to infringe on our pre-existing inalienable rights.

I think that this is probably the biggest problem with the Bill of Rights: that it changed the dynamics between "rights" and the role of government. And I agree with a lot of the arguments that were made against it.

The original Constitution is very much a set of rules saying "this is what the Government can do". The Bill of Rights is very much a set of rules saying "this is what the Government cannot do". In wargaming terms one is a permissive rule set and one is a restrictive rule set. And this was one of the arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists: one side arguing that they need an Amendment restricting the Government from establishing a state religion and the other side arguing that it is not needed since nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to establish a state religion. One side arguing that we need to restrict the Government from disarming the population and the other one arguing that it's not needed because there is no authority for the Government to do so in the Constitution. It changed the dynamic from "the constitution says I can do X" to "the constitution doesn't say I can't do X".

So now we have lawyers and politicians and judges who look like two WAAC players arguing their case "show me where it says you can" and "show me where it says I can't".

Both were permissive. Fortunately we had the Bill of Rights post ACW and Roosevelt SCOTUS, that protected us once the government decided they could do what they wanted.

 Frazzled wrote:
Both were permissive. Fortunately we had the Bill of Rights post ACW and Roosevelt SCOTUS, that protected us once the government decided they could do what they wanted.

2nd amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's telling the State what it cannot do, which is a restrictive rule, not permissive.

Its permissive in that all other routes not expressly enumerated go to the states. However the Bill of Rights applies to both.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its permissive in that all other routes not expressly enumerated go to the states. However the Bill of Rights applies to both.

So you're against Incorporation?

What? what does a corporate business entity have to do with 5.56 steel tipped ammo purchased by people who are too insecure to buy a proper Mosin Nagant with matching molotov cocktail?

M4 cleaning kit: Your M4 is lovingly cleaned with a multidue of brushes, cleaners, and carefully applied oils.
AK 47: Your AK can be cleaned with shoe strings run through engine oil.
Nagant: Your cleaning kit is buried under an apartment complex in Budapest.

 Frazzled wrote:
What? what does a corporate business entity have to do with 5.56 steel tipped ammo purchased by people who are too insecure to buy a proper Mosin Nagant with matching molotov cocktail?

You know I was referring to the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

there isnt a difference,

which might actually be the point.

the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.


after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?


it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

That is the concern.

*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

That includes both .45 ACP and .45 Long Colt.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?

Oh agreed. thats all I am saying.

EDIT: Was that not how I was coming across?

That's what I've been saying.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.

Pfft Jesus had a compound recurve bow with fiber optic sights baby.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.

Pfft Jesus had a compound recurve bow with fiber optic sights baby.

Jesus followed on from his main man David and used a sling actually.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Jesus followed on from his main man David and used a sling actually.

A compound sling with an ACOG sight, custom padding, and a mod rail

I would be willing to bet JC actually did the Call For Fire thing and God the Father sent lightning bolts in the 'fire for effect'.

Frazzled wrote:
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

For those who misunderstood Fraz, he's referring to the fact that the 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.

I'll throw in that, in the event of a serious civil insurrection (20% of the population or more) , the US military would be grossly outnumbered, with only about 1.5 million under arms and another 800k in reserve, including National Guard. .

 Ouze wrote:
Well, there you go. We're all happy now.

I'm pretty sure we would face the heat death on the universe before that would happen.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

For those who misunderstood Fraz, he's referring to the fact that the 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.

I'll throw in that, in the event of a serious civil insurrection (20% of the population or more) , the US military would be grossly outnumbered, with only about 1.5 million under arms and another 800k in reserve, including National Guard. .

I guess that makes sense, but I'd disagree. I'd say it's more the fact the politicians are elected by the people and derive their power from the people.

For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't. Not out of a fear of the people, but out of a desire to protect peoples freedoms. If it really was the US millitary vs an amred uprising, the uprising would almost assuredly lose, because it doesn't have access to what the military has (military weapons, huge funding and supply, good training, tanks, fighters, bombers, ICBMs, ect.). But an armed uprising would never have to happen because the people would not allow that to happen in the first place. Imagine trying to get both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the states to do something like that. The president could declare himself king, and that would mean nothing because the military would not support him or her. If you don't have the support of the people, you don;t have any power.

 Frazzled wrote:
Only amendment has been repealed.

Dude, it's an amendment. The name itself should give you a pretty big clue that the nature of it, and the rest of the constitution, is inherently changeable. Much harder to change than a regular law, of course, but changeable all the same. It was the ability to alter the constitution that got that part about bear arms in there in the first place.

Contrary to the govenrment confiscators, gun rights have massive support in this country. Ask the Colorado politicians thrown out after they passed unfavorable legislation.

Of course they have massive support, the discussion that it might be altered or repealed is entirely hypothetical. It won't be happening any time soon, the point was just to get you to recognise that if people wanted to, they could change it, because that's how your process works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's called being prepared.

It isn't really preparation - a middle class guy who goes out target shooting isn't in any sensible way preparing to be an effective revolutionary.

Preparation would be developing underground cells, forming connections with other cells. You know, the kind of stuff that lots of people quite rightly freak out about if its revealed, because it's pretty damn close to terrorist planning.

And yet, you say you own a gun and go shooting in part because you want to be ready in case the government goes bad, and it doesn't register as crazy for lots of people. This is because no-one really believes that weekend shooting is actually so they're ready 'just in case'. That's just a fantasy that gets added on top of an otherwise fun weekend hobby.

Revolutions don't fail when revolutionaries outnumber the army 10:1 or even 20:1. Ofc this is crazy talk because it will never happen. Nor do I want it to happen. The question you have to ask yourself is what do "they" want.

Yes, it is crazy talk. And yet it is crazy talk that comes up in every single gun debate. There are lots and lots of good arguments for gun ownership that are almost never heard, but that one crazy argument comes up every single time. Exactly why would be an interesting discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

What about the word 'amendment'... does that imply permanency?

Dude, amendments, and anything else, can be changed if that's what the people want. You can establish certain rights as being more important, and much more difficult to change (and an amendment is, of course, very difficult to remove), but if a future generation wants none of that stuff, then they have every right to change it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There won't be a warzone. More than likely it would be our own military seizing power from a corrupt congress and presidency in a coup d'etat. It would last a few hours. New legestlation would be passed to protect against future corruptions and wed all go on with our little lives.

It's quite telling that you consider the military seizing power from a corrupt congress... but not the possibility of a corrupt military seizing power from a legitimate congress.

There have been lots of military coups in history, and nothing in that history suggests you can just assume the military are the good guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?

An amendment that strips away the right of the people to decide how they want their own country to operate would be tyranny, yes.

Consider the hypothetical that, when the constitution was formed, there was no amendment process. It was written as it was, with no allowance that it could ever be changed. Consider how fair it would on subsequent generations to have to deal with that 'permanent' constitution, unable to add amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech, free assembly, privacy, and everything else, including the right to bear arms.

The amendment process is an essential part of freedom.

 sebster wrote:

It isn't really preparation - a middle class guy who goes out target shooting isn't in any sensible way preparing to be an effective revolutionary.

Preparation would be developing underground cells, forming connections with other cells. You know, the kind of stuff that lots of people quite rightly freak out about if its revealed, because it's pretty damn close to terrorist planning.

And yet, you say you own a gun and go shooting in part because you want to be ready in case the government goes bad, and it doesn't register as crazy for lots of people. This is because no-one really believes that weekend shooting is actually so they're ready 'just in case'. That's just a fantasy that gets added on top of an otherwise fun weekend hobby.

There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too. At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.

 LordofHats wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Jesus followed on from his main man David and used a sling actually.

A compound sling with an ACOG sight, custom padding, and a mod rail

Oh you

Didn't Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade teach us anything? The J Man doesn't go in for flashy stuff