Why did the founders give us the 2nd amendment?

[Daedalus X]

In another thread a member made the following claim.

You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The 2d amendment was not created to facilitate armed rebellion against the very country the Constitution created. As it says itself, it was created so a 'well regulated militia' could protect the State.

Question for debate, why did the founders create the second amendment?

[Daedalus X]

You haven't watched that film yet, have you? I really suggest you do. It will give you some perspective on the Nazis you currently appear to lack.

I saw the film, it was more propaganda than fact.

I will grant you that there were some differences between the Nazi tyranny then and our modern tyranny, beyond the fact that they had the best looking military uniforms since the Roman Empire. They killed millions with a germ that was not made in a laboratory while we killed millions with a germ made in a laboratory. They killed people with a poison gas, we killed people with pharmaceutical poisons. They killed and brutalized people in the name of safety, political power and eugenics, we killed people in the name of safety, political power and profits. But the point was to compare two totalitarian fascist police states which we both have/had.

If you have a specific allegation, and some evidence, take them to the press. They have the resources to investigate, and if they find there is merit in the story, you can be quite sure they will publish. It's how they sell their papers and make their money.

That is simply false. The large traditional news organizations dare not go after the monarchy, only small independent organizations will do that, and these stories will be quickly buried in the memory hole.

By publishing as he did, illegally, he recklessly endangered lives, and compromised US security interests.

Can you name even one person whose life was endangered?

No, of course I can't. These people are working to protect the US, it's interests, it's citizens, and their collective interests. Necessarily that work is done in secret, or their lives would be very short.

The reason why you can't name anyone whose life was endangered, is because your accusation that Assange endangered lives was false. Exposing criminal activity is not a crime, and that is all that Assange did. If that is not true then give me an example of wrongdoing on his behalf.

[2ndRateMind]

By publishing as he did, illegally, he recklessly endangered lives, and compromised US security interests.

Can you name even one person whose life was endangered?

No, of course I can't. These people are working to protect the US, it's interests, it's citizens, and their collective interests. Necessarily that work is done in secret, or their lives would be very short.

The reason why you can't name anyone whose life was endangered, is because your accusation that Assange endangered lives was false. Exposing criminal activity is not a crime, and that is all that Assange did. If that is not true then give me an example of wrongdoing on his behalf.

We shall see. He is due to be extradited to face US justice in due course. I am sure we will both follow the proceedings with interest.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Daedalus X]

Everybody knows already and nobody can do anything about it. This is mainly because lethal force is probably immoral unless you're protecting somebody's life. So corruption is accepted because the alternative is basically to murder thieves. That's what they are, in the worst case, if nothing they do is legitimate. They simply steal wealth. A lot of it, but that's all they do. And is killing justified for mere theft? I don't know anybody saying yes to that.

No, everybody does not know. The fake news media has done a very good job of hiding the corruption in plain sight. And it is not just theft, they have endangered the safety of all the people of the world. It is not a coincidence that Trump was impeached over a phone call with Zelenskyy. The corruption in the Ukraine is responsible for bringing us closer to the point of nuclear annihilation ever in history.

The guns are not for killing these criminals, they are only a show of force to let these criminals know that the people don't need them anymore, and the people will now restore the republic with new leaders and new oversight measures. If the criminals fight, then the guns will be used in self defense only.

We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

[Daedalus X]

We shall see. He is due to be extradited to face US justice in due course. I am sure we will both follow the proceedings with interest.

I am sure that this will never happen. They will never give him discovery documents. More likely, he will follow Epstein or McAfee, or he will get cancer like Jack Ruby. But there can be no trial, this would be a threat too big for the deep state to bear.

[2ndRateMind]

Everybody knows already and nobody can do anything about it. This is mainly because lethal force is probably immoral unless you're protecting somebody's life. So corruption is accepted because the alternative is basically to murder thieves. That's what they are, in the worst case, if nothing they do is legitimate. They simply steal wealth. A lot of it, but that's all they do. And is killing justified for mere theft? I don't know anybody saying yes to that.

No, everybody does not know. The fake news media has done a very good job of hiding the corruption in plain sight. And it is not just theft, they have endangered the safety of all the people of the world. It is not a coincidence that Trump was impeached over a phone call with Zelenskyy. The corruption in the Ukraine is responsible for bringing us closer to the point of nuclear annihilation ever in history.

The guns are not for killing these criminals, they are only a show of force to let these criminals know that the people don't need them anymore, and the people will now restore the republic with new leaders and new oversight measures. If the criminals fight, then the guns will be used in self defense only.

We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

Daedalus X, my friend, you are clearly too far sunk in Trump inspired, web enabled, conspiracy theory driven, wilful ignorance to help. Unless something interesting comes up, I'm out of this conversation. I have better things to do. Have a niice life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

you are clearly too far sunk in Trump inspired, web enabled, conspiracy theory driven, wilful ignorance to help.

Moderator Warning


Please don't get personal. Review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #86]

Sorry.

Best wishes, 2RM

[The Barbarian]

It should be noted that over the years gun violence has declined very greatly. There's been an uptick in the last few years for reasons we all understand, but even then, it's not remotely as it was in the 70s.

And the 1970s were much less violent than the 1870s.

Not surprisingly, there has been a decline in the number of people who own guns. There are fewer people owning guns, but those who do, tend to own more guns.

In the 1700s, an armed militia of citizens could easily dispose of any standing army. Given that the technology of killing has advanced greatly, that is no longer a given. But it can still happen. And if citizens have firearms, they do present a deterrent to a would-be dictator.

Truth is, control of the media is far more effective for dictators than control of guns. This is why the Jan 6 insurrection collapsed; the leaders of the insurgency did not control most of the media. And that's why it's necessary to have outlets like Huffington Post, Fox News, and Breitbart as well as more mainstream media sources; it makes it just about impossible to pull off a coup.