I was never comfortable around guns, even though I went hunting and gained proficiency with them for two decades in the military. Only weapon I have now is in storage; a 90 year old shotgun.

“So you disagreed with Tim McVeigh’s cause for blowing up the Federal Building, but you didn’t disagree with the action of blowing it up.

Under some circumstances, you would be in favor of blowing up buildings?”

You’ve mistated my position, and not by accident, of course. I think my previous writings make it clear enough, I’ll not elaborage further. Nathan certainly understands it well enough.

And Dingus, state a silly position, and yes, you’ll get called on it. I note you’ve offered no evidence as to your allegations. I’ve done you the favor of not going past your nic. I’ll thank you to do the same. We all have nics, and comparative anonymity, for various reasons. One of the beauties of the internet is the ability to do just that. It’s quite different than being able to choose your company face to face.

As to the other, it’s called multi-tasking. Not all that hard.

Alright, historically speaking the 2nd Amendment was written for 2 main reasons:

1. To prevent tyranny.

2. To allow a person the means to defend himself

Historically speaking you are looking at a group of people whom just defeated what they considered to be a tyrannical government through means of force.

Historically speaking the founding fathers were part of a society which was more rural than urban which didn’t have the sophisticated means of policing we have today or the response time. So the means of self defense were considered to be a right.

Here you have two of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment.

Now, it has been mentioned that somehow thinking that the 2nd amendment is to give us the means to fight against tyranny we must concede that Tim McVeigh was doing that too and was ok.

That is a false leap of logic.

The 2nd amendment doesn’t give us the right and never was intended to give us the right to simply use weaponry to enact simple change or to show our disagreement.

The key word here is TYRANNY.

If and I do say If there is ever a day where something happens, like President Bush trying to assume absolute control and begin enacting some crazy policies while herding off all the Cindy Sheehan’s to be burnt up in a furnace… where the people are being denied their rights and so decide to fight against this oppression…

Well guess what? We have the means to do it.

Let’s look at it in Context. Where we stand today it would seem improbable and unlikely that we would ever have to fight our own government.

Don’t you think that is exactly what the colonist’s attitudes were 30 years before they decided to fight?

It is just another check and balance.

The 2nd amendment is our security from not only the government but anyone else that would do our family or we harm.

Try reading some of the material our founding fathers wrote. They all studied some of the greatest philosophers of our time. Philosophers who wrote about mercenary armies, citizens with weaponry, and things of that nature.

By brandishing your shotgun, you were committing a crime. Even if someone was stealing items from your truck or the truck itself, the law does not allow a person to use deadly force to defend property. It is morons like you that give gun owners a bad name.

I’m just thinking out loud here.

That makes some sense, I grant you.

I may be coming around to your point of view . . . although I still think a gun is a weak weapon compared to civilized society based on law.

Look at Iraq, for instance.

Okay . . . I got places to go. Enough for one day. Chiao.

So you disagreed with Tim McVeigh’s cause for blowing up the Federal Building, but you didn’t disagree with the action of blowing it up.

Under some circumstances, you would be in favor of blowing up buildings?

I would have gone back and got the shells if it came to that.

A threat of force is always preferable to the use of force, something that Bush and his backers have sadly forgotten.

As I said, I don’t think we’re there. I think the vast majority of Americans, 95%+, would agree that we’re not at that stage. You disagree with the decision, that’s fine. Part of democracy is that we recognize decisions even if we disagree with them. Certainly there is a limit even to that, but as I noted, we’re not even close to there.

Enjoy the barricades.

“Would I have shot this individual if he had directly threatened me?”

How? You had no shells.

I think they call that “begging the question.”

At any rate, you’ve answered my question–guns do nothing to limit the tyranny of government, because all government has to do is write tyranny into law and then argue, “we’re just following the law.”

Ah okay then . . .

I gotta edit better.

You say “steals.” I’d point out that due process was followed, and all parties obeyed the ultimately decision of the duly constituted authorities.

You may disagree with that decision, and that’s your right, but it’s hardly “stealing” an election.

Get over it.

No, if you wanna see stealing an election, check out Daley’s old Democratic machine in Chicago, for starters.

Stealing elections in a putative democracy, would that be “over-reaching,” do you think?

I agree, but for slightly different reasons. MERE firearms never protected us. They are always the tools of last resort. The pen, the ballot box, the other mechanisms that are so familiar are far preferable, and in a sense, are more important because they are used daily, as they should be.

But never forget that ultimately governments govern by force. That force is normally hidden in the velvet glove, but it is force nontheless. We hope, and generally it’s true, that the use of that force is limited to legitimate purposes – law enforcement, etc. But there is not inherent guarantee of same.

That is where the 2nd comes in. It is the fundamental, if all else fails, guard against an overreaching state.

See above post, at 12:18. ‘Nuff said.

I personally have used a gun to defend myself. A thief was rummaging through my pickup truck cab in my driveway once (hah, not a good place to look for anything valuable).

I told my daughter to call 911 and I grabbed my unloaded 12 gauge shotgun. I didn’t want to take the time to get shells–my biggest concern was to get him away from my house and family.

I tapped on the window (it was at night) and held the gun up so he could see it.

(I didn’t point the gun at him.)

He ran off, I dropped the gun, ran downstairs and jumped into said truck to look for him. The cops came and also looked for him, couldn’t find him. About one-half hour later, he hit a neighbor and broke his nose, and was caught and arrested.

He was convicted and is doing time.

Would I have shot this individual if he had directly threatened me?

Hell, yes.

So if you’re not willing to shoot the government when they “threaten” you, how does owning a gun in anyway protect you?

Take your time . . . I want to hear it.

I’m not the scholar you are. I had to go back and read the link to refresh my memory.

The thing of it is? We are reaching a point in technology where mere firearms do not and cannot protect us from tyranny.

Or to paraphrase Franklin, “The pen is mightier than the Glock.”

The 1st and 4th and also the 5th amendments face increasing problems. The 1st and 4th because of technology. The 5th due to money and beuracracy. Make THOSE your stands. You being more on the “front line” as it were than the rest of us.

And I’m not discounting the first; it is, after all, the primary purpose of America – securing a place where citizens can think, speak, write, and worship as they please, respectful of all and consistent with public order. It is vital.

My point, and my only one, is that the 2nd amendment ultimately guarantees that the 1st, and the others, stay in effect. And that is as it should be.

To take on Rage and other’s comment, yes, if at some point government becomes so tyrannical, and other means of changing government are unavailable (i.e. elections, etc), the use of force to defend liberty is justified. That is not a radical position, it is the position of the founders, and especially Jefferson.

We’re not there, of course. I hope ferverently that we never reach that day. But just as the presence of nuclear weapons helps deter warfare, the presence of an armed populace is an ever-present deterrent to those in power to mind the limits of their power.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Bill of Rights says that some rights are so important that they needed to be named. The Framers were not creating rights, and making an exclusive list.

Of course, if you claim a “right” to paint your neighbor’s house purple. . .

Surrender?

I’M not the one who engaged you! I just commented on your usual bellicoseness.

My only other post here favored the first amendment. I’m not surrendering that to you either.