Welcome to Gaia! ::


Dermezel2
It is obvious it cannot even really protect you. Several times, when I encounter Fascists and Radicals, it is used against me, and I have to talk my way out of it. I have never seen it used by organized mobs for freedom.


Ukraine, Syria, Bundy Ranch, the entire US Revolutionary War.
Just a few events where an armed citizenry has been effective.
Spike_Flair
The rose in spring
Spike_Flair
People do use the second amendment for disharmonious means and the amendment itself may have debatable origins, but the truth still remains that an armed population is the most valuable tool for expressing the efficacy of the non-ruling class.

Do people use it for bad? Probably.
But it's the peoples actions that are bad, not the law.

Like an armed citizenry means anything to the ruling class.


Look at what's going on in Ukraine or Syria. Look at the harmonic structure of Switzerland. What do you think kept the Japanese from invading the US during WW2?
Of course an armed, centralized government will have things like jets, tanks, and drones that could easily defeat any resistance, but it's not about defeating the government, it's about showing them that people are still willing to resist the oppression of tyrants and that it's not worth any governments time to try and oppress people who aren't willing to be oppressed.

It doesn't matter. If Russia wanted to, they could annihilate everyone in the Ukraine. As for the US, there is nothing except complacency that prevents the US military from killing American civilians who they would label as rebels. The 1860's proved that.
The rose in spring
Spike_Flair
The rose in spring
Spike_Flair
People do use the second amendment for disharmonious means and the amendment itself may have debatable origins, but the truth still remains that an armed population is the most valuable tool for expressing the efficacy of the non-ruling class.

Do people use it for bad? Probably.
But it's the peoples actions that are bad, not the law.

Like an armed citizenry means anything to the ruling class.


Look at what's going on in Ukraine or Syria. Look at the harmonic structure of Switzerland. What do you think kept the Japanese from invading the US during WW2?
Of course an armed, centralized government will have things like jets, tanks, and drones that could easily defeat any resistance, but it's not about defeating the government, it's about showing them that people are still willing to resist the oppression of tyrants and that it's not worth any governments time to try and oppress people who aren't willing to be oppressed.

It doesn't matter. If Russia wanted to, they could annihilate everyone in the Ukraine. As for the US, there is nothing except complacency that prevents the US military from killing American civilians who they would label as rebels. The 1860's proved that.


And without the ability to establish a resistance, both of those rebellions would have never even existed in the first place. Like I said, it's not about winning, it's about being willing to resist.
Is Bundy Ranch the thing where that idiot wanted to farm on land he didn't own? And got pissy when he was told he couldn't?

Because that's a terrible example.
Spike_Flair
The rose in spring
Spike_Flair
The rose in spring
Spike_Flair
People do use the second amendment for disharmonious means and the amendment itself may have debatable origins, but the truth still remains that an armed population is the most valuable tool for expressing the efficacy of the non-ruling class.

Do people use it for bad? Probably.
But it's the peoples actions that are bad, not the law.

Like an armed citizenry means anything to the ruling class.


Look at what's going on in Ukraine or Syria. Look at the harmonic structure of Switzerland. What do you think kept the Japanese from invading the US during WW2?
Of course an armed, centralized government will have things like jets, tanks, and drones that could easily defeat any resistance, but it's not about defeating the government, it's about showing them that people are still willing to resist the oppression of tyrants and that it's not worth any governments time to try and oppress people who aren't willing to be oppressed.

It doesn't matter. If Russia wanted to, they could annihilate everyone in the Ukraine. As for the US, there is nothing except complacency that prevents the US military from killing American civilians who they would label as rebels. The 1860's proved that.


And without the ability to establish a resistance, both of those rebellions would have never even existed in the first place. Like I said, it's not about winning, it's about being willing to resist.

You don't resist, you die. Americans have this strange idea that they somehow have choices. They don't. They have owners.

Generous Prophet

Dermezel2


It seems as though while many things have changed, the Second Amendment seems to still serve primarily as a tool of bigotry and oppression.

“Stand your ground” law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones

You say the second amendment is to serve for oppression.. before i continue the argument of this, who is it oppressing..?
The second amendment is to serve for us, so we can fight back oppression and corruption, like we are facing today.. So we could have a revolution, if we need a revolution.
Well here in Indiana we had a man not charged with murder thanks to the stand your ground here. Yes it was a black man who shot a 17 year old who tried to car jack him.
Situation dictates in all aspects.

I've used my hand gun on multiple occasions to diffuse a potentially violent situation.
Dermezel2
Years ago a study/article was published in the law review noting that the Second Amendment was largely a tool to enforce slavery. Now we have the Zimmerman trial, and at the same time, an African-American Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison, after a mere 12 minutes of deliberation for firing the gun into the air to scare an abusive husband after invoking the "Stand your Ground" law: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

Quote:
Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.

Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.


To quote excerpts of the study:

Quote:
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."


It seems as though while many things have changed, the Second Amendment seems to still serve primarily as a tool of bigotry and oppression.

“Stand your ground” law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones


Well Dermezel2, I would have to disagree with you. Yes, firearms were used to enforce slavery in some cases, however this is not an inherently bad thing. You have to understand that slavery was not a racists system at first; It was purely an economic system. Blacks were mostly chosen for slavery because of their high physical ability and their low potential for critical thinking and intelligence. Racism only started shortly before the civil war, where white southerners used racism to justify the continuation of slavery. Remember the Three-Fifths Compromise? This is a prime example.

If anything, the Second Amendment stops crime and prevents oppression in many ways! If you take a look at the statistics, almost all gun crime is committed with guns obtained illegally,* and most gun homicides are committed by blacks.* This shows that law abiding citizens buying and obtaining guns legally are not using them to oppress blacks. In fact, it's the other way around! According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008!* That's a huge number. On the flip side, private gun ownership stop 2.5 million crimes every year.*

Now while I can understand your gripe with the Second Amendment, It is definitely not a tool of oppression. While you and I'm sure many others hold strong beliefs against the Second Amendment, basing those beliefs off of isolated cases and anecdotal evidence is silly. Personally, I believe that the great John Locke which many of our forefathers based their beliefs off of promote and encourage the responsible use of guns. John Locke, the originator of the classic liberal ideology had a strong vision of what he believed to be man's natural rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property. My pursuit of happiness and freedom is reinforced by the Second Amendment.

-"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson.
-“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr.


*Kleck, G., "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". New York, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991. ISBN 0-202-30419-1.
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/
*Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.
*http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm
Senator Armstrong
Is Bundy Ranch the thing where that idiot wanted to farm on land he didn't own? And got pissy when he was told he couldn't?

Because that's a terrible example.


How is trying to exorcise your rights as a TRUE AMERICAN a terrible exmaple you Lincoln hating communist


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
I'd have sex with a donkey for my second amendment rights. Too bad my state took them away because they are black freaking haters man. All we do is eat fried chick and watermelon n!gga all day yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
KONY2016
Senator Armstrong
Is Bundy Ranch the thing where that idiot wanted to farm on land he didn't own? And got pissy when he was told he couldn't?

Because that's a terrible example.


How is trying to exorcise your rights as a TRUE AMERICAN a terrible exmaple you Lincoln hating communist


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


This is somewhat true. Jewish communists have always sought to disarm the population. In 1929 to 1952, Soviet Russia enacted arms control, and in doing so killed 20 million people.* A similar case happened in Cambodia in 1975 where 1 million people were slaughtered by the communist government after the people's guns were taken.*

Communists and socialists have and always will try to disarm the population in order to take control. Go read up on Marxist theory.


*Jay Simkin & Aaron Zelman, "Gun Control": (1992)
*http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gunhistory.asp

8,150 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Nudist Colony 200
Isn't the problem not so much the law itself that is racist, so much as the jurors and those who have the duty to uphold the law who tend to be?

The law itself does not say sentence black men/women to jail, let white men/women get off for same crime. But what happens is that jurors, who are supposed to be random people picked out of a hat so-to-speak, tend to favor people who are white versus people who are black/colored.

The stand your ground law is only many laws of which, when applied by people who are biased by race/skin color, will result in skewed sentencing procedures.

If the results are to change, the entire culture and popular perception of certain races/ethnicities would have to change.

Tipsy Dabbler

THE BARK LORD

teranoid

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum