Difference between revisions of "Talk:Second Amendment"

Latest revision as of 01:43, October 7, 2017

VIRGINIA TECH

So - is NOW a good time to discuss things like waiting periods (I beleive Virginia has none), conceal laws(Virginia lets you do that) and other such unpleasantries???? Jacobin

It's all simpering Liberal nonsense. If those students had ALL been packing heat, one of them could have taken him down before he killed too many people! --BobD 20:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

One guy got mad at me once and socked me in the jaw. Glad he wasn't "packing heat". Human 20:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Im sure everyone knows how moody students can be - particually after a breakup. Having lots of readily-available guns anywhere near them is just asking for one to be pulled on impulse. Or for fun. Or to show off. Or stolen. Arming the teachers is a slightly better idea, but there is still to much potential for guns to fall into student hands unless the gun-locker security is made so tight it would be difficult to get the guns out in time if they were actually needed.

I have met two people who died of bullet wounds. One was a very unhappy person, a good friend to many people I know. he bought a gun. specially for the purpose. and killed himself on Hampton Beach NH one night.

Another person I knew worked at a restaurant/bar/place I went to every Monday night to see this great band they used to get. he was a line cook. he bought, I think, a 9mm thingie. he used to swing it around, play with it drunk. he, i guess made a mistake. he pointed it at this other guy who worked there after hours one night and pulled the trigger thing. BANG the other guy is dead. he's dead. he willnever get to knwo any of things that we idly type about this night or any other. the dumb@ss guy with the gun who didn't know how to handle it (not drunk!) is in jail. ok, that's my story, no caps on purpose due to the sadness of these things. i don't have any stories of HEROES with guns killing crazy people. just two dead guys. Human 01:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Human, that's pretty heavy stuff. I'm totally with you on gun control. All the way. I'm sorry you've lost two people who you knew well.-AmesG_yo! 01:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Heavy? It's just dead people! Here, they love dead people! Guns for everyone! KILL KILL KILL

These people think they love Jesus. I love Jesus, I think he was great dude. jesus (uncaps intentional for once) was not a killer. not a gun dude. there's a great divide coming for this site, which I have already outlined somewhere. Mr. Andrew Schlafly, Esq., trial lawyer but bad writer, is gonna get his in the press. Even though his little blog makes him feel good now. And, thank you for your sympathy & tea. Yeah, those were tough times. How do you move on from that? Human 02:06, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

When considering this, the most important question is a comparison: Would the number of lives saved by reducing the severity of crazy shoters be greater than the number of lives lost to increased rates of gun-related accidents or abuse? I would guess no - student breakdowns like the VT incident are very rare, while cases of student stupidity are not. - Suricou

And I thought we had that discussion after Columbine. I've seen on this site alone what strange things people think about weapons of personal destruction (see above) Maybe next time? Human 20:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This article is difficult to read

I am not a fan of the format of this article, big long sections made of short paragraphs can be difficult to read. I'd like to see more people reading and learning about the importance of guns (for more than just home protection and hunting, which are cop out reasons as I see them). --EmersonW 20:30, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm glad you took the initiative to post your concerns on this talk page, EmersonW. The corresponding article is not locked, so you may edit the section(s) that you feel may not be "readable". Jallen 20:44, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Too many categories

Since TAR created the Second Amendment category, I will place this article in that one. If that one is a subcategory of Bill of Rights, is a subcat of Constitution etc we have it covered in the category tree. Thanks, Wschact 07:01, 7 February 2015 (EST)

Second Amendment question regarding the French Revolution

Hi.

I need to ask something regarding the Second Amendment.

I'm a pro-second amendment kind of guy, at least in regards to the right to defend themselves. Let's face it, we need to defend ourselves against enemies anyways. However, can someone explain in full detail what is the difference between the second amendment, the right to bear arms in other words, from, say, what the French Revolutionaries did during the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. While I may be pro-second amendment, I can't say I'm not wary of it, because I fear that the second amendment may give some people the excuse to do something like use a shotgun on someone condemned to die by a show trial with the crowds laughing at the victim bleeding out. In other words, I need something clearly stated regarding whether there is indeed a difference between the two, something that's unfortunately not covered in the article (it doesn't even mention the French Revolution at all, which is a massive problem since Marat's Cordeliers club according to this very wiki was inspired by our founding documents). For a good idea of what I'm getting at, here's what I'm referring to:

"The "moderates" [of the French Revolutionaries] fared just as badly. Cities like Lyon, Toulon and Bordeaux, which were led by the Girondists against the Jacobins, were partially leveled and their inhabitants decimated. When the guillotining threatened to go too slowly, many victims were drowned and others were executed with shotguns, so that the crowds could revel in seeing them slowly bleed to death. (Napoleon, a Jacobin, and close friend of Robespierre, achieved his first victory by subduing "unruly" Toulon.)" Emphasis mine

Source: http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

Another thing I need clarification on, on a related note, is whether the second amendment matches up with essentially what Ocelot here was talking about here: https://youtu.be/zlPTJQF-3X0?t=75 Especially his bit about the wild west, because the implications of what he was stating were... less than pleasant, even if it was slightly better than the Patriots plan of absolute gun control. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Ah, hello? I kinda need those answers soon if not now, because I'm still unsure of the difference, and I genuinely need to know the difference. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Well, to answer your first question, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the French Revolution example. The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to possess a gun, but it does not legalize murder, and it has nothing to do with mob rule or even the death penalty. Show trials and mob rule are terrible, but gun control plays no factor in it. Under mob rule, there is no rule of law. Does this help for the first question? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Lacking the time to go watch a video just now, I'll just post my response to the first part also. 1990'sguy is as far as I know, entirely correct. The second amendment provides citizens with the right to have and bear arms. It does not speak to how they are to be used, so other laws apply. Murder is clearly illegal, but self defense is legal, well, in most states. Separate laws apply to execution, also. Without any other laws, I suppose public execution by shotgun could be considered legal, (although if looking at founding documents, that would be denying the right of life) but those laws very tightly restrict capitol punishment. Besides, the culture wouldn't allow public execution. During the French revolution it was applauded only because the peasants had so much hate for the leaders. --David B ^(TALK) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (EST)

The Second Amendment does not give anything. The Founders lived through fake government-manufactured "rights" and instead focused on recognizing rights already pre-existing. That is, God given unalienable rights.

Pokeria1, There may not be something that states what you are looking for. More specifically, there may not be anything in English. You haven't made it clear though why you need this.(Unless I'm reading what you typed wrong) The Jacobin government, Robespierre's Terror, The Committee of Public Safety, whatever you want to call it(Including the later Jacobin/Napoleonic government that followed the French Revolution) - that's the very kind of government a second amendment is intended to guard against. That's the difference you are looking for. The French Revolutionaries, almost exactly like today's socialists, communists, or progressives, proclaim to be the guardians of the people all the while they are the greatest oppressors anybody can or will ever see. Progressingamerica (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Opps, you're right Progressingamerica, I worded that poorly. --David B ^(TALK) 21:41, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Great answers, DavidB4 and Progressingamerica! Much better than mine! I did make the same mistake as David. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Well, it helps quite a bit regarding the first question. Like I said, I'm all for defending oneself, but I just needed to be sure since, technically, the crowds who did those atrocious actions and reveled in them were civilians, not people in elected positions of government or the military, hence my uncertainty (since, again, those crowds reveling at a guy bleeding out from a shotgun mentioned in that Operation Parricide article were not government employees or soldiers from what I could gather). Besides, some of our founding documents, as even here on Conservapedia pointed out, directly inspired the Cordeliers Club, and even specifically mentioned the US Constitution as being one of the inspirations for that particular faction of the French Revolution (and they made the Jacobins seem like moderates by comparison, not an easy feat to pull off since Jacobin is synonymous with "radical"). I may still need something regarding actually differentiating the Second Amendment from the Cordeliers Club and their actions before I can truly close this matter, though. Also, for the record, Progressingamerica, I never said the second amendment (or any of the amendments to the Constitution, for that matter) "gave" us anything, nor did I intend to imply that. If anything, it would be stupid to assume it simply gave us those rights.

So far as the second question, I'll probably post a transcript of what exactly occurred in the video since not everyone had time to watch it, with bolding if necessary for the necessary points. The video came from Metal Gear Solid 4, after Liquid Ocelot revels in his victory over the Patriots.

Liquid Ocelot: Rise and shine, Snake. Look. The war is over.

[Liquid is overlooking the ocean below as the two brothers sit atop the highest structure of Outer Haven.]

Snake: Why? You could have stopped us?

Liquid Ocelot: Stopped you?

[Liquid turns around to look at Snake.]

Liquid Ocelot: Why would I want to do that? This is just as I'd hoped things would end. Back before father's time... Before Zero gave birth to the Patriots... The US, China, and the Soviet Union, formed a secret pact.

[The screen changes to show a digital presentation of Liquid's story.]

Liquid Ocelot: The organization they created was called the Philosophers. Through two world wars, it spread its roots and extended its reach. After that, the Philosophers splintered, and factions began to squabble over the fortune they'd amassed. They called it the "Philosophers' Legacy"... A massive cache of funds that would later provide the foundation for Zero's Patriots. Zero sought to use his riches to achieve world domination. Our father - Big Boss - sought to free himself from that chokehold. His dream was to create an army of free citizens, one that answered to no government... Outer Heaven. But he failed, because of you. Nine years ago, I tried to free us from the control of our genes. Four years later, our dear brother - Solidus - sought to free us from the control of the Patriots' memes. All of that - all of it - was nothing more than a process of trial and error... The end result of which is Outer Haven. To be free from Sons of the Patriots, the ultimate form of external control imposed on the Patriots' soldiers.

[The scene shifts back to Liquid and Snake aboard Outer Haven.]

Liquid Ocelot: Free from FOXDIE... Free from the System... Free from ID control. Our minds free from their prisons. That is the haven I've yearned for.

[Liquid walks over and injects Snake with a syringe. He throws the used one over and gives Snake another injection.]

Liquid Ocelot: This is it, brother. Our final moment. The battle has ended... But we are not yet free. The war is over... But... We still have a score to settle.

[Liquid takes off his glasses and throws them away. Snake rises to his feet and the two brothers ready themselves in similar CQC stances.]

Liquid Ocelot: Show me what you've got, Snake!

[Snake charges at Liquid and the two begin engaging in a battle of CQC. Not before long, Liquid retrieves a syringe and injects himself with it and then removes his coat and throws it into the wind to reveal a prosthetic arm that is not that of Liquid Snake. Liquid charges forward and continues the battle with Snake as the two eventually come to a standstill. Liquid retrieves another syringe and injects himself with it. Snake sees this and grabs Liquid's arm and uses it to inject the syringe in himself. Liquid takes his arm back and injects the syringe into his neck again. Snake breaks the index finger on Liquid's right hand and injects himself with the syringe one last time before kicking Liquid off of him. Liquid bends his finger back into place as Snake reaches his arms out while on his knees.]

Snake: Liquid!

Liquid Ocelot: Snake!

[The two rise back to their feet and continue to engage in brutal combat. They eventually end up headbutting each other and falling to their knees. Two syringes fall to the ground and the warriors take notice. Each one picks up a syringe and injects it into the other's neck. The two then rise to their feet and continue battling. During the battle, flashback of Liquid Snake, Liquid Ocelot, and a young Revolver Ocelot appear. The two of them fall on their backs after both hitting themselves with hard punches. They slowly rise up again.]

Liquid Ocelot: It's not over yet!

[Now barely being able to move, every punch the two warriors deliver to each other feels like a great deal of weight. Flashbacks of Revolver Ocelot start begin to appear with every punch Snake hits Liquid with. After one last punch, Liquid falls to his knees and Snake is the last one standing.]

Liquid Ocelot: This is only the beginning, Snake. America will descend into chaos... It'll be the Wild West all over again. No law, no order. Fire will spread across the world. The people will fight... And through battle they will know the fullness of life. At last... Our father's will... His Outer Heaven... Is complete.

[Liquid falls to his back. Snake stumbles over to him.]

Liquid Ocelot: Somewhere out there... I know he's laughing.

[Liquid lets out a small chuckle.]

Liquid Ocelot: We are beasts created by man. Unless the light is put out... The shadows cannot be erased. So long as there is light... Erasing shadows will do no good.

[Liquid suddenly gasps as if experiencing a heart attack.]

Revolver Ocelot: I am Liquid's doppelganger. And you are his. Just like your father. You're pretty good.

Long story short, Liquid Ocelot/Revolver Ocelot is basically advocating as "freedom" absolute, unbridled, unrestrained chaos comparable to the Wild West, and what he took down, the Patriots, was basically a totalitarian AI system. And one of the things he listed as the things he wanted to free himself from, the Sons of the Patriots System (referred to here as just the System), can best be described as gun control. As Metal Gear Wiki put it on the following article:

"The concept of a battlefield control system was envisioned as far back as the 1970s. The Patriots, led by Zero, thought that to unify the world they would need to subjugate humanity under a single will. Foreseeing the potential fall of the age of the Cold War, and the upcoming rise of the electronic age, Zero thought of controlling weapons rather than deterring them. Cipher agent Pacifica Ocean alluded this concept to Big Boss during the Peace Walker Incident, with AI researcher Strangelove also hypothesizing an "expert system" that could allow Big Boss to choose which gun he should have. While failing to convince Big Boss to rejoin the Patriots, Zero used the results obtained from Hot Coldman's Peace Walker project and started researching in electronics and digital technology, along with Sigint, on ways to subtly control humanity.

Similar functions that would be incorporated into SOP were already in use by 2005, where the operation of weapons could be restricted by a person's internal nanomachines. During the Shadow Moses Incident, Naomi Hunter used Solid Snake's nanomachines to prevent him from using lethal weapons inside the nuclear warhead storage building, as shooting would have led to a leakage of plutonium from the dismantled warheads stored there. Other non-nanomachine similarities, were ID locks on firearms, used by both SEAL Team 10 and the Gurlukovich Mercenaries during the Big Shell Incident in 2009, and the expunging of personnel IDs from weapons systems should an anomaly be detected, as with the Arsenal Gear "Black Case."

[...]

SOP served three main functions. The first was to allow multiple members of a military unit to share each other's senses and work more efficiently as a team. The System basically ran a unit like a network of computers, each man able to see what the others saw, feel what they felt, and rapidly coordinate tactics. This provided a massive tactical advantage to whomever used it.

The second function was to monitor the chemical balance of every soldier engaged in combat. This allowed the nanomachines to induce an artificial "combat high" by controlling the release of adrenaline and endorphins, elevating the senses and accuracy of every soldier. Furthermore, it allowed accurate monitoring of a soldier's oral intake and excrements (water, food, and sweat). This refined information allowed commanders to make more informed decisions on the flow of combat. Soldiers under SOP also had their emotions suppressed so that they felt less fear and remorse than other soldiers might. One's sense of pain was subject to the same treatment, preventing minor injuries from distracting a soldier during combat. Despite these advantages, low oxygen concentrations in areas at high altitude, such as mountainous regions, could cause negative effects on the nanomachines, resulting in unusually aggressive behavior in soldiers.

The third main function of SOP was to monitor and control the use of weapons on the battlefield. As each soldier's weapon (excluding a few "naked guns") were "ID locked", only authorized individual soldiers could use that particular weapon. It could also prevent soldiers from firing on their own, committing human rights abuses, and attacking their own clients.[5] SOP governed all small arms and ammunition, as well as vehicles such as helicopters and tanks. It did not, however, govern anything larger than small arms, leaving weapons such as large missiles (for example, ICBMs) locked for usage by a higher-authority system, more specifically JD.

[5] ^Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, Kojima Productions (2008).

'Roy Campbell: Truth is, the rise of system-controlled PMCs has led to a dramatic decline in civilian casualties and human rights violations on the battlefield. // Solid Snake: A cleaner, safer battlefield. Makes for nice propaganda."

So, yeah, as you can probably guess, the SOP system fits right in with the definition of gun control, which the game definitely treats as a very bad thing. That's another reason why I needed to know, so I'd have absolute assurance that the second amendment will not under any circumstance allow for the kind of world that Liquid Ocelot advocated, and not actually aid that kind of dystopic world Ocelot envisioned. I hope I've explained myself well. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Okay, I skimmed through the transcript and skipped through the video. I may have missed something important, but I'll answer based on my understanding of this, and specifically the sections you set as bold.
It seems one ides in here is the overthrow of the government and its secret alliance by individuals banded together to fight it. While I think part of our foundering fathers' reasoning behind the second amendment was that the people could rise up against an oppressive government, this just can't happen anymore. The government usually holds to very strict rules regarding the engagement of dissenting citizens, but face it, semi-automatic firearms are no march for the machine guns, explosives, aircraft/drones, lasers, railguns (granted, still in development), and all of the other weapons (including chemical) which they have at their disposal. Add to that drone, electronic, and satellite surveillance, and there is nowhere for such upstarts to hide. In the day, muskets were the most high-tech and efficient weapon available. The people are no longer allowed to own the newest, best weapons (which may or may not be good--I do question the wisdom of selling RPGs at WalMart). In any case, the military equipment needed to overthrow even the U.S. government from within, regardless of the other countries in this functional alliance, is just not available.
Regrading the ID control, user protected weapons, and other nanotechnology preventing solders from performing unauthorized actions, I'd like to say first that technology hasn't gotten that far. I've though that guns could be locked to a specific fingerprint or embedded RFID chip, but to my knowledge, no such thing yet exists. Regardless, nanotechnology does not have the kind of ability spoken of--at least not yet. For that kind of control, interfaces with the brain, brainstem, and spine would be needed. Since they don't even know how the brain works for certain, this is probably a long way off. In any case, individuality is built into our culture. I can't see anyone consenting to this kind of control--even the democrats of today would resist it (although democrats of the past sounded remarkable like conservatives, so they still could change, and start approving of this). To some extent, this should be kept in mind so as to avoid it. As Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." We should be vigilant, but I don't think it even could be a problem for quite some time yet.
Getting back on topic, even if they could do this, it has no relation to the second amendment. The people have a right to have and bear arms, and to form a militia. Neither the individual nor the militia will have the resources to use such technology, so it would be the federal military using this, not those people. In face, the second amendment could prove vital in the prevention of such technological oppression, because the people still retain some small military strength, and therefore cannot pushed around so easily.
Anyway, I'm rambling again, but I hope this at least partially answers your second question. --David B ^(TALK) 14:07, 28 November 2016 (EST)

I was more concerned with the whole "America descending into chaos and become the wild west again with no law or order" bit as a result of the Patriots being destroyed, but I guess I'll settle with that for now (that being said, I still need an answer that specifically addressed that whole wild west lawlessness thing in the future, as that's the one I'm most concerned with, since the way Ocelot was talking made it seem as though the second amendment, or at least getting rid of gun control, actually encourages people to behave like psychopaths and slaughter each other for fun.).

And I might as well ask this, since I don't think I got an answer for that bit, can you explain how the Cordeliers Club can get away with the kinds of stuff regarding using shotguns to execute people with crowds being entertained by that and still claim they were inspired by our founding documents, including our Constitution and by extension our second amendment (something that even Conservapedia claimed was the case), and also at the same time outrank the Jacobins in terms of being radical? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Hi. Think you can address the part about the Cordelier's Club in particular (since even Conservapedia specifically stated that they were directly inspired via their horrid and extremely radical acts by our own United States Constitution, which would naturally include the Second Amendment.) and the bit about Ocelot's statements about second amendment principles, or at the very least getting rid of gun control, will inevitably drive people to act like psychopaths who kill each other for fun like the popular conception of the Wild West? Like I said, I still need that resolved, and it was never really answered before then. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)