-64 votes

Constitution is just a piece of paper, not an Alex Jones call to arms

I've heard a few people on this site and Alex Jones himself, call for violence if the government takes away assault weapons. I personally don't have much of an opinion on whether or not an assault weapons ban would help stop mass murder in this country. I do know that the constitution guarantees little in regard to your freedom, and the right to bear arms is just a few sentences on a piece of paper rather than a natural right you own based on being alive. Therefore, the fight to protect the "right" to bear arms has to be given a proper cost benefit analysis rather than a philosophical stand to the death based on "rights" that are granted by a piece of paper.

There are some lawful avenues that the liberty movement can take to help ensure that gun owners can hold onto the weapons they want. All of these lawful avenues include non-violent protest, whether it is marching to the white house, going on TV, or simply posting a Facebook message. Nonviolent protests have again and again proven to be a successful means of convincing others of any arbitrary message, and have kept guns in the hands of civilians for more than 200 years. Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive.

Unlawful violent protests are more probable to hurt the movement in which they are meant to support. 9/11 has caused almost the entire world to feel hatred for ultra-conservative Islamic belief. Violence committed by Israel into Muslim regions, which is mainly retaliatory, has continually united terrorist organizations to continually terrorize the Israeli population. Violence almost never works. When Alex Jones and other "hardcore gun owners" threaten violence as retaliation to 2nd amendment offenses, it only strengthens the opposition's resolve. Is it possible that a guerrilla style revolution with AR-15 style assault rifles could stifle a government strike against its own people? Yes; but what is more likely is that a military, which has technologically advanced beyond anything available to the public, would mow down revolutionary gun owners and kill the second amendment for the next 200 years.

The constitution is a piece of paper written by a group of old, rich, dead, white men. It was so flawed that it actually allowed slavery to exist for nearly 100 years after its creation. The rights that the constitution "ensure" do not actually exists. You can kill almost anyone you want to if you wanted to. The constitution, as a piece of paper, can do nothing to protect anyone. You may go to jail for murder, but the person you killed is dead and nothing will ever bring that person back to life. What does exist, is public opinion. The only way to ensure freedom for ourselves, our children, and our people, is to sway public opinion in our favor. The best way to do that is non-violent protest using logical debate with provable facts.

I've heard many of you give constitutional arguments as to why it’s illegal for the government to take away our guns. Realize that you are quoting a piece of fiction that was used as a means to unite a group of states around one federal government. It was a compromise of power, and it was almost immediately brushed aside (See 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts). The only way to keep your guns is to use the power of logic and persuasion to get the public behind your ideology. A piece of paper will do little to help you.

If you don't want to take it from me, let George Carlin explain your rights to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otp2UGH32Rw




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yeah, but, it really is,

Yeah, but, it really is, without a doubt, a piece of paper with ink on it, it has no other properties. Almost nobody follows it anymore. It's a relic. I like the basis of it; but the constitutional argument does not work anymore. Almost nobody reads it. You can make it as sacred to you as you want it to be, but that doesn't mean anybody else cares.

The argument for freedom isn't a constitutional argument, it's a self-evident argument that is so utterly logical, it is almost impossible to lose a debate with it. We don't need a silly piece of paper to augment the value of liberty, we just need the idea. That seed is planted and growing. I think Ron Paul came down and watered it a little while ago, and look at us grow now!!

Unconstitutional laws aren't

Unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

Really, go to a police

Really, go to a police station in Mississippi and light up a joint.

Which part of the

Which part of the Constitution protects the right to light up a joint?

the part that

doesn't say you can't. the founding documents are a presumption of liberty for the people. whatever they choose to do, as long as it hurts no one. the constitution was designed specifically to reign in the government, not the people.

but, i have to agree with the OP. it is in the natural and unalienable right of self protection from tyranny that the fight lies.

the existence of the constitution and the bill of rights help tremendously, though. because the ideas of liberty have been codified, in a sense. and they're not going away any time soon.

Let me ask you something

Do you think, that in a land of liberty, that people should be able to light up a joint when they want to?

To answer you're question. There's no specific part of the constitution that that protects the right to smoke a joint. Wouldn't that be a state right, constitutionally speaking?

Anyway, you should be able to light up a joint if you so wish to partake in the marijuana. Even if it's bad for you.

Don't smoke weed kids!!

What I think is

What I think is irrelevant.
But, even Mississippi filed on behalf of Raich, on the grounds of State's rights, and the courts said that Congress was not acting outside of its Constitutional powers, and that was for medical use, not recreational, whereas impinging on the right to bear arms is clearly unconstitutional.

OK let me ask you this...

The problem with the constitution, when it comes to the right to bear arms is that it was written during a time in which a very simplistic version of the gun was available.

So, where does the right to bear arms end? At the assault rifle, the machine gun, the tank, the jet fighter, the nuke, the Ironman outfit?

You said, "Impinging on the right to bear arms is clearly unconstitutional." Constitutional speaking, and using that as your only guide, where does the impingement begin and end.

I really dislike myself for making this argument, I might down vote myself for this one. I don't want to help our liberal brothers and sisters. My actual brothers would have a field day with me on this. And I totally want an Ironman outfit, I don't even care if it's unconstitutional, I want that now, and I wouldn't be here commenting all night if I had it.

Well the British were coming

Well the British were coming with 800 soldiers to confiscate the 24-pound shot cannon at Concord, one of the most formidable attacking weapons of the era. The equivalent today could be considered to be a tactical ballistic missile.

'Pitcairn knew cannon had been buried on the property. Jones was ordered at gunpoint to show where the guns were buried. These turned out to be three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, that were much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, with sufficient range to bombard the city of Boston from other parts of nearby mainland.'

So you can say that the Revolution started because the British were going to confiscate a weapon large enough to possibly blockade the port of Boston.

So does that answer your question of what the heros of the American Revolution were speaking of when they said the 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon'?

Which part of the 2nd

Which part of the 2nd amendment says "gun"?
Which part defines the specific "version" of this "gun"?

In answer to your question of "beginning and ending", In my interpretation, "arms" refers to whatever arms of the day, meaning modern, that may be used in personal defense or in combat to defend the free State.

Perhaps, a problem lies with governmental bodies possessing "dangerous and unusual weapons". I personally believe the use of violence in defense of one's self or State should be restricted to whatever force is necessary to end a threat posed by an assailant. If that defensive force is excessive or indiscriminate to the point that it is inflicted (impinging on the rights of others) upon non-combatants, including natural environmental organisms, who are not directly involved in posing a threat to one's self or State, then use of said force would be immoral. Unfortunately, governments, more frequently than individuals, tend to acquire and utilize such indiscriminately destructive weapons for immoral purposes .

No personal insult intended, I don't see how you are aiding either side of this debate.

Frankly, being that you are posting this on a mostly libertarian oriented site, I'm not quite sure that even you know where you stand on this issue.

Good luck.

It doesn't define gun...

That's the whole point of my essay. The constitution is a piece of paper and in almost no way does it dictate the laws of our country anymore. It's horribly flawed and the whole second amendment is vague at best. I'm a libertarian through and through; but when it comes to the right to bear arms, what is the law? It's whatever we decide it to be. The court of public opinion is what matters now.

YOu say:

"In my interpretation, "arms" refers to whatever arms of the day."

So in your interpretation can I make a drone and put bombs on it? Use it for self defense if I morally interpret that the situation needs my drone for that self defense.

Its nonsense. Anytime anyone says to me, "my interpretation is such and such." I know that person is making it up. There's no substance to the argument based in any kind of certainty. That's why my essay says the most important thing we can do is shift public opinion. The constitutional argument doesn't work because nobody cares anymore. Barrack Obama was a constitutional scholar, and he does what he interprets the constitution to say. Guess what, he doesn't see eye to eye with you.

You make an interpretation, he makes an interpretation, which one of you is right? Nobody, both of you, one of you, it's whatever I interpret.

Liberty is simple, if you want to write it down it goes something like this. "Do what you want, except infringe on other people's ability to do what they want." Done. But wait, I bet people can interpret that in different ways. That's why the ONLY thing that matters is your ability to persuade others. You got to plant seeds, and nonviolent protest that educate others is that ONLY way. Killing people is the stupid man's protest.

LOL

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

about what?

or is that the depth of your vocabulary?

If you think you're going to follow me around to threads

in an attempt to harass, and get me upset, you've been huffing freon fella.

I'm having a beer and smile. Thanks. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

do you know what "Freon" is?

or are you just huffing?
you talked trash to fishy over defending LL. I took exception to that.
do you post on science or technology threads? no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0WXAkv67Dk

Uh, it's a refrigerant. It's

Uh, it's a refrigerant. It's only used so prevalently that it's even sold at walmart.. They sell 134a which I'm going to add to an ORC.. Do you know what an ORC is?

You have no idea what I've done past this forum and what I've offered up.

In the end, I don't give a rats ass what you take exception to.. Following someone around intentionally shows that you have some cracks in that noggin.

You're welcome to, though.. I find it cute that you think it's worth someones time to do so. lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yeah.. Dupont.

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

" its a refrigerant" like that explains anything.

they are light aromatic hydrocarbons. cleaning solvents if you will.
134-a is only used in cars and domestic refrigeration dweeb.

and yes, I can indeed picture you as an ORC.

Okay Bill Nye lol

You get a cookie.. Very impressive.. Did you ask that so you could flex a little?

I mean, you do work with the stuff, no?

Here ya go: An ORC is short for Organic Rankine Cycle.

Night. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You two should go back and read your comments...

hopefully you realize that this bickering is pretty pointless. You both strike me as people who are smart. put that noggin to some good use, not Arguing about refrigerants. lol no disrespect intended.

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

Yeah but

Anytime the Rankine cycle can be brought into the conversation, I'm for it. Even if it is pointless. Sending out some engineer love to all you fellow science lovers.

It's a little fun..

Nothing wrong with a little sport. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Organic Rankine cycle

that is SO freaking impressive dude. be sure to hook one up to a stirling engine and have fun playing with it, for years I hope!

or at least until your x-box gets fixed and you go away...

You've got to be around your mid 20's

Your attacks are simple and clumsy, very transparent.

You know what else is impressive? You following someone around like you are, trying to drop details like you're somebody..

I bet you think showing your tiny dick to the ladies is impressive too. I'm sure you can tell them everything there is to know about it, being that you spend a lot of private time with it alone. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

wow...lol

is there really penis talk going on right now? I guess I could see if it was about the penis that keeps issuing executive orders. Or the british penis that calls all his guests stupid. I could even understand if it was about the dastardly lot of penises that got together at Jekyll Island. But no.... just regular penises.... and small ones at that? this thread just got too weird for me...(although i believe i did just contribute to the weirdness) see you in another thread lol

"What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the heart, liberty is to the soul of man."
-Robert Green Ingersoll

what attacks? stating facts is not an attack.

you are the one wasting bandwidth.
and yes, you have shown who you are. all talk.
you tried to play smart with me. and you lost fool.
we have people here who are trying to learn. and you are an empty hollow fake.
I am here to help, you are here to cause trouble and massage your ego.
you are despicable.

Yada yad yad.

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Lol...George Carlin is the

Lol...George Carlin is the grand finale for this garage? Wow, what an interlectual power house.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

You say Alex Jones is

You say Alex Jones is advocating violence and that he should seek peaceful ways of protecting our gun rights. What you must not understand about Alex is that he has spent the last 17 years of his life protecting of second amendment rights and will continue to through peaceful means. What he says is when the government comes for your guns they are initiating the violence and we need to defend ourselves. When the government starts confiscating guns it won't be by convincing people it will be by kicking in doors and arresting or shooting resisters.

You are right that the founders dropped the ball on slavery. But luckily they created a proper way to change this document and there mistake was corrected by the 13th amendment.

If a law is passed or an executive order given to confiscate guns without amending the constitution to grant this power to the federal government first, then there action is outside the law. Making these people criminals.

Your opinion is welcome here at the daily paul but it is quite perplexing how someone who thinks the constitution is a piece of fiction written by dead white men could stumble upon this website and decide to stick around.