Bill Frists thoughts on Gun Control

[GoAU 1,600]

Thanks.

I do appreciate the conversation and I believe I understand your viewpoint, but don’t agree.   
 

There are various scenarios in which someone would have to defend themselves and / or their family.  It can range from a single person, multiple people, a riot, all the way to the hypothetical civil war.   I’m glad some people that have the “it couldn’t never happen here” attitude, but some people don’t.   And aside from recreational and competitive shooting, I want to have options.

The 2A is clear, the Supreme Court has ruled on it, and at this point I’m growing a little tired of going around in circles.   You guys have a great evening.  

 

 

[homersapien 11,428]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

As for the military, I would expect it would likely splinter if things ever would fall that far apart.  

So much for “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Personally, I put more faith in our military than an armed traitorous mob fueled by a fantasy theory. 

Speaking of which, aren't y'all going to need something a little more substantial than assault rifles to overthrow the government?

This is all fantasy designed to rationalize ownership of military weapons.

[homersapien 11,428]

13 hours ago, GoAU said:

No one said armed anarchy.  

That's why I asked you how this is supposed to work in practice. 

All you've said so far is that we must have assault rifles in order to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government run amok. 

Without form or political organization you have political anarchy - or at least a multi-faceted civil war.  It's a nihilistic theory.

[homersapien 11,428]

12 hours ago, GoAU said:

I hope you are right, but to say that any government is above the possibility or corruption or perversion of power is not a statement I’d be willing to say with absolute certainty on an infinite timeline.  

Working to change things politically and within the rule of law is the only hope we have for a peaceful society which is the ultimate objective for us all. 

And I have been referring specifically to our government- the United States of America - not just any government. 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

So much for “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

This is all fantasy designed to rationalize ownership of military weapons.

1) What do you think the “Domestic” refers to?   Note it says “Constitution” and not “government”.  
 

2) Completely agree, and knew this is right where this would go when you started asking hypothetical questions.  

Edited May 14, 2023 by GoAU

[GoAU 1,600]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's why I asked you how this is supposed to work in practice. 

All you've said so far is that we must have assault rifles in order to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government run amok.

These is no playbook, but a persons right to defend themselves, against whatever threat may arise, is God given and the Constitution just reinforces it.  
 

And actually that is NOT all I said, or what I feel at all.  I said that was the reason the founding fathers put the Second Amendment there, and in the very prominent place that it is.  

[homersapien 11,428]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

1) What do you think the “Domestic” refers to?   Note it says “Constitution” and not “government”.  
 

2) Completely agree, and knew this is right where this would go when you started asking hypothetical questions.  

Well, in this case, "Domestic" (threat) obviously refers to those who think they are compelled to enact armed rebellion against the government to oppose policies they should be otherwise opposing through the political process.

And the constitution is the document that founded and defines our government.  One protects it by protecting the government that it defines.  The constitution and the government are interchangeable in that regard.

Edited May 14, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

These is no playbook, but a persons right to defend themselves, against whatever threat may arise, is God given and the Constitution just reinforces it.  
 

And actually that is NOT all I said, or what I feel at all.  I said that was the reason the founding fathers put the Second Amendment there, and in the very prominent place that it is.  

The founders including the 2nd amendment because - not having a professional or standing military - such militias were the only way we could protect our country (government) at the time.  The need for a "well regulated militia" has long since passed. 

And I don't accept the premise "God" had anything to do with it. In fact, I think it's unhealthy to equate "natural" (human) rights to a religion.  (The founders were pretty specific about that in the constitution.)  

But more to the point, assault rifles are not required to protect one from personal threats.  They're not even a good choice.

[Mikey 16,714]

My thoughts on gun control: Regardless of any local laws, you better be in possession of your carry piece at all times because the criminals will have their guns handy.