"-we don’t want to take away guns and that we are pro second amendment"

[DaleA]

Well guess what? the 'March For Our Lives' movement is really pro second amendment and they DO NOT want to take away your guns. Emma Gonzalez said so.

https://variety.com/video/emma-gonza...variety-shoot/

I realize nobody here would be surprised by this but what impressed me was that "Variety" magazine allowed dissenting comments. There were 13 comments when I read this article and all 13 disagreed with what Emma Gonzalez was saying. I'll take that as a positive sign.

I'll also agree with this guy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=i+wo...Sr4w7JDNtAMeM:

[Dfariswheel]

Unfortunately, Ms Gonzalez made another statement in the last day or so.

According to her she's afraid some driver with an NRA sticker or gun in his vehicle will run her off the road.

So, she typically wears a hat so none of those dangerous, loony gun owners will recognize her and put her in a ditch.

[jonnyc]

She's young and thinks she knows everything. Unfortunately too many adults who should know better dote on every foolish comment that flies out of her butt.
I've taught high school history for 25 years, and there are always a few kids that are quite shocked when I point out the errors in their statements. They're used to their parents telling them how brilliant they are.
Oh well.

[DaleA]

Guess who else is a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment? None other than Jamie Lee Curtis!

“I fully support the Bill of Rights,” she clarified. “And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles — which are weapons also.”

https://www.aol.com/article/entertai...trol/23558108/

With all these high profile folk supporting the second amendment what do we have to be worried about? (sarcasm off)

P.S. JLC also supports an assault weapons ban.

[Skans]

'March For Our Lives' movement is really pro second amendment and they DO NOT want to take away your guns. Emma Gonzalez said so.

Does she want to ban my drum magazines? Stick/box magazines that hold 30 rounds? How about AR-style weapons? If I own any of these firearms or firearms parts, does that make me "irresponsible"?

[44 AMP]

they DO NOT want to take away your guns. Emma Gonzalez said so.

Two points about this statement, the first a quote from Cmmdr Clemment in Yellowbeard…

"this is, what we in the Royal Navy call, a LIE!!!"

second point, they may actually be honest saying it. THEY don't want to take away your guns. They want people working for the Government to do it!!!!, and do it FOR them.

and, the children!!

another point to consider, why do we give any weight to the PERSONAL opinions of actors? (even the few on "our side"??) Just because they are famous doesn't give their opinion any more validity than yours, or mine.

Remember what actors (all genders) DO for a living. They LIE!!!

Call it acting, call it playing a role, call it anything you like, actors make their living pretending to be someone they are not. Those at the top of their craft are the best paid, most convincing liars on the planet, generally speaking. Much better at it than politicians...usually...

[Don P]

The wolves are at the door 24/7 365. There is no time for any of us to let our guard down. If a certain bunch had their way the republic would be disarmed. Just my opinion that anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves.

[Mainah]

The GOP controls all three branches and the majority of state legislatures. The Democrats haven't found a way to make gun control win elections since Bill Clinton decided that it can't. I think you can be confident and vigilant at the same time.

This kid was in a school shooting and she's exercising her right to free speech. She's a teenager in the spotlight and she's advocating for the same levels of gun control that Trump supported when he was an adult. If he can evolve there's hope for her too.

[JohnKSa]

How you can tell when someone is really pro-second amendment and doesn't actually want to take away guns:

They say that they are pro-second amendment and that they don't want to take away guns and then stop there.

The people who say they are pro-second amendment and don't want to take away guns and then say 'but' might as well just leave off the preamble because what they really want follows the 'but'.

[Aguila Blanca]

“If you’re already a responsible gun owner, then this has nothing to do with you,” Gonzalez says. “We’re talking about the people that are irresponsible, the people who take advantage of the fact that the system is not very strict.”

I think a great many people think "the system" is already far stricter than the Second Amendment actually (if properly adjudicated by the SCOTUS) should allow. Ms. Gonzalez says they don't want to take away guns, they "only" want to regulate that.

English 101: "Regulate" = "Infringe."

[M88]

The people who say they are pro-second amendment and don't want to take away guns and then say 'but' might as well just leave off the preamble because what they really want follows the 'but'.

THAT is about the best I've heard it explained in as simple terms as possible. Absolutely... anything after "we don't want to take away your guns" negates the preamble. Limiting amount of ammo one can buy, gun registration, TAXING ammo to make it to expensive to shoot... etc etc... just different ways to say "we really do want to take your guns at some point".

[44 AMP]

Its well known in some circles, even made it into the script of one of the Game of Thrones episodes. A character is relating some of the wisdom his father passed along before his death.

"no matter what the subject, everything before the word "but", is (biological waste who's common name trips the language filter). "

Still true today, it seems.

[T. O'Heir]

Emma Gonzalez and her little friends are being told what to say.
Kind of wonder why she wants to look like a post war collaborator or concentration camp inmate though.
"...Teen Vogue's gun control issue..." Their what?

[Machineguntony]

The gun control movement would get a lot more traction if they were to just come clean and say that they want Australian style gun control.

The ‘I support the second amendment’ talking point really has an aura of dishonesty.

[Spats McGee]

It has an air of dishonesty because it's dishonest.

[dontcatchmany]

I have followed this thread. If I throw it off topic, I apologize!

What do we do?

Many of us comprehend the word Liberty and what it means.

Many of us understand that Liberty is what gives us the free life that we enjoy in this country. 1.3million to 1.5 million of us since 1765 have given their lives for what we have and countless millions maimed physically and mentally casn be counted in that number.

There is a difference between freedom and Liberty!

Our founding fathers fully understood the history of mankind's struggle to control his/her destiny. Our founding fathers fully comprehended that Lady Liberty is a God given right that will be taken away by despots, dictators, kings, governments and countless numbers of those who wish to control us for their despicable wants if we do not defend her with our lives.


Those of us who live today in this country have been given the lives we live by those who sacrificed for us.

The Bill of Rights were essential in the acceptance the Constitution.

IMHO, the Second Amendment gives us the key to defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Our Liberty!

What do we do?

I believe that eventually there will be a tremendous amount of blood letting to defend Lady Liberty.

The forces that want to take away Lady Liberty are relentless! It is not just us keeping our guns!

How do we defend her together? Physically if necessary?

[spacemanspiff]

I don't have anything to say about defending Lady Liberty...

What I do know is that all this anger, rage, frustration that we are seeing; the acrimony between the various sides of these issues/debates; it is not going to subside anytime soon. Fever pitch has not yet been reached. But even as the intensity increases, the lefts lack of leadership and organization as well as their propensity for attacking those on their side derails them from achieving their goals.

[44 AMP]

the Second Amendment gives us

I'd like to suggest you reconsider the way you phrase this. The Second Amendment gives us nothing.

The Second Amendment is a check on the authority of government. It does not give us anything, it forbids government from infringing on what we already have because we are alive (natural rights).

likewise the rest of the Bill of Rights, None of it grants us any rights, it is all restrictions on what government may do, respecting those rights, and recognizing that all of our rights are not listed in the document.

It is often said that our nation was founded on, and stands on three boxes.
The Soapbox (public discussion)

The Ballot box (democratic voting and our republican system of governance)

The Cartridge box (armed resistance to tyranny, as a last resort when the other boxes fail)


While a triangle can be a strong structural shape, a tripod is ...less so.

[dontcatchmany]

AMP,

Study some ancient history. Instead of the word "gives", concentrate on the words "Our founding fathers fully understood the history of mankind's struggle to control his/her destiny. Our founding fathers fully comprehended that Lady Liberty is a God given right that will be taken away by despots, dictators, kings, governments and countless numbers of those who wish to control us for their despicable wants if we do not defend her with our lives."

Also look at the words "us the key".

We are the ones responsible for our and our progeny's destiny.

When Yamamoto bombed Pearl Harbor He indicated why he did not invade the US in full force...… He knew the people in the USA had lots of guns and ammo. That was also a similar reason the USA chose the bomb(s) instead of invading and losing upwards of a million casualties. Heck, my own father was in the Army and poised to go into Japan. Maybe I might have not been conceived.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dontcatchmany

When Yamamoto bombed Pearl Harbor He indicated why he did not invade the US in full force...… He knew the people in the USA had lots of guns and ammo.

The quotation was "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." The problem is that almost all reputable sources have determined that he never said that. I found one source that says it was invented by one of General MacArthur's aides. Another source says it was written for the movie Tora, Tora.

[doofus47]

Well, I'm glad that that's all settled...
I guess if she likes the status quo, she'll just stop speaking, right?

[44 AMP]

I'm sure you may define it differently, but I've always thought "Lady Liberty" was a large statue in New York harbor.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to divert but there are two WWII statements that are 'quoted' by gun folks that have no or little truth and thus are counterproductive.

The first is the Yamamoto quote. It cannot be sourced. The Japanese plan was to establish a defensive ring in the Pacific and they thought that if they inflicted losses on the Pacific Fleet and took the Philippines, we would negotiate rather than go to a total war. Yamamoto and others thought that if it was a long war, then our industrial capacity would lead to an inevitable war of attrition that they would lose. They did think later that by inflicting heavy losses on land and sea, they would lead us to negotiations. They also hoped still for a decisive naval battle that might slow up and force negotiations. That failed at Leyte Gulf but the ground battles at Okinawa were terrible and feed into the bomb decisions.

In fact, we did negotiate and allow the Emperor to continue as a figure head of state. Japan regained its independence in a few years.

The second is that Switzerland maintained its independence from the Nazis because of its militia organization (arguing for ours). It is true that they organized to resist invasion and form a national redoubt in the center of the country. However, they had no useful Air Force or armor. More telling were the plans to blow up tunnels that the Nazis used to send troops and material to Italy. They were used freely by them. Also, the Swiss provided trade and war materials to the Nazis and cooperated in their war effort in that manner.
The Nazis had plans to invade Switzerland and never did as they didn't have to. A counter example was Sweden. It wasn't invaded either as it cooperated for the most part. It didn't have the militia story, just cooperation. That was the crucial factor. Sweden would have resisted also. However, neither country could have stood alone. It just wasn't worth the trouble of invasion. The Nazis worked with them.

So both cliches, if used to 'defend' the 2nd Amend. can be easily dismissed by someone with historical insight.

[44 AMP]

I always rather liked the Yammamoto "quote", though there is no proof he ever said it, it is the kind of thing he might have said.

Both sides pre-war plans were for a decisive surface action somewhere off the Philippines, where one battle fleet would sink the other, resulting in the loser seeking peace. We felt we would win, and so did they. When the British proved that an aerial torpedo attack in a shallow harbor was possible, the Japanese plan changed, and Yammamoto and his staff came up with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was NEVER any plan to invade mainland USA.

With regard to the Swiss and the Swedes, I don't think "cooperate" is the right word. Both nations were neutral. Maintaining neutrality and continuing to do business the same way is not "cooperating".

Germany got most of its iron from Sweden, and it was shipped through Norway to Germany. They didn't need to invade and occupy Sweden, because Sweden maintained its neutrality, and sold iron ore to Germany just the same as they had before the war.

Norway WAS neutral, and the original German war plan did not include invading Norway, until the BRITISH proved they were willing and able to violate Norwegian neutrality (the Altmark affair). Once that happened, the Nazis decided they needed to occupy Norway, to keep the British out.

I'm sure there was a plan to invade Switzerland, if needed, but it was never needed. And while true the Swiss didn't have much in the way of armor or an air force (and a lot of what they did have was equipment bought from Germany) the terrain and natural resources of Switzerland meant that any military assault would not be even remotely cost effective. Switzerland was more valuable as an independent neutral than it would have been as a conquered territory.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Both countries let troop movements through their territory. That's a touch more than neutral.

No action that the Nazis attempted were cost effective. They thought they could produce food with resettled Germans in the Russian lands and that was a tremendous flop.

When the Nazis found out that the Swiss had secret defense plans with the French (oops), they contemplated invasion but didn't need to.

In any case, it was the utility of them being 'neutral' that was the decided factor against invasion. Same with the Swedes. It wasn't till 1943 that that they started to feel like invasion fears abided.