Louis Farrakhan Belches

[dales]

Farrakhan: Right To Bear Arms An Outdated Concept
January 28, 2013 10:37 AM


WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – In the third installment of his 52-week sermon series, Nation of Islam leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan, ridiculed the “volatile” American right to own weapons.

On Sunday, Farrakhan continued “The Time and What Must Be Done” sermon series by stating that Americans are increasingly angry at the government, and are simultaneously preparing themselves for war. Farrakhan went on to say that the Second Amendment has little relevance in modern society, stating that the constitutional right to bear arms is outdated.

“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America,” he said. “But now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well-armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.”

Farrakhan served as the minister of major mosques in Boston and Harlem, and was appointed by the longtime Nation of Islam leader, Elijah Muhammad, before his death in 1975, as the National Representative of the Nation of Islam.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the section of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Farrakhan said that one reason Americans are buying weapons is their anger at the government.

“Look at the American peoples’ thoughts about Congress. What is the percentage of the American people that feel that the U.S. Congress is doing a good job? Eleven percent,” said Farrakhan. “Then 89 percent of the American people are angry, disaffected, dissatisfied with their government — and you’re selling them weapons of war and the militias are multiplying.”

Farrakhan caused controversy in a sermon earlier this month when he labeled Americans as a “savage” and violent populace that was predicted in the Bible.

“This nation has been built on violence,” Farrakhan said in the Jan. 13 sermon. “Uncivilized, uncultivated, brutal, wild…and that’s why the prophet gave America one of those names as a beast — both of the book of Daniel and in the book of Revelations<sic>.”

[Guinevere]

I agree with the statement that with the best armed forces, police, and national guards in the world, the concept of a well-armed militia is outdated. I've said the same, here and other places.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My gun (rifle) is for hunting, nothing more nothing less. But if the time comes, it is a pretty good sniper rifle (in my hands anyway).

[Sue U]

But if the time comes, it is a pretty good sniper rifle (in my hands anyway).

What time is that, exactly? And what use would it be when a helicopter gunship can take you and your surrounding area out from a couple of miles away? In what apocalyptic fantasy are you ever going to be a sniper?

Farrakhan is actually right. The Second Amendment is outdated and a relic of a socio-political order that hasn't existed for a hundred years, since war was mechanized and aircraft weaponized. There is nothing sacrosanct about the right to own guns. We have to stop acting like the Second Amendment is some kind of divine dictate to be observed for all eternity.

[Guinevere]

I rather heard your voice in Farrakan's statement . . .

[Sue U]

Yeah, me and Brother Louis, two peas in a pod.

But I'm not above admitting when he's right.

[oldr_n_wsr]

What time is that, exactly? And what use would it be when a helicopter gunship can take you and your surrounding area out from a couple of miles away? In what apocalyptic fantasy are you ever going to be a sniper?

Don't know but I will go down fighting. I will not be a sheep. (not that I am saying anyone here will be a sheep, just that I will not).

And I am a good shot.

[liberty]

I agree with the statement that with the best armed forces, police, and national guards in the world, the concept of a well-armed militia is outdated. I've said the same, here and other places.

They had armies in the times of the founders, but they don’t want it. They saw correctly that a professional army was a danger to liberty. I can see why Farrakhan would not appreciate liberty; it limits his power, but why you.

[Scooter]

Explain how Farrakhan gains power by the state restricting gun ownership.

[Sue U]

Don't know but I will go down fighting. I will not be a sheep. (not that I am saying anyone here will be a sheep, just that I will not).

Exactly who is it that you are fighting and why? What is the benefit to your "go[ing] down fighting"?

They had armies in the times of the founders, but they don’t want it. They saw correctly that a professional army was a danger to liberty.

And now we have a professional Army (and Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard) and National Guard as well as municipal police, county sheriffs, state troopers, FBI, ATF, DEA, ICE and "Homeland Security." So what is it your pea-shooter is supposed to be for?

ETA:

There are good reasons to repeal the Second Amendment. No invasion is going to be repelled or government overthrown with anyone's personal firearms. There is no reason to have an unqualified "right" to bear arms in today's world. Gun sales and ownership should be highly regulated. Reduce the number and permissible types of guns overall, and you reduce the opportunities for them to be put to wrongful use. It really is that simple.

[Rick]

[Gob]

Amazing, Americans fund the biggest army in the world, yet the are scared of them and need their guns in case the army takes over..

[rubato]

Amazing, Americans Right-wing Paranoiac Nutcases like Timothy McVeigh fund the biggest army in the world, yet the are scared of them and need their guns in case the army takes over..

Americans, on the whole, do no such thing.

[Gob]

Amazing, Americans Right-wing Paranoiac Nutcases like Timothy McVeigh fund the biggest army in the world, yet the are scared of them and need their guns in case the army takes over..

Americans, on the whole, do no such thing.

LOL!! Either rubato sees O-n-W and other members here as Tim McViegh types, either that or he doesn't understand how the US army is funded.

That's a toss up....

[dales]

Good catch!

Life member, no less.

[Andrew D]

Farrakhan is actually right. The Second Amendment is outdated and a relic of a socio-political order that hasn't existed for a hundred years, since war was mechanized and aircraft weaponized. There is nothing sacrosanct about the right to own guns. We have to stop acting like the Second Amendment is some kind of divine dictate to be observed for all eternity.

But it is a constitutional mandate which should be adhered to until it is repealed. And getting two thirds of each House of Congress and three fourths of the State legislatures to agree to repeal it does not seem likely any time soon.

No invasion is going to be repelled ... with anyone's personal firearms.

That proposition is not self-evident. Tens of millions of armed Americans could well constitute a successful defensive force against a ground invasion.

[Lord Jim]

There are good reasons to repeal the Second Amendment.

Yeah, good luck with that...

It seems to me that now that the "there's no individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms" crowd have lost the debate in the Supreme Court, that it ought to actually be more easy to garner public support for some restrictions on the level of lethality available, since it is now impossible to credibly argue that any restrictions represent a step down the road to complete bans or confiscations...(Though of course there are still some demagogues trying to do exactly that.)

Even if they wanted too, absent the repeal of the Second Amendment, (which will not happen during the living memory of anyone currently alive on the planet) those who hold fringe views like Sue's regarding private gun ownership can't possibly get their way, so that fear should be lifted.

[rubato]

Thought he was dead. I guess, until this from dales, no one had cared enough about him to repeat something he said.

Having heard this, I still don't.

yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

But it is a constitutional mandate which should be adhered to until it is repealed. And getting two thirds of each House of Congress and three fourths of the State legislatures to agree to repeal it does not seem likely any time soon.

This is actually my point. We should be having a real and substantive national debate about repealing the Second Amendment. We need to de-mystify repeal and truly decide as a society whether we really want every idiot in the nation to have a "right" to any kind of gun he can procure. What are the reasons we should keep the Second Amendment? What are the countervailing reasons we should junk it? There may be legitimate arguments on both sides, but we will never know if the only response is "it can't be done." FFS, not that long ago sufficient public support was generated to prohibit alcohol, and then to repeal that prohibition. That affected a whole lot more of the population than the radical gun nuts we have today.

No invasion is going to be repelled ... with anyone's personal firearms.

That proposition is not self-evident. Tens of millions of armed Americans could well constitute a successful defensive force against a ground invasion.

Apart from the ridiculous remoteness of the possibility of a ground invasion, maybe if you happened to have them all concentrated in just a few places, and the invaders had no air support, tanks, artillery, ballistic missiles or tactical nukes you might make a go of it. For a little while. But really, come on. That is not any kind of threat the US might reasonably face.

[Sue U]

... those who hold fringe views like Sue's regarding private gun ownership

I don't think it's a "fringe view" at all. Ask around the board -- and ask your friends. Ask whether if there were no Second Amendment, would they still think that everyone who wants to should have a right to have guns, and why or why not.