seahawk Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 The Militia is meant to be used against the government, if the government acts against the constitution and that is why people need to be armed. Even as a non-American that is easy to understand. And I think it is a beautiful idea behind the 2nd amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT96 Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 From a decision in the 9th Circuit court case of "Silveira v. Lockyer" The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten One side of this debate can point to framer's documents and court rulings all the way up to the Supreme Court. The other side of this debate has vulgar jokes, innuendo, and hurt feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I don't care about your jokes. I don't care about your innuendo. I care about the Law of the Land. Either we are a nation of Laws and not men, or we are a nation of Men and not Laws. Do not tear down the law to get at the devil, for you will *not* get the devil, and you will have destroyed that which protects you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Yeah, only the Guvmint can say what´s a good or bad militia, and the militia can only be used as mandated by the reigning Guvmint. Keep it classy, Paul.State Government. The Governor is the commander of the Militia under law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 The Militia is meant to be used against the government, if the government acts against the constitution and that is why people need to be armed. Even as a non-American that is easy to understand. And I think it is a beautiful idea behind the 2nd amendment.You should go back in time and tell that to George Washington. He put Alexander Hamilton in charge of the Militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 From a decision in the 9th Circuit court case of "Silveira v. Lockyer" The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failedwhere the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten One side of this debate can point to framer's documents and court rulings all the way up to the Supreme Court. The other side of this debate has vulgar jokes, innuendo, and hurt feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I don't care about your jokes. I don't care about your innuendo. I care about the Law of the Land. Either we are a nation of Laws and not men, or we are a nation of Men and not Laws. Do not tear down the law to get at the devil, for you will *not* get the devil, and you will have destroyed that which protects you.Right. Three words for you. Black Lives Matter. Are they a "free people" free to use their 2nd Amendment rights against the tyranny of their government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) Right. Three words for you. Black Lives Matter. Are they a "free people" free to use their 2nd Amendment rights against the tyranny of their government? Yes, they are.As was MLK, republican and member of NRA. Edited October 29, 2017 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastdingo Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) The Militia is meant to be used against the government, if the government acts against the constitution and that is why people need to be armed. Even as a non-American that is easy to understand. And I think it is a beautiful idea behind the 2nd amendment. Bullshit. Militia Act of 1792Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm The militia and assault rifles as protection against the own government is a NRA whacko fantasy. @bojanSome context on blacks and when white dudes love gun controlhttp://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control Edited October 29, 2017 by lastdingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 That just lays out for what the government may use the militia, not that the militia´s role is just that and much less that the universal right to bear arms is depending on the existence of a state regulated militia. Having the right to own guns is what makes the USA the only free country in the world, because the state gives the means to defend themselves to the people against any attacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastdingo Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Nonsense. The U.S. is a plutocracy with cancerous intelligence services.Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries win freedom contests against the U.S. easily. The U.S. isn't anywhere near top position in freedom according to the archconservative Heritage foundation. That gun wanking is ridiculous. Private ownership of firearms is irrelevant for freedom. The NRA has spread lots of myths about that over the decades and people began to believe the propaganda, but it stays ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 That gun wanking is ridiculous. Private ownership of firearms is irrelevant for freedom...It is in the very fundamental way - does a state trusts armed citizens. All the difference between subject and citizen is in that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastdingo Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) How about this:Does the system of governance trust the people?For if it does, the people would make major decisions directly, in plebiscites. Like in Switzerland.They would not have a president who lost the popular vote. That sounds a helluva more meaningful than some fantasy about guns that got debunked right from the start.Remember the Whiskey rebellion? That's exhibit #1 for "guns mean shit for people's freedom in face of government power".With tanks, air force and all that the individual armament only lost relevance over time. You all know how marginal the lethality of man-portable firearms is on battlefields compared to mortars, arty, air power and tanks. Uprisings aren't about having guns or not. Uprisings are about achieving the critical mass of motivation against the government and dropping below a critical mass of motivation to support the government. It's about morale, not about guns. One problem of our time is that technology lowers the bar for sufficient support for a tyranny because high tech makes the few who work to oppress so much more 'productive'.You won't need one informant in every ten families once you crack smartphones to eavesdrop on people, and processing voice for signs of disloyalty. I'm not saying that any such thing exists in any country (so far), I just mean this to be an example what may really be important about prevention of tyranny. It's not guns - it's stopping cold and rolling back the enablers of oppression.You know, it used to be the mob, then it used to be the terrorists and pedophiles - and the same tools as well as new ones may one time be used against everyone.And all the gunlovers will cling to their meaningless guns and cheer the 'law and order' politicians who smack down on those largely irrelevant scapegoats. The gunlovers won't defend freedom. They will be useless when a tyranny is born. They will probably buy hats and cheer the new dear leader. Edited October 29, 2017 by lastdingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Demonstrably so, the Whiskey Rebellion didn't have critical mass. While the American Revolution DID. Don't ignore the elephant in the room LD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastdingo Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Rifles are still worth very little against night vision-equipped combined arms forces, and you know that.The rifle fetish is Bundy ranch-level nuttery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 So if it is unimportant for a military conflict, it still does not answer the question why it is wrong? And to be honest I think the US court of justice has made a clear judgement. I really do not get it why Europeans think they need to tell the US what to do when it comes to gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastdingo Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 A big reason why Europeans take interest in domestic U.S., affairs is that Americans by their huge number produce spillovers to other countries with bad ideologies, narratives, myths.The other anglophone countries are the most affected ones, followed by small and relatively young countries/democracies (such as Eastern Europe) that don't have long-grown domestic approaches to issues. It's a kind of preventive defence against bullshit. Most bullshit talking points get shot down easily by the time they spilled over the Atlantic because some people paid attention to the bullshit early on.Other bullshit still sticks, such as the rise of islamophobia instead of a justifiable rejection of salafism only. Same with the global war on terror craze, though that one ran out of steam in most European countries long ago (not quite in France). I understand that the gun control issue is very tricky - handguns cause the most deaths, while military-style weapons are often involved in spectacular mass shootings but otherwise almost no problem, movie/TV entertainment grossly misrepresented the crime relevance of sniping rifles and suppressors, some of the weakest firearms (.22) are causing much loss of life contrary to intuition. Consequences of gun ownership vary greatly between rural, suburban and urban areas. The dilemmas of one (federal) policy for all are real, but that doesn't justify all the bullshit propaganda, the myths and the lies about gun control. They don't justify ignoring foreign experiences and predicting consequences of gun control that were disproved elsewhere already. The dilemmas don't justify that a notional gun owners association misuses the membership fees to lie at and scare the own members and do lobbying in favour of gun producers and dealers contrary to the strong majority opinion of its members (such as on background checks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Demonstrably so, the Whiskey Rebellion didn't have critical mass. While the American Revolution DID. Don't ignore the elephant in the room LD.That was a remote colonial government.the last time we had "critical mass" was the Civil War. How'd that go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 So if it is unimportant for a military conflict, it still does not answer the question why it is wrong? And to be honest I think the US court of justice has made a clear judgement. I really do not get it why Europeans think they need to tell the US what to do when it comes to gun ownership.So how would this work exactly? So Antifa and BLM decide the Trump administration is a tyranical government, a group storms the WH and Capital Bldg by force of arms, kill some staffers and Capital police, take some congressmen hostage. Well they are protected by the Constitution, practicing their right to "bear arms" against a tyranical regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toysoldier Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Well, like its usual in the grownups world, they better win or its "dig a ditch time" for those suckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Steele Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) Nonsense. The U.S. is a plutocracy with cancerous intelligence services.Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries win freedom contests against the U.S. easily. The U.S. isn't anywhere near top position in freedom according to the archconservative Heritage foundation. That gun wanking is ridiculous. Private ownership of firearms is irrelevant for freedom. The NRA has spread lots of myths about that over the decades and people began to believe the propaganda, but it stays ridiculous. Why don't you just go away? You're annoying Brian...... Edited October 30, 2017 by Mike Steele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Well, like its usual in the grownups world, they better win or its "dig a ditch time" for those suckers. Winner writes history after all. There is story in history for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonable Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 In Maryland where I live we had a Republican congresswoman, Connie Morella. The Democrats eventually realized they couldn't defeat her so they gerrymandered her district so she couldn't win. My representative, Mike Miller (D), had his district slowly move away as black voters moved into the area, so his seat would stay secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonable Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 The purpose of owning a gun is to secure the right to vote. When its common for Antifa thugs or SEIU thugs to attack those who have differing opinions its time to consider whether you'll be allowed to vote in the future. When it's common for Bernie Sanders supporters to try to break up political rallies or shoot opposition lawmakers one should question whether they will be allowed to take part in political life. When we voted in the last election we had paper ballots with our choices visible to the election workers who put them in the ballot box. I didn't think that would ever happen in the United States. I always thought it was a secret ballot. Things have gotten worse here than I could ever imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnm Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 I really do not get it why Europeans think they need to tell the US what to do when it comes to gun ownership.I don't know about other Europeans, in my case it's unabashed envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 I really do not get it why Europeans think they need to tell the US what to do when it comes to gun ownership.I don't know about other Europeans, in my case it's unabashed envy. That´s a reason I can fully understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now