2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by flaja
What about all of the guns that France gave the U.S. government for use by U.S. troops?

That wasn't until after the war was already underway.

Which means you are still wrong. The Revolution was not fought solely by colonial militiamen who used privately owned weapons. In fact very little of the American forces that fought the British were militia.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord took place in April 1775. The American troops involved were Massachusetts colonial militia. Once the British were confined to Boston troops from other colonies arrived to keep them under siege. (I point out here that not all militia armaments were privately owned- the British marched on Concord hoping to capture arms that were stored there as community property; they were not held in private homes). On June 7, 1775 the Continental Congress passed a resolution that established a Continental Army, a unified inter-colonial military force under a single overall command. On June 14 the Congress made the troops besieging Boston an official part of the Continental Army and these troops ceased to be militia.

If you are a civilian and not a criminal, what possible use could automatic and military assault weapons serve?

Self-defense from criminals who already have them and the ability to rebel against an unjust government if necessary.

Which goes back to my point: What good will weapons do against a tyrannical government if the government, by law, is better armed? What good will any kind of assault rifle do against tanks and RPGs and AA guns? The government in this country has always been better and more heavily armed than the entire civilian population combined. So how could any of the Founding Fathers have fathomed a right to bear arms as a right to fight off the government since the government has always had the armaments to win any conflict against rebels?

And just how long have you been a fugitive from justice?

Trust in the government is trust misplaced.

Who says I trust the government?

The government has already gone far beyond its constitutional bounds.

How? What specifically has the government done that unconstitutional? And why don’t you equate being unconstitutional with being tyrannical, i.e., why are you not engaged in armed rebellion against the government if you think the government is being tyrannical?

Additionally, I don't like your tone. I am a law-abiding, taxpaying, patriotic citizen,

Then why are you preaching armed rebellion?
 
Which means you are still wrong. The Revolution was not fought solely by colonial militiamen who used privately owned weapons. In fact very little of the American forces that fought the British were militia.

Show where I ever used the word 'solely.' You're twisting my words to make a point.

Which goes back to my point: What good will weapons do against a tyrannical government if the government, by law, is better armed? What good will any kind of assault rifle do against tanks and RPGs and AA guns? The government in this country has always been better and more heavily armed than the entire civilian population combined. So how could any of the Founding Fathers have fathomed a right to bear arms as a right to fight off the government since the government has always had the armaments to win any conflict against rebels?

Tell that to the Viet Cong, who were quite effective against our massive assault of aircraft, tanks, and RPGs using little larger than the AK-47

Who says I trust the government?

You are questioning the purpose of the second ammendment. The only type of person that questions the purpose of privately owned weapons is the kind of person who thinks the government will intervene in any situation where weapons are necessary.

How? What specifically has the government done that unconstitutional? And why don’t you equate being unconstitutional with being tyrannical, i.e., why are you not engaged in armed rebellion against the government if you think the government is being tyrannical?

I don't think the government is being tyrannical, but I think many policies are attempting to steer it in that direction. Right now, it's still well within the power of the citizens, if they're willing to vote that way, to return this country to its Constitutional roots, rather than let the nanny-state mentality turn us into an oligargical Big Brother government. As for unconstitutionality, here's a few examples:

Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and all other entitlements are powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Their existance is unconstitutional.

Income tax is a sham that was thrust on the American people and continues to be used as a method of class warfare. Before this disinformation campaign resulted in an ammendment, income tax had been ruled unconstitutional.

The federal government does not have the power to regulate education, nor does it have the power to set standards for anything other than its own hiring practices.

These are just three examples. There are more.

Then why are you preaching armed rebellion?

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or do you have a binary brain? You seem to think that either a) I am preaching that an armed rebellion must begin against the federal government at this very moment or b) I must be against the sale of military grade weapons to civilians, but, now follow me here, I...am...neither. It has not become nor do I hope it ever does become necessary for the citizens to overthrow the government. However, as a last resort to prevent this country from sliding into tyranny, the constitutional right of a citizen to arm himself must be upheld, and without these nonsensical rules regarding what kind of weapon is considered too dangerous to trust a citizen with.

Now, I can see placing limiations on things like explosives, which could damage an entire neighborhood after just one mishandling, but the ban on anything and everything fully automatic only serves to ensure that the crooks are better equipped than the people they steal from.

Edit: On a further note, you seem to have been misinformed as to what a patriot is. A patriot loves his country, not necessarily his government. If the good of the country and the good of the government find themselves opposing each other, then a patriot will oppose the government.
 
Show where I ever used the word 'solely.' You're twisting my words to make a point.

Did you not say, "The Revolutionary War was fought by militias with privately owned firearms,"?

Where did you mention the fact that arms for the militia were not all privately owned, as they were at Concord?

Where did you mention that some of the arms we used to fight the British came from France?

Where did you mention the Continental Army, the body that did most of the fighting on our behalf?

I did not twist anything. I took your statement at face value.

BTW: In the future, if you have a beef with something I have said have the courage to confront me here in public instead of using a PM or reputation comment.
 
Did you not say, "The Revolutionary War was fought by militias with privately owned firearms,"?

Where did you mention the fact that arms for the militia were not all privately owned, as they were at Concord?

Where did you mention that some of the arms we used to fight the British came from France?

Where did you mention the Continental Army, the body that did most of the fighting on our behalf?

I did not twist anything. I took your statement at face value.

BTW: In the future, if you have a beef with something I have said have the courage to confront me here in public instead of using a PM or reputation comment.

Where did I say it was only fought with privately owned firearms? Where did I say we never got any help from the French? Where did I say that there wasn't a Continental Army, which, by the way, started as a collection of militias using, you guessed it, privately owned firearms. I said no such thing. You just decided that I said those things in absence of anything to the contrary.

If I hear somebody say, "The Vietnam War was fought with AK-47s provided by China," then I'll tend to agree with it, not go on an endless tirade about how the North Vietnamese government purchased a lot of them or how it wasn't the only gun used in the war. You just decided to nitpick to try to make my point look weaker.

Oh, and by the way, if you have a beef with somebody that goes beyond the debate, it's what PMs and rep comments are for, and the disclosure of their content is against the forum rules. Maybe you should just take it in stride and suck it up instead of whining to the entire board about how the mean old halfling is being mean to you.
 
My mother’s father and both of her brothers were avid gun collectors. When my older uncle died he left a gun collection that was likely worth $100,000. When my younger uncle died he left me his gun collection worth about $10,000 (something like 50 long guns and an assortment of handguns). When I was born my grandfather gave me an 8mm Mauser, and over his lifetime he probably traded at least a half million dollars worth of guns. Neither my grandfather, nor either of the two uncles, ever owned assault weapons.

I have owned at least 1 gun my entire life, although I do not need to hunt for food and find hunting for sport deplorable and I could not shoot as a hobby because of arthritis.

I have no qualms about owning guns, but I accept that gun ownership must be regulated as the 2nd Amendment allows. Advocating guns as a defense against government tyranny is stupid- we cannot get more than half of our population to register to vote and seldom do more than half of the registered voters go to the polls. Thinking the country would bother to take up arms against the government is an exercise in futility because it won’t ever happen. Furthermore, any armed rebellion against the government is bound to fail because the government, by law, is better armed. So anyone who wishes to own military-style weaponry is delusional if they think they can fight off a government tyranny. People this crazy have no business owning guns because they lack the reasoning skills necessary to properly use them.
 
Did you not say, "The Revolutionary War was fought by militias with privately owned firearms,"?

Where did you mention the fact that arms for the militia were not all privately owned, as they were at Concord?

Where did you mention that some of the arms we used to fight the British came from France?

Where did you mention the Continental Army, the body that did most of the fighting on our behalf?

I did not twist anything. I took your statement at face value.

BTW: In the future, if you have a beef with something I have said have the courage to confront me here in public instead of using a PM or reputation comment.

Wrong. Here's a quote for you:

Hobbit: The whole thing was started by private citizens and militias using privately owned firearms.

Your response completely changed the context of his original statement, so you DID in fact, twist what he stated.
 
I have no qualms about owning guns, but I accept that gun ownership must be regulated as the 2nd Amendment allows.

The phrase "well regulated" does not mean that the government is free to pass all sorts of bans and restrictions, as much as you might hope. The language is archaic, being written over 200 years ago. If it were written in modern language, it would be more like this:

"An orderly, well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be prohibited."

Well regulated simply means orderly, well-trained, etc. A swiss watch could be said to be well regulated. And it's difficult to be well-regulated when you don't have any firearms to practice with. Also, note the phrase "the people"; the right to bear arms being discussed is not limited to the state guard or whatever.

Advocating guns as a defense against government tyranny is stupid- we cannot get more than half of our population to register to vote and seldom do more than half of the registered voters go to the polls. Thinking the country would bother to take up arms against the government is an exercise in futility because it won’t ever happen. Furthermore, any armed rebellion against the government is bound to fail because the government, by law, is better armed. So anyone who wishes to own military-style weaponry is delusional if they think they can fight off a government tyranny. People this crazy have no business owning guns because they lack the reasoning skills necessary to properly use them.

Congratulations on ignoring pretty much every instance of guerilla warfare ever. Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan?

:lalala:
 

You're damn right she did, although she was mistaken. Obviously the poor old woman thought she was under attack with people suddenly pounding at her door and shouting and demanding things. It must have been quite a shock and very scary for her at her age and it is no wonder that she felt threatened and tried to defend herself. It wasn't her fault that the stupid police made the initial mistake of getting the wrong house.


One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

Granny was a damn good shot too. :thup:

If a 92 yo little ole lady can do this much damage to the police force, think about how much damage younger, trained armed citizens could do with the weapons they have the right to carry under the 2nd Amendment...no wonder the "socialist progressives" want to get rid of it...

you guys (flaja, bush lover) got a problem with our Constitution? :wtf:
 
You're damn right she did, although she was mistaken. Obviously the poor old woman thought she was under attack with people suddenly pounding at her door and shouting and demanding things. It must have been quite a shock and very scary for her at her age and it is no wonder that she felt threatened and tried to defend herself. It wasn't her fault that the stupid police made the initial mistake of getting the wrong house.

Did the woman know who was busting her door down? Was she armed so she could repel criminals, or did she know she was shooting at police? I didn’t read the story, but yesterday I saw a headline saying the police had previously observed drug deals taking place at the woman’s home so they did not bust down the door at the wrong address.

I don’t have any qualms about enforcing stringent drug laws (my mother once lost her business after she shot and killed a crack addict who came after her with a butcher knife). However, I am troubled by no-knock raids because innocent children could be hurt; if the woman’s house had been used for drug deals, I doubt that she didn’t know what was going on and was therefore guilty of aiding and abetting criminals.

If a 92 yo little ole lady can do this much damage to the police force, think about how much damage younger, trained armed citizens could do with the weapons they have the right to carry under the 2nd Amendment...no wonder the "socialist progressives" want to get rid of it...

Only until the police bring in choppers or tanks or simply drop an incendiary bomb on the entire block as happened in Philadelphia.
 
The police observed drug dealing and had the correct address. I'm not sure that it's been established whether or not the dealer was related to grandma or living there or what. I'll hazard a guess, and say that it was a grandson, that is fairly common amongst inner-city blacks. Even so, it's probably pretty easy to keep drugs concealed from a 92 year old lady. Keep them hidden where she can't reach and tell her that visitors are friends.

Either way, the root problem is the war on drugs, and it's associated no-knock raids.

Only until the police bring in choppers or tanks or simply drop an incendiary bomb on the entire block as happened in Philadelphia.

Whoa, when did this happen? Philadelphia?

Anyway, I don't think you understand guerilla warfare. You don't conquer a modern army with firearms; you make it die a death of a thousand cuts. If enough people participate, it works (ie, voting from the rooftops). The cost of choppers, tanks, and bombs vastly exceeds the cost of a gun.
 
I never heard that the right to bear arms is a right to fight off the federal government until the right-wing and libertarian nut cases got so worked up
Would that include the right-wing nut case who wrote the following?

...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,...
...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.


He wrote that before Clinton assumed office. Do you suppose he thought that people who wanted to abolish a government that was out of control and abusing their rights, could just walk up to the Capitol building and ask the officials to go home? And the officials in question would meekly nod their heads and leave without any argument?


The right-wingers and libertarians use this interpretation to say the states have a right to defy federal authority.

Sorry, no. The right-wingers use it to say the states have a right to defy Federal intrusion on state authority. That is, when the Fed starts taking powers it has no authority under the Constitution, to take. Examples include running schools, providing health insurance, providing retirement programs, and many others. Those powers are "reserved to the States, or the people", unless the Constitution specifically forbids them to those groups also (as, say, slavery is forbidden, and making laws against gun ownership is similarly forbidden).

And the right-wingers are correct in their interpretation.
 
Would that include the right-wing nut case who wrote the following?

...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,...
...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.


He wrote that before Clinton assumed office. Do you suppose he thought that people who wanted to abolish a government that was out of control and abusing their rights, could just walk up to the Capitol building and ask the officials to go home? And the officials in question would meekly nod their heads and leave without any argument?




Sorry, no. The right-wingers use it to say the states have a right to defy Federal intrusion on state authority. That is, when the Fed starts taking powers it has no authority under the Constitution, to take. Examples include running schools, providing health insurance, providing retirement programs, and many others. Those powers are "reserved to the States, or the people", unless the Constitution specifically forbids them to those groups also (as, say, slavery is forbidden, and making laws against gun ownership is similarly forbidden).

And the right-wingers are correct in their interpretation.

Actually, the right wingers are not correct. The Courts have pretty well and for good upheld all of the Federal acts you've mentioned. As for gun ownership, Miller seems to imply that reasonable restrictions are appropriate so long as the essential underlying right isn't infringed upon. That's similar to the reasonable time, place and manner restrictions placed upon certain types of speech under the First Amendment.
 
Actually, the right wingers are not correct. The Courts have pretty well and for good upheld all of the Federal acts you've mentioned. As for gun ownership, Miller seems to imply that reasonable restrictions are appropriate so long as the essential underlying right isn't infringed upon. That's similar to the reasonable time, place and manner restrictions placed upon certain types of speech under the First Amendment.

If and when there is an armed insurrection no one is going to give a shit about whats legal OR reasonable. Law will mean nothing.
 
Originally Posted by flaja
I never heard that the right to bear arms is a right to fight off the federal government until the right-wing and libertarian nut cases got so worked up
Would that include the right-wing nut case who wrote the following?

...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,...
...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.


Your proof that Jefferson, et al were calling for the armed overthrow of the government is what? And just what does a “well regulated militia” mean if we have an absolute right to own guns?

Furthermore, consider the actions of John Adams, who was one of the co-authors of the document you allude to. Adams agreed to serve as the defense attorney for the British troops that were involved in the Boston Massacre. The Americans involved in the Massacre had thrown rocks and snowballs at the British troops. The Americans were theoretically using armed force to fight off a tyrannical government. John Adams agreed to defend the British because he realized that the un-regulated use of armed force would simply replace a tyrannical government with mob rule. This is exactly what Adams did not want the American cause to degenerate into. So if Adams did not support the use of unregulated armed force in the name of fighting tyranny in 1770, what makes you think he supported unregulated armed force in 1776 or any time thereafter?

The right-wingers and libertarians use this interpretation to say the states have a right to defy federal authority.

Sorry, no. The right-wingers use it to say the states have a right to defy Federal intrusion on state authority.

Show me examples of right-wingers and libertarians who have made this distinction as opposed to a blanket claim that the states can nullify federal law and evade federal jurisdiction by seceding from the Union.
 
Actually, the right wingers are not correct. The Courts have pretty well and for good upheld all of the Federal acts you've mentioned. As for gun ownership, Miller seems to imply that reasonable restrictions are appropriate so long as the essential underlying right isn't infringed upon. That's similar to the reasonable time, place and manner restrictions placed upon certain types of speech under the First Amendment.

True. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater any more than you cell "fire" at City Hall, the state house, the governor’s mansion, a federal courtroom, the halls of Congress or the White House.

If people had a right to use armed force to protest the government, then the 1st Amendment would not qualify the right to assemble by declaring it is a right peaceably to assemble. If guns were meant to be allowed anywhere and everywhere and meant be used by anyone and everyone, the right to assemble would not be a qualified right. If you can assemble in mass, but cannot do so with guns, what hope can you have of overthrowing the government by force?
 
If and when there is an armed insurrection no one is going to give a shit about whats legal OR reasonable. Law will mean nothing.

So you admit that using armed force to attack the government would be an illegal act and people who advocate the use of armed force against the government have no regard for the rule of law?
 
So you admit that using armed force to attack the government would be an illegal act and people who advocate the use of armed force against the government have no regard for the rule of law?

Of course attacking the government with firearms is an illegal act. It was illegal when the Founding Fathers did it, but that didn't make it wrong. However, people who commit or advocate committing violence against the government don't necessarily disrespect the law. As was the case when this nation was founded, that person may have so much respect for the law that it boils their blood to see the law abused by a corrupt government.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top