REMINDER: Fascists and Disarmers Misread 2nd Amendment

[Contumacious]

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

Posted by David Kramer on December 20, 2012 11:25 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny with obviously any guns they already have for personal protection. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to fight Federal government tyranny today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on. (Let's hear it for voluntaryism.)

UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."


.

 

[Contumacious]

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.


Joseph Story

Supreme Court Justice

 

[BlindBoo]

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

Posted by David Kramer on December 20, 2012 11:25 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny with obviously any guns they already have for personal protection. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to fight Federal government tyranny today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on. (Let's hear it for voluntaryism.)

UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."


.

Like taxing the shit out of the Whiskey Producers of western Pennsylvania? How did that work out? Didn't the President call out the militia to put down their insurection?

The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | The Whiskey Rebellion

 

[Contumacious]

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

Posted by David Kramer on December 20, 2012 11:25 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny with obviously any guns they already have for personal protection. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to fight Federal government tyranny today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on. (Let's hear it for voluntaryism.)

UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."


.

Like taxing the shit out of the Whiskey Producers of western Pennsylvania? How did that work out? Didn't the President call out the militia to put down their insurection?

The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | The Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion
"​

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax."

.

 

[Mustang]

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

Posted by David Kramer on December 20, 2012 11:25 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny with obviously any guns they already have for personal protection. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to fight Federal government tyranny today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on. (Let's hear it for voluntaryism.)

UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."


.

Another RW wet dream?

You see the highlighted part above? That's Bullshit!

The 2nd Amendment as written and ratified was intended to keep America free FROM aggression by outside forces, not from the gov't itself.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
​

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
​

 

[BlindBoo]

The Second Amendment Was Never About Personal Protection

Posted by David Kramer on December 20, 2012 11:25 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny with obviously any guns they already have for personal protection. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to fight Federal government tyranny today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on. (Let's hear it for voluntaryism.)

UPDATE: My libertarian friend David Sack sent me this:

"Someone at the office asked me, yesterday, what type of “arms” I thought the Second Amendment protects. The answer to that is those arms of the same caliber and quantity as the armed federal officers who come to your door have."


.

Like taxing the shit out of the Whiskey Producers of western Pennsylvania? How did that work out? Didn't the President call out the militia to put down their insurection?

The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | The Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion
"​

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax."

.

The outcome of their protest was not the issue. It was the purpose and use of the various State Militias. Which in this case was a show of force against the rebels of that state. The militias were not used to defend the rebels against the Fed was it?

 

[Contumacious]

[The 2nd Amendment as written and ratified was intended to keep America free FROM aggression by outside forces, not from the gov't itself.
]

Really?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the factsthey misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson
Founding Father
Third President

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Like taxing the shit out of the Whiskey Producers of western Pennsylvania? How did that work out? Didn't the President call out the militia to put down their insurection?

The American Experience | The Duel | People & Events | The Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion
"​

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax."

.

The outcome of their protest was not the issue. It was the purpose and use of the various State Militias. Which in this case was a show of force against the rebels of that state. The militias were not used to defend the rebels against the Fed was it?

Wrong again.

They were federal troops

In the summer and fall of 1794, President George Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens. Authorized neither by warrants nor by any resolution of Congress, federal troops rousted from beds, rounded up, and detained on no charge hundreds of people against whom the executive branch knew it had no evidence


.