OCA
VIP Member
Old lady was a kook, guess we should disarm the public because we can't be sure of everyone's mental stability
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
And just how long have you been a fugitive from justice?
Trust in the government is trust misplaced.
The government has already gone far beyond its constitutional bounds.
Additionally, I don't like your tone. I am a law-abiding, taxpaying, patriotic citizen,
I'd be the talk of the Town.......
:teeth:
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.
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?
Who says I trust the government?
How? What specifically has the government done that unconstitutional? And why dont 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?
Then why are you preaching armed rebellion?
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.
Hobbit: The whole thing was started by private citizens and militias using privately owned firearms.
Wrong. Here's a quote for you:
Your response completely changed the context of his original statement, so you DID in fact, twist what he stated.
The Revolutionary War was fought by militias with privately owned firearms, which is why it was put in there.
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 wont 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 this grandma exercise her 2nd Amendment right?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-22-elderly-shootout_x.htm
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.
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.
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.
Would that include the right-wing nut case who wrote the following?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
The right-wingers and libertarians use this interpretation to say the states have a right to defy federal authority.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?