What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can you honestly say, "I would never, ever, ever, take up arms against the government, no matter what the government did?"

Muhammed

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
27,765
Reaction score
14,052
Points
1,415
Location
North Coast, USA
Yeah, you have to overlook 1/2 of the amendment for that to be true.
Wrong. What I said is 100% true. You're just too stupid to comprehend that fact. You're an idiot. Check your reading comprehension skills, fucking moron.
 

candycorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
87,927
Reaction score
25,236
Points
2,180
Wrong. What I said is 100% true. .

I agree. What you said was true.

Here is what you said (what you're now trying desperately to walk away from):

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.


The rampage killers (the mostly white males who shoot people for political reasons and the thugs who do it for money or drugs) are, by YOUR DEFINITION, members of the "well regulated militia". Or at least they were until they broke the law.

We probably should start asking questions before we sell them a zillion rounds of ammo....
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
8,250
Reaction score
7,788
Points
1,938
Location
Sunny Florida
Well skippy, here is a study I know you won't read because it has multi-syllable words.


So go back to grunting around an open firepit or whatever it is you do to amuse yourself. You're out of your depth here, boy.
With all due respect, Candy...you claim people are going on right wing "killing sprees" and then when you're challenged to back that up you bring up suicides? Since when is it a killing spree when someone decides to end their own life with a gun? That's quite the stretch.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,832
Reaction score
50,845
Points
2,330
Still crying about Trump losing? So much so you have to bring it to another thread?

If the Dems win in 2024, it will be because of people whining about how Trump "really won" instead of doing something so that he can win.
You people are nothing but filthy liars. Trump was never mentioned you pos.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,832
Reaction score
50,845
Points
2,330
I agree. What you said was true.

Here is what you said (what you're now trying desperately to walk away from):



The rampage killers (the mostly white males who shoot people for political reasons and the thugs who do it for money or drugs) are, by YOUR DEFINITION, members of the "well regulated militia". Or at least they were until they broke the law.

We probably should start asking questions before we sell them a zillion rounds of ammo....
Whore can't stop lying.
 

progressive hunter

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
39,495
Reaction score
22,027
Points
1,915
According to the gun nuts, everyone is in a militia which is why everyone can buy as many guns as they (or their sponsors) can afford.





So were your fellow rednecks lying?
I've never heard that,, what I've heard is exactly the opposite,, got a source I can see
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,832
Reaction score
50,845
Points
2,330
According to the gun nuts, everyone is in a militia which is why everyone can buy as many guns as they (or their sponsors) can afford.





So were your fellow rednecks lying?
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Those who say they need guns to keep government ‘under control’ are exhibiting their ignorance and stupidity.

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of Constitutional merit.

What manifests as government ‘out of control.’

What are the criteria of ‘tyranny.’

What is the process to garner consensus that armed insurrection is ‘warranted.’

Absent consensus of all the people, an armed insurrection is nothing but lawless treason and rebellion.

That some might subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t make it so.
But you love rebellion - I saw it in the streets all across America in 2020. I see it in South America, in Cuba in 1959, in Russia in 1917. You loved all of those rebellions. Now suddenly you're a patriot?


Rebellion is for losers, revolution is for winners. It all depends on who gets to write the history.

But I'm with you; I'm 1000 per cent against rebellion against the constitutional government of the United States. There are no provisions in our Constitution on how to replace a president by rebellion or coup. Should either ever occur then the Constitution is void and there's no recovery possible. It would take a new vote, a new Congress, a new constitution even if the new constitution was a verbatim copy of the old. So I will fight against that with everything I have.

On the other hand, if you're a tyrant; if you're a person working outside of the limits and authorities of the Constitution, just remember that there are limits to the abuse most people will take. Just like if a guy much bigger than me shoved me once in a parking lot, I'd probably not do anything. If he shoved me twice, I'd probably not do anything. But there would be a limit. Eventually I'd take a club or a rock or some other way of equalizing my chances or making sure I had overwhelming chance of success and I'd fight back. Wouldn't you?
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Well skippy, here is a study I know you won't read because it has multi-syllable words.


So go back to grunting around an open firepit or whatever it is you do to amuse yourself. You're out of your depth here, boy.

Their decision to commit suicide isn't predicated on their ownership of a gun. And gun suicide is far more humane than poison, drugs, jumping off of buildings, driving your car across the lane into an oncoming semi-truck or suicide by cop.

We've been though this, as a community; many have posted it, that Japan has virtually no guns in the hands of civilians yet has a much higher suicide rate than the US. Gun ownership does not impact the number of suicides in any way.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
I had a combat tour in '05 as a 45B stuck in an 11B Company in the HQ Platoon. So I had the chance to go on patrols and I wanted to man the 240B in the turret. I could probably still lay in a hole covered with camo net behind a scope and make mist at 600m, but I damn sure ain't running no where.

That said I am not even slightly concerned with "taking up arms against the gov't". The concept is ludicrous. In even the most extreme circumstance, the empire will not be able to control the military in an endeavor to disarm or oppress the people, otherwise they would have mowed down the antifa turds that attempted to destroy cities with live lethal rounds as opposed to rubber rounds and tear gas.

So as far as the elites getting enough people to go "door to door" collecting weapons at this point, they would have to deploy UN troops and we would gladly accept their donations to our gun collections.
UN Troops? That would be like foreign soldiers on our land, right? Like a foreign invasion? That's exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment, why we have guns, why we have a militia. It's like right there in the Constitution and the left loves to quote it: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

Foreign invaders or the UN (I guess that is redundant; the UN would be foreign invaders) weren't the question in the OP and that may elicit a completely different response from many people than would any action of our own government or just about any tyranny by those who happen to also work for our own government.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Pres. Jefferson took up arms against their g'ment @ the time. Then he finally ended up penning the bulk of the American constituencies U.S. Constitution. The framers of our U.S. Constitution did not possess much faith in g'ment & gave the constituency MANY warnings about the evil associated with g'ment in general. Until the human condition(human nature) can be perfected g'ment will ALWAYS be the bearer of bad news for all.
g'ment? Really? Are you that fucking lazy that you can't type the whole word?

It was one thing when people were doing texts on 12-key phone keypads but you have a whole keyboard now.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,832
Reaction score
50,845
Points
2,330
Yeah, you have to overlook 1/2 of the amendment for that to be true.

Some of our "well regulated militia" members are homicidal maniacs. We don't check to see if they are before letting them buy thousands of rounds of ammo and enough guns to equip a battalion for some reason.
Lying whore never stops.
 
OP
Seymour Flops

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
3,119
Reaction score
2,301
Points
1,918
Location
Texas
According to the gun nuts, everyone is in a militia which is why everyone can buy as many guns as they (or their sponsors) can afford.
Of course!

The US started as a frontier nation and continued so for more than a hundred years. On the frontier first came hunters, prospectors, and trappers, then merchants to serrve them, then farmers and ranchers. Only when those folks prospered did government move in to siphon off some of their profits.

In the meantime, they formed militias to fight off bandits and primitives. No minimum number required. A hunter was his own militia.

Today government is as ineffective at protecting us from criminals as the governments who were remote from the frontier settlers. We must protect ourselves as the founders envisioned.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Of course!

The US started as a frontier nation and continued so for more than a hundred years. On the frontier first came hunters, prospectors, and trappers, then merchants to serrve them, then farmers and ranchers. Only when those folks prospered did government move in to siphon off some of their profits.

In the meantime, they formed militias to fight off bandits and primitives. No minimum number required. A hunter was his own militia.

Today government is as ineffective at protecting us from criminals as the governments who were remote from the frontier settlers. We must protect ourselves as the founders envisioned.

There's a larger problem than the standing army and that is the police state. In the 18th century, there were no police forces like we have today. That's why one of the constitutional functions of the militia is to execute the laws of the union.

Now, the police would take a serious objection to the militia defending their neighborhoods; they'd call it vigilantism. What vigilantism is, is the taking back of power rightfully belonging to the people from those who do not want to give it up.

There's no reason why any community needs more than a small police force to manage the jails and deliver prisoners to and from courts and to and from prisons. Beyond that, if the people were properly armed and understood their own duties to their communities, we could actually have far fewer police.

But I am not an anti-police person or calling for replacement of the police with social workers. What I call for is arming of the people, the militias, and let a system of watchmen and constables, similar to the 18th century model, perhaps modernized closer to the modern neighborhood watch, but with arms, as the initial watch for crimes.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Yeah, you have to overlook 1/2 of the amendment for that to be true.

Some of our "well regulated militia" members are homicidal maniacs. We don't check to see if they are before letting them buy thousands of rounds of ammo and enough guns to equip a battalion for some reason.
It the amendment was intended the way you propose, it would have said, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As it is, the word membership is neither present or implied. You know this. You're just making noise for the hell of it.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Did your mental health provider give you that link as part of your therapy?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top