Biden continues to display his feeble grasp of the Constitution

[Bradskii]

I know our good friend Wolsley won't see this, but I'd listed these before he put me in the naughty corner so I'll post it anyway. Some comments by him:

The second ammendment is there so that people like him can keep the president in place.
The governenment knows who he is and where he lives.
Old Wild West gun laws would certainly slow down rioting.
Arming everyone might be a great idea. Let's try it!
The time might be coming when The People will have to stop a dictatorship by armed insurrection.
When he says 'me' he means the Americal People.
When he says 'you' he means the federal government.
The federal government is curtently a junta - a government which has taken control by force.
We can make ammendemnts to the constitution, except the second.
Unless the people want the second changed (which apparently they do).
The FBI needs to accept that in shooting scenes everyone will be armed.
He implies that combat situations leads him to know that people with a handgun can take out someone with a semi-automatic rifle just as easily as viva versa.
He keeps posting pictures of Viet Cong and has a signature in Vietnamese yet has never been there.
He refers to the public as 'civilians'.
He implies that time spent in 'unconventional warfare classes' would benefit an uprising against the government.

From someone not from the US, this comes across as a parody.

 

[Bradskii]

Red flag laws mean that anybody can make an anonymous claim against anyone that they are a threat and the state will seize their weapons until that individual can somehow prove to a court that they are not a threat. This is some Orwellian "thought police" stuff right there. There has already been cases in which spiteful girlfriends made false accusations and had others guns seized.

I think that you're being a little loose with the details.

"While the process varies by state, generally law enforcement or family members may file a petition asking a court to temporarily prohibit an individual’s access to firearms when there is evidence that the person poses a risk of harm to themself or others. In many instances, law enforcement will commence the process at the request of concerned family members in states where they are not able to petition directly. Once the petition has been filed, a judge will review the evidence, considering risk factors such as patterns or recent threats of violence, history of dangerous behavior with guns, substance abuse, or recent acquisition of firearms. Importantly, a diagnosis for a mental illness alone is not sufficient to warrant issuing an ERPO.

At the first hearing, the judge may issue a temporary order and set a date for a final hearing. During the final hearing, the individual is given an opportunity to be heard before the court and may present evidence challenging the petition. Based on this hearing and after consideration of all the evidence, the judge will either issue a final ERPO, typically set to expire after one year, or deny the petition.

Extreme risk laws include vigorous due process protections, which include notifying the respondent when an ERPO petition has been filed; providing an opportunity for the respondent to be heard and present evidence; and requiring a judicial finding of risk prior to the issuance of an ERPO. "
Frequently Asked Questions About Extreme Risk Protection Orders - Center for American Progress

Sounds positively Draconian! Are you seriously suggesting that this is a bad thing? Which, incidentally, has nothing at all to do with the second.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

If it had been a white cop and a BLM riot, what would the verdict have been?

Easy. She should have "obeyed police orders", because after all, "she could have had a gun, how was the cop to know"

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

If there was an uprising against the federal government, I would expect gorilla warfare.

What gorilla warfare might look like...

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Yes, I remember when a lot of people had the same idea about these guys, much to their later disillusionment and regret.

View attachment 298450

The difference being that the NVA and Viet Cong were backed by the North Vietnamese government, and supplied by both the USSR and China, to the tune of around $10 billion per year in today's figures.

A bunch of second amendment supporters hiding out in the bush with some pickups and tinned food won't last 4 weeks.

 

[Bradskii]

The difference being that the NVA and Viet Cong were backed by the North Vietnamese government, and supplied by both the USSR and China, to the tune of around $10 billion per year in today's figures.

A bunch of second amendment supporters hiding out in the bush with some pickups and tinned food won't last 4 weeks.

And compared to the Vietnamese (only doing this because our good friend Wolsley kept mentioning them as an example of simian warfare):
“You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.” Ho Chi Minh.

You can have my gun when you prise it from my cold dead ha..bang.
Next!
I would rather die on my feet that live in...bang
Next!
Guns don't kill peo...bang
Next!

If some kevlar-wearing, masked, tin-pot, quasi-military American moron with more ammo than working neurons decides to take up arms against a legitimately elected democratic government, then some other Americans (who have taken an oath to protect said government) are going to shoot them. I don't support or condone violence. But there's something incredibly satisfying about the democratic process being protected with extreme prejudice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It continues to baffle me that people still confuse being armed as part of the sanctioned state militia for defense against external (and internal) enemies with preparedness for armed rebellion.

Yeah.

 

[rjs330]

I actually think Biden does understand the constitution. In fact I think most leftists understand it quite well. They just don't care.

It only matters to them when they want it to. Otherwise it's only a piece of ancient paper and they don't care. That's why they are always doing unconstitutional things in hopes the courts will eventually agree with them. That's why they want to pack the court. If they can get a liberal court then they can just get by all the stuff they want and to heck with the constitution.

 

[Strathos]

If these people truly believed that they needed to be prepared for an armed rebellion against the US government, why aren't they demanding to be able to own tanks, fighter jets, and cruise missiles? Because a few automatic weapons won't do you much good against that kind of firepower.

 

[Nithavela]

That was a different time. Weapons available to the colonists weren’t too different from what British troops had. Today your local PD likely has an armored vehicle or two and the training and equipment to handle a small group of militia knuckleheads.

Even back then, militia was little more than cannon fodder that ran away after suffering a few casualities and were helpless on campaign. Washington himself found them useless, and probably only took them because it would have been more trouble to keep them away.

Founders Online: From George Washington to John Hancock, 25 September 1776

To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life—unaccustomed to the din of Arms—totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of Confidence in themselves when opposed to Troops regularly traind—disciplined, and appointed—superior in knowledge, & superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own Shadows. Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living (particularly in the lodging) brings on sickness in many; impatience in all; & such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes that it not only produces shameful, & scandalous Desertions among themselves, but infuses the like spirit in others—Again, Men accustomed to unbounded freedom, and no controul, cannot brooke the Restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good Order and Government of an Army; without which Licentiousness, & every kind of disorder triumphantly reign.

Also, their hunting rifles often lacked a bayonett holder, so they got slaughtered in close combat. So even back then, the difference of civilian and military technology was vast.

 

[Nithavela]

Who said they were going to fight the military head on? Ever hear of an insurgency? Worked very well for the Taliban against "the world's greatest mimitary." If there was an uprising against the federal government, I would expect gorilla warfare.

*Guerilla warfare

 

[Nithavela]

I know our good friend Wolsley won't see this, but I'd listed these before he put me in the naughty corner so I'll post it anyway. Some comments by him:

The second ammendment is there so that people like him can keep the president in place.
The governenment knows who he is and where he lives.
Old Wild West gun laws would certainly slow down rioting.
Arming everyone might be a great idea. Let's try it!
The time might be coming when The People will have to stop a dictatorship by armed insurrection.
When he says 'me' he means the Americal People.
When he says 'you' he means the federal government.
The federal government is curtently a junta - a government which has taken control by force.
We can make ammendemnts to the constitution, except the second.
Unless the people want the second changed (which apparently they do).
The FBI needs to accept that in shooting scenes everyone will be armed.
He implies that combat situations leads him to know that people with a handgun can take out someone with a semi-automatic rifle just as easily as viva versa.
He keeps posting pictures of Viet Cong and has a signature in Vietnamese yet has never been there.
He refers to the public as 'civilians'.
He implies that time spent in 'unconventional warfare classes' would benefit an uprising against the government.

From someone not from the US, this comes across as a parody.

I can assure you, it's not. There are a lot of americans who think that there was a coop last november and that the proper response is gorilla warfare.

 

[Bradskii]

I can assure you, it's not. There are a lot of americans who think that there was a coop last november and that the proper response is gorilla warfare.

I'm sure there are quite a few. And I'd bet that some of them think that a simian uprising is the answer.

Hang on....you were making a joke! And that's the point really. If I can't differentiate between someone making a good joke and someone being serious...then we're all in trouble.

Satire died when Trump was elected.

 

[Pommer]

I actually think Biden does understand the constitution. In fact I think most leftists understand it quite well. They just don't care.

It only matters to them when they want it to. Otherwise it's only a piece of ancient paper and they don't care. That's why they are always doing unconstitutional things in hopes the courts will eventually agree with them. That's why they want to pack the court. If they can get a liberal court then they can just get by all the stuff they want and to heck with the constitution.

Complaining about stuff that hasn’t happened yet?

 

[Bradskii]

Complaining about stuff that hasn’t happened yet?

When there's nothing to complain about so far, then what else is there to complain about?

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is the most bizarre reading I've ever heard of this text:



Your interpretation is in other words:
"Free states need militias, the citizens of those states need guns to fight against the militias"

The usual understanding of the militia clause is:

"Because free states need militias, the citizens shall have the right to own weapons so that they can join the militia."

This does not include (and at this point, I don't want to get into) personal defense arguments for gun ownership rights.

It is best to not only read the words of the Constitution and then supply our own interpretation to it but rather read the thoughts and beliefs of those that wrote it and experienced those times to understand what it is they were wishing to pass on to future generations.
The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

 

[civilwarbuff]

Again: that's exactly what they thought about these guys. We hit those little dudes with napalm, high explosive, artillery, tanks, APCs, naval gunfire, land mines, even poisonous defoliants----and they just kept on comin'.
View attachment 298452

I remember the quote of an air force general: 'We'll bomb them back into the stone age.' To which another replied 'They aren't that far away from it to begin with.'

 

[civilwarbuff]

Complaining about stuff that hasn’t happened yet?

If you wait until it already happens it is too late to stop it......

 

[disciple Clint]

January 6th is a poor example of how the 2nd Amendment is supposed to work. A much better example would be April 12, 2014, when the American militiamen aiding Cliven Bundy forced the government's alphabet agencies to stand down.

As for the government, I'm not threatening them; they know who I am and where I am. I have broken no laws, and as long as they don't either, we're all good.

a little dinky-dow but it just don't mean a thing

 

[disciple Clint]

During the commission of a crime.

The officer has already been cleared of wrongdoing.

Officer Cleared In The Shooting Death Of Ashli Babbitt During Capitol Riot

He is not off the hook yet there is a civil action.