Second Amenment thoughts

[Polycarp1]

I think it may be pertinent to quote a famous rebel terrorist from history:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Kind of like amending the Constitution, or declaring war. You don't do it for every petty annoyance that comes along -- but there comes a point when "enough is too much" and it's time to take resolute action.

One observation I saw about the right to keep and bear arms vis-a-vis armed rebellion against tyranny is the deterrent effect. Because there is in fact an armed populace which remembers the "Sprit of '76" out there, a government which might otherwise aggrandize to itself additional power, perhaps to the point of becoming totalitarian, is deterred from doing so by the fact that there is a point where the majority of free citizens will begin to believe that it's no longer government by their consent but instead government by its own power and authority, and so it chooses, out of prudence, not to implement those things that would incense the average citizen.

 

[HollandScotts]

Ask the British.

Extremist militant groups (classified as domestic terrorists) in the US advocate the taking up arms against the government.

I was just pointing out the irony in....:

So you do believe our founders were terrorists. How can you live in a nation whose founders you believe to be terrorists? If you nuts hate American so much, you are entitled to leave.

There isn't any difference between advocating the murder of US citizens (federal agents) and doing what say....Timothy McVey did.

So now our founding fathers are no different than terrorists who blow up women and children. Boy, I guess you must really hate this country.

Here MrJim, see the above? When someone supports the murder of federal agents, then they support the murder of American citizens. Which means they are Anti-American and terrorists. Just like Timothy McVey was. It's a very simple connection to make. This is why many fascist right militias are classified as domestic terrorist organizations.

If these nuts hate America so much, they are entitled to leave.

No, we're the ones that love America. We love our rights, we love our Constitution, and we love our freedom. Anyone who tries to deprive us of any of those, even if they are Americans, deserves to die.

When you take the term "well-regulated militia" and morph it into "any vigilante with an ax to grind" that's some pretty serious legislating from the bench.

Perhaps you should educate yourself in the case before saying stupid things like this.

So you don't have a driver's license or register your car?

That's completely different. Plus, governments don't have a history of using DMV records to round up people cars, or certain kinds of carrs they don't want peoplen to have. Governments have a history of doing as such when guns are registered.

Although it might be the first step to confiscation (which would be unconstitutional), it is not in and of itself unconstitutional. It does not infringe on the people's right to have and bear arms.

Anything that would allow the government to confiscate all weapons is unConstitutional, simply for the fact that if you give the government that power, they will use it.

 

[Sphere]

So you do believe our founders were terrorists. How can you live in a nation whose founders you believe to be terrorists? If you nuts hate American so much, you are entitled to leave.

Our founding fathers were trying to win independence for the nation from the British, which is a more legitimate cause than some pseudo-patriot right wing militia nutbags fighting to keep their arsenals.

The right-wing militant nutbags like Timothy McVey that blow up Federal Buildings and kill children--all to make some cheap political point again the US Government about a perceived injustice at Waco.

So now our founding fathers are no different than terrorists who blow up women and children.

As I suspected, you are incapable of differentiating between the two. In your eyes, our Founding Fathers fighting against the British for Independence is the equivalent of right-wing militant domestic terrorist groups today--bombing Federal Buildings(like Timothy McVey did).

Contrary to that offensively skewed perception of reality, our founding fathers were patriots who wanted what was best for this Nation. Do not insult them or this nation by defending the actions of domestic terrorist groups today like Timothy McVey. He was not a patriot or Pro-American, no matter how much you think he was.

No, we're the ones that love America.

Sorry, right wing pseudo-patriot militant domestic terrorist groups do not Love America. Timothy McVey did not love America. Stop pretending he did.

We love our rights, we love our Constitution, and we love our freedom. Anyone who tries to deprive us of any of those, even if they are Americans, deserves to die.

Terrorists like Timothy McVey loved his rights, loved his guns, loved his freedom and loved the constitution. But he hated America, and Americans.

Timothy McVey did exactly as you say above, and felt that Americans and little Children at the Alpfred P Murrah Federal building deserved to die.

It is extremely disturbing that you hold such fanatical beliefs, and it clear at this point--since you condone the murder of children and Americans--who really Hates America.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Sphere]

double post, delete.

 

[HollandScotts]

I'm not sure which is worse. Taking everything I said completely out of context intentionally, which would be lying. Or actually believing any of that crap you posted, which would be just plain ol' stupid.

Tell ya what, you pick.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, if the Supreme Court decision knocks down the Washington, DC gun laws, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be the most egregious offenders in terms of "legislating from the bench," something talk show hosts often accuse the 'liberals' in the court of doing.

When you take the term "well-regulated militia" and morph it into "any vigilante with an ax to grind" that's some pretty serious legislating from the bench.

Your assumption there does not exist another route to render invalid the D.C. gun laws is erroneous. The fact is, the Court can take a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment, and a plain text reading does not constitute as legislating from the bench, find an individual right to bear arms exists, and on this basis render the D.C. gun law unconstitutional.

The conservatives on the Court do not even need to discuss or focus upon the phrase of "well regulated militia" to render invalid the D.C. gun laws, whereas you assume they will. One can take a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment an understand it protects an individual right to bear arms.

So your proposition the Court will "legislate from the bench" is a rather questionable claim.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Your assumption there does not exist another route to render invalid the D.C. gun laws is erroneous. The fact is, the Court can take a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment, and a plain text reading does not constitute as legislating from the bench, find an individual right to bear arms exists, and on this basis render the D.C. gun law unconstitutional.

The conservatives on the Court do not even need to discuss or focus upon the phrase of "well regulated militia" to render invalid the D.C. gun laws, whereas you assume they will. One can take a plain text reading of the 2nd amendment an understand it protects an individual right to bear arms.

So your proposition the Court will "legislate from the bench" is a rather questionable claim.

Great response to a tired old argument

 

[Billnew]

double post, delete.

Sometimes you just need to post it twice for effect.

 

[NotreDame]

Taking arms against the government--an ideology that militant (and usually racist) extremists hold, is terrorism.

Aside from your use of the word "fascist" being incorrect.
[/size][/font]

I know you would disagree with the inference of the Founding Fathers engaged in terrorism, but such an inference follows from your statement above. All which was needed, to avoid the type of responses you received, was to more carefully qualify your remarks. It is not terrorism when the people seek to overthrow a tyrannical government, a government egregiously violating their liberties, property, and life. This necessarily excludes the crusades of one man or small groups.

Thus, with this qualification, one is in a better position to defend the actions of the Founding Fathers.

 

[NotreDame]

No, we're the ones that love America. We love our rights, we love our Constitution, and we love our freedom. Anyone who tries to deprive us of any of those, even if they are Americans, deserves to die.



Perhaps you should educate yourself in the case before saying stupid things like this.



That's completely different. Plus, governments don't have a history of using DMV records to round up people cars, or certain kinds of carrs they don't want peoplen to have. Governments have a history of doing as such when guns are registered.



Anything that would allow the government to confiscate all weapons is unConstitutional, simply for the fact that if you give the government that power, they will use it.

So you do believe our founders were terrorists. How can you live in a nation whose founders you believe to be terrorists? If you nuts hate American so much, you are entitled to leave.....So now our founding fathers are no different than terrorists who blow up women and children. Boy, I guess you must really hate this country.

Oh, Holland aren't you exaggerating his position now in light of his post made some six hours before the one you made in which I am responding?

He provides a qualification of what he meant. Criminology amplified his answer. There isn't much of a point in focusing upon those previous remarks and ignoring his later qualifications of those preceding remarks.

No, we're the ones that love America. We love our rights, we love our Constitution, and we love our freedom. Anyone who tries to deprive us of any of those, even if they are Americans, deserves to die.

Well, of all your reverence to the Founding Fathers, you are remissed in failing to take note of the fact this is a proposition they would immediately reject until other attempts had failed. Death was the last and final resort. The Founding Fathers advocated for more less violent, well actually non-violent intercession to precede what you advocate above.

I agree with your proposition there are scenarios, hypotheticals, and prior historical events, when the use of armed aggression by the people against their government would be, was, or could have been legitimate.

 

[Sphere]

Hollandscotts advocated the murder of American citizens if he believed the government was committing "injustices".

Timothy McVey advocated (and carried out) the murder of American citizens (including children) due to what he perceived to be the government committing "injustices" at Waco.

We love our rights, we love our Constitution, and we love our freedom. Anyone who tries to deprive us of any of those, even if they are Americans, deserves to die.

That little "patriot" rant is phoney, fake. Because it's selfishly motivated and self serving. And here's why:

When you, HollandScott (or any far right-wing "patriot" militant like Timothy McVey) murders an American citizen, you are violating their most basic right to live. You are violating their constitutional rights, and moreover--you are destroying their freedom. Which by definition, is Anti-American.

I'm not sure which is worse. Taking everything I said completely out of context intentionally, which would be lying.

So sorry, no dice. Those are your own words, I didn't have to make up anything to make you look foolish--you did that yourself. You advocating the murder of American citizens doesn't make you a patriot. Just like Timothy McVey blowing up a federal building didn't make him a patriot.

 

[NotreDame]

Hollandscotts advocated the murder of American citizens if he believed the government was committing "injustices".

Timothy McVey advocated (and carried out) the murder of American citizens (including children) due to what he perceived to be the government committing "injustices" at Waco.

That little "patriot" rant is phoney, fake. Because it's selfishly motivated and self serving. And here's why:

When you, HollandScott (or any far right-wing "patriot" militant like Timothy McVey) murders an American citizen, you are violating their most basic right to live. You are violating their constitutional rights, and moreover--you are destroying their freedom. Which by definition, is Anti-American.

So sorry, no dice. Those are your own words, I didn't have to make up anything to make you look foolish--you did that yourself. You advocating the murder of American citizens doesn't make you a patriot. Just like Timothy McVey blowing up a federal building didn't make him a patriot.

I have to agree....blowing up a building, whereby you kill people who are not related to or involved in what is perceived as a violation of one's rights, along with children, is not an act of patriotism and the individual who perpetuated the heinous act is not a patriot. When we start labeling people who do such things as "patriots," then we may as well call those people who flew the planes into the twin towers, or participated in their planning and carrying out the plans, patriots committing patriotic acts.

 

[ladyt28]

Is that so? You have 3 and a half times the murder rate that we do, 2 and a half times the rate of firearm murders, And 1 and a half times the murder rate with handguns.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

We have gun control.

Or do you attribute this to a different cause? Considering that we're essentially identical culturally, racially and demographically.

Oh my, I just KNOW this isn't going to be popular but here I go! Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" examines why the USA has so many more gun crimes than any other nation. We don't have more guns per person than any other nation, we don't have more violent movies/games, nothing made us different other than a media who's focus seems to be FEAR. Crime rates have actually gone down but you'd never know it watching the news. That's the point I walked away with after watching that film.

 

[ladyt28]

I'm quoting from a post made at a different forum about this very topic. A question was asked about "militias" as people like McVeigh have seriously skewed the intention of a militia. I thought this summarized some thing very well:

"Maryland still has a true and legit militia aside from the National Guard. Every state has an Adjutant General who commands the Army and Air National Guard units for that state. The Adjutant General (also know as the "TAG" reports diredtly to the Governor. The National Guard is, however, subject to being "federalized". In Maryland, the TAG commands the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Maryland Defense Force (MDF), the later being ther true militia in Maryland. They are totally unpaid and cannot be federalized. In other words, they can be deployed by the Governor and cannot be called into service by the Federal Government. The Governor can lose his or her's Guard units to the Feds, but not the militia.

The Maryland Defense Force has evolved over the years and no longer is called into service for law enforcement of para-military duties. They are also not armed as part of their duties. Today the MDF is a professional corps of doctors, lawyers, financial advisors, clergy of all stripes, civil engineers, etc. They drill regularly and provide untold services. They wear militray uniforms and have rank. These are not just wannbes. For instance, the head of the medical unit is the Dean of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. They even deploy overseas! The Governor deployed the medical unit to Bosnia about two years ago under a State Partnership program to provide clinics in the rural area.

I could go on with other similar success stories but the 700 member string organization continues to grow in numbers, capability, and professional recognition."

 

[Buzzbee]

In no uncertain terms are the rights to bear arms to be taken away from anyone. A people that are armed and can defend themsevles against a government that would otherwise enslave them under opress them is a good.

The action of what happens to a people that do not have protections to bear arms can be seen in oppressive places like China and Cambodia. The people of these countries can not protect themselves against the violent actions of oppressive governments. Let this country alwasy be hyper-vigilent against believing any talk about giving up bearing arms. HeyI would say even registering weapons is an unconstitutional practice by the federal government if you read what ppowers the federal government were specifically delegated in the Constituion.

Keep your guns and use them only as last resort.

 

[Buzzbee]

Let this country always be hyper-vigilent about protecting the rigth to bear arms. The right to be armed in order to defend one's self against arbitrary action that brings physical violent actions or a breaking of property rights must be preserved.

Other countries, like Cambodia and China, do not let their citizens have guns. They say this in the name of "keeping the peace", yet the governments of those countries violent do supress their peoples and then the people of those countries are hard-pressed to defend themselves against the violent actions of their government. Liberty in life solves problems of violence, including having arms because people find they do not need to use guns in order to challenge grievances, injustices, and governmental action.

Keep you guns and use them only as last resort.

 

[HollandScotts]

I have to agree....blowing up a building, whereby you kill people who are not related to or involved in what is perceived as a violation of one's rights, along with children, is not an act of patriotism and the individual who perpetuated the heinous act is not a patriot. When we start labeling people who do such things as "patriots," then we may as well call those people who flew the planes into the twin towers, or participated in their planning and carrying out the plans, patriots committing patriotic acts.

Truth be told, I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to fall for his spin. I guess I was wrong.

 

[HollandScotts]

Hollandscotts advocated the murder of American citizens if he believed the government was committing "injustices".

Timothy McVey advocated (and carried out) the murder of American citizens (including children) due to what he perceived to be the government committing "injustices" at Waco.

No, I advocate self defence from a tyranical government. But I guess people of your breed think every government action is good, all the way up to march the Jews into the showers, huh? Since, according to you, any Jew who took up arms against the Germans was a "terrorist" on the same level as McVey.

That little "patriot" rant is phoney, fake. Because it's selfishly motivated and self serving. And here's why:

When you, HollandScott (or any far right-wing "patriot" militant like Timothy McVey) murders an American citizen, you are violating their most basic right to live. You are violating their constitutional rights, and moreover--you are destroying their freedom. Which by definition, is Anti-American.

Self defence is not murder, or did they not cover that in criminology?

So sorry, no dice. Those are your own words, I didn't have to make up anything to make you look foolish--you did that yourself. You advocating the murder of American citizens doesn't make you a patriot. Just like Timothy McVey blowing up a federal building didn't make him a patriot.

And in your words, Jews that stood up for themselves and our founding fathers are terrorists for opposing their governments. Such facism.

 

[ladyt28]

I have been reading a thread about this issue in a forum for car enthusiasts and they have been treating each other with more respect than I have seen in this thread.

 

[NotreDame]

Truth be told, I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to fall for his spin. I guess I was wrong.

Yes, you were wrong. You have not said much of anything that constitutes as right in this thread. If anyone is stupid for falling for spin, it certainly isn't me but your illogical extremists positions.