The Second Amendment

78 posts / 0 new

http://disposableamericans.net/jims-blog/242-the-second-amendment

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.

This is the second amendment, word-for-word, straight from the Constitution of the United States. You’ll notice that it is only one sentence long, a total of 27 words. And yet, these 27 words have and continue to cause great contention within this country. Why is that? It’s because everyone is focused on only one half of the amendment.

For the last several decades, gun enthusiasts, especially the NRA, has focused everyone’s attention on the last half of the amendment. The part that begins after the second comma: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They repeat this part ad nauseam, totally ignoring the first half of the amendment. And they do this because they want the right to own guns without any regulations at all. The shame of this is that those of us who want reasonable regulations on guns have been drawn into focusing on the second half of the amendment and losing our arguments for regulations.

How do we change this? We change it by changing the focus from the last half of the amendment to the first half, especially the first four words. Our argument should be this: The first four words of the second amendment not only gives government the right and the power, but demands of it the duty to produce regulations governing the militia and provide for the security of the state and the safety of all citizens therein.

Now, you will run into those who will claim that our fore-fathers wrote the second amendment in order to provide the people with the means to protect themselves from the possibility of the US government turning tyrannical. This is simply not true. It’s a distortion of history. When our fore-fathers wrote the constitution they did not want the establishment of a standing army. Proof of this is contained in other parts of the Constitution. However, they did see the possible necessity of having a well-armed militia that could be quickly called up in a time of need, as happened in 1812.So there is your rebuttal to their “protect us from tyranny” argument.

So let me repeat what our argument needs to be: The first four words of the second amendment not only gives government the right and the power, but demands of it the duty to produce regulations governing the militia and provide for the security of the state and the safety of all citizens therein.

Use this argument anytime you run into a gun advocate referring to the second Amendment to advance their agenda of unregulated gun ownership and I guarantee you will shut them down and send them running.

jballotti's picture
jballotti
Joined:
Mar. 24, 2011 1:17 pm

Comments

Yet another thead about guns. It's all anybody seems to want to talk about. Maybe there willl be a response.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jballotti:Use this argument anytime you run into a gun advocate referring to the second Amendment to advance their agenda of unregulated gun ownership and I guarantee you will shut them down and send them running.

Hardly. The Gun Nuts know this so should you. The right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court magically found an individual right to own a firearm in the Second. See Heller vs District of Columbia. It doesn't say firearms can't be regulated but the fact that the USSC bought into this bastardization of the Second is the victory they wanted.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Art:

Yet another thead about guns. It's all anybody seems to want to talk about. Maybe there willl be a response.

And yet you start your own thread on wordering why... then push this thread up.

Curious.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

yes lets look at the well regulated militia portion of the 2nd amendment. In 1792 congress established the militia act requiring free male between 18 and 45 to own a musket of good quality. This was so that if they were called up they could have a chance to fight back. In 1860’s they added African Americans to the act and in 1903 they established the national guard.

The purpose of the militia is to hold off invaders or rebellions until the regular army can get formed and or called up as it were. (judging from Benghazi that is never) The people in the area had to have instant access to good quality fire arms that worked as intended not only for defense of the area but for hunting they used the same fire arm for both. Ok lets jump forward to modern times. The purpose of the militia is still the same for self defense of the person, community, and or nation as needed.

Lets say that congress passes new regulations to the militia act banning all fire arms bigger than a single shot .22lr. How will that allow the citizens of an area fight back against an invading army, the current standing army we have in the u.s. or even a strong gang?

How is the strict gun control laws working for the city of Chicago? Crime rates went down in Washington dc after their gun ban was lifted.

Crime rates in every country that implements a gun control policy go up.

How is the strict gun control laws in Mexico working out for them. Before you blame Arizona it is not legal in Arizona to sell weapons to people that are not legal residents of the U.S. so if that is happening instead of the justice department giving them the guns why don’t they stop the guns from going over the boarder? George bush had a fast and furious plan but his plan stopped the guns before they went over the boarder. Besides that only 17 percent of the guns found at Mexican crime scenes are checked through the U.S. of that 17 percent 90 percent are found to come from the U.S. some of those are courtesy of Eric holder, some are from the D.O.D. selling the guns to the Mexican military, some are from private citizens breaking the law and selling to the Mexicans, and lastly some are stolen.

I have no problem with back ground checks and no problem with training classes similar to what happens in the military when you are checked out on a new weapons system. I do have a problem with the government 2000 miles away that enjoys armed protection telling me that I can not have the same courtesy, or that I am some how inferior to them and do not need to be armed to protect myself.

Every brutal dictator in history has started with a gun control policy that ended in killing millions of their country men that did not agree with them. I remember a FBI investigation into the weather underground. During that investigation the weather under ground admitted in order to get the U.S. converted to a quasi communistic state they would have to eliminate up to 30 million Americans that did not agree and could not be re educated to agree. These are the same people that are currently in the white house or have the presidents ear. Bill ayers.…

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:Lets say that congress passes new regulations to the militia act banning all fire arms bigger than a single shot .22lr. How will that allow the citizens of an area fight back against an invading army...

Uh? Do you even read your own posts? You answered your own question: " in 1903 they established the national guard."... and the federal government GIVES them military grade weapons... and in case you haven't heard, there's the army, navy, air force, and marines that might also help defend the nation if the National Guard can't do it on their own. (sic) Where's the role here for ordinary citizens getting in the trenches. Where do you get your ideas? From fictional movies like Red Dawn?

Quote firearm owner:How will that allow the citizens of an area fight back against.... the current standing army we have in the u.s.

There you go again, making claims that somewhere in the Constitution the militia, now the National Guard has authority to defend us against the government itself. SHOW US THE LAW THAT PERMITS THIS.... what's the LEGAL mechanism that would allow this?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The National Guard IS the government. The president can nationalize it--with the permission of the governor--for almost any reason.

Gov. Michael Dukakis sued the USG to stop Ronnie Reagan from sending Massachusetts National Guardsmen to Panama and Honduras in 1988. A U.S. District Court upheld Reagan and Dukakis appealled. I really don't know how that case turned out.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

how do you think we went to war and won indepenence? ordinary well armed citizens fought back against a represive government.

that was one of the reason the british marched on concord mas. the locals had better weapons than the average british inf. man

the national guard and all other forms of the military are under the control of the federal government which leaves the states without their own protection force. which than falls to the citizens of that area.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Oh, I know quite a bit about the role of the militia in the battle for independence. My great-great-great-great grandfather served in the Virginia militia, including the march on the Dan River, and received a federal pension for his service. I know quite a bit about the militia.

Times have changed since 1781. I would like to think that only the Commander-in-Chief has authority to use thermonuclear weapons.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote firearm owner:

how do you think we went to war and won indepenence? ordinary well armed citizens fought back against a represive government.

that was one of the reason the british marched on concord mas. the locals had better weapons than the average british inf. man

the national guard and all other forms of the military are under the control of the federal government which leaves the states without their own protection force. which than falls to the citizens of that area.

I hate to be insulting but it's you who is insulting the intelligence of everyone here.

Who cares about your 4th grade history lesson.... ALL THAT MATTER IS WHAT'S IN THE LAW. My god, why is this so difficult to understand. Either you can show us where in LAW your claim is true... or you can't. In which case the honest person would admit they were wrong... the dishonest person will keep making excuses why they are right with more empty claims. Seems you fit into that latter category. You've proven nothing and refuse to post ANY sources. Go find that forum of braindead gun nuts you were looking for. They'll believe anything you say... as apparently you believed them.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:the national guard and all other forms of the military are under the control of the federal government which leaves the states without their own protection force. which than falls to the citizens of that area.

Your ignorance is beyond belief. The National Guards of the various states remain state "militias" under the control of each state UNLESS it's been federalized.

So in this paranoid Red Dawn fantasy world you live in, the rest of the US military would not defend a state if it were "invaded" if that state's Guard were federalized? What the hell are you even babbling about?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

was it a red dawn fantasy land when any of the arab spring overthrew there oppresive dictatorships?

are you really this narrow minded or have you been living in a college your whole life where everything works in theory but will not ever work in real life.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

i am not saying other srates would not cone and help i am saying that by the time the feds got off there ass the war would be over. just like when they sat there and watched the ameeicans in benghazi die. on top of that they lied about some bullshit video for teo weeks when the whole world knew it was a terrorist attack the next day.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

well i hate to point out the extremely obvious but there is no law ever writen anywhere for a government to murder its own people or for a people to over throw the offending government, howwver it is in the oath of every office and the military to defend against all enemies forgien and domestic. also the constitution says when it comes time to throw off such government so go back to bed now adults are talking.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

the-second-amendments-history

“If there is such a thing as settled constitutional law,” wrote law professor Carl T. Bogus in 2000, “the Second Amendment may have been its quintessential example.” The United States Supreme Court addressed the Amendment three times in 1876, 1886, and 1939 and on each occasion held that it granted the people a right to bear arms only within the militia. [See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886);
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).]
These decisions were rendered before SCOTUS became a tool for corporate America. They really used to interpret the law.

The Right has given us nothing but destruction and death. Irrational right-wing extremists and their so-called “conservatism” have transformed the United States into a nightmare.

They have given us not simply extraordinarily bad manners but conscience-less coarseness; distracted us with nihilistic obstructionism that prevents our being able to effectively solve major national problems; made us look like backward, ignorant, unworthy and reckless fools before the entire world; militarized our culture with an authoritarianism that would echo the Third Reich; robbed us of our joy, our peace of mind, our dignity and our self-respect; de-civilized us with fear, violence and ugliness; “drenched us in Bloodshed;” indoctrinated citizens with misrepresentations, distortions, and blatant lies; attempted to make superstition respectable and madness the norm; polarized our national community; and they want to steal our past, our American history as well.
Enough.

The latest nonsense that the 2nd is to threaten the gov't and keep them in line is so laughable it becomes sad when people repeat it and spout it as accepted truth. Everyone knows the 2nd is to keep the homosexuals from getting married.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thom's historicial presentation covering George Mason ,et el , there is a different discussion on the 2nd amend. in at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

Amendment II

Document 6

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67

jjszczerba
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67

[17 Aug.]

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous sha

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

ll be compelled to bear arms."e Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment II, Document 6
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
The University of Chicago Press

Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. "History of Congress." 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834--56.

© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

jjszczerba
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote firearm owner:

i am not saying other srates would not cone and help i am saying that by the time the feds got off there ass the war would be over. just like when they sat there and watched the ameeicans in benghazi die. on top of that they lied about some bullshit video for teo weeks when the whole world knew it was a terrorist attack the next day.

By the time the military got where? To any state in AMERICA? If necessary the Guard of any state would be federalized since one of the Article 1 functions of these constitutional militias was TO REPEL INVASION. We're still waiting for you to leave your fantasy land and explain where there's ANY constitutional role for civilians NOT connected to the militia to do so. In your Red Dawn fantasy land you've elevated them to the role of defender of the Republic but it's only in your fantasy the Guard, the army, navy, air force, and marines are out having donuts somewhere with the cops and nowhere to be found as the nation is invaded.

You're diggin' deeper your hole of personal embarrassment. Keep it up Sparky. We need a good laugh.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote jjszczerba:Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution....

We're aware of such sentiments during the debate. And I believe it's Gerry that wants the Electoral College to be a check on the People should they vote for an idiot. It's not as if every intent for a provision in the Constitution or Amendment was voted on. We can't know if Gerry's opinion was included unless we see Congress flesh out the requirement for the militia... which they did in the Militia Acts of 1792. NOWHERE in the Constitution or the Militia Act is there ANY provision in LAW that gives the militia this role... nor is there any provision anywhere in LAW that provides a legal mechanism to call up the Militia for this purpose. The role of the Militia is to SUPPRESS insurrection... not cause them.

Quote Militia Acts of 1792:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

So in a system of infinite checks and balances where everything is explicit... yet there's NOTHING in LAW on the Militia being the defender of the Republic against a tyrant... what does that tell you?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

On the Arab Spring, in Egypt the US back channels to the Egyptian military kept the military out of the action allowing Egyptians to win their freedom. In Libya, the US and NATO airpower along with the military grade weapons inculding tanks, and artillery bought with oil money from NATO carried the day, and not Real Muhracans (or Real Libyans) with "legal" semi auto AR15s, deer rifles, or handguns is what beat the Libyan military.

Syria on the other hand is backed by the Russians. Their freedom movement is getting no outside assistance. And they are getting slaughtered. Ol' Zeke and Jeb with a few semi automatics will not change this reality. They require armor and artillery and anti tank weapons. Now, if St Ronnie Reagan were in charge, he'd sell weapons to both sides and use the profits to fund a different illegal war, but that is just that free market brilliance.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote firearm owner:

well i hate to point out the extremely obvious but there is no law ever writen anywhere for a government to murder its own people or for a people to over throw the offending government, howwver it is in the oath of every office and the military to defend against all enemies forgien and domestic. also the constitution says when it comes time to throw off such government so go back to bed now adults are talking.

Thank you for admitting the obvious that there's NO legal role for the Militia to be a check on the federal government.

Now we're all waiting for you to show us where in the Constitution it says there's a time to throw off an offending government... besides elections. We won't hold our breaths hoping someone who doesn't even know the difference between the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution... and who REFUSES to post any sources for their claims, will do anything but provide us with more laughs.

BTW Einstein, the D of I is not binding law.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The armories in Iraq were not secured, and the police and army were disbanded. It became a mess, one would think a teaching moment. The Libyan armories were not secured, the Libyan army were mercenaries from Mali and elsewhere, so not retained or disbanded. The mercenaries could have been bought off most likely. That was the basis of the Iraq surge, they were given an allowance as long as they didn't fight and kill.

Maybe that would work in the states, 300 million gun owners could get a weekly stipend if they don't shoot and kill. If someone strays they can be taken out with a knife and not be disqualified from the 'no shooting bonus'. Kind of hard after years of selling the idea that it's good to kill with guns for conflict resolution, to tell them to just walk away and killing isn't necessary. Some would insist on hunting people down because of stand your ground, but they would lose their 'no killing bonus'.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

to where ever the invasion is happening. i am not living in a red dawn fantasy land. you just can not understand that when there is an emergency of any type you will wait for at least 15 minutes for any first responder to show up. if it is an invasion force they will role past the police because the police will be out numbered it will take days for the guard to be mibolized if not longer. the u.s. military could be there faster unless they are under orders to stand down like in benghazi.

last night I posted the right to stand against the government was in the constitution it is in fact in the decleration of independence. however it is in the oath of office for most public offices to defend it against all enemies forgien and domestic.

in the constitution every body between the aged of 18 and 45 was part of the militia. however during war time those ages are flexible.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

to where ever the invasion is happening. i am not living in a red dawn fantasy land. you just can not understand that when there is an emergency of any type you will wait for at least 15 minutes for any first responder to show up. if it is an invasion force they will role past the police because the police will be out numbered it will take days for the guard to be mibolized if not longer. the u.s. military could be there faster unless they are under orders to stand down like in benghazi.

Will you stop with the Benghazi crap. You can't compare the availability of the Guard or the military in the US to a foreign nation. That you continue to fixate on this proves you ARE caught up in some Red Dawn gun nut fantasy. Pray tell... who's going to invade us? Canada, Mexico? Intelligence wouldn't show the massing of an invasion force on our borders? Perhaps the Chinese will build a secret tunnel beneath the Pacific. Sorry FO, you're totally out to lunch.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:in the constitution every body between the aged of 18 and 45 was part of the militia. however during war time those ages are flexible.

Prove it. You already proved you don't know the difference between the D of I and the Constitution... now you're proving you don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Militia Acts.

Please explain why you even think you have one intelligent thought to share?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I have proven it you are just to mentally deficent to understand it. I made a mistake in my post and I corrected it. however, every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in order to have life and liberty I am allowed to defend my life and liberty from all enemies forgien and domestic. if I use a fire arm to do that, it is my right as long I do not hurt anyone that is not trying to hurt me.

i brought benghazi to show the unwillingness of this adminstration to protect american citizens. but you could also use the unsecured southern boarder that allows drug violence to overflow into the U.S. brought to us by eric holder

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

find me the law that allowed the american revolution? ffind me the law that allowed any revolution?

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
find me the law that allowed the american revolution? ffind me the law that allowed any revolution?

The Declaration of Independence.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

pierpont said that the declartion of indenpence was not law so try again please

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
pierpont said that the declartion of indenpence was not law so try again please

It was, however, enacted unanimously by the Congress and established the legal basis for the American Revolution.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm

yes and all other revolutions as well as laid the ground work for an armed populous in order to keep the federal government from becoming oppresive or tyranical. but according to some of the people on this board say the right to bear arms is only allowed at the whim of the federal government. which goes against all the founders fought to secure.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

The declaration was adopted by the reprentatives of all the people. An entire nation clearly has the sovereignty to institute whatever form of government it likes. This is quite different, however, from only some of the people deciding they don't like what everyone else has agreed to.

The rights of an entire nation do not devolve upon any particular section or faction of the nation. That was Lincoln's rationale for refusing to recognize the secession of the southern states. A few states could not undo what all of the states had created without the consent of all the other states.

I'm guessing this is the distinction that our friends on the Board are trying to articulate.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Quote firearm owner:

I have proven it you are just to mentally deficent to understand it. I made a mistake in my post and I corrected it. however, every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in order to have life and liberty I am allowed to defend my life and liberty from all enemies forgien and domestic. if I use a fire arm to do that, it is my right as long I do not hurt anyone that is not trying to hurt me.

Hey Einstein... I'M ALSO A GUN OWNER. I just detest the NRA, their irresponsible positions, and the bastardization of the Second. I see any gun rights as Natural Rights under the Ninth.

Proof? ROTF... The only thing you've so far proved is you're incapable of intelligent discussion. The oath doesn't apply to most civilians though I've had to take it several times. Who are these enemies of the Republic? Oh, you mean the GOP that has for 30 years deliberately sabotage the fiscal health of the Treasury hoping to starve the beast? Are you suggesting I have the right to get out my firearm and make a citizen's arrest for what I believe is Treason? It's not up to us to decide who's breaking the law and who's a threat to the republic... unless you want a bunch of Tim McVays claiming that right.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote stuff:
pierpont said that the declartion of indenpence was not law so try again please

It was, however, enacted unanimously by the Congress and established the legal basis for the American Revolution.

Not "the Congress", the Continental Congress.... hardly the same. The D of I has no more legal standing than the Articles Of Confederation.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:

yes and all other revolutions as well as laid the ground work for an armed populous in order to keep the federal government from becoming oppresive or tyranical. but according to some of the people on this board say the right to bear arms is only allowed at the whim of the federal government. which goes against all the founders fought to secure.

Can you get anything straight? I think most here if not all would agree there's a legal right to own a firearm. Where you will NOT find much agreement is there Constitution permits armed revolt. I've asked you over and over for proof... and the best you came up with what? The oath of office for those taking government positions? Its doesn't apply to citizens. So who decides who are the enemies of the Constitution? Tim McVay? What about my belief the GOP is committing Treason for sabotaging the fiscal health of the nation? You have found NOTHING in law that permits or details how the militias are to be used for attacking the US government. Just because some historical figures had this idea does NOT mean it was written into law... just like the D of I's standard for morally legitimate government was NEVER enacted in the Constitution.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:

I have proven it you are just to mentally deficent to understand it. I made a mistake in my post and I corrected it. however, every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. in order to have life and liberty I am allowed to defend my life and liberty from all enemies forgien and domestic. if I use a fire arm to do that, it is my right as long I do not hurt anyone that is not trying to hurt me.

So, if the Chinese invade, we can feel secure in knowing that FO has a deer rifle and a semi auto AR15 and that'll saves us all!

Quote firearm owner:

i brought benghazi to show the unwillingness of this adminstration to protect american citizens. but you could also use the unsecured southern boarder that allows drug violence to overflow into the U.S. brought to us by eric holder

So, you failed to read the report on the Benghazi attack? The CIA had their forces on the move in less than 30 minutes. The Ambassador was shot and on his way to the hospital in the first 20 minutes of the attack. And the two security forces who were killed died back at the CIA compound from a mortar attack. There was no unwillingness to defend the American consulate, or our citizens. To say otherwise is a filthy lie. I hope for your sake you never make this claim within earshot of anyone who has ever stood on post at an American Embassy or Consulate. If you do I hope I am there.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

I agree, thank you for stating it so clearly. I wonder how Strict "constitionists" like Justice Thomas see our army in light of their views that we should not translate,but simply enact the constition.

jamesannon's picture
jamesannon
Joined:
Jan. 27, 2013 3:59 pm

how many hours did it take to get planes and or ground troops on station?

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

Find me the law that allowed the American revolution? Find me the law that allowed any revolution?

No allowed the American Revolution. Philosophically, human rights / natural rights imply that people have the right to establish a govt that serves their needs.

And if you knew anything abouts US history, at the signing of the D of I, one of the signers, a large fat man, signed, turned, handed the quill to a smaller, thinner man, and stated something to the effect of "if I hang it'll be clean and quick, you're likely to strangle slowly." Several of the signers were captured and were executed because what they did was treason. They were law breakers.

Now, if the horror of Obamacare is so great that you feel the need to commit treason, murder, and shoot cops and US soldiers that is on your conscience. Good luck at the trial.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote firearm owner:

how many hours did it take to get planes and or ground troops on station?

Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

----

So from 3:40pm to 5:20pm is how many minutes? 100 minutes to regain the building, including the initial failed attempt at 4:45pm.

Oh wait you asked hours. So 1 hours 40 minutes or 1.66 hours. The initial attempt is 1 hr 5 minutes.

Further, look at the 4:15 entry. How many people were in the building? 3. 1 security officer, the diplomat who was killed and the tech guy who died.

Now, 100 minutes to secure a small consular's office in Benghazi seems pretty fricking reasonable. Any guess on the timeframe to regain a consulate halfway around the world for say Germany, France or Japan?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

obama care is only a small part of what is concerning to conservatives. what is concerning to conservatives is that the progressives are slowly erasing our freedoms. small nudges that slowly put ys under the federal governments thumb. social security thay only gives you back 72 percent of what you paid in if that much. can not have any one person living any better than anyone else. obama care that can and will control what you eat when you eat and how much you eat. niw they are taking your fire arms away so you can not defend yourself even against them if they come for all the undesirible class of people like the rich who are noy obsma donors, the registered republucans, libertarians or anyone else the government does not like. you can think i am peraniod but all of this has happened in the past. i am not calling for armed violence agsinst the government unless they start first.

i bet all the anti gun people in warsaw thought the same thing until thy ended up in the camps.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote Phaedrus76:So, you failed to read the report on the Benghazi attack?
Benghazi has nothing to do with FO's Red Dawn wet dream about the US being invaded... and there's no one around to defend against an invasion except him... gun in hand, wearing a Captian America flag cape.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:

you can think i am peraniod but all of this has happened in the past. i am not calling for armed violence agsinst the government unless they start first.

i bet all the anti gun people in warsaw thought the same thing until thy ended up in the camps.

In Poland, how many jews in the Ghetto in 1939 had access to Tiger tanks, or bazookas? Any anti tank rifles? What crushed the Jews was not the inability to have semi auto rifles. The lack of a military strong enough to stand up to the Germans did. And do you believe that the presence of guns would have really saved many Jews, or made Hitler or his minions rethink their actions? Really? "Oh wait, Mosel and Saul have a couple of pistols, we'll call off the holocaust." Really? You think that?

And for reference to your ability to stand up to the gubmint, refer to Waco and the Branch Davidians. Do you want you and your entire family barbequed or just shot down like dogs? Those twue beweaving Evangelical Christian Conservatives had a .50 cal Browning machine gun, and plenty of other arms, a compound and dozens of adult men. Once the Feds decided the negotiations were done how long'd they last? 30 minutes?

And further, not one single agent involved turned to aid the Davidians or attempted to overthrow their commanders. Law enforcement officers tend to follow the law.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote firearm owner:

obama care is only a small part of what is concerning to conservatives. what is concerning to conservatives is that the progressives are slowly erasing our freedoms.

Bull sh*t.

The Miltitia Acts of 1792 MANDATED militia members buy weapons whether they wanted one or not.

In 1798 the Congress passed the first health care plan... taxing sailors then using the money to fund government hospitals for seamen.

In the 90's about 80% of the GOP senators signed on to health care plans that contained an individual mandate. The idea came FROM THE RIGHT WING HERITAGE FOUNDATION. Why a mandate? To deal with the "free rider" problem. That's why ROMNEY has a health care mandate here in Mass... a plan he thought would make a great NATIONAL model.

Once again you've proven you know nothing.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:Crime rates went down in Washington dc after their gun ban was lifted.

Back again with your simplistic single variable thinking?

Either way, wrong even again. Crime rates have been declining in DC since the 90's.

Murder peaked in 1991. Violent crimes peaked in 1993. Aggravated Assault peaked in 1993. Burglary peaked in 1981. Larceny peaked in 1995.

source: second chart at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

So crime rates were dropping a full decade BEFORE Heller.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

the state department report i read said the consulate was attack at 9 pm and the cia anex was attack at 5 am with re enforcements showing up at 7 am so 12 hours to get re enforcements from 400 miles away did the drive them there in humvees.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

the state department report i read said the consulate was attack at 9 pm and the cia anex was attack at 5 am with re enforcements showing up at 7 am so 12 hours to get re enforcements from 400 miles away did the drive them there in humvees.

WTF does this have to do with the Second Amendment or gun rights in the US?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

It was an answer to a question.

I have come to a conclusion you are absolutely correct the American revolution never happened because regular citizens with fire arms can never stand up to a trained army besides there was no law that allowed that sort of thing. We should just turn the country back over to England or better yet lets just give up all freedoms and let the federal government run our lives. No need for free speech, self-determination, or anything like that the feds know how to run our lives better than we do who needs that freedom stuff anyway.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:I have come to a conclusion you are absolutely correct the American revolution never happened because regular citizens with fire arms can never stand up to a trained army besides there was no law that allowed that sort of thing. We should just turn the country back over to England or better yet lets just give up all freedoms and let the federal government run our lives. No need for free speech, self-determination, or anything like that the feds know how to run our lives better than we do who needs that freedom stuff anyway.

TRANSLATION: FO can't actually prove anything he claims and thinks some smart ass answer will divert our attention from that sad fact.

Why didn't you just say so FO? We're not gullible or dumb... even if you treat us as such in your postings here. You prove that over and over by REFUSING to post links to any credible source we can evaluate for ourselves, and not retracting when credible sources prove your claims false.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Just as I thought... no retraction fro FO on this bogas claim:

Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:Crime rates went down in Washington dc after their gun ban was lifted.

Back again with your simplistic single variable thinking?

Either way, wrong even again. Crime rates have been declining in DC since the 90's.

Murder peaked in 1991. Violent crimes peaked in 1993. Aggravated Assault peaked in 1993. Burglary peaked in 1981. Larceny peaked in 1995.

source: second chart at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

So crime rates were dropping a full decade BEFORE Heller.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Yup... again no retraction from FO about this false claim about conservatives:

Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:obama care is only a small part of what is concerning to conservatives. what is concerning to conservatives is that the progressives are slowly erasing our freedoms.
Bull sh*t.

The Miltitia Acts of 1792 MANDATED militia members buy weapons whether they wanted one or not.

In 1798 the Congress passed the first health care plan... taxing sailors then using the money to fund government hospitals for seamen.

In the 90's about 80% of the GOP senators signed on to health care plans that contained an individual mandate. The idea came FROM THE RIGHT WING HERITAGE FOUNDATION. Why a mandate? To deal with the "free rider" problem. That's why ROMNEY has a health care mandate here in Mass... a plan he thought would make a great NATIONAL model.

Once again you've proven you know nothing.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system