Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zukiphile,

I didn't think you'd want to answer the question as I framed it so I understand why you're bailing out, but it's not really off-topic. The topic was that people have some right to organize and rise up against whatever they think "tyranny" is (high toll road fees?) and you cited those government agencies as examples of tyranny. I simply pointed out that the power to creat such agencies for the common good was in fact given to our government by the drafters of our constitution, and suddenly you're done. Game, set, match to me. But it was definitely related to the topic, especially the next anticipated exchange where I was getting set to ask you about your opinion regarding your "right" to pick up a gun and rebel against the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and when you planned to do it.
 
Stagger Lee:

Additionally, nobody runs for office thinking "hey, I'm going to do what I can to subvert the constitution and do away with our democracy..."
Click to expand...

Umm, it's my opinion that George W. subverted the Constitution when he destroyed Habeus Corpus, one of our oldest rights, with the signing of the so called "Patriot" Act.

All of those people are elected by--and answer to--the voters,
Click to expand...

Like when Chenney said "so?" Or how many voters do you think would be happy about our monetary system being debased by a corrupt Federal Reserve who prints more money on a whim and devalues the value of their work to further its agenda? Of course the media won't talk about this because guess who's paying them, and the politicians, less Ron Paul, are scared to bring it up because, you guessed it, they are in just as thick with the whole racket.

across-the-board anti-government fear and raging hate
Click to expand...

Raging hate? I don't think one needs accuse someone of raging hate because they are concerned for their Country, and see the building blocks for globalization and destruction of our Constitution, and tyranny, are already being silently slid into place. Hate? No. Concern for Country, Liberty, and American Citizens? Yes.
 
Good point Stagger Lee. I think we call it the social contract. I give up my "right" to revenge myself against one who has harmed me in return for a legal process to right that wrong. The legal process may fail me but so might my aim
Click to expand...

Yes, sir. And we also gave up the "right" to just start shooting at politicians that do things we don't agree with in return for a chance to vote them out of office or run against them for their jobs.
 
Umm, it's my opinion that George W. subverted the Constitution when he destroyed Habeus Corpus, one of our oldest rights, with the signing of the so called "Patriot" Act.
Click to expand...

How did he do that? Didn't congress vote on it and now it has been altered by congress and the Supreme Court?
 
How did he do that? Didn't congress vote on it and now it has been altered by congress and the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

He could have veto'd it. He could have spoken out to America. Whoops, sometimes the checks and balances are great when they aren't all being paid by the same group.
 
Zukiphile,

I didn't think you'd want to answer the question as I framed it so I understand why you're bailing out, but it's not really off-topic. The topic was that people have some right to organize and rise up against whatever they think "tyranny" is (high toll road fees?) and you cited those government agencies as examples of tyranny. I simply pointed out that the power to creat such agencies for the common good was in fact given to our government by the drafters of our constitution, and suddenly you're done. Game, set, match to me. But it was definitely related to the topic, especially the next anticipated exchange where I was getting set to ask you about your opinion regarding your "right" to pick up a gun and rebel against the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and when you planned to do it.
Click to expand...

Lee, I will discuss this with you in this thread, once you obtain the approval of a moderator. Why would you not want to start a new thread? You don't appear to have read the posting rules, or my prior posts on this page.

You are also free to discuss it with me at the link below, which has less restrictive posting rules.
 
An armed populace is NOT a well-regulated militia.
Click to expand...
No, but it's a necessary precondition in order to form one.

I want the option to be able to use a firearm to protect myself and my family and that's reason enough to be pro gun and happy about Heller.
Click to expand...

A firearm? So you think people should only be allowed to have one firearm? How very Sarah Brady. (Nah, this isn't a fun game, maybe we should go back to being honest about one another and stop the smears.)
 
No, but it's a necessary precondition in order to form one.
Click to expand...

Not today. The state or federal government would arm them today. Even back in 1790 the governments (Fed, state and local) had to arm many of the civilians who didn't have guns.

A firearm? So you think people should only be allowed to have one firearm?
Click to expand...

Well, I can only shoot one at a time, but you might be better trained:)

(Nah, this isn't a fun game, maybe we should go back to being honest about one another and stop the smears
Click to expand...

I don't feel like you have smeared me nor do I fell I have "smeared" you.

However, I have put a one or two members on my ignore list because they post like they are refugees from their high school debate clubs picking and parsing every word for gotchas while adding nothing to the discussion other than their own self indulgent sophistry. Also, those who want you to back up everything with a link even though they already know the answer. Those (including you if you choose) who go down that path with me will be ignored. Don't have time for that sh*t. Your call but that's the beauty of these boards, its all voluntary.

Also, I ignore the children Rambos who post here as well. I already raised mine and unless they are grandbabies I have no intention of raising another passle of 'em.
 
Last edited:
However, I have put a one or two members on my ignore list because they post like they are refugees from their high school debate clubs picking and parsing every word for gotchas while adding nothing to the discussion other than their own self indulgent sophistry. Also, those who want you to back up everything with a link even though they already know the answer. Those (including you if you choose) who go down that path with me will be ignored. Don't have time for that sh*t.
Click to expand...

It must save lots of time to ignore people after they've demonstrated a lack of a reasonable argument for your position, but it is itself not a sign of vitality.
 
2nd Ammendment:

Well regulated Militias exist and are armed.

Therefore,

Citizens will not be deprived of the very same right to be armed.
 
There is not a single right that is absolute. There are restrcitions on them all.

1st Amendment-Right to free speech (you cant yell gun in a movie theater or bomb on an airplane).

2nd- Right to keep and bear arms ( unless you are a felon, insane, not a citizen, and other valid reasons). And citizens can own machine guns, suppressors, aow's etc. I have 2 machineguns and 3 sbr's. I think anyone that wants to own firearms should be able to, within reason (see above). However, everytime I go to a public range I see at least one person (usually with some kind of high speed low drag black gun, lately its been custom $3500 1911's, but I do remember one guy with an Uzi putting rounds into the roof when he couldnt control his mg.) who should not be in possession of a super soaker. And before I get tarred and feathered for saying there should be some restrictions on gun ownership and those should be reasonable. And who decides what is "reasonable", I dont have a sure fire answer to that. My opinion is all I have. MG's are ok, if they arent belt fed (again my own opinion, I dont see a need for a belt fed mg in the hands of any individual). Pretty much anything thats carried by one person and not crew served would be ok with me. Again, just my opinion, doesnt make me right and anyone else wrong.

4th- Right to be secure in your person, papers, homes and property. Unless a warrant is obtained, pc exists for an arrst (a seizure), etc.

No right is absolute. I have been overseas where citizens couldn't own anything except a hunting rifle, no handguns, mg's etc. Thats an oppressive state in my opinion. What we have is ok with me. I would prefer all class 3 weapons were $5 stamps though. My last 2 sbr's were expensive.
 
I agree. Maybe its also because I just shelled out $400 bucks in stamps to shorten my HK's. But they look really cool with the short barrel.
 
When I was home (briefly) for lunch today, I was gonna prune several of the last posts into a new thread and close this one.

The reason for the pruning, was that a sub-topic appeared to be taking over this thread and it was a worthy topic in itself.

The closure for this thread was simply that we have been arguing in circles for the past few pages. Nothing accomplished, other than just about everyone has had their say.

I see that zukiphile has started the new topic (better name than I had thought of... "Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?")

So the only remaining detail is to close this thread. Barring any reasonable objections (PM me), it's a done deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top