Fat Liberal Bastard Planned Mass Murder

[PeterS]

Debates about the 2^nd? Who cares about the debates? I mean really Peter, all that matters is the final product...the Second Amendment as it IS written...period.



Bob-and-weave Peter, bob-and-weave...

The 2^nd was put in place not for personal self-defense, but for the defense of a FREE nation. It was put in place so those in power would think twice before trying to rough-shod over our liberties...

Hows that working out?

[Apache]

Hows that working out?

sadly not so well. You see the true function of the US government is not being properly taught anymore, you know where THEY work for US....

Constitution is being twisted, like you are doing. Civic responsibilty, gone by the wayside. Knee-jerk, feelgood, rights swiping legislation is not the answer....

[NJCardFan]

So you think the military only has assult weapons. Jesus you are a fricking moron...

You do know that Texas is in the military, right?

[NJCardFan]

How exectly would you defeat a tyrannicay goverment with an AR15? How did David Koresh fair?

How did the Continental Army and militia do it with basic muskets?

[NJCardFan]

An idiot with an assult rifle isn't going to match up to the military. To revolt you have to have a reason, a means to organize, an area to organize, a target to attact...else you have no frickiing use for an assult rifle. So explain how you are going to do this and whom you are going to attack? For example, are a group of you going to get in your Hum-vees, go down to your local state capital, and shoot it to hell. If so, why and where do you go next?

This is very much the topic because this is why you say you need assult rifles...to protect yourself from evil government. I simply what to know why and how you plan to do it...

At the start of the French Revolution, France had one of the most powerful armies in the world. When the rebels stormed the Bastille, the French Royal guard arrived and instead of taking on the revolutionaries, they turned and fired on the Bastille. Rest assured, there would be quite a few soldiers, sailors, Marines and others who would go against this administration if they are ordered to fire on American citizen on American soil. And how I plan to do it?

[txradioguy]

Peter doesn't give a crap what the constitution says, if he was honest he would admit he would like all guns confiscated.
These cowards won't try the legal means of taking guns like an amendment or repealing the second amendment because they know that is not what the people want, so instead they lie twist and take away from the context the true meaning of the constitution.
This is why he can't give a clear and logical answer, he has none, his side of the debate is based on lies and dishonesty. Go to Cuba or Venezuela you worthless little communist fuck, you will fool no one here.

Then why are we still padding this Libtards post count.

Flush this turd.

[txradioguy]

The question is why? Why were the rights not to be infringed? Look at the first part of the sentance.

Because they had been severly infringed by the British when we were jsut 13 colonies.

All effective dictatorships take guns away from the citizens. Makes it easier to take everything else away from them.


No wonder you support taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

[Odysseus]

The question is why? Why were the rights not to be infringed? Look at the first part of the sentance.

Two things. First, I hate to play grammar Nazi, but if you are going to parse one of the most carefully written documents in history, you should, at the very least, ensure that your own posts are spelled and punctuated correctly. The errors undermine any semblance of authority that you may claim to possess as far as English usage.
Second, Britain's attempts to disarm the colonists after the passage of the Coercive Acts (or Intolerable Acts, as they were known here), precipitated the Revolutionary War. The mission of the British forces at Lexington and Concord was the confiscation of the militia arms, but this was the tip of the iceberg. The Crown had successfully confiscated gunpowder stores from colonists in Massachusetts and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident), and had banned the importation of powder and arms in 1774. This was why the Second Amendment was of such critical importance to the founders. They knew that any tyrannical ruler would seek to disarm the populace and enforce decrees by force of arms. This was also the source of the opposition to standing armies.

Any person, or media source, who claims to be unbiased is lying. There is no admission here simply a statements of fact.

A fact that the NY Times, WAPost, LA Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media continue to deny. Again, glad to see you calling them liars.

Actually the answer isn’t, nobody, else we wouldn’t see any restrictions to arms and munitions.

No, the answer is that the restrictions exceed the Constitutional enumerations of powers to the federal government, but were done anyway.

Where is the disagreement and what is the lesson? And no, Jefferson had no adversion to the use of military during a period of war; the Barbary Pirates were raiding our ships which would be considered an act of war.

But that isn't what you said. You stated that the founders didn't want a standing army which would be capable of conquering other territories. The point was not that we would not have land forces, but that those forces would be constituted in such a way as to ensure that they would not become a threat to domestic liberty. Since then, we have been forced to recognize that the complexity of modern warfare demands a professional soldier corps, trained in advanced weapons which are far more complex than the musket and ball, and that this requires a permanent structure. However, since the vast majority of that structure has been stationed overseas for the duration of the Cold War, it hasn't been an issue. But, this does not change the fact that the founders expected the people to have the means to defend their liberty against foreign and domestic threats.

And I said they weren't? If not people who would make up an army?

Not "people", but the people. It's a critical difference.

That was exactly my point thank you.

Yes, but my point is that the militia was made up of the entirety of the people, something that you keep evading. The people of the United States were to keep their arms so that they could provide a last line of defense against tyrannical usurpations of power. That is what you refuse to acknowledge.

Only because they didn't use deadly force; had they, it would have been over in minutes.

But they did use deadly force. They went in shooting on day one, and were repulsed, at which point they engaged in a siege. However, the FBI had to play some games in order to use the force that they eventually brought to bear. For example, the Posse Commitatus Act bars the use of federal troops in matters of law enforcement, unless martial law has been declared. Texas law has a similar requirement for use of the National Guard, but has an exemption for drug interdiction. The feds simply claimed, falsely, that the Branch Davidians were running drugs in order to get TXARNG assets. Without the heavy armor that was provided, the fight would have required the massing of a much larger force to breach the compound. Thus, the FBI had to break the law and use standing military forces in order to subdue a small group of people in a fixed location with minimal fortifications. Had the Davidians fled and gone to ground in prepared positions, or scattered, the feds would have had a much harder time dealing with them. If others in the region had sided with them, and a general uprising had occurred, as it had after the Powder Alarm, then the situation would have very quickly gone beyond control of the FBI. The feds were lucky that they chose an obscure group of local cranks who didn't have much support to flex their muscles against.

Were we to retain full force that wouldn't be the case. Were an insurgency to occure in the US there would be no withdrawl and the insurgents would be nothing but mangled meat.

Look at what you are saying. You are proposing that we forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens, and if they resist, that we use the full force of the US military against them, and turn them into "mangled meat". That is the point of this discussion, that in order to reduce the general population of the US to the state of servility that you are demanding, you are prepared to butcher however many of us it takes to achieve your goal. There are an estimated 80 million gun-owning households in the US. To confiscate all of those guns, you would have to search each of them, their neighbors, their properties, their remote storage units, anyplace and everyplace where a gun could be kept. You'd pitch the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments out the door in order to destroy the Second. If only 1% of those households resisted, you'd have to deal with 800,000 armed insurgents. And before you make the claim that you don't want to confiscate all guns, don't bother. Far too many gun-grabbers have admitted that their final goal is total disarmament of the American population, and the governments that have imposed incremental gun control throughout the world have either ended up with total bans or are on their way there.

And, you are wrong. We cannot use the kind of force that you are describing against foreign enemies without massive civil unrest here. The Iraq and Afghan wars have been marked by tremendous restraint by US troops and extremely restrictive rules of engagement. Any government that tried to bring that to bear against Americans would have to be a utterly without scruples, constraints or conscience. A tyrannical government that would use the kind of force that you are suggesting would not suddenly crop up overnight. It would have to impose its will incrementally, and would have to gradually disarm us, muzzle us and erode our liberties. It couldn't confiscate our property outright, at first, but it could bully property owners to give up claims "for the common good", or force them to give up equity to government cronies (just look at Chrysler's bondholders for an example of how that works). It couldn't end free speech overnight, but it could restrict licenses for broadcast, impose content restrictions and regulate alternative media until it had sufficient control to make the final elimination of dissent a matter of a minor tweak to an existing apparatus (notice the attempts to regulate the internet, or impose "fairness doctrines"?). It can't confiscate every gun in the country, but it can severely restrict the importation and manufacture of guns, and force through laws which make legal gun ownership expensive and difficult, and which viciously penalize minor infractions. This is the lesson of history. It's how the British people went from the freest people in the world to their current state, in which any self-defense against a criminal can land the victim of the crime in jail, and in which thugs roam freely, with no fear of meeting superior force. Britain's present is the future that you want for us. No thanks.

[Unreconstructed Reb]

Yes, but my point is that the militia was made up of the entirety of the people, something that you keep evading. The people of the United States were to keep their arms so that they could provide a last line of defense against tyrannical usurpations of power. That is what you refuse to acknowledge.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

[txradioguy]

I wanna know what our Libtard gun grabber...umm...that's you PeterS...thinks is the limit at which guns have been regulated enough?