U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-15-2009, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,126 times
Reputation: 948

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


The founding fathers would disagree with you, it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to self protection, it is the final check put into place to control our government when it stops working for the people. Get enough people pissed off, and you will have your removal of government (see revolutionary war, where it was put to test.)
That was a worry to a bunch of guys in the 18th century having just broken away from a monarchy. It isn't a worry today after two hundred years of peaceful changes in government. The idea that a segment of armed civilians could somehow take control of the American government is ridiculous and is treason punishable by death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2009, 01:17 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,021 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
That was a worry to a bunch of guys in the 18th century having just broken away from a monarchy. It isn't a worry today after two hundred years of peaceful changes in government. The idea that a segment of armed civilians could somehow take control of the American government is ridiculous and is treason punishable by death.
wrong. it was not set up on the worry that the fledgling government would go awry. it was set up to prevent any such worries for the future. it was not set up as a temporary crutch, but as a foundational pillar of our government.

it is actually very clear there, and your attempts at extrapolating temporary intent is blatantly fabricated.

if you want to argue that they were just paranoid and mistaken, and that it is no longer needed, despite what they thought, that is another matter entirely–though still one that is fairly obviously wrong, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:04 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
10 posts, read 23,248 times
Reputation: 12
Guns don't Kill People....People Kill People!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,126 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
wrong. it was not set up on the worry that the fledgling government would go awry. it was set up to prevent any such worries for the future. it was not set up as a temporary crutch, but as a foundational pillar of our government.

it is actually very clear there, and your attempts at extrapolating temporary intent is blatantly fabricated.

if you want to argue that they were just paranoid and mistaken, and that it is no longer needed, despite what they thought, that is another matter entirely–though still one that is fairly obviously wrong, in my opinion.
Mistaken, certainly. Paranoid, maybe not in the 18th century. Those who still cling to the "worry" today are clearly paranoid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,250,335 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Mistaken, certainly. Paranoid, maybe not in the 18th century. Those who still cling to the "worry" today are clearly paranoid.
if you think things like that kind of stuff is not needed these days. Look up the Presidential Directive NSPD51 that our very president bush signed last year. In time of crisis, he would have been able to assume total power until he saw fit. Wow, we are really only one crisis away from being ruled by a dictator. It is also comon for each new president to release some form of this presidential directive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:35 PM
 
6,209 posts, read 6,580,879 times
Reputation: 3091
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Mistaken, certainly. Paranoid, maybe not in the 18th century. Those who still cling to the "worry" today are clearly paranoid.
Having not read this entire thread, I'll say now is the time to be paranoid. Never in my 51 years have I seen such an incompetent Federal Government corrupted by both parties. If it worsens the American people and States have every right to go after Fed and straighten it out at any cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:41 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,021 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Mistaken, certainly. Paranoid, maybe not in the 18th century. Those who still cling to the "worry" today are clearly paranoid.
well i had certainly not be able to go back through your posting history then to see talk of bush being a dictator or tyrant then.

if that is true, then congrats; you might be one of the few gun control advocates then that doesn't gripe about how fascist or dangerous the repubs are. if that kind of consistency is inherent in your ideals and your posts, i commend you. not because i like republicans, or bush (since i think partisan politics is one of the problems that leads to the kind of crap that the 2nd amendment was created in order to safeguard against, and i think bush is a megalo-idiot), but because consistency would be nice when it comes to rational argument, even if incorrect; it is so uncommon.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:51 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
That was a worry to a bunch of guys in the 18th century having just broken away from a monarchy. It isn't a worry today after two hundred years of peaceful changes in government. The idea that a segment of armed civilians could somehow take control of the American government is ridiculous and is treason punishable by death.
Thing is many in our military arent like you. They know right from wrong & I'd expect huge defections just like in the civil war should it come to pass we had to fight our own country.

Far as treason, its rediculous to consider it treason if the body of the people decided to usurp the Govt. The true traitors are the legislators that defy the constitution as well as people like yourself that have sworn to uphold the constitution only to work towards its defeat.
After you swear an oath its too late to change your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 02:52 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Mistaken, certainly. Paranoid, maybe not in the 18th century. Those who still cling to the "worry" today are clearly paranoid.

Nah, your just sucking off the Gov't teet. If it goes down you do to.
Its greed & personal security that blinds you to what the rest of us want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2009, 03:46 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,296 posts, read 9,970,295 times
Reputation: 9069
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
How's the opera in Bismark?
I don't know, but I'll bet you whatever it is they have, I can safely walk down the sidewald to get to it! (sans bullet-proof vest)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top