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.
Yes, it was the British tyrannical government that was supposed to be resisted not the democratically elected government for the people by the people. How can a democracy be tyrannical if you get to vote your government in?
You fail to understand that just because they are elected in a free election does not mean they can not be tyrannical and they do not get the ability to violate the Constitution or the natural rights of the citizenry.
I take it you have never heard of the term mob rule?
Why?
Second amendment was meant to allow for forming militias consisting of people possessing arms that were common at the battlefields of XVIII century and not hand grenades, blocks or ar-15s.
Really? Does it say that in the amendment somewhere? I've never saw where the amendment said "the right of the people to keep and bear 18th century arms" I thought it just said "arms" period. Did they go and change it when I wasn't looking?
So, using your own logic, the 1st amendment should only protect the methods of speech common in the 18th century. I'll give up all of my guns that aren't muskets if you agree to this, sound good?
Quote:
Even the most aggressive gun-nuts don't argue a need to RPGs or ballistic nuclear weapons by the general public.
You can already own RPG's if you fill out the right paperwork and have the money. Hell, you can even own your own personal tank, again, if you have the money. Are you a fan of The Walking Dead tv show? Remember the tank the governors group drove in to the prison? That was a privately owned tank.
As far as "ballistic nuclear weapons", those aren't the kinds of "arms" the 2A protects, as those are crew served arms, and what type of "arms" were the founders referring to? They were referring to personal arms. Arms that individuals would bring in to battle with them, and form a well regulated militia if necessary. so, sorry to rain on your over used nuclear warhead argument.
When you say the government can only restrict firearms through the People or our elected representatives, are you saying that a law prohibiting weapons in a park is Constitutional? I think that's a tough question, though I would probably agree with that interpretation.
I think it's a tough question to. As of right now though, those kinds of laws have not yet been ruled Unconstitutional, so yes, I think the government ought to be allowed to limit the carrying of arms on public lands provided they seek the permission of the people or the elected representatives of the people.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 05-08-2014 at 09:47 PM..
I never heard anybody referring to any democratic government as mob rule. I know however that every society has certain rules of acceptable behavior and everybody has to adjust if they want to be accepted. It may seem tyrannical but it has always been this way... Remember when we forced Mormons to abandon polygamy?
It seems to me that you don't oppose the government but society in general. I am sorry but toy have to change and not the society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
You fail to understand that just because they are elected in a free election does not mean they can not be tyrannical and they do not get the ability to violate the Constitution or the natural rights of the citizenry.
I take it you have never heard of the term mob rule?
Really? Does it say that in the amendment somewhere? I've never saw where the amendment said "the right of the people to keep and bear 18th century arms" I thought it just said "arms" period. Did they go and change it when I wasn't looking?
So why don't you argue your right to possess Poseidon or Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads?
I never heard anybody referring to any democratic government as mob rule. I know however that every society has certain rules of acceptable behavior and everybody has to adjust if they want to be accepted. It may seem tyrannical but it has always been this way... Remember when we forced Mormons to abandon polygamy?
It seems to me that you don't oppose the government but society in general. I am sorry but toy have to change and not the society.
I am sure you don't here or choice not to hear alot of things, it does not altar the fact that tyranny of the majority is very real.
We do have certain rules of acceptable behavior, its called the Constitution..
I could care less if I accepted by a of control freaks on a power trip.
Remember when Morons were disarmed and murdered via the Missouri Executive Order 44 aka "Mormon Extermination Order", but that was not a tyrannical action because the people that signed that law were elected in a free election.....Right?
If a majority pf people say something is right when it is so clearly wrong it does not make it right, the band wagon fallacy of laws that restrict peoples basic rights just because some people think it is ok to do so some how makes it ok is a idea that is antithetical to want this nation is founded on.
“Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say.Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.
This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "No, YOU move.”
I am sure you don't here or choice not to hear alot of things, it does not altar the fact that tyranny of the majority is very real.
Only for people like you who don't want to obey the rules set by society. From ancient times every society has been setting rules and laws governing social interactions and if you were found breaking these rules you were simply banished.
Remember, you live in a society and have to obey its rules or find your own place with your own rules elsewhere.
Yes, it was the British tyrannical government that was supposed to be resisted not the democratically elected government for the people by the people. How can a democracy be tyrannical if you get to vote your government in?
Turn on the news and find out......
Are you unfamiliar with the term, "abuse of power"??? There are supposed to be checks and balances to keep the executive branch in line, along with all other branches. Each branch is supposed to be a check on all the others. but what if the congress and the supreme courts / federal courts were also stacked in the executive branches favor? At that point, the executive would have a blank check to do whatever. In recent years, we've witnessed the passing of the NDAA, which gives government the authority to hold a US citizen without trial indefinately, right down to the NSA spying scandal and on up to the IRS targeting certain political groups it's leaders and the current administration find unfavorable. Of course, you would actually have to see those actions as tyrannical before you could use that as an example of how a democratically elected government could go bad, and I'm not sure you do.
The founders took great pains to ensure that there were plenty of checks and balances, but even they knew that it wasn't full proof, and this is why they recognised the right of the people to alter or ultimately abolish government if it became destructive to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Even Ben Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, when asked what kind of government he and the framers had forned, replied:
Only for people like you who don't want to obey the rules set by society. From ancient times every society has been setting rules and laws governing social interactions and if you were found breaking these rules you were simply banished.
Remember, you live in a society and have to obey its rules or find your own place with your own rules elsewhere.
I do obey the Constitutions, I wish those in power did.
When Morons were disarmed and murdered via the Missouri Executive Order 44 aka "Mormon Extermination Order", was not a tyrannical action because the people that signed that law were elected in a free election?
So why don't you argue your right to possess Poseidon or Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads?
If you're too lazy to read my posts to you, then I'm too lazy to re-post them.
I already adressed your "nuclear warhead" argument.
Why don't you just admit that your argument is not about us not having the right to modern arms, it's that you don't like the fact that we do have this right and you want it taken away.
At least that would be an honest argument on your part, and it would save us all a lot of time.
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.
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.
