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.
No, that is not correct; it's dead wrong. There is no right sanctioned by the Second Amendment to take up arms against the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
One more time, there is no right sanctioned by the Second Amendment to take up arms against the government; .
No matter how many times you repeat yourself Wendell my freind, it won't make it true.
You seem to be someone who knows at least a thing or two about history, but perhaps you limit your field of study only to those aspects that support your position. As someone who has at least a tenuous grasp on historical context, you ought to know that the founders had a profound mistrust of standing armies. They saw them as a threat to liberty, should they exist during times of peace. In their ideal world, a standing army would have never existed, but in their infinite wisdom, they knew that vision of the future wasn't very realistic, and there very well would likely be a time when it became necessary to form a standing army. Enter the Second Amendment. From Federalist 29:
it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
My emphasis added, and edited for relevancy.
In otherwords, the founders intended for the people to be able to form a militia, and if absolutely necessary, take up arms against a standing army if it should threaten their liberties. That line about being " the best possible defense against it" really drives the point home.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 09-28-2014 at 08:07 PM..
No matter how many times you repeat yourself Wendell my freind, it won't make it true.
You seem to be someone who knows at least a thing or two about history, but perhaps you limit your field of study only to those aspects that support your position. As someone who has at least a tenuous grasp on historical context, you ought to know that the founders had a profound mistrust of standing armies. They saw them as a threat to liberty, should they exist during times of peace. In their ideal world, a standing army would have never existed, but in their infinite wisdom, they knew that vision of the future wasn't very realistic, and there very well would likely be a time when it became necessary to form a standing army. Enter the Second Amendment. From Federalist 29:
it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
My emphasis added, and edited for relevancy.
In otherwords, the founders intended for the people to be able to form a militia, and if absolutely necessary, take up arms against a standing army if it should threaten their liberties. That line about being " the best possible defense against it" really drives the point home.
Just so that no one can say I'm trying to misrepresent the message the Federalist 29 is conveying, here is the same passage in it's unedited form:
Spoiler
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
And this part came a few sentences later on:
Spoiler
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped
So there you have it. Of course, this is no substitute for reading the Federalist 29, on your own, in it's entirety, which I'd encourage all of you to do.
You mean to defend my GOD given right to be a murderer?
We have a Right to be a murderer? Where is this codified in to law?
Or, are you saying that owning a gun makes you a murderer by default, because you know, obviously there is no other purpose for owning a gun other than murder, and there is no other way to commit murder other than with a gun...
LOL, just stop, you're making yourself look foolish.
We have a Right to be a murderer? Where is this codified in to law?
Or, are you saying that owning a gun makes you a murderer by default, because you know, obviously there is no other purpose for owning a gun other than murder, and there is no other way to commit murder other than with a gun...
LOL, just stop, you're making yourself look foolish.
No! let him keep going its great to for statist to show how little they know the foolish things they claim are true..
70% of the Armed forces would defect or turn against the Federal Government
25,000,000 vets will use their training and experience against the Federal government
150,000,000 Gun Owners will unleash Hell..
I can promise you no more Waco..
There is a good chance that the first two would not be true. I would bet you that the professional army will do what the professional army does, which is deploy lethal force against the enemy defined by their leadership. They have no soft spot for you.
If the first two would not be true, the third will not make enough difference.
The reality is that once it comes to insurrection and civil war, there is no law in any society that is binding at that point. It's simply anarchy until the strongest survives and creates a new order. Has nothing to do with God-given rights or anything else.
There is a good chance that the first two would not be true. I would bet you that the professional army will do what the professional army does, which is deploy lethal force against the enemy defined by their leadership. They have no soft spot for you.
If the first two would not be true, the third will not make enough difference.
The reality is that once it comes to insurrection and civil war, there is no law in any society that is binding at that point. It's simply anarchy until the strongest survives and creates a new order. Has nothing to do with God-given rights or anything else.
They have been studies, that number of the 1st group is true.
The 2nd Group has alot of axes to grind and I can not blame the,
Really? Maybe you should take to anyone in those "leadership" positions....I promise they they have a soft stop for liberty and the Constitution and despise statistm and tyranny.
It will..If you do not think even just 10,000,000 armed and experience men in battle can make a difference i really do think you need to read up on history..
Oh it comes down to who wants to live more, and who has the strong will to fight and who has the greatest number of skilled men and women, which we do, and we will win the day..Looking back we will see the scale of our struggle and ask "why did we not rid ourselves of such fools, liars, thieves and tyrants soon?"
Look ambient I say such things out of honesty and my hope such things can be avoided...Unfortunately one side which is that of the Statist is pushing faster and faster, harder and harder for war..If the choice comes to dangerous liberty or peaceful slavery, more then 150,000,000 Americans will go for dangerous liberty and if that means we must fight and take the lives of misguided, foolish or plain sadistic and evil agents of tyranny...So be it..We will win you will lose, Liberty and Prosperity will reign eternal as statism falls into the ash heap of history.
The leftie gun grabbers ALWAYS point to the "well regulated militia" in response to the American citizens right to bear arms.
The "well regulated militia" includes local and state police departments.
Recent police shootings (with the exception of mike brown) have shown that we are sitting ducks.
Thank God that we 2nd amendment proponents have the NRA to fight for that right!
The 2nd amendment did nothing to help Theodore Wafer who killed his so called intruder. He was convicted of manslaughter and is now doing 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.
