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.
For those who don't know, Democrats are currently staging a filibuster, lead by Chris Murphy of CT, on the floor of the Senate in order to make their case for gun control.
Watching their protests, it occurs to me that Democrats are still in full fledged denial about the purpose of the 2A. Senator Amy Klobuchar just framed the argument in this context... "would passing these laws hurt my uncle in his deer stand? No"... Numerous others, of whom I can't recall their names, have made statements such as "this is about hunting and if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, you're in trouble" or "hunters, sportsmen, and target shooters won't be effected by these laws at all".... etc, etc.
They still refuse to acknowledge that the 2A is about self defense, not hunting or sportsmanship. It's obvious that 8 years after Heller, they still refuse to take our rights seriously, or even PRETEND to take them seriously by paying the self-defense purpose of the amendment lip service in their arguments.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
For those who don't know, Democrats are currently staging a filibuster, lead by Chris Murphy of CT, on the floor of the Senate in order to make their case for gun control.
Watching their protests, it occurs to me that Democrats are still in full fledged denial about the purpose of the 2A. Senator Amy Klobuchar just framed the argument in this context... "would passing these laws hurt my uncle in his deer stand? No"... Numerous others, of whom I can't recall their names, have made statements such as "this is about hunting and if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, you're in trouble" or "hunters, sportsmen, and target shooters won't be effected by these laws at all".... etc, etc.
They still refuse to acknowledge that the 2A is about self defense, not hunting or sportsmanship. It's obvious that 8 years after Heller, they still refuse to take our rights seriously, or even PRETEND to take them seriously by paying the self-defense purpose of the amendment lip service in their arguments.
well, there is this.
Quote:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
i dont have a problem with someone having a gun for self defense, but i dont think James Madison felt the same way you did in this context.
tyrannical government to include government that is against the peoples right to keep and bear arms.
Congratulations! You are now on the DHS Domestic Watch list along with thousands of other law abided, constitutional citizens. Don't worry, DHS will not waste their time and resources on people like the Orlando attacker or the Bernardino attacker. Because DHS believes the biggest threat to America is extreme right wingers. Not Islamic Terrorists.
i dont have a problem with someone having a gun for self defense, but i dont think James Madison felt the same way you did in this context.
What's the point? That Madison was advocating arms in the hands of the people to repel a tyrannical government? Yes, that's true, but Democrats can't even acknowledge simple self-defense as a purpose for the 2A, I highly doubt they'd acknowledge that the actual purpose is so the people can repel a tyrannical government.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
What's the point? That Madison was advocating arms in the hands of the people to repel a tyrannical government? Yes, that's true, but Democrats can't even acknowledge simple self-defense as a purpose for the 2A, I highly doubt they'd acknowledge that the actual purpose is so the people can repel a tyrannical government.
Madison, who wrote the second amendment(by most accounts) and this Federalist Paper, clearly argues for actual Militias, both state and local, not individual people.
Further more,Madison also wrote the part in the constitution about it being treason to take up arms against the US government. Meaning it was never meant for you to use it against the US government.
the tyrannical government he spoke of was the British and other European powers.
If he wanted individuals to have guns for their own protection, it seems he never said so in any of his writing.
Last, this protest filibuster is more about the terrorist watch list than anything else.
For those who don't know, Democrats are currently staging a filibuster, lead by Chris Murphy of CT, on the floor of the Senate in order to make their case for gun control.
Watching their protests, it occurs to me that Democrats are still in full fledged denial about the purpose of the 2A. Senator Amy Klobuchar just framed the argument in this context... "would passing these laws hurt my uncle in his deer stand? No"... Numerous others, of whom I can't recall their names, have made statements such as "this is about hunting and if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, you're in trouble" or "hunters, sportsmen, and target shooters won't be effected by these laws at all".... etc, etc.
They still refuse to acknowledge that the 2A is about self defense, not hunting or sportsmanship. It's obvious that 8 years after Heller, they still refuse to take our rights seriously, or even PRETEND to take them seriously by paying the self-defense purpose of the amendment lip service in their arguments.
It's all for show.
The Dems had a chance to do something with gun control and everything else they say they "believe in", and they didn't. Now, they pretend the Republicans stopped them.
"Being a Democrat means never saying what you mean".
Madison, who wrote the second amendment(by most accounts) and this Federalist Paper, clearly argues for actual Militias, both state and local, not individual people.
Further more,Madison also wrote the part in the constitution about it being treason to take up arms against the US government. Meaning it was never meant for you to use it against the US government.
the tyrannical government he spoke of was the British and other European powers.
If he wanted individuals to have guns for their own protection, it seems he never said so in any of his writing.
Last, this protest filibuster is more about the terrorist watch list than anything else.
All the founders wrote about protecting against a tyrannical government, they didn't mean just England, they meant also against the government that they were creating. It even says exactly this in the Declaration of Independence.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --
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.
