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.
On the other hand, I think a LOT of people in government need a very clear message sent that if they persist down the road they are on, that the People are going to make some big changes. Like King George before them, the plutocrats in the state houses and in Washington aren't listening to what the People are saying and are out of touch with the reality facing most Americans. People are starting to dump tea into the harbor so to speak. These armed demonstrations are indicative of growing and widening frustration with partisan politics and the actions of government that are affecting the common man.
.
Why do you act like your government is a dictatorship when you elect the very people who serve you?
Exactly what message is it that you think "government" needs to hear? Which people in government are we even talking about? Your state government officials? Your federal government officials? Your local mayor and city council?
I'm just curious. You don't say so, but are you all riled up that we shut down portions of the country to stop the spread of a dangerous infectious disease? Do you think your opinion ought to override that of physicians and scientists? Maybe you think you shouldn't have to pay taxes? What's the message?
Stop with the BS about "King George". You don't own a musket and you aren't standing on the Lexington Green. You had no voice in picking King George as your leader, but you do get to elect your President and state governor. No comparison.
Polls seem to indicate that the people engaging in these demonstrations (don't know if I would call them that when someone shows up with their gun) are a distinct minority in the states in which they live.
People have a right to peacefully assemble to protest. I'm not sure when they are shouldering firearms that they are acting peacefully.
Thank you for your service, and your rational response. I was never in the military, a decision I regret looking back - but to any thinking person what you describe is obvious. A bunch of ragtags with rifles and handguns taking on trained US military? It is so laughable it's hard to get your mind around the idea.
The Internet has given these twisted minds the mechanism to find one another and to find mutual support for their paranoid delusions. A gathering of miscreants carrying guns to the Statehouse could never have happened back when we communicated primarily by telephone. So that is part of this story...
Your position pre-supposes that the "Ragtags" have never served in a combat role and the current military would go against them in toto..... Also I suggest you research 4th generation warfare............
Recently, we've all seen the photos of the armed protestors on the steps of the state capitals. Are these guys delusional or what? Do these guys think they are in a movie?
This is real life. Who were they going to shoot? If they shot any counter protestors, that would be murder. If law enforcement had a reason to ask them to leave, they would have to comply. Were they going to engage in a full shootout with police on the grounds of a government building?
Now, this isn't a discussion about the second amendment. They can own guns. That's not the issue.
This alleged "show of force" is just theater being performed by people who think they are living in a Rambo movie.
Plus, there are a ton of other problematic issues that are clearly on display here.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
They are dolts, lol.
Watched too much red dawn or something, think they are about to engage in some sort of patriotic warfare. But reality is they had a mental breakdown over not being able to get a haircut, and the dine-in at Burger King being closed.
The 2nd amendment was never written so that there would be some kind of reserve civilian armed force that would stand up to the duly elected United States government or the duly elected government of any of its states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody01
I appreciate your opinion, but at the end of the day that's all it is.....your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
No, that is historical consensus on what the 2nd amendment is. It's not license to shove AR-15s in people's faces. The 2nd amendment is not about idiots carrying guns because they can. . .
Well Redguard (interesting, seemingly fitting username) your "historical consensus" is not one arrived at by respecting and understanding what the 2nd Amendment is . . . What there is to be cited is the product of agenda driven academic rewriting, trying to erase the liberty focused aspects of the RKBA and make it palatable to the mush minds academia produces, subservient types, always looking for government permission to act. Let me guess, you're a big fan of history scholars like Carl Bogus, Saul Cornell and Dennis Henigan huh?
To believe your revisionist history we would need to forget the very foundation of the Republic, the mingled principles of conferred powers and retained rights. We would need to believe the government gave us back a reduced, conditioned shell of the right when actually, we never parted with any aspect of the right . . . That is after all, the very definition of a "right", an exception of powers never granted.
If you truly understood the 2nd, you would know that "We the People" do not rely on the 2nd Amendment for any right, even the right to resist oppressors --duly elected or not. The 2nd Amendment does not grant, give, create or establish the right to arms thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-affirming that principle for going on 144 years:
Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
So, the only correct "historical consensus on what the 2nd amendment is", is that the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to arms, nor does it define it. All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government* to exercise powers it was never granted.
*and since 2010, state governments, see McDonald v Chicago
Liberal after being victims of home invasion: Wished I had bought the gun before and I could've put a few holes in that baddie.
Times like this a lot of folks wished they had bought the gun sooner before the pandemic started. If you called the police now, they have limited resources and you are on your own.
There's also a huge difference between carrying a gun and shooting someone with it.
Yes, of course there is a difference.
But please explain what the actual purpose of carrying a gun is, if the carrier has absolutely zero intention of shooting it?
(I accidentally rep'd you when I meant to click "quote")
What I think is interesting in this discussion is that people are forgetting the American government is the People. Every single elected official in this country was a private citizen who ran for office and was elected to represent their community, by other citizens. The government is not some abstract concept or warlords and aristocrats upholding tyranny and oppression. Of the people, for the people, by the people. Every American citizen has the right to run for public office. If you don't like the government that we have, then vote. Then run for office yourself. Support the candidates that you want to represent you. Normalizing threat and aggression toward other citizens is not the America I want to live in.
That is the simple description of our elected officials but in reality majority or I should say all of our elected officials represent an established party that represents corporate and private wealthy donors. Neither the GOP or Dems care about the welfare of voter lemmings. They know by simply making up stuff to say at rallys people will believe they are being represented. When in fact almost all representation in legislation are for the corporations and big donors that paid for play. When people voted Obama because they wanted free or affordable healthcare. Did Obama really gave us affordable healthcare? There is no political party that represents the free people anymore. Even the elected President has no control of what laws show up at his desk for him to sign yet people continue to blame the President of present and past. Just think hard who the lawmakers and who is really looking out for you.
That is the simple description of our elected officials but in reality majority or I should say all of our elected officials represent an established party that represents corporate and private wealthy donors. Neither the GOP or Dems care about the welfare of voter lemmings. They know by simply making up stuff to say at rallys people will believe they are being represented. When in fact almost all representation in legislation are for the corporations and big donors that paid for play. When people voted Obama because they wanted free or affordable healthcare. Did Obama really gave us affordable healthcare? There is no political party that represents the free people anymore. Even the elected President has no control of what laws show up at his desk for him to sign yet people continue to blame the President of present and past. Just think hard who the lawmakers and who is really looking out for you.
And even if that's the case, the way to make change is to actually follow the Constitution that these guys like to hide behind, and run for office and hold officials accountable (and actually read the document and understand what your rights and responsibilities are.) Peaceful protest and assembly is one thing, but storming the capitol with weapons is not how change is made in American goverment.
Well Redguard (interesting, seemingly fitting username) your "historical consensus" is not one arrived at by respecting and understanding what the 2nd Amendment is . . . What there is to be cited is the product of agenda driven academic rewriting, trying to erase the liberty focused aspects of the RKBA and make it palatable to the mush minds academia produces, subservient types, always looking for government permission to act. Let me guess, you're a big fan of history scholars like Carl Bogus, Saul Cornell and Dennis Henigan huh?
To believe your revisionist history we would need to forget the very foundation of the Republic, the mingled principles of conferred powers and retained rights. We would need to believe the government gave us back a reduced, conditioned shell of the right when actually, we never parted with any aspect of the right . . . That is after all, the very definition of a "right", an exception of powers never granted.
If you truly understood the 2nd, you would know that "We the People" do not rely on the 2nd Amendment for any right, even the right to resist oppressors --duly elected or not. The 2nd Amendment does not grant, give, create or establish the right to arms thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-affirming that principle for going on 144 years:
Supreme Court, 1876: "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
So, the only correct "historical consensus on what the 2nd amendment is", is that the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to arms, nor does it define it. All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government* to exercise powers it was never granted.
*and since 2010, state governments, see McDonald v Chicago
The 2008 case you refer to is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008). I suggest you read it and read it carefully. It does say that we have a constitutional right to firearms. However, the decision also makes it perfectly clear that state and local governments may choose to regulate that right. Justice Scalia leaves open the door for even banning or restricting entire types of firearms. The key to this is whether a type of firearm is "in common usage".
Some people mistakenly believe it allows them to own, bear, and use any firearm they want in any context with no restrictions. Justice Scalia made it clear that this is not true.
These cookie-cutter camo-clad, tubby, tattooed, bearded, armed and unmasked loons hanged the governor of Kentucky in effigy yesterday, in front of the Governor's Mansion (adjacent to the Kentucky State Capitol Building) where he, his wife, and two young children were present. They loudly played a recording of "Proud to be an American" while clumsily rigging up the rope in a pretty old tree in front of the Capitol. it also bore a large decorative flower basket suspended from its broad limbs, as is customary each spring and summer. Before the flower basket was joined by the effigy, it was a pretty sight. No one could say that about those "protesting".
After hanging the effigy, they went up onto the mansion's front porch with their guns and signs, and chanted loud threats against the governor. A few brought young children.
It was organized by the 3%ers, and they numbered 100 at best. The guy who hanged the effigy, which was adorned with a sign reading "Sic semper tyrannis" ("Thus even to tyrants", famously uttered by John Wilkes Booth immediately after shooting Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theater), is the husband of the local band of 3%ers.
They are being roundly condemned throughout the Commonwealth for this idiocy. Governor Andy Beshear's approval rate for his sensible, compassionate decisions was 81% among Kentuckians in a recent poll. I don't think the tubby brigade is going to win many hearts and minds to their "cause", but they do appear to be escalating, and that is worrisome. I have no idea where the Kentucky State Police were yesterday when the near-mob made its way to the governor's front door. They did remove the effigy after everyone got a good look.
Funny thing, essential occupation employers are advertising job openings right now. But it appears the camo-clad gun-toters are more concerned about eating out, getting a hair cut, and playing dress-up and showing off their, um, "guns", with their look-alike bearded buddies. All of which they can do legally at present, along with getting yet more tattoos, hitting the tanning salons and massage therapists. But they dislike masks and don't believe in social distancing, from all evidence, viewing both as infringements on their "freedom" rather than sensible precautions to protect public health.
I am happy to report that a very civil counter-demonstration showing support for our governor was held this afternoon. The unkempt 3%ers don't represent the vast majority of Kentuckians, by any means, and it's a shame their idiotic behavior is likely to unjustly tarnish the reputation of my beautiful state, and add to its "hillbilly" stereotype.
Their gripe? They claim their rights are being infringed by Governor Beshear's very moderate, sensible, four-step reopening of Kentucky's public businesses and places (we're presently on Step 2).
Patriots? Nope, just dumb Covidiots.
I can't help but think that it's gonna be things like what you describe which tip this coming election out of Trump's favor and into Biden's favor.
Most reasonable people don't want to see bullies with guns marching up into state capitols and threatening people. Most reasonable people also see behind the smokescreen of all of these whacky conspiracy theories going around on the right at this time.
These whacky conspiracy theories + armed men in camo + radical anti-abortion messages + anti-vax messages + lack of consistency in addressing the pandemic are all getting to be a bit too much for mainstream America to digest.
This happened in 2015-2016 when the BLM and other leftist movements started getting militantly anti-cop and pushed the voters to the right, thereby electing Trump. This year, the right-wing craziness is pushing mainstream America to the left towards Biden.
Last edited by apple92680; 05-27-2020 at 11:12 AM..
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.
Also I suggest you research 4th generation warfare............
