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.
You didn't answer my question, who decides there is tyranny is there a chain of command or do you just call up your buddies and say lets go. Who decides to attack a wildlife sanctuary or protect tax frauds. Do you have any recent examples of this militia and these patriots using all this fire power.
Im not sure what you mean when you ask "who decides its tyranny'? Its pretty clear when tyranny exists imo.
Example...if the Constitution says govt may not infringe on gun ownership...and the govt then attempts to do that very thing...well, THAT IS TYRANNY.
Another example...if the Constitution does not permit Govt to create or enforce certain laws (drug laws as example), and Govt goes ahead and does it anyway...THAT IS TYRANNY.
There is no need to have some committee to decide on whether tyranny exists, its blindingly obvious in many cases.
I get the impression many people today try to justify tyranny, so they do not have to do anything that may put their quality of life at risk.
The 2nd amendment is a statement of the Framers' opinion that the country is better off with government having NO say in which people can own and carry guns, than the country would be if government has ANY say in the question. Felons and crazy people existed in George Washington's time and were just as prominent as they are today. The Framers believed that even if a few nutcases got guns and killed some innocents, that harm was less than if government had the power to choose who could or couldn't own and carry.
They also left the decision of last resort, to juries who could decide on a case by case basis ONLY whether the 2nd amendment should be applied to a certain person under the certain circumstances of the crime under consideration. Juries, though convened by government, are not government themselves. They are you and me, with complete power to interpret (and even reject) a law solely by their own judgment. And their verdict is final.
It was the best the Framers could do. And though not perfect, it is better than anything anybody else has been able to come up with since.
Good grief!! That has been answered many times. And studiously ignored by you just as many. So why answer again? So you can ignore it again and reiterate the same question?
You have also ignored the question posed to you about how you arrive at the conclusion that the 2A does NOT apply to the general population but every other amendment does.
Also how it is you conclude personal and community defense against criminal attack does not apply. Only national defense in cadre to the Army.
Quit deflecting. Its become nonsensical and tiresome. Your conclusions are wrong. Blatantly wrong. And your question posed above has been answered many times. Ignoring those answers does not change that fact.
CALGUY is an obvious troll. I answered it, others answered it, at this point he is obviously trolling the forum. He is not here to debate anything, because he knows he cannot, the facts do not support his contention. Liberals are like that, they often engage in magical thinking, they want to believe there are more than two genders etc, they ignore logic simply because that if who they are. Then they did their heels in with logic like I do not accept legal agreements made by slave holders or whatever imaginary trump card they think they are playing in their pretend universe.
The 2nd amendment is a statement of the Framers' opinion that the country is better off with government having NO say in which people can own and carry guns, than the country would be if government has ANY say in the question. Felons and crazy people existed in George Washington's time and were just as prominent as they are today. The Framers believed that even if a few nutcases got guns and killed some innocents, that harm was less than if government had the power to choose who could or couldn't own and carry.
They also left the decision of last resort, to juries who could decide on a case by case basis ONLY whether the 2nd amendment should be applied to a certain person under the certain circumstances of the crime under consideration. Juries, though convened by government, are not government themselves. They are you and me, with complete power to interpret (and even reject) a law solely by their own judgment. And their verdict is final.
It was the best the Framers could do. And though not perfect, it is better than anything anybody else has been able to come up with since.
We had Public Hangings on Sunday after Church, for that.
CALGUY is an obvious troll. I answered it, others answered it, at this point he is obviously trolling the forum. He is not here to debate anything, because he knows he cannot, the facts do not support his contention. Liberals are like that, they often engage in magical thinking, they want to believe there are more than two genders etc, they ignore logic simply because that if who they are. Then they did their heels in with logic like I do not accept legal agreements made by slave holders or whatever imaginary trump card they think they are playing in their pretend universe.
Mmmm. Yea pretty much. The "theory" he's tossed out has been ground d to sausage but he pretends like nothing was ever said.
I am a moderate Democrat. A little liberal on some items but mostly toward the center.
I support the second amendment until such time as we really are ready to minimize gun ownership and regulate usage. I prefer the second to anything seriously proposed.
Note though this is all the grand conspiracy. The pro gun types, the NRA, the USSC are all ducking the real and obvious meaning of the second. The problem is simple - if they succeeded in getting the amendment interpreted as was meant they believe the Second would become untenable and would be repealed or modified into something else. None of the conspiracy considers that a good outcome so they will continue to support these insane interpretations.
Can you imagine the reaction to LA gangs driving around with mounted 50s or recoil-less rifles on their vehicles? But that is what the second really would allow.
Im not sure what you mean when you ask "who decides its tyranny'? Its pretty clear when tyranny exists imo.
Example...if the Constitution says govt may not infringe on gun ownership...and the govt then attempts to do that very thing...well, THAT IS TYRANNY.
Another example...if the Constitution does not permit Govt to create or enforce certain laws (drug laws as example), and Govt goes ahead and does it anyway...THAT IS TYRANNY.
There is no need to have some committee to decide on whether tyranny exists, its blindingly obvious in many cases.
I get the impression many people today try to justify tyranny, so they do not have to do anything that may put their quality of life at risk.
So if we are already there where is this militia to take on the government, who exactly does this militia attack. A law that was convoluted over the last 200 years and now its an excuse to avoid any gun reform, this was not what was orginally intended.
So if we are already there where is this militia to take on the government, who exactly does this militia attack.
Why do you want to promote violence? There are tens of millions of law abiding gun owners. They aren't breaking the law, and aren't causing violence. Why do you want them to attack government or anybody? If you want to see violence, just go on the L.I. Expressway. Now THAT is dangerous.
Why do you want to promote violence? There are tens of millions of law abiding gun owners. They aren't breaking the law, and aren't causing violence. Why do you want them to attack government or anybody? If you want to see violence, just go on the L.I. Expressway. Now THAT is dangerous.
I’m not the one promoting violence that would be these supposed militia members laying in wait for the opportunity to attack our tyrannical goverment. The poster I was responding claimed that was the reason they needed all these weapons.
I support the second amendment until such time as we really are ready to minimize gun ownership and regulate usage.
TRANSLATION: I don't support the 2nd at all.
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.
That has been answered many times. And studiously ignored by you just as many. So why answer again? So you can ignore it again and reiterate the same question? 
