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.
Of course they would that's the whole point. After denigrating and insulting both the military and law enforcement a lot of Leftists think that the rank and file members of the military and law enforcement are on their side and would go to war against their fellow citizens. Unbelievable!!!
Wait, isn't OP rw?
I criticize police for lack of accountability and they're the muscle for the ruling class. I don't think the average individual cop is evil. But the institution works on behalf of the interest of capital. AKA billionaires. Because any workers that try and organize and protest often get their skulls bashed in by police. Hence why they're called "class traitors" or "strikebreakers".
The military is a bit more different and disciplined. When it comes to police, they usually don't live in the areas they patrol, so it makes it easier to not feel guilty over cracking skulls.
But I do think most of them have a limit. If ordered to fire on civilians, most cops and military would be like "WTF? Seriously?"
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Article I, Section 8: "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."
Therefore...
Citizens have a right to own guns because they may be called upon by the Federal Government in the event of a foreign invasion or domestic rebellion. The federal government, including the Founding Fathers, have suppressed many rebellions using this power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
Would the Federal Government call upon the Militia to overthrow itself? Of course not. What would be the citizens' option if they wanted to overthrow the government? It would not be a Constitutional option. Overthrowing the government would entail overthrowing the 2nd Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 8.
So on one side you would have the Federal Government calling up the Militia calling up armed citizens. And on the other side you have armed citizens attempting to overthrow the Constitutional government.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment and Art.I,Sec.8 is not to protect citizens who want to overthrow the government. It is to provide the Federal government with a means of protecting itself from citizens who want to overthrow the government.
That being said, I support the right of people to own guns to protect themselves. But that ownership should be well regulated.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
In 1787 the US did not have a standing army, nor any plans to have one. In case of an invasion by a foreign power, we needed to rely on rapid call up of a citizen militia.
During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776.
Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.
However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.
So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.
I criticize police for lack of accountability and they're the muscle for the ruling class. I don't think the average individual cop is evil. But the institution works on behalf of the interest of capital. AKA billionaires. Because any workers that try and organize and protest often get their skulls bashed in by police. Hence why they're called "class traitors" or "strikebreakers".
The military is a bit more different and disciplined. When it comes to police, they usually don't live in the areas they patrol, so it makes it easier to not feel guilty over cracking skulls.
But I do think most of them have a limit. If ordered to fire on civilians, most cops and military would be like "WTF? Seriously?"
Don't forget Kent State in your musings. Those "militia" guys had no problem firing upon unarmed students with flowers in their hair - and they were all Americans.
With all of the mass shooting involving school students in the recent past and NOTHING tangible being done to address them; any casual observer would be hard pressed to not deduce the average American has about the same respect for individual human life as the Taliban or Somali pirate.
I don't think the government would be worried about citizens with guns...
On top of that, conservatives love guns so much that they think any regulation makes them think you're trying to take their toy away. They try to turn it into a more serious conversation about fighting tyranny.
Dude you are not going to fight against the tyrannical government okay? You are not the Viet-Cong you are not the Taliban. You will never be able to fight successfully against the American government if it wanted to shove its boot up your ass, as it does all day every day. And all you do is just shut up and you keep consuming the garbage that you consume on a daily basis and refuse to recognize that you're being f*ed over all the g*ddamn time. So it's already happening. You talk about a tyrannical government but we're already here.
A tyrannical government isn't when they tell you you can't get a five-dollar jalapeno popper at Applebee's It's the surveillance state that we have, it's the police state that we have, and it's the severe lack of freedom of travel that you engage in as long as it's done through a capitalist framework. Most Americans a cucked when they're like "I deserve to be in a situation where I can't pay for health care" You know what I mean there are people who legitimately believe that they think that that's not tyranny they think it's not medical tyranny when you can't get health care because it's just too expensive you're paying a butt-load out of pocket. You're terrified to go to the doctor because you don't want to get medically bankrupt. That's medical tyranny. But to you, the real health care tyranny is when the government's like "here's a free vaccine".
None of these conservative pricks are gonna get together and actively dismantle the federal government. They're not gonna be able to do that, and the republican party is already doing that. The democratic party is also looking over and allowing that to happen anyways. And they're doing it at the best of corporations.
You are powerless and if you think you're a brave hero a brave mujahideen who's gonna be able to fight back against the American government and like actually organize, guess what dude you can't even organize in a workplace. Good luck! You don't even want to organize in your damn workplace. You're like "yeah we're gonna fight back against the government that's why I need a gun". Bro, you can't even fight back against your boss who’s taking advantage of you. You don't even have control over your own life as an adult dude. 80% of your life is spent in a corporate office or in some kind of workplace and you have no control over that. You can't even organize to take control over that in some meaningful capacity because you think that's communism. Then you turn around and you think you're gonna fight back against tyranny when the government is already screwing you on behalf of corpos.
I don't know about all that. We only need to look to how the average citizen of Ukraine have been able to stand up to the Super power of Russia. They had guns, they now have more but in the early days men, women and children were gearing up for combat and were busy making molotov cocktails.
Where there is a will there is a way and Americans can be very stubborn and protective of their Rights.
When you think about the 2nd amendment it grants the citizens of this country to own guns if you choose to.
Today we have the Elite Elected that would take away our guns BUT at the same time they are creating real reasons from promoted Riots to being soft on crime, as to why we need them more than ever.
As we saw during the riots, the Crisis at the Border, Chaz/Chop and the civil unrest all over the country and sadly the recent tragedy in Texas THE POLICE are not going to help us if it gets really ugly out there.
During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776.
Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.
However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.
So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.
It's pretty clear what the founder's intentions were when incorporating the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. Not to mention that the Supreme Court had already ruled in the Heller/McDonald decision that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in a militia. Yet those on the Left refuse to acknowledge it and keep on regurgitating the same old lies. Unfortunately there are just too many people that are truly ignorant and uninformed who believe them.
Quote:
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock " violated this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...is%20guarantee.
In fact, the framers TOLD us what the intent is:
Quote:
Samuel Adams: "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands." --Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."
George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence for any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
James Madison: "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
George Mason: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
In fact they sure as hell did. Of course it wouldn't hurt to read it.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 05-31-2022 at 11:34 AM..
Im talking about if the government became tyrannical.
Also they put barricades on the White House and other monuments in 2020. Remember “dominate the streets”?
And for the record, as my post stated, America’s government has always been tyrannical. Often times if you weren’t white you’d know.
But even now, it still is. Try standing up to police, try organizing. Corpos would crush your worker movement via the police.
You guys are more upset about not being able to eat your Big Macs inside the McDonalds than the lack of police accountability or the fact that we’re ruled by CEOs who can care less about you.
I think people need to take a breath and go back to revisit what the intent of the Second Amendment is.
It is NOT about general safety among the populace.
The purpose is to protect people from government that could make itself too powerful and overwhelm the citizens.
We are seeing the government today trying to influence the citizens to remove the very protection that protects us from them.
Over two centuries ago the founders knew enough to provide us this protection from the government. It will always be needed because people are the same and the enticement of the power from being in government will always be there.
You are totally wrong in your assessment of the 2nd.
It was not to protect against a government takeover of the citizens, but to be able to arm the people who would comprise a militia to ward of a foreign nation from invading once again, as the British did in the revolutionary war.
It has absolutely nothing to do with our government overtaking the populace.
You will note the first few words in the 2nd, "A well regulated militia".
It states nothing about a well regulated citizenry.
The founding fathers knew this newly formed country would need to protect itself from another invading source, so the 2nd was adopted to make sure a well armed, and regulated militia would be at the ready, not the general public.
The 2nd will remain. But the 2nd Amendment sure hasn't done any good against even the most unjust tyrannical prohibitions against citizens, such as the drug war and civil forfeiture directly associated with it. It's disgusting how much unjust tyranny people will tolerate or worse greatly support. At least the citizens in many of the states have seen fit to say enough is enough and peaceably revolt by voting yes to legalize marijuana in some form. Citizens need to do a lot more peaceful revolting on voting day. A significant part of the tyranny comes from state governments.
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.
