YA-Anti2A-Idiot

[Mindflayer]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... dment.html

A slew of them - the Constitution grants us the right to have firearms? And she's going to have a show?

Thank goodness for Rep. Issa who points out the 2A is to protect ourselves and protect ourselves from tyranny. Annoying that they didn't want to give him a chance to speak, and turned it around in an attempt to be amusing.

[VBshooter]

It would appear that Jackass Alex has forgotten that the 2nd is the one that helps protect all the others "in the grand scheme of things|"Where do these buttholes come from? This is the product of too much PC and a lazy populace that let it happen

[graybeard321]

The scary thing is what is to stop them from taking away her freedom of speech after they take away the second amend. or maybe she just made this statement to get viewers to tune into her new show. They seem to remember the power of the press but not the responsibility.

[SHMIV]

All of a sudden, I like Bill Engval a bit less.

[VBshooter]

Bill Mauher the Neutered douche bag made his usual ass of himself/// Congressman Issa nailed the reason for the 2nd and that table of buttholes missed it completely! There are far too many of those shitheads in the country today.. hope they realize someday just how good they got it here... Beacuse of Amendments like the 2nd and others

[Jakeiscrazy]

Some people really do have trouble seeing the purpose of the 2ndA don't they?

[SHMIV]

What just dawned on me: That ditzy broad that first brought up the removal of the 2nd Amendment.... She, and apparently the rest of the group, appeared to be under the impression that the Bill of Rights GRANTED certain rights. That's where the flaw in the reasoning is. Nothing in our founding documents GRANTS rights. It is merely a recognition of PRE-EXISTING rights. The language used within the founding documents suggests that the rights are granted to us by our Creator, or God. While, as a Christian, I believe that to be the case, an agnostic or atheist may say that they are natural rights, or perhaps, human rights.

When the populace is mislead to believe that we were granted rights by these founding documents, and also mislead into thinking that these documents are outdated and old, it will be much easier for our rights to be violated.

[gatlingun6]

A few leaderless citizens, armed with a few semi-automatic weapons are not a bar to the government doing anything. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing between democracy and tyranny is as one author put it an illusion, and magical thinking. It's seeing a reality that does not now, or has ever existed since the establishment of the Republic.

The idea that a government duly elected by the American people would somehow be overthrown by other Americans is a contradiction. That option, if it ever existed, left the building when the new Constitution authorized standing armed forces under the ultimate control of elected officials. As we all know the members of those forces take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect the Republic from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Btw that's the Constitution we have, as interpreted by our legal system, not the Constitution some wish, or imagine we have.

As they have done in the past, they would do in the future. From Shay's Rebellion, thru Burr's conspiracy, to the Civil War and beyond, Federal forces have put down any and all armed revolts by citizens who proclaimed real or imagined grievances. If 7 states, some 9 million people, organized into a confederacy with armed forces led by a brilliant General could not by force of arms overthrow the Federal government. How could an unorganized, untrained force armed with the equivalent of pop guns, and without the support of even all gun owners, not to mention the majority of the American people accomplish what the Confederacy could not do.

While we, some gun owners, have a singular focus on the 2nd Amendment, the Republic's guardians are actually the 1st Amendment, and the right to vote. Oppressors everywhere first go after the means of communication, the media and citizen's free speech, not the Amory.

Those who over the past 40 years have engaged in the effort to subvert the Republic know this. They know that money not guns can capture the Republic. In their long term concerted effort they did not spend a penny on weapons. Instead they spent billions on speech, votes, and crowding out and drowning out other speech not to their liking. All in all the return on their investment has been remarkable.

As one sage wisely observed tyranny in America can only be self-imposed, or arrive by stealth wrapped in an American Flag.

Gat6

[SHMIV]

If 7 states, some 9 million people, organized into a confederacy with armed forces led by a brilliant General could not by force of arms overthrow the Federal government. How could an unorganized, untrained force armed with the equivalent of pop guns, and without the support of even all gun owners, not to mention the majority of the American people accomplish what the Confederacy could not do.

The goal was never to overthrow the United States government. The Confederate goal was self defense. The Confederate States exercised their rights to secede, and were attacked for it.

Also, it is no coincidence that malignant governments have a tendency to disarm the populace before their major power grab. This is why I am opposed to the government banning or regulating any sort of weapon from it's citizens. A possible exception to that would be nuclear weaponry, but I don't imagine that the average citizen could afford that, anyway.

[Kreutz]

A few leaderless citizens, armed with a few semi-automatic weapons are not a bar to the government doing anything. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing between democracy and tyranny is as one author put it an illusion, and magical thinking. It's seeing a reality that does not now, or has ever existed since the establishment of the Republic.

The idea that a government duly elected by the American people would somehow be overthrown by other Americans is a contradiction. That option, if it ever existed, left the building when the new Constitution authorized standing armed forces under the ultimate control of elected officials. As we all know the members of those forces take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect the Republic from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Btw that's the Constitution we have, as interpreted by our legal system, not the Constitution some wish, or imagine we have.

As they have done in the past, they would do in the future. From Shay's Rebellion, thru Burr's conspiracy, to the Civil War and beyond, Federal forces have put down any and all armed revolts by citizens who proclaimed real or imagined grievances. If 7 states, some 9 million people, organized into a confederacy with armed forces led by a brilliant General could not by force of arms overthrow the Federal government. How could an unorganized, untrained force armed with the equivalent of pop guns, and without the support of even all gun owners, not to mention the majority of the American people accomplish what the Confederacy could not do.

While we, some gun owners, have a singular focus on the 2nd Amendment, the Republic's guardians are actually the 1st Amendment, and the right to vote. Oppressors everywhere first go after the means of communication, the media and citizen's free speech, not the Amory.

Those who over the past 40 years have engaged in the effort to subvert the Republic know this. They know that money not guns can capture the Republic. In their long term concerted effort they did not spend a penny on weapons. Instead they spent billions on speech, votes, and crowding out and drowning out other speech not to their liking. All in all the return on their investment has been remarkable.

As one sage wisely observed tyranny in America can only be self-imposed, or arrive by stealth wrapped in an American Flag.

Gat6

I've said many times here an armed resurrection will never happen here; Americans are simply too lazy and docile. However the large number of guns in private hands must at least cause some restraint on the part of the powers that be; they haven't openly started treating us like slaves yet. We still get lip service and platitudes at least...so we're like pets instead of chattel.

[gatlingun6]

If 7 states, some 9 million people, organized into a confederacy with armed forces led by a brilliant General could not by force of arms overthrow the Federal government. How could an unorganized, untrained force armed with the equivalent of pop guns, and without the support of even all gun owners, not to mention the majority of the American people accomplish what the Confederacy could not do.

The goal was never to overthrow the United States government. The Confederate goal was self defense. The Confederate States exercised their rights to secede, and were attacked for it.

Also, it is no coincidence that malignant governments have a tendency to disarm the populace before their major power grab. This is why I am opposed to the government banning or regulating any sort of weapon from it's citizens. A possible exception to that would be nuclear weaponry, but I don't imagine that the average citizen could afford that, anyway.

************************************************************************************
They were exercising what right to secede? One mantra of posts in this forum is, if it ain't in the Constitution it's Unconstitutional. So which Article or Amendment gave States the right to secede from the union? Further, since the Federal Government was not attacking any state who or what were they defending against?

7 slaves states illegally attempted to secede from the union. Consequently they were held to be in open rebellion against the United States. South Carolina opened the rebellion by attacking the Federal Garrison at Ft Sumter. We all know that the Confederacy initiated hostilities, so I'm not sure why, or if that's in question. The Confederacy, or the rebellious states, were not recognized as a country by any other nation.

If they had been successful the net effect would have been the over throw of the United States as we know it. The precedent would have been set that states had the right to secede from the union based on whatever they reason they gave. The principle of federal supremacy enshrined in the Constitution would have been forever shattered, so yes that constituted overthrow.

I'm confused, how do you disarm a population before a power grab? What country or countries are you using as the historical example for our country?

Am I right in concluding that you meant private citizens should be able to own any weapon with the POSSIBLE exception of nuclear weapons? And that none of these weapons should be regulated? Surely you jest. I simply don't know what else to say about that if you were serious.Other than not in a million years would anything like that happen.

Gat6

[wylde007]

Nothing GAVE states rights. The STATES gave the federal government limited authority.

The 9th and 10th Amendments which state quite plainly that all powers not granted to the federal government were reserved to the STATES or the PEOPLE. The Constitution did not restrict the states from doing ANYTHING. It was an instrument to specifically grant and belay certain authorities to the federal government and place limitations on the FEDERAL government.

Since there is absolutely zero language specifically prohibiting member states from leaving the union it is, by default, legal, and for the EXACT SAME REASON that open carry is not legislated in Virginia. If it is not EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED then it is lawful.

South Carolina was lured into firing by ILLEGAL actions of the commander of Moultrie who, under cover of darkness, retreated his post, spiked the guns (S.C. property) and ILLEGALLY occupied sovereign territory of the state of South Carolina. There was already a reinforcement flotilla on its way to resupply and reinforce the ILLEGAL occupation of Sumter.

Private citizens should be able, without government interference, to own ANY AND ALL weapons.

Your perception of the events leading up to the INVASION of the South by the putrid imperial army of history's worst despot and tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, is laughable at best and, at worst, disturbing - in order to agree with you one would have to ignore the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Magna Carta and literally hundreds of years of contract law.

The federal government didn't attack anyone? They attacked a Confederacy of SOVEREIGN states. Contrary to Lincoln's deceitful and treacherous belief that the states were formed from the union, prior to the ratification of the Constitution each and every state was an autonomous, SOVEREIGN entity. Several states even wrote ratification statements qualifying their VOLUNTARY accession to the Constitution stating that they could withdraw at any time and for any reason. Signatures by the other parties acknowledged and consented to those terms.

But let us forget all of that and consider that for even one iota of your factually baseless and, frankly, patently ridiculous version of history to be true then rights do not come from God they are granted by government, thereby severing the concept of self-determination at its roots and resigning it to the realm of government granting itself consent to govern - or, government exists because of government.

That makes me almost physically ill to imagine that a REAL Virginian could think in such terms.

[wylde007]

I'm confused, how do you disarm a population before a power grab?

Step 1: registration.
Step 2: regulation.
Step 3: confiscation.

What country or countries are you using as the historical example for our country?

Really?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin - the annals of history are replete with examples of confiscation of private arms immediately leading up to total despotism.

Your understanding of history is not just misinformed, it is absolutely devoid of any fact, logic or reason.

[totes6]

If 7 states, some 9 million people, organized into a confederacy with armed forces led by a brilliant General could not by force of arms overthrow the Federal government. How could an unorganized, untrained force armed with the equivalent of pop guns, and without the support of even all gun owners, not to mention the majority of the American people accomplish what the Confederacy could not do.

Let me list a few, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Somolia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. With the exception of Vietnam and Korea, the US faced an unorganized and untrained force when compared to the US military. But the one thing they do all have in common is that they knew better than to try and stand toe to toe against the US military. Instead they used Guerrilla tactics just like the Americans did in almost every single one of their victories against the British. You might be surprised at how effective so called "pop guns" can be. The residents of those 6 countries gave us plenty proof of that. The US has become the Imperialistic British Empire of today. And faces the same issues that England faced back in 1776 in that it is hard to fight an enemy that does not stand on a standard battlefield and just trade shots back and forth. This is probably where the South failed the worst. They tried to stand toe to toe with the North in battle after battle. Some they won, some they lost. But when your side does not have the industrial resources to make up for the lost equipment in those losses, every loss is going to hurt you more than your enemy that does have the industrial infrastructure.

They were exercising what right to secede? One mantra of posts in this forum is, if it ain't in the Constitution it's Unconstitutional. So which Article or Amendment gave States the right to secede from the union?

Personally I agree with Wylde that the Constitution is the document that is supposed to Shackle the Federal Government and restrict what they can do. "We the people" created the Federal Government and bound (in theory, unfortunately the Constitution is not doing much binding today) the Government with that document. As such since the constitution did not specify that the States were forever bound to that Federal Government, it was not unconstitutional to leave. And remember that this was not the first document that was ratified by the States since the revolution against the British. We had already had the Articles of Confederation and that Government was dissolved by the States. Only then did they ratify the Constitution and create the Federal Government that has grown to what we have today.

But if you want to argue that it was unconstitutional for the Southern States to leave the Union then how do you explain that the Union in effect actually agreed those States were no longer part of the Union when they created West Virginia. Remember that prior to the Civil War, what is now West Virginia was actually part of Virginia. Article IV section 3 of the Constitution specifically states

but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State

If the Union really felt that it was not possible for the Southern States to leave the Union, then West Virginia could not actually have been created, it was already part of Virginia. Only if Virginia had actually left the Union and the Union legally accepted that Virginia was no longer part of its whole would it be allowed to create a state from land that is not part of any other State within the Union.

[wylde007]

I really like the West Virginia logic bomb. Most people don't appreciate the gravity of it.

But I do.

[gunderwood]

What just dawned on me: That ditzy broad that first brought up the removal of the 2nd Amendment.... She, and apparently the rest of the group, appeared to be under the impression that the Bill of Rights GRANTED certain rights. That's where the flaw in the reasoning is. Nothing in our founding documents GRANTS rights. It is merely a recognition of PRE-EXISTING rights. The language used within the founding documents suggests that the rights are granted to us by our Creator, or God. While, as a Christian, I believe that to be the case, an agnostic or atheist may say that they are natural rights, or perhaps, human rights.

When the populace is mislead to believe that we were granted rights by these founding documents, and also mislead into thinking that these documents are outdated and old, it will be much easier for our rights to be violated.

+1

She did have a point though. The right to self-defense, the protection and preservation of one's life, doesn't really tally equally with the other rights...it's much, much higher. Congress making a law "establishing" or "prohibiting" or "abolishing" can be unwound with much less harm than a law "infringing" on one's ability to preserve life. A SCOTUS ruling, slapping Congress around for infringing on the 2nd, two decades after you're dead isn't much consolation.

[Reverenddel]

"Guerrilla tactics " Two words that make just about every military leader shudder.

If you read Mao on it, Romini, Clausewitz, and Sun Tzu... you're going to realize a populace that blends in, and has supporters can go on for YEARS with guerrilla tactics.

Let's ask the Brits how that whole "Northern Ireland" thing went? Shall we?

So don't tell me that a military with 600K people, most support, would be able to quell a nation of folks with support from segments of the population, and sympathetic to the "cause".

"Fat, Lazy, and Stupid" as we may be according to you? We're a fiesty friggin' bunch in the South, and it's why you cannot win a Presidential election without us.

[Daholt757]

Let me list a few, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Somolia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. With the exception of Vietnam and Korea, the US faced an unorganized and untrained force when compared to the US military.

As a current member of the US military I can tell you that our opponents, particularly in Afghanistan, are not untrained or unorganized. They know our rank structure and they monitor our movements within theater. Insurgents have learned to train in small groups in secluded locations in order to prevent our forces from finding them. This gives them a lot of one on one time with their instructors. They use primitive forms of communication because they are harder to trace (kinda like a mob boss who doesn't have a phone in his house). Its easy to look at them as a rag-tag group of ruffians but they are not to be underestimated. In no way am I saying that the training I have received is sub-par in any way, but our dominance in superior numbers, weapons, and technology plays an important role in our success.

[gunderwood]

Let me list a few, Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Somolia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. With the exception of Vietnam and Korea, the US faced an unorganized and untrained force when compared to the US military.

As a current member of the US military I can tell you that our opponents, particularly in Afghanistan, are not untrained or unorganized. They know our rank structure and they monitor our movements within theater. Insurgents have learned to train in small groups in secluded locations in order to prevent our forces from finding them. This gives them a lot of one on one time with their instructors. They use primitive forms of communication because they are harder to trace (kinda like a mob boss who doesn't have a phone in his house). Its easy to look at them as a rag-tag group of ruffians but they are not to be underestimated. In no way am I saying that the training I have received is sub-par in any way, but our dominance in superior numbers, weapons, and technology plays an important role in our success.

+1 Never underestimate your enemy. I've taken some flak from the war hawks (not necessarily here) for saying that our enemies over there are not as dumb as the war hawks would want us to believe. The guy who straps the bomb on often is, but the guys behind them and the homemade technology are not. That's not pro-them, it's merely an observation. Know thy enemy.

[SHMIV]

Gat6, before I had the opportunity to respond, Wylde and Totes beat me to it. And, they responded better than I would have.

As for my jesting? I was not; I was serious about all that I said.

The point of our foundation as a nation was to be a self governing people. We are to be responsible for ourselves. Part of being responsible for ourselves is being able to protect ourselves. Protection requires the proper tools. As a citizen of a free nation, I should be able to reasonably expect to be allowed whatever tool I deem necessary. If I deem a fully functional tank, several machine guns, and 3 pallets of grenades to be necessary, and I am able to acquire them by honest means, there is no reason to deny me of them... especially considering my criminal record, or lack thereof, as the case happens to be.