America the Police state part II.

and dune supports and helps my denial of my right to bear any and all arms, openly or concealed, as well as machine guns by remaining silent in the face of all gun laws that prevent me, a law abiding citizen, from obtaining and exercising such.

You are an idiot. I am probably the only democrat on here who is a member of the NRA, as well as my wife (lifetime member) and son.
Machine guns have been illegal since the mid twenties IIRC. This is my fault?

I have also started threads here, to try to get liberals to look at their irrational fear of guns, with no response I might add. You are barking at the wrong tree.
 
You are an idiot. I am probably the only democrat on here who is a member of the NRA, as well as my wife (lifetime member) and son.
Machine guns have been illegal since the mid twenties IIRC. This is my fault?

I have also started threads here, to try to get liberals to look at their irrational fear of guns, with no response I might add. You are barking at the wrong tree.

I posted in the other thread that it was may 19, 1986 that NEW machine guns became illegal to possess by non government personnel and agencies. machine guns that were NFA registered before May 19, 1986 are still legal.
 
very well, here are my cites.....

“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.” --Thomas Jefferson

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” --George Washington

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” --Thomas Jefferson

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
— Thomas Jefferson

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.” --James Madison


"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

-Thomas Jefferson to W. Jarvis, 1820


The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

"The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society."
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788).

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist #46.

"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 can not enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Noah Webster, An Examination Into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution (1787).

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
George Mason, 3 Elliott Debates (on the Constitution) 380.

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788.


The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. — JOHN ADAMS

The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. — Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

good cites. thanks.

i see nothing that says the citizens shall be armed equally with the government.
 
STY:

i know these threads go on an on and you claim i go in circles, but for brevity sake:

do you believe we the people have the right to bear nuclear arms?
 
because cowardice and fear will prevent most of them from fighting, much like it was in the revolutionary war. That is why the founders wanted the right UNRESTRICTED.

So you support the idea people should have these?



and if they were implementing plans you disagreed with?

I would realize the majority voted for them.

why do you prefer slavery to freedom?

Again, you're confused. Freedom is being able to see a doctor without worrying about money.
 
but I still have to pay for it, so you've taken not only my choice, but my hard earned money that I know how to use better.

Gawd, I hate that expression "hard earned money". If a plumber hires an electrician to do some work and then the electrician hires the plumber who has the "harder earned money"?

i disagree and will fight to the death to not do it. is my life worth your plans to implement it?

No, you won't fight to the death. You may break a nail on the keyboard or suffer carpel tunnel syndrome but that's about the extent of the damage.
 
STY:

i know these threads go on an on and you claim i go in circles, but for brevity sake:

do you believe we the people have the right to bear nuclear arms?

since the us government would commit political suicide by ever nuking its own people, rebellious or not, so they will not, then no we do not.

i will say again, any weapon that the us government would use against it's own citizens, we the people should be able to get.
 
since the us government would commit political suicide by ever nuking its own people, rebellious or not, so they will not, then no we do not.

i will say again, any weapon that the us government would use against it's own citizens, we the people should be able to get.

ASSumption

next
 
So you support the idea people should have these?
any weapon that the government would use against it's people, it's people should also have access to.

I would realize the majority voted for them.
so then if the majority decided to reimplement slavery, you'd just suck it up and realize that it's the majority?

Again, you're confused. Freedom is being able to see a doctor without worrying about money.
no, you're confused. that's not freedom. that's just a free service now, but i'm still paying for it. your entire concept of freedom being only what the government allows you to have is not only totally insane, but it's downright dangerous to humanity.
 
Gawd, I hate that expression "hard earned money". If a plumber hires an electrician to do some work and then the electrician hires the plumber who has the "harder earned money"?
some of us work hard, apparently you do not. that is not my problem, that's just your skewed reality. a false one, but skewed none the less.

No, you won't fight to the death. You may break a nail on the keyboard or suffer carpel tunnel syndrome but that's about the extent of the damage.
are you channeling legion troll now? I served 6 years in the USMC, i'm not afraid to die for my principles, of course i don't expect you to believe that since you can't help but project your fear and cowardice.
 
you're spinning again. all you're going to do is cry 'assumption' or that's impossible to tell in the future so it doesn't mean anything.

you know what the 2nd Amendment is and what it means. anything else is just you fooling yourself.

you claim to know what it means. yet, you can't back it up with cites.
 
any weapon that the government would use against it's people, it's people should also have access to.

In that case military secrets would have to be scrapped. If the government devises a new military weapon it would be incumbent upon them to share that info with all the citizens.

so then if the majority decided to reimplement slavery, you'd just suck it up and realize that it's the majority?

How would I be compelled to participate?

no, you're confused. that's not freedom. that's just a free service now, but i'm still paying for it. your entire concept of freedom being only what the government allows you to have is not only totally insane, but it's downright dangerous to humanity.

The government, by providing services, frees the individual. The power company frees me from using candles to chopping wood for heat. The Post Office frees me from having to drive somewhere to deliver a letter. Are you really against the freedoms or just against helping others enjoy them?
 
some of us work hard, apparently you do not. that is not my problem, that's just your skewed reality. a false one, but skewed none the less.

Yes, I'm sure you do just like the millions and millions of other people who talk about their hard earned money. And then there's the wealthy folks earning 10X or 100X the average person. Boy, I can't even imagine how hard they must work.

are you channeling legion troll now? I served 6 years in the USMC, i'm not afraid to die for my principles, of course i don't expect you to believe that since you can't help but project your fear and cowardice.

Again, what is there to be upset about? ObamaCare is pretty much wrapped up. Even that great thinker Newt said repealing ObamaCare would be one tough task, indeed. (Things like pre-existing conditions and young adults on their parent's plan.)

Then there's the withdrawal from Iraq.

Choosing not to be another Waco or Ruby Ridge statistic is not out of fear or cowardice. I'm just not wacko enough to make the grade. Sorry.
 
you claim to know what it means. yet, you can't back it up with cites.

i gave you cites. what you're looking for is james madison saying the exact words of we the people should be better armed than our government at all times. I'm sorry you can't be satisfied by the other dozen cites I gave you that emphatically stated congress has no power to disarm the militia.
 
In that case military secrets would have to be scrapped. If the government devises a new military weapon it would be incumbent upon them to share that info with all the citizens.
we call that transparency. maybe you've heard of it.

How would I be compelled to participate?
did I say you'd be forced to buy a slave? we were discussing how you believe the majority can force the minority to abide by it's desires. not a far cry from the majority forcing you to buy a slave, or health insurance.

The government, by providing services, frees the individual. The power company frees me from using candles to chopping wood for heat. The Post Office frees me from having to drive somewhere to deliver a letter.
you have the choice of using electricity or wood. If you don't use electricity, are you stuck with paying the electric bill? do you have to buy stamps and envelopes if you don't use the post office?

Are you really against the freedoms or just against helping others enjoy them?
those are freedoms of choice. forcing me to buy healthcare is not a choice, it's a mandate. it's also supposed to be my choice to help others who can't help themselves, not your choice to make me help.
 
Back
Top