The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

The sun shines on a dogs ass every once in awhile.

I recommend you use sun block.

Nice one. Glad to see you took some time from organizing your rebellion to drop in and say a few words, Spartacus.

[Chief Joseph]

Got the Strawman Rebellion in full swing have you?

[spartan]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

[spartan]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

The right to rebel is implied, because that is how we got the Constitution to begin with. Unless you are arguing the Founders said we did it, but you can't!

This is with the understanding that rebellion is the ultimate and last option.

[tripblood]

I think I might bring back the "hog whisperer" signature back. I love that Ruger Mini 14

[Dolorous Jason]

No matter what im still keeping my guns haha.. Im reporting them stolen

*knock knock*

me - Hello

feds- Yes. Im afraid we're here to take your guns nig. 4 pistols, 3 semi automatic rifles, a shotgun, and assault rifle. thats enough to start you own chapter of the black panthers

me- sorry sir, a gang of mexicans came into my house and stole all of them

feds-those damm mexicans again

Good luck going after a tank or F-16 or unmanned drone with your guns.  Or, maybe they'll drop a smart bomb on your place.

Back then, you could fight the government with guns. Now? Not so much.

I suppose that's why it took us a decade and thousands of lives to never quite put down resistance in a 3rd world country like Iraq , against a citizenry armed with nothing but improvised homemade road bombs....

[Dolorous Jason]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

it's just another attempt at a circle jerk argument to avoid that fact that he can't back up his original one

This is simply the best he could do , apparently. Here's what Washington actually said about the right to bear arms :
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

I guess CBW's quote , which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, is supposed to suggest that Washington would never see the need to resort to rebellion..... despite the fact he LED a rebel army. LOL. This just shows the ridiculous depths that CBW's spin has reached. This guy's stupidity knows no bounds.

spin spin spin spin spin spin spin spin...

[Durango 95]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

Thanks for the link, mwk. and your repost, Spartan.

Outstanding article.

[dbucfan]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Dammit, what an excellent read. Long, but raises all of the points I have tried to hammer home, and more,  but in a much better and comprehensive mannner.

CBW, read this. I doubt it will change your mind on much, but it may at least permit you to understand much of what I have been trying to say over the last few days.. If nothing else, know you enemy

Thanks for the link, mwk. and your repost, Spartan.

Outstanding article.

+2

[olafberserker]

it's just another attempt at a circle jerk argument to avoid that fact that he can't back up his original one

Yeah, because you've done such a stellar job at proving that I haven't backed up my original argument. Also, if you are going to steal my insult, at least use it correctly.

you don't have an argument, you never do.  that's the point and nobody needs to steal anything from you ..........  spin boy spin ......

[Durango 95]

it's just another attempt at a circle jerk argument to avoid that fact that he can't back up his original one

Yeah, because you've done such a stellar job at proving that I haven't backed up my original argument. Also, if you are going to steal my insult, at least use it correctly.

you don't have an argument,

Bingo!

[BucsFan4090]

I absolutely laugh at the people here who think controlling guns is going to fix this issue.

With our country being over 300 million strong, don't you think its pretty ambitious to believe that you can take away every single gun?

MENTAL HEALTH is the cause for all of these tragedies. Not guns. Also, don't you think if people started carrying more CCL's they could stop these incidents from happening?

People in this country get away with these horrific crimes is because of you gun control freaks trying to make it so nobody is allowed to have guns. Crazy people will find a way to get guns if they want. Don't take away my right to own guns because you think that this will stop people from doing these things.

[CBWx2]

you don't have an argument, you never do. 

The irony of someone who never presents a concise argument accusing me of never having one hasn't escaped me. Here's an idea, how about you actually post your own positions on subjects instead of piggy backing off of other people's comments.

that's the point and nobody needs to steal anything from you ..........  spin boy spin ......

Yes, I'm sure you came up with that whole "circle jerk" thing, just like that whole "spin, spin, spin" thing is an olaf original too, huh? Funny though, I seem to remember some chap named Vince coming up with that line of attack. You don't have an original thought in that pea brain of yours, you loser.

[CBWx2]

George Washington
October 31, 1786
Letter to Henry Lee regarding a proper response to Shays' rebellion:

"You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no Government.  Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is, that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these, is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: if defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

It would appear as though George Washington viewed rebellion as an affront to the constitution, not supported by it. Someone should tell him that Delirious Jason believes he's wrong, and has a quote from him to prove it.

What does Washington's letter have to do with the Second?

Nothing at all, except for the inconvenient fact that had he believed the 2nd amendment to have provided these men with the constitutional right to rebel against the government, he probably wouldn't have written it.

The right to rebel is implied, because that is how we got the Constitution to begin with. Unless you are arguing the Founders said we did it, but you can't!

That is exactly what I am arguing. Just because they rebelled against another government that they viewed to be tyrannical in no way, shape, or form automatically means that they were open to their own system of government being rebelled against, unless they saw themselves as tyrants, and their system of government as tyrannical. No one in history that has ever successfully led a rebellion and implemented a new government would be impartial enough to it to allow for it to be dissolved by someone else's rebellion. To suggest that this was their intent with the 2nd amendment not only doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it doesn't even make sense from a logical standpoint.

[CBWx2]

I guess CBW's quote , which has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, is supposed to suggest that Washington would never see the need to resort to rebellion..... despite the fact he LED a rebel army.

You guess wrong. Washington saw the need to rebel against a tyrant. Unless he viewed himself as a tyrant, or the government that he and his contemporary's created as a tyrannical one, it would stand to reason that he would not be obliged to allow for rebellion against the Union. His comments, which you seem to lack the ability to understand how they relate to the subject at hand, pretty much suggest that. Now were the union ever to be dissolved, and something else were to take it's place, then sure, I suppose that he'd be all up for it. But that's not what we are talking about here, is it chief?