Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
lol, great idea after propping your "argument" up against the tragedy in Connecticut for 30+ pages .........
Quote from: olafberserker on December 20, 2012, 07:49:22 AMlol, great idea after propping your "argument" up against the tragedy in Connecticut for 30+ pages ......... So since you are so opposed to me having done that in your view, how about a thoughtful and fact filled retort? Or are you capable of such a thing? I think I know what the answer to that is. Go ahead and prove me wrong, champ.
Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.
The Federalist papers clearly state that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against a tyrannical and/or overbearing Govt.
"Well regulated" is not referring to rules and regulations but discipline and training. Militias were also made up of volunteers, who, for the most part turned up with their own weapons. Without them their would not be any militia. And finally, I very much doubt if the founding fathers were writing all this stuff so folks could go hunting on the weekend. They specifically put it in there so citizens could defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
" if the founders were so opposed to central government or central authority, why create one at all? "Central authority with all the power or no central authority at all aren't the only two options.Did you seriously go through the trouble of starting a thread just to present a crappy false dichotomy?
"a bunch of paranoid anarchists with intent on sedition and armed rebellion at the first sign of discontent with the federal government."Every paranoid anarchist intent on sedition that I've talked to says they're not rebelling until the second sign of discontent. You wouldn't be deliberately misrepresenting their position, would you?
This guy knows his stuff.
Quote from: spartan on December 20, 2012, 09:25:55 AMThe Federalist papers clearly state that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against a tyrannical and/or overbearing Govt.The Federalist papers were written with the aim of warming people towards the establishment of a central government. Many colonists were weary that the creation of a new government would closely resemble that of the one that they had just gained independence from. The federalist paper's insistence that an armed citizenry be the last line of defense against a tyrannical government wasn't cart blache to rise up against the federal government, it was a way to ensure that the citizenry would have protection in case the new government failed.Quote from: spartan on December 20, 2012, 09:25:55 AM"Well regulated" is not referring to rules and regulations but discipline and training. Militias were also made up of volunteers, who, for the most part turned up with their own weapons. Without them their would not be any militia. And finally, I very much doubt if the founding fathers were writing all this stuff so folks could go hunting on the weekend. They specifically put it in there so citizens could defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.It's referring to both rules and regulations and discipline and training. In fact, you could argue that the primary rule and regulation was the insistence on discipline and training.As to the volunteer comment, you are right about those who turned up with their own weapons and ammo, but that is neither here nor there. Private gun ownership wasn't a concept invented by the founders. It was a holdover from the British colonial militia system. It was cheaper for the British government to have private, armed citizens provide for protection of colonies instead of a standing army. The 2nd amendment was written within the logistical framework of the time. The founders reliance on militias was pretty much a way of maintaining the status quo. The colonists were weary of a professional, standing federal army, so the 2nd amendment was written in such a way as to ease these fears while still providing for the protection of the country. The way to ensure the colonists that a central government would not dissolve state governments was to allow for each state to have their own army, one that was in the service of both the state and the federal government. The 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8's intent was to strike a balance of military power between the states and the federal government. Not the creation of armed citizen guerrillas. The phrase "both foreign and domestic" doesn't mean foreign governments and our own government. It means protection against both an invasion and an insurrection.
The "standing" Federal Army was shipped across as and when it was required. The Local Militia was what provided security and defense for the most part up until the Declaration of Independence. Yes the regular British battalions were a pain in the ass, but they were indicative of the oppressive system. The War of Independence was fought because of the actions of the British Govt, not because the Hessians and British Battalions trashed the place on a Saturday night.
The "rules and regulations" of the militia were local up until they were called up by the Federal Govt, so sorry, you're wrong."The 2nd amendment and article 1 section 8's intent was to strike a balance of military power between the states and the federal government. Not the creation of armed citizen guerrillas. "What?That dictates how the militia will be paid for, disciplined etc AFTER they have essentially been called up by the Federal Govt. There was a law passed a ways afterward that dealt with militias, what they are, had to do etc so as you put forth, they don't become a guerrilla group.
the 2nd amendment clearly says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Note also that it says the militia is necessary for A free state, not THE free state or OUR free state. Therefore the militia bit was conceptual, a pretext to what follows which was ...... the right to bear arms.
Proper context is an important thing, Delirious. I can only guess that you are unaware of the context of any of the statements you posted. Question for you. In any of those snippets you posted, is it clearly illustrated that the intent was a trained civilian army to be placed in service of state and/or federal governments, or an armed group of civilian guerrillas that could overthrow an elected government?
Proper context is an important thing, Delirious.