The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 3, 2013, 04:00 PM   #126
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BlueTrain, for a change of pace, could you list some expansions of federal powers which you do not like?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:10 PM   #127
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Catch-22

Quote:
How would we do things differently? We'd start by NOT DOING a whole darn lot and by taking the document for what it SAYS!
"Not doing a whole darn lot" would be maintaining the staus quo, and taking the document for what it says would involve undoing much.

The country will not survive either course, I fear: far too many people (something like 50% of the housholds in the country) DEPEND upon a direct payment from the .gov for their standard of living..... many of those would starve w/o the payments they recieve. That will not happen ......

Neither can we afford to keep paying for that ..... catch 22.

I do know this: What can not continue, will not. If you depend upon the Fed.gov for your supper (or anything else you need), I suggest you make alternative plans.

....and BT, you may not want to be my friend, but you are my Brother.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:25 PM   #128
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Quote:
Naw, you're still getting it wrong: the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to put down rebellion, certainly not to enable rebellion.
???

On the contrary, the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the American people would always have the power to violently overthrow any government that descended into tyranny. I would say this is specifically defined as rebellion. A justified rebellion, but still rebellion. Having that power prevents the American people from being required to use it, so we tend not to think that an armed overthrow of our government would begin as an illegal act. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to safeguard the functioning of our Republic, the best way the Founders knew how. We can talk about the many erosions of freedom that have taken place since the writing of the Constitution, corruption of the electoral process, how much you hate your elected representatives, etc until the end of time, but we still elect our Representatives as laid out in the Constitution. If your elected representative fails to serve the needs of the majority of voters, he is replaced by his constituents with a newly elected official. So long as this system remains in effect, we do not have tyranny. The moment the government decides that popular elections will be “suspended”, we do have tyranny. And the American people have the duty to restore our Republic by force.


Quote:
What difference does it make what the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was, or what the militia was. I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important. Sacrificied any animals lately?


Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere. After all, the only thing that will happen is that one government will be replaced by another, perhaps by two others, maybe even more. I cannot imagine that a government that comes to power by force of arms, by revolution, will be any better than the previous one. What the militia was used for was to put down rebellion, which it did fairly well, fight the Indians and repell invasion, the latter two which it did poorly.
What you “care to be bound by” does not matter, even in the slightest. The US Constitution binds you regardless of your cares. No idea why you bring up “what was written 3000 years ago”, it isn’t relevant in any way to the government of our country—the Constitution and its amendments are. If public opinion is so swayed that there is enough support to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, this is in fact lawful, and we will all be made criminals when we refuse to disarm ourselves. Keep that in mind when you scoff at the idea of “original intent”. Original intent is always central to the argument in Constitutional law. Tying the right to bear arms to a militia is absurd, as has already been clearly pointed out in this thread, as well as by numerous scholars far smarter than me. Of course the government, who controls the modern “militia” (National Guard) would never “call them up” to overthrow…themselves. This doesn’t seem to be a serious argument. However, the government of the United States came to power through revolution, by force of arms. Ditto France, and many other countries. Our government may not be perfect, but I doubt anyone would argue that they would prefer to be a subject to a limited monarch than a citizen of a representative democracy. Just thought you might be interested in a few examples, since you couldn’t think of any, lol.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:35 PM   #129
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
What you “care to be bound by” does not matter, even in the slightest. The US Constitution binds you regardless of your cares.
Actually, it does not: It binds the Federal Government, and to some extent, the States. The 1A says "Congress shall make no law....." That the COTUS limits the power of the Fed.gov sorely vexes some of the Statist bent ..... but it does not bind them..... just the Fed.gov. Laws made up by Congress on the other hand......
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:38 PM   #130
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
BlueTrain, for a change of pace, could you list some expansions of federal powers which you do not like?
I'd be interested to hear this!
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:48 PM   #131
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Jimbob, by "Not doing a whole darn lot" I mean quitting doing or undoing a whole darn lot not sitting doing nothing.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 04:58 PM   #132
Mr.Bluster
Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 28
Did the Founders have in mind the Internet, cable TV, talk radio, smart phones, 3-D motion pictures, 24-hour news programs, etc. when they wrote the First Amendment? Answer: doesn't matter. But it's worth noting that many of the same who want to curb the 2nd amendment also want to do the same to the First Amendment. Consider the movement to abridge the First Amendment in the wake of the Citizens United decision. When the Lefties win control of who has "too much speech" and who "not enough" everything else will be easy.
Mr.Bluster is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 09:33 PM   #133
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
I would say yes.
mayosligo is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 11:35 AM   #134
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
You'll have to give me some time to think about federal powers that I do not like. Of course, I might throw in some state and local powers, too, just to keep it interesting.

What I keep trying to imply here, which you may have missed, is to get people away from the idea of an armed rebellion. Keep in mind that you won't get anywhere without the support of either the armed forces or the national guard (the militia). Also, I'm trying to dissuade people from thinking that government is a necessary evil. The only time in the past when there was a temporarily successful rebellion, all that happened, government-wise, was the formation of yet another government that was hardly any different from the other one.

On the other hand, Mae West is quoted as saying that when she had to choose between two evils, she liked to pick the one she hadn't tried before. That's about all it would amount to.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:45 PM   #135
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about "guns"?
Haven't read the whole thread, but this is a really ignorant statement.

1) Where in the 1st Amendment does it say anything about radio, TV, Internet or Twitter? I suppose free speech shouldn't be extended to these outlets?

2) Definition of Arms, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

3) Go read Heller vs. DC, and MacDonald vs. Chicago majority opinions. They both clearly state that arms refer to guns.

4) I implore you to find the word "Privacy" in the Constitution. You won't find it, yet the Government invading privacy is considered Un-Constitutional (well, less so since the Patriot Act, anyway). It's because we can look at the obvious intent, and implied intent of certain phrases and clauses...the 3rd Amendment being a biggie in this instance.

5) The obvious intent of the 2nd Amendment referred to weapons, specifically firearms. Reading what the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had to say on this issue makes it abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment is about guns.
Gaerek is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:52 PM   #136
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,812
My thought, and I'll pose it this way, do you think they had any thought as to what the continental congress would do to this country along with the presidents, and judicial branch with the changes that have been made from where we started, or what the founders originally place on paper???
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:57 PM   #137
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 665
Quote:
That is why the gun grabbers' assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It's not really about the guns; it is about the government's ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called "assault rifles") by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government's self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force.
posted today:

While the Obama administration sets out to eviscerate the gun rights of American citizens in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, earlier this week it was announced that the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a company a contract worth over $45,000 dollars to provide the DHS with 200,000 more rounds of bullets.

This new purchase adds to the staggering figure of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition already secured by the DHS over the last 9 months alone.

The contradiction of the Obama administration preaching gun control while simultaneously the federal government arms itself to the teeth with an arsenal that would be enough to wage a full scale 7 year ground war is jaw-dropping.

Last edited by pturner67; January 4, 2013 at 01:04 PM.
pturner67 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:01 PM   #138
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
It's like the cliche, Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The 2nd Amendment is the only real check and balance the people have against the government. When the people are disarmed, the government is free to do whatever they want.
Gaerek is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:14 PM   #139
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Whether armed revolution would be feasible isn't even the point. The point is that the possibility exists, remote and ill-fated as it might be, and that in itself forms some check against the political elite.

I am not advocating armed revolution. I am advocating that its possibility does serve a potentially useful part in a detente of sorts.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:16 PM   #140
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
I would be interested in a link on the homeland security news.

I would be interested in why homeland security needs that much ammo. I never liked the name of that organization.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:24 PM   #141
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
That red herring again...

The DHS ammo story keeps popping up. Some guys punched the numbers, though, and when ammo was divided by armed officers, over a several year period, it basically added up to typical training amounts, plus some spare.

The feds do enough things that should worry us, that we don't need to go off on tangents.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:24 PM   #142
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don P
My thought, and I'll pose it this way, do you think they had any thought as to what the continental congress would do to this country along with the presidents, and judicial branch with the changes that have been made from where we started, or what the founders originally place on paper???
Franklin appears to have had some thoughts on the subject.

Quote:
Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787

... there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:25 PM   #143
bikerbill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,363
I simply wish they'd been clearer in their intent ... think how pleasant life would be if the 2A simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Crystal clean, no militia clause to allow a debate over their intentions ... I don't think they could have imagined what we can buy over the counter at any gun store today, but I agree that their intention was to allow us to protect ourselves against any government, like the British, which overstepped its bounds ...
__________________
"If all guns were built with mechanisms that kept them from firing when held sideways, we could end gang violence." humorist Frank Fleming
bikerbill is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:28 PM   #144
pturner67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 665
rickyrick:

http://marketdailynews.com/2013/01/0...of-ammunition/

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-buys-200...of-ammunition/

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1
pturner67 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:30 PM   #145
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,467
Thanks Mleak, the 200,000 doesn't sound excessive for a government agency but I assumed 1.6b was in storage, but if it was used for training then that's ok.
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:50 PM   #146
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Bear in mind that DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Secret Service, the US Coast Guard, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. That adds up to a lot of ammo in annual (or quarterly, or initial, etc) training.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:20 PM   #147
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
I simply wish they'd been clearer in their intent
Their intent is clear, if you're a student of history. There are tons of writings from various founding fathers that make the intent of the 2A absolutely clear. No one back in the late 1700's would have mistaken what the intent was.

Now with the Liberal's "Living, Breathing Document" theory of the Constitution is there any question on the meaning of the 2A. Why do you think it took over 200 years to get a SCOTUS ruling on the intent of the Individual Right clause in the 2A? It's because only since the 1930's (NFA) has there been a lot of people questioning the intent. Prior to that, it was crystal clear what it meant.
Gaerek is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:26 PM   #148
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneye
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about "guns"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaerek
Haven't read the whole thread, but this is a really ignorant statement.
Then perhaps you should have read the thread before posting, as you seem to believe that I am saying that the 2nd doesn't apply to 'Guns'...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaerek
5) The obvious intent of the 2nd Amendment referred to weapons, specifically firearms. Reading what the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had to say on this issue makes it abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment is about guns.
It does not apply 'specifically' to anything...It is not 'just' about 'guns'...

Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has 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 governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Salmoneye is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:26 PM   #149
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
You'll have to give me some time to think about federal powers that I do not like.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:29 PM   #150
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
You'll have to give me some time to think about federal powers that I do not like.
......really?
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15905 seconds with 7 queries