HYPOCRISY, Thy Name Is 'DEMOCRAT': Democrats Leave Capitol To March For Gun Control With Students

[Humorme]

You are not a good student of history.

Also consider that although the nazis were spotted off the coast of South Carolina, they did not enter the mainland.

Had our military been defeated at that point?

We weren't exactly defeated. We did sink their subs, but that seemed more of a recon effort on their part.

Let me put this a different way:

Russia = 1 MILLION soldiers
U.S. = 300 MILLION firearms and 100 + MILLION gun owners

They have to come out of their tanks at some point

That's kinda my point. Militia gun nuts are claiming their purpose is to take over our defense after our military is no longer viable. You ever hear something so stupid in your life?

Nobody has defeated the mainland.

When this country went to war against the most powerful military in the world, we did not have an army.

History is replete with such examples. Genghis Khan was captured as young boy, forced to wear a cangue (a device much like an ox yoke) and yet he not only escaped, but gathered smaller tribes of Mongols together and by the time his sons had grown and gotten into the fight, Khan controlled over half the world.

I'm not following any of your points. They clash with history. What you seem to be doing is making a case for defeatism and a reason to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

 

[BULLDOG]

Had our military been defeated at that point?

We weren't exactly defeated. We did sink their subs, but that seemed more of a recon effort on their part.

Let me put this a different way:

Russia = 1 MILLION soldiers
U.S. = 300 MILLION firearms and 100 + MILLION gun owners

They have to come out of their tanks at some point

That's kinda my point. Militia gun nuts are claiming their purpose is to take over our defense after our military is no longer viable. You ever hear something so stupid in your life?

Nobody has defeated the mainland.

When this country went to war against the most powerful military in the world, we did not have an army.

History is replete with such examples. Genghis Khan was captured as young boy, forced to wear a cangue (a device much like an ox yoke) and yet he not only escaped, but gathered smaller tribes of Mongols together and by the time his sons had grown and gotten into the fight, Khan controlled over half the world.

I'm not following any of your points. They clash with history. What you seem to be doing is making a case for defeatism and a reason to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

 

[Humorme]

We weren't exactly defeated. We did sink their subs, but that seemed more of a recon effort on their part.

Let me put this a different way:

Russia = 1 MILLION soldiers
U.S. = 300 MILLION firearms and 100 + MILLION gun owners

They have to come out of their tanks at some point

That's kinda my point. Militia gun nuts are claiming their purpose is to take over our defense after our military is no longer viable. You ever hear something so stupid in your life?

Nobody has defeated the mainland.

When this country went to war against the most powerful military in the world, we did not have an army.

History is replete with such examples. Genghis Khan was captured as young boy, forced to wear a cangue (a device much like an ox yoke) and yet he not only escaped, but gathered smaller tribes of Mongols together and by the time his sons had grown and gotten into the fight, Khan controlled over half the world.

I'm not following any of your points. They clash with history. What you seem to be doing is making a case for defeatism and a reason to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's kinda my point. Militia gun nuts are claiming their purpose is to take over our defense after our military is no longer viable. You ever hear something so stupid in your life?

Nobody has defeated the mainland.

When this country went to war against the most powerful military in the world, we did not have an army.

History is replete with such examples. Genghis Khan was captured as young boy, forced to wear a cangue (a device much like an ox yoke) and yet he not only escaped, but gathered smaller tribes of Mongols together and by the time his sons had grown and gotten into the fight, Khan controlled over half the world.

I'm not following any of your points. They clash with history. What you seem to be doing is making a case for defeatism and a reason to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

 

[Humorme]

Nobody has defeated the mainland.

When this country went to war against the most powerful military in the world, we did not have an army.

History is replete with such examples. Genghis Khan was captured as young boy, forced to wear a cangue (a device much like an ox yoke) and yet he not only escaped, but gathered smaller tribes of Mongols together and by the time his sons had grown and gotten into the fight, Khan controlled over half the world.

I'm not following any of your points. They clash with history. What you seem to be doing is making a case for defeatism and a reason to submit to a yoke of tyranny.

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course not. My case is that the militias claiming they intend to take up the slack in the impossible event that our military is defeated is just ludicrous.

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

 

[Humorme]

Again, you should study some history.

Essentially what you're saying to me is this:

Fifty five men signed the Declaration of Independence and, while Jefferson said that document was the "declaratory charter of the rights of man," the liberal mainstream wants to call it a declaration of war. In any event, the War of Independence begins with fifty five guys, but we cannot maintain that country with an armed citizenry that has a 9 to 1 advantage over our own government AND enough arms to put a firearm into the hands of ever able bodied person old enough to fight??? Citizens here outnumber the world's largest army by a ratio of, at least, 7 to 1. And again, we have the weaponry it would take to arm every able bodied American willing to fight.

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but no sane, rational, or intelligent military would want to wage a war inside the United States. America got its ass kicked by a country that didn't even have a helicopter.

Please do us both a favor. Read a few books on military history, tactics and how empires were founded and how they ended.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot 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” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

 

[BULLDOG]

So many absurd things in your post. You are free to go back and read what I said. It was nothing resembling what you seem to claim I said. It is ludicrous to think that a bunch of self appointed Davy Crocket wannabees with personal firearms can compare in any way with the massive capabilities of our military.
Now concerning the rest of your diatribe.

In the first place, the Federalist Papers is nothing more than commentary written at the time of the constitution. They are not our constitution, and certainly not an infallible prophesy of what the world would be like hundreds of years hence. Perhaps you should read a few credible books, and watch Red Dawn reruns a little less often.

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

Well, yes. I did mean something else. A bigger bullet doesn't make a more effective gun, and I don't see stopping every so often to pump 1500 strokes to fill the air reservoir as a good option for someone in combat.

 

[Humorme]

You are so desperate that you're trying to create straw man arguments? How would Jefferson, John Hancock, et. al. be any different than "wannabees" (sic)?

While I never mentioned the Federalist Papers, we were left with some words of wisdom from those who helped frame the ideas that govern our nation. Here is one:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

The million dollar question is why would Jefferson offer up such advice? The answer came from George Washington almost three decades earlier in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It would appear to me that this Constitution is, supposedly, good enough to govern us, but you think the people who framed it and helped bring it about were too stupid to guide us through the proper interpretation and process to change it.

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

Well, yes. I did mean something else. A bigger bullet doesn't make a more effective gun, and I don't see stopping every so often to pump 1500 strokes to fill the air reservoir as a good option for someone in combat.

My point is the founders knew history and had a good concept of the future of firearms. They were visionaries, but if I understand you correctly, they were flaming idiots - OR maybe YOU cannot look into the future and see what modern miracles of science are right around the corner?

My thoughts are that the founders were not as limited in their understanding of history and science as you have me believe.

 

[BULLDOG]

I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change.

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

Well, yes. I did mean something else. A bigger bullet doesn't make a more effective gun, and I don't see stopping every so often to pump 1500 strokes to fill the air reservoir as a good option for someone in combat.

My point is the founders knew history and had a good concept of the future of firearms. They were visionaries, but if I understand you correctly, they were flaming idiots - OR maybe YOU cannot look into the future and see what modern miracles of science are right around the corner?

My thoughts are that the founders were not as limited in their understanding of history and science as you have me believe.

I believe they were somewhere between the extremes that mention. They were sharp, but they didn't have a crystal ball that showed them the future. There was no way they could know our capabilities now, any more then we know what it will be 200 years from now.

 

[JGalt]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

1. There is no such thing as an "unloaded" firearm. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded and do a visual inspection of the chamber. Even if someone else checked it first and hands it to you, check to make sure there's nothing in the chamber.

2. Never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy. That's called "muzzle discipline". You'd be surprised how many times I've had to chew some idiot Fudd's ass out at the range for not paying attention and sweeping me with his muzzle. And believe me: If you accidentally sweep me with your muzzle, you're going to have a problem.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target. Simple.

4. Be sure of not only what you're shooting at, but what's behind your target. Bullets can travel up to a couple miles, depending on the caliber.

Those were from memory, I did not look them up. Anyone who considers themselves part of the "gun culture" has already memorized those four basic rules. Those are the rules we live by, and those are the rules that are permanently tattooed in out brain..

Anyone else who happens to own a firearm, is a casual shooter, or just a hunter, should memorize them so they don't accidentally do something stupid.

I will also add this: Always wear eye and ear protection when shooting, make sure you are familiar with your weapon and keep it cleaned, lubricated, and well-maintained, and use the right caliber ammunition that is clean and free of dirt and corrosion. Also when dealing with firearms that have magazines, remove the magazine first, then open the action to check it. You'd be surprised how many idiots open the action first, then accidentally chamber a round from the magazine before removing it. Tubular magazines on .22 semi-auto rifles are notorious for having one round stuck in the end of the tubular mag, after you dump them out.

Then there are a whole shitload of rules to go by if you also do any reloading or manufacturing of your own ammunition, but I won't cover those.

 

[Humorme]

So they were ignorant of the history before them?

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

Well, yes. I did mean something else. A bigger bullet doesn't make a more effective gun, and I don't see stopping every so often to pump 1500 strokes to fill the air reservoir as a good option for someone in combat.

My point is the founders knew history and had a good concept of the future of firearms. They were visionaries, but if I understand you correctly, they were flaming idiots - OR maybe YOU cannot look into the future and see what modern miracles of science are right around the corner?

My thoughts are that the founders were not as limited in their understanding of history and science as you have me believe.

I believe they were somewhere between the extremes that mention. They were sharp, but they didn't have a crystal ball that showed them the future. There was no way they could know our capabilities now, any more then we know what it will be 200 years from now.

Yes, we DO know the capabilities of the future. So, are we to be defeatist about it or plan for the future?

Stephen Hawkings final prediction was:

"Famed physicist Stephen Hawking died Tuesday at the age of 76, his family confirmed. Renowned for his scientific work in a number of areas, Hawking left behind a legacy that encompassed a variety of subjects, expounding on everything from the secrets of the universe to artificial intelligence.

Hawking often shared his predictions about the future, discussing the fate of humanity and the human race.

Here are some of Hawking’s most interesting theories.

Artificial Intelligence
Hawking warned about the potential for robots to outperform humans, effectively making the human race obsolete.“I fear AI may replace humans altogether,” he told Wired in November. “If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that improves and replicates itself. This will be a new form of life that outperforms humans.” "

Stephen Hawking's Most Notable Predictions

Of course the founders had some inkling about the possibilities about the future based on the past. I want you to remember that in the 1200s Genghis was busy taking over half the world. So, they understood both history and political philosophies.

It does not stand to reason that they would handicap us and make us unable to stand against tyrannical governments. And what you're arguing is way out of touch with reality.

Adolph Hitler, sitting around a table having beer with his buddies, began an effort with a little country about the size of Texas and damn near took over the world.

Going back earlier, Jesus had but twelve apostles and he changed the world.

The point is, modern militaries have weaponry that is awesome by any standard. But the difference in capabilities is not any greater than the differences between what we have today compared to what they have.

If they nuke you, you're dead anyway. If any military, including our own, plans a full on occupation, they cannot destroy neighborhoods without killing their own. So, it boils down to tanks against civilians - and the have to come out some time plus the fact that our armed citizenry far outnumbers ANY military on earth... just as the founders intended.

Then you're back down to the Right of the People. It cannot be infringed.

 

[alang1216]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

 

[Humorme]

The last word on this subject

 

[JGalt]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

 

[IsaacNewton]

DNC MOTTOS:

1. 'Never let a tragedy go to waste.'

2. 'Never let a PHOTO OP go to waste.'


Democrats leave Capitol to join student gun protest

"Democratic leaders in the House and Senate exited the Capitol on Wednesday to march with and speak to students protesting gun violence on the one-month anniversary of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

Senior members of Democratic leadership joined other lawmakers from the House and Senate on Capitol Hill as thousands of students marched while others around the country walked out of classes or staged other protests."


Forget for a minute that Barry's pushed liberal agenda made it possible for the shooter to buy a gun...

Forget for a minute that these are the same Democrats who refused to pass Kate's law...

Forget for a minute that Schumer and these Democrats are the same ones who chose to stand with MS13 gang members and violent illegals - who have victimized / murdered Americans and who are now being protected in law-violating Sanctuary Cities - instead of Americans in order to shut the US government down not long ago...

Forget for a minute that these are the same Democrats just berated by illegals who recognized how Democrats were using them for political gain, much like they are now using the Parkland Florida shooting victims and students and this photo op for political gain...

If you can forget all of that then you could possible fall for this DNC politically-motivated theatrical performance designed to play on the emotions of all the suckers out there. designed to create emotion-based support for their gun-grabbing agenda....



Democrats leave Capitol to join student gun protest

 

[JGalt]

DNC MOTTOS:

1. 'Never let a tragedy go to waste.'

2. 'Never let a PHOTO OP go to waste.'


Democrats leave Capitol to join student gun protest

"Democratic leaders in the House and Senate exited the Capitol on Wednesday to march with and speak to students protesting gun violence on the one-month anniversary of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting.

Senior members of Democratic leadership joined other lawmakers from the House and Senate on Capitol Hill as thousands of students marched while others around the country walked out of classes or staged other protests."


Forget for a minute that Barry's pushed liberal agenda made it possible for the shooter to buy a gun...

Forget for a minute that these are the same Democrats who refused to pass Kate's law...

Forget for a minute that Schumer and these Democrats are the same ones who chose to stand with MS13 gang members and violent illegals - who have victimized / murdered Americans and who are now being protected in law-violating Sanctuary Cities - instead of Americans in order to shut the US government down not long ago...

Forget for a minute that these are the same Democrats just berated by illegals who recognized how Democrats were using them for political gain, much like they are now using the Parkland Florida shooting victims and students and this photo op for political gain...

If you can forget all of that then you could possible fall for this DNC politically-motivated theatrical performance designed to play on the emotions of all the suckers out there. designed to create emotion-based support for their gun-grabbing agenda....



Democrats leave Capitol to join student gun protest

View attachment 183069

 

[BULLDOG]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

1. There is no such thing as an "unloaded" firearm. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded and do a visual inspection of the chamber. Even if someone else checked it first and hands it to you, check to make sure there's nothing in the chamber.

2. Never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy. That's called "muzzle discipline". You'd be surprised how many times I've had to chew some idiot Fudd's ass out at the range for not paying attention and sweeping me with his muzzle. And believe me: If you accidentally sweep me with your muzzle, you're going to have a problem.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target. Simple.

4. Be sure of not only what you're shooting at, but what's behind your target. Bullets can travel up to a couple miles, depending on the caliber.

Those were from memory, I did not look them up. Anyone who considers themselves part of the "gun culture" has already memorized those four basic rules. Those are the rules we live by, and those are the rules that are permanently tattooed in out brain..

Anyone else who happens to own a firearm, is a casual shooter, or just a hunter, should memorize them so they don't accidentally do something stupid.

I will also add this: Always wear eye and ear protection when shooting, make sure you are familiar with your weapon and keep it cleaned, lubricated, and well-maintained, and use the right caliber ammunition that is clean and free of dirt and corrosion. Also when dealing with firearms that have magazines, remove the magazine first, then open the action to check it. You'd be surprised how many idiots open the action first, then accidentally chamber a round from the magazine before removing it. Tubular magazines on .22 semi-auto rifles are notorious for having one round stuck in the end of the tubular mag, after you dump them out.

Then there are a whole shitload of rules to go by if you also do any reloading or manufacturing of your own ammunition, but I won't cover those.

The same reason "accidents" happen in every other thing you might do. People get complacent. People think they are so well versed and experienced till they are able to skip some of the rules. Safety rules are just for the noobs, not for an experienced person. People are idiots.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did I say that, or are you imagining things again?

Post # 344

"I know they had no idea what a couple of hundred years would change."

Sounds like you meant the founders - given the context of the conversation. BTW, when the Brits were fighting Americans, they were expected to be able to deliver four rounds minute of aimed fire. The Brown Bess, carried by the colonists, had a rate of fire of about 3 rounds per minute.

It seemed to me that the argument being made was that the founders could not fathom the capabilities of today's firearms. I found that to be be false. For example:

The Girandoni Air Rifle fired a .46 caliber projectile and had a 20-round magazine. It was invented in 1779 and was used by the Lewis and Clark expedition. AND, some of the weapons used by the founders used a .75 caliber projectile. In modern times, the maximum caliber a civilian can own is a .50 caliber.

If you meant something else, my bad.

Well, yes. I did mean something else. A bigger bullet doesn't make a more effective gun, and I don't see stopping every so often to pump 1500 strokes to fill the air reservoir as a good option for someone in combat.

My point is the founders knew history and had a good concept of the future of firearms. They were visionaries, but if I understand you correctly, they were flaming idiots - OR maybe YOU cannot look into the future and see what modern miracles of science are right around the corner?

My thoughts are that the founders were not as limited in their understanding of history and science as you have me believe.

I believe they were somewhere between the extremes that mention. They were sharp, but they didn't have a crystal ball that showed them the future. There was no way they could know our capabilities now, any more then we know what it will be 200 years from now.

Yes, we DO know the capabilities of the future. So, are we to be defeatist about it or plan for the future?

Stephen Hawkings final prediction was:

"Famed physicist Stephen Hawking died Tuesday at the age of 76, his family confirmed. Renowned for his scientific work in a number of areas, Hawking left behind a legacy that encompassed a variety of subjects, expounding on everything from the secrets of the universe to artificial intelligence.

Hawking often shared his predictions about the future, discussing the fate of humanity and the human race.

Here are some of Hawking’s most interesting theories.

Artificial Intelligence
Hawking warned about the potential for robots to outperform humans, effectively making the human race obsolete.“I fear AI may replace humans altogether,” he told Wired in November. “If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that improves and replicates itself. This will be a new form of life that outperforms humans.” "

Stephen Hawking's Most Notable Predictions

Of course the founders had some inkling about the possibilities about the future based on the past. I want you to remember that in the 1200s Genghis was busy taking over half the world. So, they understood both history and political philosophies.

It does not stand to reason that they would handicap us and make us unable to stand against tyrannical governments. And what you're arguing is way out of touch with reality.

Adolph Hitler, sitting around a table having beer with his buddies, began an effort with a little country about the size of Texas and damn near took over the world.

Going back earlier, Jesus had but twelve apostles and he changed the world.

The point is, modern militaries have weaponry that is awesome by any standard. But the difference in capabilities is not any greater than the differences between what we have today compared to what they have.

If they nuke you, you're dead anyway. If any military, including our own, plans a full on occupation, they cannot destroy neighborhoods without killing their own. So, it boils down to tanks against civilians - and the have to come out some time plus the fact that our armed citizenry far outnumbers ANY military on earth... just as the founders intended.

Then you're back down to the Right of the People. It cannot be infringed.

In the 60s did you know cassette tapes would soon be obsolete, or that the internet would soon connect everybody in the world with everybody else? Did you know that old rotary dial telephone would be replaced with a package the size of a cigarette pack that didn't need a wired connection, and would have more computing power than the manned rocket that first went to the moon?

 

[JGalt]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

1. There is no such thing as an "unloaded" firearm. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded and do a visual inspection of the chamber. Even if someone else checked it first and hands it to you, check to make sure there's nothing in the chamber.

2. Never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy. That's called "muzzle discipline". You'd be surprised how many times I've had to chew some idiot Fudd's ass out at the range for not paying attention and sweeping me with his muzzle. And believe me: If you accidentally sweep me with your muzzle, you're going to have a problem.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target. Simple.

4. Be sure of not only what you're shooting at, but what's behind your target. Bullets can travel up to a couple miles, depending on the caliber.

Those were from memory, I did not look them up. Anyone who considers themselves part of the "gun culture" has already memorized those four basic rules. Those are the rules we live by, and those are the rules that are permanently tattooed in out brain..

Anyone else who happens to own a firearm, is a casual shooter, or just a hunter, should memorize them so they don't accidentally do something stupid.

I will also add this: Always wear eye and ear protection when shooting, make sure you are familiar with your weapon and keep it cleaned, lubricated, and well-maintained, and use the right caliber ammunition that is clean and free of dirt and corrosion. Also when dealing with firearms that have magazines, remove the magazine first, then open the action to check it. You'd be surprised how many idiots open the action first, then accidentally chamber a round from the magazine before removing it. Tubular magazines on .22 semi-auto rifles are notorious for having one round stuck in the end of the tubular mag, after you dump them out.

Then there are a whole shitload of rules to go by if you also do any reloading or manufacturing of your own ammunition, but I won't cover those.

The same reason "accidents" happen in every other thing you might do. People get complacent. People think they are so well versed and experienced till they are able to skip some of the rules. Safety rules are just for the noobs, not for an experienced person. People are idiots.

And? What's your point?