The federal government and the second amendment

[hunarcy]

But you were not correct. They were outgunned unless you are telling me guns can shoot by themselves. The 2 go together. if its just me and I have 20 weapons and 3 people outside each have 1 weapon I am out gunned unless I can shoot at least 4 at the same time. Does that make sense? I read your link and it only reinforces my thought the south was incredibly stupid and outgunned. You have to face the facts buddy.

Yes, I was. If YOU were correct, the war would have been over the first year. It wasn't until Grant took over and started sacrificing men that he was able to wear down Lee and that led to the surrender.

 

[hunarcy]

But you were not correct. They were outgunned unless you are telling me guns can shoot by themselves. The 2 go together. if its just me and I have 20 weapons and 3 people outside each have 1 weapon I am out gunned unless I can shoot at least 4 at the same time. Does that make sense? I read your link and it only reinforces my thought the south was incredibly stupid and outgunned. You have to face the facts buddy.

Are you trying to say out guned means had more men?

No. I'm not trying to say anything but what I said. Do you not know what outgunned means? Here is the dictionary meaning.

outgunned - definition of outgunned by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

outgunned:
1. To surpass in military force. 2. To overwhelm or defeat

So using that same scenario I would be able to outgun 3 men that only had 1 weapon between them and I had 2. The number of people have very little to do with the term.

He's "evolving" his position. He's moved from "having more guns" to "surpassing in military force".

 

[Asclepias]

But you were not correct. They were outgunned unless you are telling me guns can shoot by themselves. The 2 go together. if its just me and I have 20 weapons and 3 people outside each have 1 weapon I am out gunned unless I can shoot at least 4 at the same time. Does that make sense? I read your link and it only reinforces my thought the south was incredibly stupid and outgunned. You have to face the facts buddy.

Yes, I was. If YOU were correct, the war would have been over the first year. It wasn't until Grant took over and started sacrificing men that he was able to wear down Lee and that led to the surrender.

Who told you the war would have been over the first year if I was correct? Are you the person that makes schedules for wars?

 

[Asclepias]

Are you trying to say out guned means had more men?

No. I'm not trying to say anything but what I said. Do you not know what outgunned means? Here is the dictionary meaning.

outgunned - definition of outgunned by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

outgunned:
1. To surpass in military force. 2. To overwhelm or defeat

So using that same scenario I would be able to outgun 3 men that only had 1 weapon between them and I had 2. The number of people have very little to do with the term.

He's "evolving" his position. He's moved from "having more guns" to "surpassing in military force".

Youre moving the goal posts because you didn't know the meaning of out gunned just like him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. I'm not trying to say anything but what I said. Do you not know what outgunned means? Here is the dictionary meaning.

outgunned - definition of outgunned by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

outgunned:
1. To surpass in military force. 2. To overwhelm or defeat

So using that same scenario I would be able to outgun 3 men that only had 1 weapon between them and I had 2. The number of people have very little to do with the term.

He's "evolving" his position. He's moved from "having more guns" to "surpassing in military force".

Youre moving the goal posts because you didn't know the meaning of out gunned just like him.

Out gun does not mean having more guns it means having more man power.
Don't you know anything?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Topic of this thread is

Back on track

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the premise of the thread was demonstrated to be wrong.

Again, there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ authorizing citizens to unilaterally take up arms against a Federal government perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

To do so would violate the First Amendment right of all citizens to voice their opinion through the political process, and violate the right of citizens to first attempt to resolve any conflict with the Federal government through either the ballot box or the courts.

what happens when a government no longer obeys the constitution?

According to whom? What are the criteria that establish a government is no longer obeying the Constitution?

What constitutes ‘tyrannical.’? One person’s ‘tyranny’ might be another’s just government. Without a consensus of the majority as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ any armed insurrection against the Federal government would be illegal, unwarranted, and un-Constitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the premise of the thread was demonstrated to be wrong.

Again, there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ authorizing citizens to unilaterally take up arms against a Federal government perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

To do so would violate the First Amendment right of all citizens to voice their opinion through the political process, and violate the right of citizens to first attempt to resolve any conflict with the Federal government through either the ballot box or the courts.

what happens when a government no longer obeys the constitution?

According to whom? What are the criteria that establish a government is no longer obeying the Constitution?

What constitutes ‘tyrannical.’? One person’s ‘tyranny’ might be another’s just government. Without a consensus of the majority as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ any armed insurrection against the Federal government would be illegal, unwarranted, and un-Constitutional.

No your wrong

According to whom? What are the criteria that establish a government is no longer obeying the Constitution?

Where in the constitution does it give the government the authority to spy on the citizens of this country?
Where does it give the president the authority to assassinate an American citizen?The income tax is illegal
Gun control laws
to much presidential power
And yes obamacare.

Again, there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ authorizing citizens to unilaterally take up arms against a Federal government perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Well then you are absolutely clueless on the second amendment and it's purpose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the premise of the thread was demonstrated to be wrong.

Again, there is no Second Amendment ‘right’ authorizing citizens to unilaterally take up arms against a Federal government perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

To do so would violate the First Amendment right of all citizens to voice their opinion through the political process, and violate the right of citizens to first attempt to resolve any conflict with the Federal government through either the ballot box or the courts.

You've said this before; it was addressed.
You argue a strawman supported by a non-sequitur and are, thus, wrong.

 

[BlackSand]

To do so would violate the First Amendment right of all citizens to voice their opinion through the political process, and violate the right of citizens to first attempt to resolve any conflict with the Federal government through either the ballot box or the courts.

Do you negotiate or consider the rights of the grizzly bear gnawing your leg off ... Or do you shoot the bastard?

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[BlackSand]

According to whom? What are the criteria that establish a government is no longer obeying the Constitution?

What constitutes ‘tyrannical.’? One person’s ‘tyranny’ might be another’s just government.
Without a consensus of the majority as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ any armed insurrection against the Federal government would be illegal, unwarranted, and un-Constitutional.

Come and Get It ...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to whom? What are the criteria that establish a government is no longer obeying the Constitution?

What constitutes ‘tyrannical.’? One person’s ‘tyranny’ might be another’s just government.
Without a consensus of the majority as to what constitutes ‘tyranny,’ any armed insurrection against the Federal government would be illegal, unwarranted, and un-Constitutional.

Come and Get It ...

Nice DPMS

 

[Abatis]

Anyone who thinks they need a gun to someday fight their own government is more than a gun nut

They are a certified nut

I see that a lot, and while I am not a proponent for armed insurrection, I would point out that your side says the same sort of people handed us our asses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Great point. This thread proves that statist authoritarians on the left are deficient in knowledge and understanding of founding principles and fail miserably when critical thinking is demanded in discussing those concepts.

The 2nd Amendment is not a provision mandating tactical equivalency. It only is intended to keep the original ratios of numerical superiority the framers embraced and recognized as "securing the free state".

The framers stated in 1788 that the largest standing army that could be supported and maintained would, at most, amount to 1% of the total population. These government forces would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word James Madison used) by "citizens with arms in their hands" by a ratio of 17 to 1.

In modern times that "standing army" ratio holds true but the armed citizen superiority has grown a bit, it now stands at roughly 25 armed citizens to one soldier (2.9 million active duty and reserve military "standing army" vs 75 million "citizens with arms in their hands" in a nation of 311 million "total souls").

While the framers did not envision every person being armed they certainly desired a significant percentage of the population to be properly situated with small arms to resist with violence the standing army of a government of usurpers.

That ratio is the only condition they intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment, for that mass of armed citizens serves both objects (intents) of the 2nd Amendment. The primary object of the 2nd Amendment assumes that the government is acting within the confines of the Constitution and would allow the civil authorities to quickly organize militia when necessary, calling out the farmers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community and have them muster within minutes of being called with an appropriate firearm and ammunition supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions.

The second object secures the original right of political self-defense from the actions of government that holds that if the government exceeds the powers granted to it and usurps power, it loses its legitimacy to govern and the people have a duty to rescind their consent to be governed and reclaim the powers lent to government through the Constitution (with violence if necessary).

And to specifically address the cognitive disconnect of the left you note; at the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence).

With 160,000 troops in country, the US enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage . . . And in the opinion of many on the "enlightened" left, (who, as we see in this thread, also denigrate the concept of armed (with small arms) resistance against a modern military) we were in a quagmire and losing BAD.

Are those conflicted liberals capable of understanding the tactical reality if our 160K troops faced 2.8 million insurgents (Madison's 17-1 ratio) or 4 million if we apply the modern ratio? Do they comprehend the tactical reality that an American resistance would be familiar with American weapon platforms and would endeavor to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up at check points?

In the end, leftist statist authoritarians just can't comprehend the concepts of liberty and holding government submissive to the rights of the citizen by confining it to only exercising the powers granted to it. That's why the only response they have to those who embrace and speak of those principles is to call us crazy . . . Which only solidifies my resolve to never lose the drive to defend liberty or surrender the means to resist those who threaten it.