The Right To Bear Arms

[KissMy]

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.

As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

you have no idea what you were talking about.

.

I would hardly say 3.1 million dead Vietnam citizens & trained military vs 57,939 dead US government military was an ass kicking. However the government soldier is many times more deadly today than it was then. If you don't have weaponized drones, mortars, independent encrypted long range communication & targeting systems, you will never get within range of your gun before they smoke your ass.

 

[Lesh]

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.

As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

you have no idea what you were talking about.

.

The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.

The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.

Read some history and lose the myths

The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns

 

[Rigby5]

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.

As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

you have no idea what you were talking about.

.

I would hardly say 3.1 million dead Vietnam citizens & trained military vs 57,939 dead US government military was an ass kicking. However the government soldier is many times more deadly today than it was then. If you don't have weaponized drones, mortars, independent encrypted long range communication & targeting systems, you will never get within range of your gun before they smoke your ass.

I disagree.
The advantage of an insurgency is stealth.
When your side does not have planes, armor, satellites, etc., you slit their throat when they are taking a piss in the bushes. You assassinate dictator's henchmen in the elevator.
But there are times is also helps to have large capacity rifles as well, so they must never be allowed to be made illegal.
It would be a basic violation of the principles of the 14th amendment.
That is nothing the police or military can have that all citizens then also must have the right to have.
We are the only source of any authority in a democratic republic, so we must be able to have it if anyone can at all.
If these things are illegal for average individuals, then they must be illegal for police and military, based on equal treatment under the law.

 

[Rigby5]

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.

As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

you have no idea what you were talking about.

.

The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.

The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.

Read some history and lose the myths

The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns

That is not true.
The farmers of the revolution did NOT drop their weapons, and while they did run and retreat, they kept firing.
There were hardly any REGULAR ARMY at all on the colonial side of the revolution. There was no money, weapons, or time for training. They were almost all irregular, and mostly used their own arms.
The revolutionary farmers were well known for being vastly superior to "regulars", and groups like the Green Mountain Boys in NY, Vermont, and New Hampshire vastly out classed the British regulars.
Of course revolutionary forced did not hold and fight in tight formation, because that would be a stupid way to fight.
Irregulars almost always are better than paid mercenaries.
Sure the NVA regulars did most of the fighting in Vietnam, but they rarely had tanks, artillery, or machinegun.
They mostly beat us by setting booby traps and hand to hand.
Professional military always lose because they cost too much and are always too small in number.
Kill ratios are irrelevant then.
And the reality is that anyone dumb enough to join a mercenary military likely has to fight in strict formation because they are not capable of fighting in any better way, even though that is the worst possible means of fighting.

The best example of irregulars beating regulars is not the American revolution, but the French and Indian War, with Braddock's Defeat. Back then regulars were awful, and they are no better now, just more high tech. And that is the only thing we have to prevent, as a democratic republic can only exist as long as the general population has access to the same tech as the corrupt mercenaries.

 

[KissMy]

We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!

 

[Rigby5]

We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!

Good point.
But it is the old slow simmer the frog does not respond to problem.
Incrementally each step did not warrant armed rebellion, even though all the steps together did.
Really, there should have been armed rebellion at the very first federal weapons law, since it is totally and completely illegal.
Only states and municipalities have any weapons jurisdiction at all.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It was clearly the intent of the founders that the people have the power to defend their liberty from their own government.



"At a time when our lordly Masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our Ancestors; but the manner of doing it to answer the purpose effectually is the point in question.

That no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion..."
George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5th 1769

Founders Online: From George Washington to George Mason, 5 April 1769



"A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest, may perhaps produce too great a degree of indignation: and those characters wherein fear predominates over hope may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government but that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth, nor experience. Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable.

1. Without government, as among our Indians.
2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one.
3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics.

"To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty & happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. (Translation: [understood I] Prefer dangerous liberty to quiet slavery) Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (1787)

To James Madison Paris, Jan. 30, 1787 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond




"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stevens Smith (1787)

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1 …



Falsa idea di utilità è quella, che sacrifica mille vantaggi reali, per un inconveniente o immaginario, o di poca conseguenza, che toglierebbe agli uomini il fuoco perchè incendia, e l'acqua perchè annega; che non ripara ai mali, che col distruggere. Le leggi, che proibiscono di portar le armi, sono leggi di tal natura; esse non disarmano che i non inclinati, nè determinati ai delitti, mentre coloro che hanno il coraggio di poter violare le leggi più sacre della umanità è le più importanti del codice, come rispetteranno le minori, e le puramente arbitrarie? Queste peggiorano la condizione degli assaliti migliorando quella degli assalitori, non iscemano gli omicidi, ma gli accrescono, perchè è maggiore la confidenza nell'assalire i disarmati, che gli armati. Queste si chiaman leggi, non preventrici, ma paurose dei delitti, che nascono dalla tumultuosa impressione di alcuni fatti particolari, non dalla ragionata meditazione degl'inconvenienti, ed avvantaggi di un decreto universale.
Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments, originally published in Italian in 1764 - WHICH JEFFERSON OWNED AND NOTED: Falsa idea di utilità (false ideas of utility)--which Beccaria was describing. See below.


Translated:

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

Because Jefferson owned sever copies of this essay and made notes on the passage, we can assume that he shared Beccaria's beliefs.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-
carrying-armsspurious-quotation



we had never been permitted to exercise self-government. when forced to assume it, we were Novices in it’s science. it’s principles and forms had entered little into our former education. we established however some, altho’ not all it’s important principles. the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824



“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46




So, those of you making the argument that we do not have enough arms to fight off the FedGov's standing army, are simply making the argument that WE CIVILIANS MUST HAVE MORE POWERFUL WEAPONS.


WE NEED ZERO RESTRICTIONS!

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.

As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

you have no idea what you were talking about.

.

The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.

The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.

Read some history and lose the myths

The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns

So, you don't think we can get those?

What are you really saying here? That we civilians need better weapons?

I agree.

.

 

[Lesh]

The farmers of the revolution did NOT drop their weapons, and while they did run and retreat, they kept firing.
There were hardly any REGULAR ARMY at all on the colonial side of the revolution. There was no money, weapons, or time for training. They were almost all irregular, and mostly used their own arms.

The revolutionary farmers were well known for being vastly superior to "regulars"

You have read ZERO history...obviously

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!

We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.

I have listened to many. I have seen the resolve of citizens. You should take this very seriously.


You have a choice:

1. Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
2. Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes. Full Autos become readily available to anyone.

You decide.

 

[Lesh]

So, you don't think we can get those?

What are you really saying here? That we civilians need better weapons?

I agree.

"Those" are either illegal to own or heavily regulated

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.

Democrats want to ban the manufacture and sale of all semi-auto handguns and rifles.
I do not think this will be tolerated.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, you don't think we can get those?

What are you really saying here? That we civilians need better weapons?

I agree.

"Those" are either illegal to own or heavily regulated

Right.

You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?

You don't seem to understand what it takes to win an armed conflict. All the air superiority and weapons dominance in the world has never and WILL never replace boots on the ground, and there are WAY more of us, and that's assuming half the military does not join our side (they will).

So, take your bullshit about our final conquest being decided and shove it up your communist, totalitarian-loving ass.

But, back to the point you accidentally made. WE CIVILIANS NEED MACHINE GUNS, ARTILLERY, TANKS, BOMBS, FIGHTER JETS, ETC.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.

Democrats want to ban the manufacture and sale of all semi-auto handguns and rifles.
I do not think this will be tolerated.

I don't think a single new gun-control law will be tolerated, but I am sure they will test our resolve.

.

 

[Lesh]

You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?

No I don't.

I think you are living in some weird (and dangerous) comic book fantasy

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?

No I don't.

I think you are living in some weird (and dangerous) comic book fantasy

So, you either think George Washington et al were WRONG:

"That no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion..."
See post #9187


Or, you admit that we need to be better armed as civilians.


Which is it?

.

 

[Lesh]

Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.

They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.

They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon

So, what argument are you making?

Civilians don't have enough firepower?

I agree.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.
They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon

The PLAN was for them to run - they did not break.
How do you think this supports your nonsense?

 

[KissMy]

We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!

We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.

I have listened to many. I have seen the resolve of citizens. You should take this very seriously.


You have a choice:

1. Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
2. Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes. Full Autos become readily available to anyone.

You decide.

LOL!!! - They took guns from the people of New Orleans & you pussies did not injure the government thugs.