Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[ChrisL]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

Well, this is interesting . . . .

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

"civic duty to act in concert in defense OF the state"...not against the state.

U.S. Constitution
(Article 1 - Legislative)

Article 1, Section 8, line 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 1, Section 8, line 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Militia Act of 1792
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

You are wrong. Sorry. The Supreme Court has granted us the right to bear arms for self defense, and that is CLEARLY stated in the link above that I posted too. Our 2nd Amendment was based upon that. The NATURAL right to self defense, and it doesn't matter WHO it is you are defending yourself against. You have a right to defend yourself. Period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

 

[ChrisL]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

That doesn't mention anything about tyranny. If you have a tyrannical government, you don't "petition them" for permission to fight. That is stupid.

 

[2aguy]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

Well, this is interesting . . . .

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

"civic duty to act in concert in defense OF the state"...not against the state.

U.S. Constitution
(Article 1 - Legislative)

Article 1, Section 8, line 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 1, Section 8, line 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Militia Act of 1792
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

You are wrong. Sorry. The Supreme Court has granted us the right to bear arms for self defense, and that is CLEARLY stated in the link above that I posted too. Our 2nd Amendment was based upon that. The NATURAL right to self defense, and it doesn't matter WHO it is you are defending yourself against. You have a right to defend yourself. Period.

No...the Supreme Court can't grant that right, it is God given, or for the atheists, a natural right of each individual...the Supreme Court simply pointed this out as anti freedom activists have tried to take that right away from us.....

 

[2aguy]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

Yeah...read what the founders said about what the people should do if the government refused to redress wrongs based on that petition to government......because...they sort of "Petitioned" the King of England with their grievances and he ignored them.......which led to the elements of the 2nd Amendment........

 

[ChrisL]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

Yeah...read what the founders said about what the people should do if the government refused to redress wrongs based on that petition to government......because...they sort of "Petitioned" the King of England with their grievances and he ignored them.......which led to the elements of the 2nd Amendment........

Well, I don't believe that we the people could fight off a tyrannical government nowadays with guns. However, that does not negate our 2nd amendment right to self defense and to TRY if that was ever to happen.

I would also like to think that if our government turned to tyranny, a LARGE portion of our military would abandon the government and fight on the side of the people against the government. The military, after all, swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

 

[2aguy]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

Hmmmm....it seems like the Kulaks in Russia probably tried to petition for a redress of grievances.......and the same for the Chinese when Mao was in power....and the Rwandans who seemed had a problem with their government arming rival groups with machetes....or even the Mexicans across our border when they bring up the issue of government officials and the drug cartels teaming up to kill them.....

Yeah....how did those petitions to those governments work out for those people.....? That is why you need to read some of the founders and what they said needed to be done when the government doesn't listen and correct those grievances....

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

Horsepoo.

 

[Desperado]

They are just pissed that they do not have the self control or trust themselves enough to own a weapon.

 

[2aguy]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

Yeah...read what the founders said about what the people should do if the government refused to redress wrongs based on that petition to government......because...they sort of "Petitioned" the King of England with their grievances and he ignored them.......which led to the elements of the 2nd Amendment........

Well, I don't believe that we the people could fight off a tyrannical government nowadays with guns. However, that does not negate our 2nd amendment right to self defense and to TRY if that was ever to happen.

I would also like to think that if our government turned to tyranny, a LARGE portion of our military would abandon the government and fight on the side of the people against the government. The military, after all, swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Part of it is to deter the government by making sure that as many citizens as possible are armed......jet pilots, drone pilots, tankers and other military personel are not in iron man suits...and they can be killed.....rifles and pistols make that easier.....and around the world, when a government is persecuting the people what do they generally need to fight back....rifles and pistols....just ask the Mexicans who are fighting their government which is working with the drug cartels....

Not every action against the government will be all out revolution....look at Mexico......they need rifles and pistols to fight off the corrupt local government working with the drug cartels.......

 

[ChrisL]

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

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.

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.

Yeah...read what the founders said about what the people should do if the government refused to redress wrongs based on that petition to government......because...they sort of "Petitioned" the King of England with their grievances and he ignored them.......which led to the elements of the 2nd Amendment........

Well, I don't believe that we the people could fight off a tyrannical government nowadays with guns. However, that does not negate our 2nd amendment right to self defense and to TRY if that was ever to happen.

I would also like to think that if our government turned to tyranny, a LARGE portion of our military would abandon the government and fight on the side of the people against the government. The military, after all, swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Part of it is to deter the government by making sure that as many citizens as possible are armed......jet pilots, drone pilots, tankers and other military personel are not in iron man suits...and they can be killed.....rifles and pistols make that easier.....and around the world, when a government is persecuting the people what do they generally need to fight back....rifles and pistols....just ask the Mexicans who are fighting their government which is working with the drug cartels....

Not every action against the government will be all out revolution....look at Mexico......they need rifles and pistols to fight off the corrupt local government working with the drug cartels.......

I know. I was agreeing.

 

[Abatis]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

 

[ChrisL]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

How idiotic. Lol. What a completely idiotic thing to say.

 

[ChrisL]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

IOW, you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter by a poster who knows what he's talking about, unlike yourself who is blinded by your dumb liberal ideology.

 

[ChrisL]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Great posts, you! You are very smart.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

How idiotic. Lol. What a completely idiotic thing to say.

There is no secret that conservatism is based on fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

 

[ChrisL]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

How idiotic. Lol. What a completely idiotic thing to say.

There is no secret that conservatism is based on fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

Yeah, sure. It is not FEAR to acknowledge the truth. In fact, I would say that you liberals are in fear. You fear your fellow Americans. You are also not very bright, wanting to arm a rogue country with nukes. This is not based in FEAR but in common sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

The role of the militia was to protect the state,

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

not protect the citizens from the state.

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

PROVE it...

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

How idiotic. Lol. What a completely idiotic thing to say.

There is no secret that conservatism is based on fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

Yeah, sure. It is not FEAR to acknowledge the truth. In fact, I would say that you liberals are in fear. You fear your fellow Americans. You are also not very bright, wanting to arm a rogue country with nukes. This is not based in FEAR but in common sense.

There is even scientific proof...

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

 

[ChrisL]

True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.

True, when the state is acting within its constitutional limits. A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).

Wrong. A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- the government established by the Constitution --- it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating. That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred.

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias. The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading. You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . . As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.

Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.

Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.

How idiotic. Lol. What a completely idiotic thing to say.

There is no secret that conservatism is based on fear.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken

Yeah, sure. It is not FEAR to acknowledge the truth. In fact, I would say that you liberals are in fear. You fear your fellow Americans. You are also not very bright, wanting to arm a rogue country with nukes. This is not based in FEAR but in common sense.

There is even scientific proof...

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

Ba-ha-ha!