Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

A friends thoughts in 3 parts...

steffen19ksteffen19k MemberPosts: 255 Member
To make this short and sweet, this is something that stemmed from a conversation I had with a friend earlier in the week.

I asked him if it was okay with him if I posted it, and he simply asked to remain anonymous. Please remember that these are just his thoughts, per the 1st amendment right to free speech as he sees it.

As a professor of history, I can tell you that the America of 2013 is nowhere near the level of civil unrest, economic disruption, and general malaise that was pre-Hitler Berlin or post-Lenin Moscow. We’re not even Italy of the 1920s.

There’s been no call to repeal the 22nd Amendment, not even the least bit of discussion about it, so when 2016 rolls around, out goes Obama. Love him or hate him, he’s done in three years. Even if there WAS a call to repeal 22 with the house and senate as gridlocked as they are there’s no chance it would even get out of committee, let alone be released to the states for ratification, and certainly not in time for Obama to run again. And, without a repeal on 22 we can’t end up with anything resembling a dictatorship. Obama couldn’t even stay in office during a time or martial law or declared war. When 2016 rolls around, he’s done. Now, yes, there are some tensions in America at the moment, but they’re minor compared to the the Dixiecrats of the 1960s, the McCarthy 50s, or for that matter the race riots of the 1970s. We’d need to be at 1850’s level political unrest to get into the territory you’re talking about … and there’s no central issue that’s as divisive as slavery was—not gay rights, not corporations are people (please, arrest one and see how that works), not “the rich are too rich, gimme some!”

What we have right now is the rule of the 24-hour news cycle and the sound bite. The moderate majority don’t get headlines…WE are boring. We get stuff done, oppose folks on both sides of the aisle and try to rein in excesses. The extremes, they’re always good theater. With the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Olbermans of the world we’re besieged by pompous blowhards on both sides of the aisle who have a vested interest in PREVENTING compromise. Saying “and then things worked out in the end” doesn’t get the sponsorship dollars or the rating points. The fact that they speak for and to a SMALL percentage of the population—and a generally derided percentage at that—is lost in their celebrity status, punditry, and general media presence. The majority of people aren’t blaming the rich for not helping more. They’re pointing the entirely justified finger at the SUPER-rich who’ve been rigging the game. I’m not talking about mandatory wealth redistribution, I’m talking about a select group of people (mostly older white men) who have engineered a system whereby their dollars buy them more political say than our votes do … and that’s wrong. My vote should count just as much as Rupert Murdochs, but it doesn’t.

As to specific points:

1) Raising taxes. Taxes right now are not at historic lows, but they’re close (at least since we ratified the 16th Amendment and had an income tax). The tax rates for the highest brackets right now are a bit more than HALF what they were under Reagan. There have been times when incomes have been taxed at nearly 80%, not a mere 29%--and that’s FEDERAL tax, let alone State taxes!!

2) Spending more than taking in? We’ve been doing that since the 1930s. Arguably, we’ve been doing it since we became a country—that was the point behind Hamilton’s Bank of the United States! The only President to have a balanced budget since the Cold War was Clinton … and he was blessed by the luck of the dot-com boom. The deficit we have is scary, no doubt. But compared to the deficits other nations have had in the past, it’s a fraction. As a percentage of our national wealth and GDP, we’ve HAD higher deficits than this. And with some compromise from both sides of the aisle (but more on one than the other, alas) as well as corporate America getting off the pot and spending some of the ridiculous cash reserves they’re sitting on we could start digging our way out of it. Of course, that will involve spending LESS than we take in and that, too, offends some folks.
Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.

Replies

  • steffen19ksteffen19k Member Posts: 255 Member
    3) Banning guns in the name of public safety is no different from restricting freedom of speech in the name of safety. For that matter, freedom of speech is already even MORE restricted simply by the existence of copyright law, slander and libel laws, and anti-fraud laws. So are religion, property rights (thanks Eminent Domain rules), and personal property (thanks 16th Amendment).

    Now, not to get off on a rant here, but let’s look at the 2nd Amendment more closely.

    “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.” A key phrase that almost everyone overlooks is the first half.

    The founding fathers didn’t put this in so that every citizen could have a gun to protect themselves from a government gone rogue. No, the founders had a profound fear of the concept of the standing army. The European powers all had established, standing, full-time armies and especially Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton had all argued that having an army leads to using it—not against their own people but against other nations, and they all supplemented those armies with conscription. So, to prevent that sort of temptation, the founders put in a clause that says the citizens will be the nation’s army … FOR ITS DEFENSE. Not FROM the government, but FOR it. After all, the colonies had been defending themselves from threats using citizen militias since the 1630s. Well-regulated, trained, and organized militias.
    Today, and in fact since the mid-1800s, the United States HAS a standing army. One of the largest in the world, point of fact (after factoring in the navy, air force, marines, and coast guard). The founders would be HORRIFIED at the power the military has within our government—and several of them, Washington included, were soldiers! And, they would be right since at least once just of the top of my head the US has used that standing army as a force of oppression rather than a tool of defense or freedom (look into the Filipino Insurrection of the early 1900s … we fought Spain in 1898 to liberate its territories from oppression, and then promptly told the Filipinos they weren’t ready for freedom yet. We used the core of a standing army (some 15,000 men) to mug Mexico in 1868 for that matter, after they refused to sell us California—don’t let the Texans tell you different.

    Now, I’m not advocating a complete return to civil militia as the nation’s only defense. If nothing else, in a world with ballistic missiles the idea of a civilian missile corps is rather scary! But, the idea that the 2nd Amendment is there to arm you for your own protection FROM the government is just plain silly. For better or worse (and as a serious navy buff, I think it’s mostly for the better) we HAVE a standing army—so a “well-regulated militia” is NO LONGER necessary to the security of a free State.

    Besides, if the military (or even SWAT teams) come calling, you really think a .30-06 is going to worry them no matter how good you are with it? And, as I stated before, quite a few of our “shall not be abridged” rights HAVE been limited … and those limits have been declared Constitutional by a variety of Supreme Courts both liberal and conservative! So, why should firearms—arguably FAR more dangerous that libelous speech could ever be—get a free pass?

    And that's the end of my rant.

    4) Good intentions policies. We’ve had a lot of those recently, but far fewer than in the past. Not all of them worked, either, with one even being repealed! The 18th Amendment was designed to save America and Americans from the vices of the Demon Alcohol. Alcohol was blamed for spousal abuse, child labor, crime, poverty, homelessness, workplace injuries, and a general moral decay. So, we banned the sale, possession, transportation, production, and consumption of all alcohols not for medicinal or religious purposes. And, boy howdy you’d better believe there was a steady flow of sacramental this, medicinal that, bourbon, whiskey, you name it …
    The fact that a major push for Prohibition came from religious-based temperance movements which, is technically both hypocritical AND violates the 1st Amendments religion clause!
    Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
  • steffen19ksteffen19k Member Posts: 255 Member
    A relatively short while later, we realized we’d made a mistake and wrote in a new Amendment that negated the old one (you can’t actually remove an amendment—once they’re in, they’re in)

    We’ve had legislation against violence and sex in media dating back to the Hayes Code of the 1920s. And 25-odd years or so after each of these (excepting our prude-laws), the next generation looks back, chuckles, and says “how dumb were they! Now, quick, let’s ban this NEW thing that we don’t understand but our kids love!”

    There was even an attempt to pass a Mother’s Pensions Amendment (one of the various versions of the Equal Rights Amendment that’s been raised and shot down since the 1920s) that would legislate government “salaries” to any woman who chose to not work and, instead, remain home to tend to family and children. Paying women to NOT work … and at a better pay-scale than most women factory workers earned at the time.

    So, what’s my point? You’re right to be concerned. American politics and the economy are not what they should be. But that’s not cause to arm up and run off to the boonies. If the government comes calling, you’re not protecting squat. And doing so takes you out of the equation—you might THINK you’re preparing yourself FOR something, but you’re doing nothing to PREVENT it. And, guess what … THEY’RE NOT COMING. The simple fact that Paul Ryan can spout off in open sessions of Congress are PROOF that Obama’s not a dictator and has no aspirations to be one. If he was, Ryan would’ve been dragged off the stage, shot, and then we’d be told he “could no longer serve in his post.”

    I’m not saying that the Right is the problem. I can't, since thats the way I lean. I am saying that political extremists, scare-mongers, and obstructionists on BOTH sides of the aisle are the problem—though there do seem to be more of them on the GOP side.

    If you’re worried, don’t arm up. Don’t retreat into the wilderness in fear. Those who don’t participate don’t get to complain because they LET IT HAPPEN. What you’re worried about can’t and won’t happen—but preparing for it rather than working to prevent it is not helping!

    Speak out. Write letters to the party chairs, to your congressmen and senators. Many claim that “they won’t listen to me.” And they’re probably right—the elected have little reason to listen to ONE person unless they think they can make political hay out of it. But no one raindrop believes it’s responsible for the flood. Be one of the raindrops and see where it goes! Hell, if you’re passionate enough, RUN. even if it’s just for something local. Everybody’s gotta start somewhere—me, I’ve already started by becoming an educator and teaching my students just how much of what they learned was WRONG.

    But comparing Obama to Stalin or Hitler (and, no, you can’t be BOTH a Communist AND a Fascist) doesn’t work that way. That’s like a magnet that’s both 100% positive AND 100% negative at the same time…its really really unlikely it'll happen.
    Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,108 Senior Member
    Did you happen to ask ( or do you know) what political persuasion he is......................Just wondering.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • steffen19ksteffen19k Member Posts: 255 Member
    He says he's a republican, but with this piece, he's doing his level best to be non partisan.
    Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
  • PFDPFD Senior Member Posts: 1,329 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    The founding fathers didn’t put this in so that every citizen could have a gun to protect themselves from a government gone rogue. No, the founders had a profound fear of the concept of the standing army.

    While I like a lot of what he has to say, some parts would appear to be in conflict to some quotes that I have seen attributed to the founding fathers:

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    - George Washington


    "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
    - George Mason


    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
    - Noah Webster


    "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
    - Noah Webster


    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry


    " ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
    - Alexander Hamilton
    That's all I got.

    Paul
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,108 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    He says he's a republican, but with this piece, he's doing his level best to be non partisan.

    Either that or possibly a Republican with his head in the sand some would say..............no offence intended for you or him......
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The first sentence in his long-winded spiel explains his viewpoint. "As a professor of history- - - - - -" he's directly involved in spreading the revisionist claptrap that his employers insist on as a prerequisite for keeping his job.
    Jerry
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    FOUNDING FATHER QUOTE: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson. Your witness, Mr. Professor. I rest my case.
  • PFDPFD Senior Member Posts: 1,329 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    But no one raindrop believes it’s responsible for the flood. Be one of the raindrops and see where it goes!
    steffen19k wrote: »
    Besides, if the military (or even SWAT teams) come calling, you really think a .30-06 is going to worry them no matter how good you are with it?

    I guess I need a little clarification.

    Is he saying that the accumulated actions of individuals can or cannot make a difference?
    That's all I got.

    Paul
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 12,621 Senior Member
    They are currently promoting all guns have to be sold through an FFL in MN, effectively making a list if they so chose. We had a bill with Major Bipartisan support to counter act this and it was ignored in committee, they have moved the gay marriage agenda forward, we are getting ObamaCare rammed down our throats with a 7 member board of unelected beuracrats overseeing it with six year terms and amendments to the bill ignored that would provide oversight for unintended consequences, and they drag their feet on fixing the budget only offering new taxes on the "rich", your second to the last paragraph has no bearing in the current reality, they are promoting and passing an agenda with permanent far reaching consequences, look around, many states are going down the same path, if you are not concerned about you rights, I don't know what to say.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    He says he's a republican, but with this piece, he's doing his level best to be non partisan.


    No, no he's not. That, or his level best is none too good.

    No offense is meant, but if he 'leans right' (whatever that means) then I'm G. Gordon himself.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    If he's a Republican and a conservative, then I'm Andy 'By Gawd' Jackson come back to life and in the flesh!

    Take that dissection of the 2nd Amendment, for example. He separates the first and second clauses and treats them separately. That's akin to clapping with one hand. The first clause proves the second, and the second clause supports the first. The first clause states the purpose, and the second clause states the means to provide it. They cannot be separated, or they all fall apart. And if he sees no need for the militia, then why is the militia clause still the law of the land? And why did it have to be altered to allow for the formation of the National Guard? These are questions that you should study and find answers for in history and law. Cornell Law Library on line is a good place to start.

    That a militia could not take on and defeat a standing army is bullsqueeze of the highest order. He's thinking of grand armies clashing on the battlefield; it will not be so. The Syrian rebels aren't doing all that poorly against a numerically and better equipped force. The facts belie his argument. And there are many other examples. And there is more than one way to skin that cat. There won't be wasting ammunition on the goon squads, but there will be plenty used lavishly on infrastructure that will bring down the house of cards and give the government more than they can handle dealing with the cold, hungry, and thirsty masses. They will be fully employed putting down the riots that will follow. He thinks that it will be some grand standup fight, little realizing that the militia will come at the government sideways. On this point, he is a fool.

    I reject wholly his revisionist views, defeatist attitude, and outright lies. And Hitler wasn't a Fascist, but Mussolini was.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Remember, the Brits wore red coats with big white"X" targets to aim at. They thought they were invincible, too, until they met up with a bunch of guerilla warriors with accurate rifles at King's Mountain!
    Jerry
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,396 Senior Member
    To his points..

    1) The Fed tax is lower on wages. The other side of the coin is that the state tax is higher, the regulatory fees are vastly higher, the death tax is in place, ect ad infinitum. To say that taxes are lower is to run into the burning barn with blinders on only seeing the open door at the other end.

    2) He seems to not understand the difference between deficit and debt. A deficit wont destroy you as long as you pay it back. A debt that never gets paid, will.

    3)Hmmm, a 06 in the hands of a person defending his home has no hope of stopping all comers at the gate. But he should get a couple and if everyone gets one or 2, then it would stop soon. If he thinks that the armed forces will come after civilians, I think that he has no actual concept of what the military is. Cops are civilians living in the same community. I think that there are quite a few that have the us vs them mentality, but there are more that take their kids to little leauge.

    4)Firearms HAVE NOT been left alone. The founding fathers had every intention to have the population to have the exact type of weapons that were/are used by a infantryman to keep things level. That was the point of the term "regulated". Regulated does not mean "A govt. official looking over your shoulder." It means trained with a basic knowledge of tactics and how to use the arms (short version).

    5)If you want to go over how wonderful Washington was, then you need to look into history a bit. Washington led the FIRST federal assault on the people of the US.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    There was also the assault against the "Bonus Army".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
  • marlin spikemarlin spike New Member Posts: 8 New Member
    My $.oooo2, adjusted for inflation. ;-)

    In part, the 2nd Amendment says "free State", the Federal Government is not a state, it is a union of free States that have joined together for the common good, both economically and defensively. Article 10 USC 311 defines militias as the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. In short it says that all able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the Militia. Therefore, if they aren't members of the Organized Militia, the National Guard, they are members of the Unorganized Militia.

    Then, one needs to go to the individual States Constution to see what it says about that States Militia. I have not looked at every States Constitution, but I have looked at the Illinois Constitution. Article 12 Sec 1 states "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those excempted by law". It does not define the militia, so one would have to go to Article 10 USC 311 for the definition of militia. What I find interesting is that Article 12 Sec 1 is not age, gender or citizenship specific, but says "all able-bodied persons residing in the State". As a side note, the State Constitution was changed to say "all able-bodied persons". Also, this would seem to include all illegal aliens residing in the State.

    Just some points to ponder!

    Bill
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    He makes some good points. Counter them with intelligent thoughts, not the ultra right fantacy of a government takeover.
    A 30-06 against a hell fire missile?
    Vote!! Choose the candidate of your choice.
    We're not on the verge of totalitian government, our Constitution ensured that.
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    I quit reading when he said just try to arrest corporations, like that's an argument stopper concerning "Citizens United". Corporations are groups of people united for a common cause, in the case of coporations, LLC's, etc., the cause is business. Teacher's Unions, the Sierra Club, the NRA, are other groups of people united for common causes. The "Citizens United" case ruled that you couldn't restrict these entities from speaking (advocating), any more than you could quelch the speach of an individual, because these entities are made up of people.

    As far as arresting corporations, we do it all the time. We seize assets, fine corporations, and imprison corporate officers. Your friend is a typical academic. His heads been up his butt his whole life, and he probably thinks obama had a real job when he was a substitute teacher in Chicago.

    Pardon me for skipping the rest of his lecture, I've heard it all before.
  • tv_racin_fantv_racin_fan Senior Member Posts: 660 Senior Member
    "There’s been no call to repeal the 22nd Amendment, not even the least bit of discussion about it, so when 2016 rolls around, out goes Obama."

    Umm you should inform your friend that bills have been proposed to do exactly that. I dunno where he gets his news from but he needs more and better sources.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    re
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    The Twenty Second Amendment is the one that limits the number of terms a U.S. President can serve to 2 terms.

    Rep. Jose Serano (D, NY) has introduced legislation to repeal that amendment since 1997, and every 2 years after that (due to the legislative cycling.)

    2 thoughts:
    1. Google is a darned handy tool.
    2. It's not all about the Second Amendment.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,396 Senior Member
    As a aside, the first real federal assault on the citizens of the US was the whiskey rebellion. It was prosecuted by Harry Lee, Bobby E.'s father who invaded PA to enforce onorous taxes on citizens. One of the reasons I have a hard time listening to the "War of Northern Agression" fairy tales.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    To make this short and sweet, this is something that stemmed from a conversation I had with a friend earlier in the week.

    I asked him if it was okay with him if I posted it, and he simply asked to remain anonymous. Please remember that these are just his thoughts, per the 1st amendment right to free speech as he sees it.

    As a professor of history, I can tell you that the America of 2013 is nowhere near the level of civil unrest, economic disruption, and general malaise that was pre-Hitler Berlin or post-Lenin Moscow. We’re not even Italy of the 1920s.

    There’s been no call to repeal the 22nd Amendment, not even the least bit of discussion about it, so when 2016 rolls around, out goes Obama. Love him or hate him, he’s done in three years. Even if there WAS a call to repeal 22 with the house and senate as gridlocked as they are there’s no chance it would even get out of committee, let alone be released to the states for ratification, and certainly not in time for Obama to run again. And, without a repeal on 22 we can’t end up with anything resembling a dictatorship. Obama couldn’t even stay in office during a time or martial law or declared war. When 2016 rolls around, he’s done. Now, yes, there are some tensions in America at the moment, but they’re minor compared to the the Dixiecrats of the 1960s, the McCarthy 50s, or for that matter the race riots of the 1970s. We’d need to be at 1850’s level political unrest to get into the territory you’re talking about … and there’s no central issue that’s as divisive as slavery was—not gay rights, not corporations are people (please, arrest one and see how that works), not “the rich are too rich, gimme some!”

    What we have right now is the rule of the 24-hour news cycle and the sound bite. The moderate majority don’t get headlines…WE are boring. We get stuff done, oppose folks on both sides of the aisle and try to rein in excesses. The extremes, they’re always good theater. With the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Olbermans of the world we’re besieged by pompous blowhards on both sides of the aisle who have a vested interest in PREVENTING compromise. Saying “and then things worked out in the end” doesn’t get the sponsorship dollars or the rating points. The fact that they speak for and to a SMALL percentage of the population—and a generally derided percentage at that—is lost in their celebrity status, punditry, and general media presence. The majority of people aren’t blaming the rich for not helping more. They’re pointing the entirely justified finger at the SUPER-rich who’ve been rigging the game. I’m not talking about mandatory wealth redistribution, I’m talking about a select group of people (mostly older white men) who have engineered a system whereby their dollars buy them more political say than our votes do … and that’s wrong. My vote should count just as much as Rupert Murdochs, but it doesn’t.

    As to specific points:

    1) Raising taxes. Taxes right now are not at historic lows, but they’re close (at least since we ratified the 16th Amendment and had an income tax). The tax rates for the highest brackets right now are a bit more than HALF what they were under Reagan. There have been times when incomes have been taxed at nearly 80%, not a mere 29%--and that’s FEDERAL tax, let alone State taxes!!

    2) Spending more than taking in? We’ve been doing that since the 1930s. Arguably, we’ve been doing it since we became a country—that was the point behind Hamilton’s Bank of the United States! The only President to have a balanced budget since the Cold War was Clinton … and he was blessed by the luck of the dot-com boom. The deficit we have is scary, no doubt. But compared to the deficits other nations have had in the past, it’s a fraction. As a percentage of our national wealth and GDP, we’ve HAD higher deficits than this. And with some compromise from both sides of the aisle (but more on one than the other, alas) as well as corporate America getting off the pot and spending some of the ridiculous cash reserves they’re sitting on we could start digging our way out of it. Of course, that will involve spending LESS than we take in and that, too, offends some folks.

    OK, I had a brilliant, if flawed response here and lost it. Then in my infinite wisdom I cancelled everything instead of a little I had for edit. I did jump too quick and thought you were talking about the 2A when you were talking about the 22A(I admit that I don't remember what number corresponds with each amendment). So I stand corrected on that.

    BUT! You can't really compare the 22A with the 1st, for the same reasons you can't compare it with the 2A, because the 1st amendment is what gives the liberals their fuel. It's what sustains them. It would sustain us too if the main stream media wasn't so liberally biased. But then our story never gets told the way theirs does. So the 1st Amendment is a poor choice for comparison. Believe me, the first amendment will probably be the last to go as long as the main stream media is the liberal machine it is today. Yes, we can scream our views to the world, but you won't be heard by the masses. I love FOX NEWS, but it's the media of the thinking people, not the low info crowd. They were raised on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

    Also, how dare you mention Limbaugh and Hannity on the same line with Obermann in front of me. Obermann is the biggest propagandist in history. Me makes Joseph Goebels look like George Washington.

    And also, yes we can have not just something resembling a dictatorship, we can have a REAL dictatorship without repeal of ANY amendment. The problem here is that the masses don't pay attention and put their faith in politicians, especially BSing silvertongue politicians like Big O. By the time most figured out what was happening it would already be done. Besides, Obummer has shown a pinchent for ignoring the constitution.

    And, you can't compare the effect events have on us now with what they did back in even the 1950s. Yes we had tv then but many homes didn't even have a radio yet, much less a TV. And we were lucky if we could pick up 2 stations. The effect of instant news has changed the game a good bit.

    And lastly, the only super rich that I know of who are "Rigging" the game are Liberal nutt job Commies like George Soros.
    Your message is typical of many today. They try to play down a real threat as a bunch of hype. Well, this isn't just a bunch of hype. Obummer is dangerously close to changing our lives for the worst.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    My $.oooo2, adjusted for inflation. ;-)

    In part, the 2nd Amendment says "free State", the Federal Government is not a state, it is a union of free States that have joined together for the common good, both economically and defensively. Article 10 USC 311 defines militias as the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. In short it says that all able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the Militia. Therefore, if they aren't members of the Organized Militia, the National Guard, they are members of the Unorganized Militia.

    Then, one needs to go to the individual States Constution to see what it says about that States Militia. I have not looked at every States Constitution, but I have looked at the Illinois Constitution. Article 12 Sec 1 states "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those excempted by law". It does not define the militia, so one would have to go to Article 10 USC 311 for the definition of militia. What I find interesting is that Article 12 Sec 1 is not age, gender or citizenship specific, but says "all able-bodied persons residing in the State". As a side note, the State Constitution was changed to say "all able-bodied persons". Also, this would seem to include all illegal aliens residing in the State.

    Just some points to ponder!

    Bill
    I am very pleased to learn that at least one other person has read USC Title 10 Armed Forces/Militia. Everytime I have used this reference to clarify use of the the term "militia" in discussion concerning the 2nd ammendment I discover that no one seems to be aware of it.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    Did you happen to ask ( or do you know) what political persuasion he is......................Just wondering.


    Why would anyone care about that, is really there a need of a LABEL to decide to agree or not with what he wrote, maybe just READ and make up your mind on your own on the content?
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Well, if you'll notice what is later said the man's stated political persuasion runs counter to the ideas he's espousing.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Well, if you'll notice what is later said the man's stated political persuasion runs counter to the ideas he's espousing.

    More of the same "label" deal IMO, what should matter is what a person says, or tries to regardless of who he votes for every 4 years.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Voting against one's professed ideals and self-interests indicates a disconnect between one's desires and one's application of such.

    It really is like a chicken making friends with Col. Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    Well, if you'll notice what is later said the man's stated political persuasion runs counter to the ideas he's espousing.


    C'mon Bream....that would require reading. Well, that and comprehending.

    bruchi wrote: »
    More of the same "label" deal IMO, what should matter is what a person says, or tries to regardless of who he votes for every 4 years.


    Do you even pay attention to the folks you argue against? The guy in the letter labeled himself. Folks here have been saying that he's mistaken. Pretty simple actually.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement