Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:
Boner wrote:
Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:
Lord Elpus wrote:
Out of date.Can you guarantee that religious or ethnic cleansing will never occur in this country?
It is out of date to think that our cozy lifestyle is safe from ever being subjugated by government oppression. Look around the world and do a brief perusing of world history.
And who will enforce this government oppression, the military? Law enforcement? A totally drone army?That is besides the point. The point is a well arm citizenry is the final deterrent against an over reaching government. If that citizenry is disarmed then it is an easy oppressed body by any force you mention.
No. It isn't besides the point. If the government enacted a law to protect the people from the government as you claim, why would they have enacted another law to protect the government from the people?
You and all the other gun loons have this fantasy that the government is going to knock on your door, unarmed of course, to take away your entire arsenal. And, as long as you have an unlimited supply of thirty-plus round magazines, you can keep the government at bay.
If you need your assault weapons to shoot at the government, who is it you are likely to shoot? Your congressman? A senator? Local law enforcement? The military? It's not beside the point. It's the elephant in the room that, in order for your reasoning to be even plausible requires an answer.
Originally Posted by buckethead99
The Bill of Rights is an assertion of the individual's rights, not the rights of the government.
"I hope that Americans never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty." - St. George Tucker
The opening phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase is meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This view has been confirmed by lower courts in 2001, and the Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010.
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset [i.e. Militia]." - Justice Antonin Scalia
yanktar wrote:
Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:
yanktar wrote:The Second Amendment was created by SOUTHERNORS to protect their slave holdings! They wanted to ensure the Federal government (meaning the anti-slavery states) couldn't prevent them from mustering every WHITE man to put down slave rebellions and insurrections. For Madison, Jefferson, and especially Patrick Henry, much of their talk about "liberty" and anti-Federalism was to protect their plantations, their "way of life" and their wealth in slaves. Henry was TERRIFIED that the Militia clause of the main body would be used by the Feds to undermine or even suppress slavery, the "peculiar institution."
To them, "tyranny" was the tyranny of forcing them to free their slaves. Yeah, they were just that small and selfish in their thinking.
Your history teacher is embarrassed.
Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. As an historian, one learns that. The analysis YOU dismiss 'cuz it disrupts your cozy little concept of a "right" that doesn't exist as you think it does has been WELL-documented in at least two other threads.
Actually, my History professors in both ug and grad school were generally very pleased with me. There was one who wasn't happy with my work...but he lost his credibility when he endorsed the Hitler diaries as genuine before the forensics came in proving it to be a forgery.
Well documented...in two other threads you say...LOL!
I'm sorry to inform you that you have paid for a sub standard education! 
If you wont take my word for it, perhaps you will take James Madison's (he was a pretty notable participant in our nations history, you might looking him up).
This excerpt from his Federalist 46, circa 1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
Perhaps you an Danny Glover should stick simpler matters.
Chow!
Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:
yanktar wrote:
Floyd Rosenbomb wrote:
yanktar wrote:The Second Amendment was created by SOUTHERNORS to protect their slave holdings! They wanted to ensure the Federal government (meaning the anti-slavery states) couldn't prevent them from mustering every WHITE man to put down slave rebellions and insurrections. For Madison, Jefferson, and especially Patrick Henry, much of their talk about "liberty" and anti-Federalism was to protect their plantations, their "way of life" and their wealth in slaves. Henry was TERRIFIED that the Militia clause of the main body would be used by the Feds to undermine or even suppress slavery, the "peculiar institution."
To them, "tyranny" was the tyranny of forcing them to free their slaves. Yeah, they were just that small and selfish in their thinking.
Your history teacher is embarrassed.
Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. As an historian, one learns that. The analysis YOU dismiss 'cuz it disrupts your cozy little concept of a "right" that doesn't exist as you think it does has been WELL-documented in at least two other threads.
Actually, my History professors in both ug and grad school were generally very pleased with me. There was one who wasn't happy with my work...but he lost his credibility when he endorsed the Hitler diaries as genuine before the forensics came in proving it to be a forgery.
Well documented...in two other threads you say...LOL!
I'm sorry to inform you that you have paid for a sub standard education!
If you wont take my word for it, perhaps you will take James Madison's (he was a pretty notable participant in our nations history, you might looking him up).
This excerpt from his Federalist 46, circa 1788:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
Perhaps you an Danny Glover should stick simpler matters.
Chow!
Perhaps YOU should look at your own quote with its lofty pretensions and discussions of freedom and a free people and remember that the author was a SLAVE OWNER who, according to the 1820 US Census, owned 106 fellow human beings. At the time of his death, in 1836, James Madison owned 130 fellow human beings, who were then sold to pay his debts, continuing their immoral and unethical bondage. Since the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, that means for at least another 45 years he was a committed slave owner, committed to making D@MN sure HIS "property" didn't rise up or run away. Neither Madison nor Jefferson freed their slaves, those two bold, brave brilliant philosophers of freedom.
However, George Washington, not known for fancy philosophy, freed HIS slaves on his death.
Help Desk