Salon magazine says you're not allowed to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

[gftChris]

Plenty of links/references out there that support the notion that "well regulated" means "well supplied" because the Colonial army/ militias weren't. The amendment was ratified to make sure that wouldn't ever be a problem.

 

The "right to bear arms" however exists as a "right". Much in the way that there are "unalienable rights to life liberty & the pursuit." That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. <<< (that one is important, but conveniently ignored)

Also... and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.

I would assume that well regulated includes well supplied, otherwise it's pointless. I wasn't commenting on that, so much as the argument that a well regulated - drilled, supplied, organised - militia is *necessary* for a free/secure state. Plenty of other states do not have groups of minutemen waiting for when the balloon goes up, and are perfectly free.

[Legacy Fan]

I would assume that well regulated includes well supplied, otherwise it's pointless. I wasn't commenting on that, so much as the argument that a well regulated - drilled, supplied, organised - militia is *necessary* for a free/secure state. Plenty of other states do not have groups of minutemen waiting for when the balloon goes up, and are perfectly free.

I'd argue that we're not as free as the founders intended.

[gftChris]

I'd argue that we're not as free as the founders intended.

Probably, but that problem isn't going to be solved by guns.

 

Assuming you mean about equality, the ability to go from nothing to the top, anyone can make something of themselves etc.

 

I'd guess the freedom they're talking about is freedom from a militarily oppressive government using force to control the masses. That isn't the case.

[Legacy Fan]

Ok. I respectfully disagree to all 3 of your previous points.

1. Take the Bundy Ranch incident. Regardless of which side you think was "right", 1 side who thought they were being controlled by an oppressive govt (agency) made a stand - with guns- and that govt (agency) backed down.

"Problem" solved.

 

2. I only disagree with this because I wasn't arguing this point. (I happen to agree with you/it though)

 

3. I happen to follow ammo sales because I use ammo and I'm always checking prices/trends. Plenty of bulk purchases for govt agencies that never even maintained arms until about 5-10 years ago. Why does the EPA need 500k Rounds of 9mm? Also, see my response #1.

[gftChris]

Ok. I respectfully disagree to all 3 of your previous points.

1. Take the Bundy Ranch incident. Regardless of which side you think was "right", 1 side who thought they were being controlled by an oppressive govt (agency) made a stand - with guns- and that govt (agency) backed down.

"Problem" solved.

I think whether it's solved or not depends on who you believe was right. If you think the police were being controlling and the brady bunch were fighting the good fight, then maybe. But in another scenario where the police are in the right, but the people think they're being controlled, they get the police to 'back down' by means of violence, or threat of violence.

2. I only disagree with this because I wasn't arguing this point. (I happen to agree with you/it though)

I only brought it up because I thought you were. We can disregard it.

3. I happen to follow ammo sales because I use ammo and I'm always checking prices/trends. Plenty of bulk purchases for govt agencies that never even maintained arms until about 5-10 years ago. Why does the EPA need 500k Rounds of 9mm? Also, see my response #1.

That is odd and potentially worrying. I wonder though how much of it is buying up military surplus from withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan, and how much is police being militarised.

Let's suspend any disbelief and suppose, for a moment, that there is no right to bear arms, and there's a government wanting to impose military rule on US citizens, as has been claimed in various quarters. Any US government that does that is leaving itself open to extremely-speedily approved UN resolutions including Russia & China leading the rest of the security council in an operation to remove the US commander in chief. Such a situation would not be sustainable for anyone in the USA, any idiot can see that, and so can anyone potentially thinking about it. There's just no chance it would work and so no chance it would happen, even if some president wanted it to (which I highly doubt).

 

On the other hand, suppose that the right to bear arms is extant, and the commander in chief decides to try to impose military rule on US citizens. How much of a fight do you think the well trained militia would actually be able to put up? While pockets of resistance may survive a while, anyone trying to confront a tank or attack jet with an assault rifle isn't going to last very long.

 

 

Where there may be some benefit is if a foreign power tried to invade the US and rule it. But then, that's just not going to happen. For a start, you would need an army the size of which no country has except maybe China and the US itself. Then you have the logistics of getting that many soldiers to American soil - either by trains across siberia or up through south and central america, which could/would easily be picked off by US stealth bombers; or you would get them there by boat. How many boats? And how many would actually make it? Point being, any single invading force would be absolutely decimated before it got close to american soil.

 

You'd essentially need a global alliance to invade and hold the US, which just won't happen - except in the cases above, which would make it the most stupid thing a president could do to try to impose military law.

 

 

 

I have to say, while we seem to disagree on a lot of things, I do actually enjoy these discussions with you, because you actually take the time to address the points being made, and don't resort to name calling. This is the way things *should* be around here. Thank you.

[calfoxwc]

Suppose an Obamao type pres got elected, and was way left of even Obamao himself.

 

Suppose there was a global financial crisis, near civil wars at home - you know, like race riots across the country....

that Obamao seems to be encouraging....

 

. The "pres" (see Bernie Sanders, for example),

could order martial law, invite the UN to come in and "help stabilize" and keep the peace, since the

police depts and military objected to taking property, food and guns from the populace, all based on some

stupidass UN treaty the same "pres" signed, but under martial law.....

 

Without our 2nd Amendment, it's theoretically possible for that fascist to get away with it.

With our 2nd Amendment - nope. And this silly talk of Americans going up against tanks and planes...

all Americans would have to do, is go after the invading forces who pilot those UN enemy planes and tanks.

 

Meanwhile, China is threatening WWIII if America stands in their way and Russia is talking about using

small nukes in battles. We are headed for big, serious trouble regardless.

 

Our 2nd Amendment is a GUARANTEE that we stay a free country. Wasn't it a Japanese leader that

said as much?

 

It's also a GUARANTEE that we can defend our friends, family, and homes and ourselves.

 

Why liberals want to take that guarantee away... who knows.

[MLD Woody]

Your personal stash of guns is going to stop a powerful military from a developed country? Will it even make a dent?

[The Cysko Kid]

BaconHound has also been over on the cavs board running his mouth that while he loves the cavs everyone theyve faced in the playoffs will dominate them so I don't think anyone ought take him seriously

[calfoxwc]

Your personal stash of guns is going to stop a powerful military from a developed country? Will it even make a dent? woodypeckhead

*******************************************************

That's stupid of you - and typical. Why distort the subject as ONE person with guns fighting an entirely UN military?

 

Did....you.....forget....................that ................there are..........MILLIONS and MILLIONS of gun owners all over

this country?

 

Or, you're such a woodypeckerhead that you never figured it out ?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Your personal stash of guns is going to stop a powerful military from a developed country? Will it even make a dent?

Guerilla forces have to win in a long game. History bears that out. Not saying that the underdog doesn't eat a lot of casualties but they can win.

[Clevfan4life]

Guerilla forces have to win in a long game. History bears that out. Not saying that the underdog doesn't eat a lot of casualties but they can win.

 

^^This. And there's a pretty glaring check in the U.S's loss column that is the gold standard of what Guerilla forces can do over time with enough cannon fodder at their disposal. I have zero doubt Isis will ever be at a loss for recruits. Something would have to fundamentally change in the middle east for that not to happen.

[StinkHole]

That was really stupid and narrow minded Cleve. Probably learned that from those "intellectual" liberals you hang with...those same fucks that taught you that the Tea Party is the KKK operating under a different name.

The fact is that many civilian militias are comprised of ex-military. The militias main objectives are to defend the Constitution and to resist an overreaching government. Militias do not discriminate. Anyone can join as long as you share the same principals. They reject anyone who advocates violence or conspires to commit criminal activity....but asshole liberals such as yourself would rather believe the actions of those fringe radicals you may find as being the norm.

 

Heres a list. Why don't you add meaning to your meaningless life and sign up.

 

http://www.libertyfederation.com/state_list_of_militia_groups

What? You mean Cleve hasn't pounced on my principles instead of principals error yet?

[Clevfan4life]

What? You mean Cleve hasn't pounced on my principles instead of principals error yet?

 

I was busy "working" today. Perhaps you could try that sometime it's fun.

[StinkHole]

I was busy "working" today. Perhaps you could try that sometime it's fun.

 

You must have got that promotion to manager at Wendys.

[Legacy Fan]

Let's suspend any disbelief and suppose, for a moment, that there is no right to bear arms, and there's a government wanting to impose military rule on US citizens, as has been claimed in various quarters. Any US government that does that is leaving itself open to extremely-speedily approved UN resolutions including Russia & China leading the rest of the security council in an operation to remove the US commander in chief. Such a situation would not be sustainable for anyone in the USA, any idiot can see that, and so can anyone potentially thinking about it. There's just no chance it would work and so no chance it would happen, even if some president wanted it to (which I highly doubt).

 

On the other hand, suppose that the right to bear arms is extant, and the commander in chief decides to try to impose military rule on US citizens. How much of a fight do you think the well trained militia would actually be able to put up? While pockets of resistance may survive a while, anyone trying to confront a tank or attack jet with an assault rifle isn't going to last very long.

 

 

Where there may be some benefit is if a foreign power tried to invade the US and rule it. But then, that's just not going to happen. For a start, you would need an army the size of which no country has except maybe China and the US itself. Then you have the logistics of getting that many soldiers to American soil - either by trains across siberia or up through south and central america, which could/would easily be picked off by US stealth bombers; or you would get them there by boat. How many boats? And how many would actually make it? Point being, any single invading force would be absolutely decimated before it got close to american soil.

 

You'd essentially need a global alliance to invade and hold the US, which just won't happen - except in the cases above, which would make it the most stupid thing a president could do to try to impose military law.

 

 

 

I have to say, while we seem to disagree on a lot of things, I do actually enjoy these discussions with you, because you actually take the time to address the points being made, and don't resort to name calling. This is the way things *should* be around here. Thank you.

To address both of your scenarios, I think any govt the U.S. has (R or D), wants the populace to have "just enough" guns & ammo. For one it prevents another nation from EVER entertaining the idea that they want a war on US soil. Which is why a "militia" (going back to the Bundy ranch scenario) was able to stand down a govt agency. Govt won't bring tanks/missiles/nukes at its own people. This would open that govt up to UN/NATO sanctions (as you suggested) or invasion from another nation (assuming the tanks/missiles were used to wipe out segments of our population) due to the perceived lack of armed citizen resistance.

But they don't want us to be armed more than we currently are either. Or else you'd see more Bundy ranch scenarios. And more perception that *it* would work. Because it would.

 

And yes I enjoy these as well. Let's continue. - thank you.

[Clevfan4life]

You must have got that promotion to manager at Wendys.

 

 

Wendy's people would love to make what I make but even if I did work at Wendy's I would be twice as gainfully employed as you are. Still pretending you're a farmer?