1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Assault Weapons Ban Heading to Senate Floor

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Quicktoy, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member


    Same here. No vote if he does this crap
     
  2. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    So who are you going to vote for instead?
     
  3. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member

    I will abstain before I vote for any treasonous Dem, which is ALL of them
     
    brex likes this.
  4. GixxerBlade

    GixxerBlade Oh geez

    From what I read, that document was about the training of militias versus a standing army. What did it have to do with the 2A? The 2A says a well-regulated (trained/practiced) militia (citizen army versus a standing army) being necessary to the security of a free State (next thought), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military:

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

    Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny.
     
  5. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

    Yes, exactly. You have to remember the context. These guys had just tossed off the reigns of an oppressive government, and that started with regular guys with guns. There are a lot of protections written into our constitution and the structure of our government to avoid that ever happening again, but they’re all built on the foundation of the threat of armed men rising up if the government goes too far.
     
  6. Britt

    Britt Well-Known Member

    Then you allow "Them" to make a Choice for you...guess what they will choose and we will be stuck with...yeah..that.
     
  7. Britt

    Britt Well-Known Member

    I am curious what that looks like?? (Not being a smartass, I am asking a fair question, I have questions in my own mind, what is Too Far?)
     
  8. GixxerBlade

    GixxerBlade Oh geez

  9. Britt

    Britt Well-Known Member

    Ok, cruel and oppressive government or rule.

    How much is too much.? where is The Line.
     
  10. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds


    I'm not sure, but I think we'll know it when we see it. The easy answer is something related to weapons seizure, maybe a rally around some kind of folk hero or martyr, but who knows. Maybe it'll start with some sheriff somewhere refusing to do seizures so the feds send in the ATF to do it, the sheriff sides with the citizens, and there is a shootout between the ATF and the locals? Or maybe it'll be protests against illegitimate election results? There's really no way to know.
     
    Britt likes this.
  11. bigtime

    bigtime Well-Known Member

    I think you hit the nail on the head with the point about elections. If/when a majority of the people feel a candidate is put into office illegitimately through illegal activities, depending on which method is used, that will be the flash point.
     
  12. GixxerBlade

    GixxerBlade Oh geez

  13. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member

    Too bad. I don’t owe any politician or party anything and I won’t be giving my approval to any gun grabber.
     
  14. motorkas

    motorkas Well-Known Member

    It's the 2nd. . .it's not theory or hypothesis (read below).


    .

    Long live the cordial and respectful exchange of ideas and information (as well as bringing in more of the Founding Fathers words to the discussion). I’ll do you the same.

    In the future, you don’t want to bring 46 into the discussion about peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. The passage you’re referencing is part of a hypothetical that Madison is using to describe how insane it is that people would worry about having to overthrow the federal government because of the balance structure that was set up with the powers that were given to the States in the Constitution v the Federal. Further, how he describes the structure of the milita (and who it is controlled and regulated by – which is 29 in a nutshell) is by the government – not the people – which is anathema to your peeps.


    Here’s the full text to what you are referencing in 46 (salient parts highlighted for your benefit but by all means, feel free to double check the work and read the whole thing for yourself):

    "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

    Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. 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. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."
     
    Britt likes this.
  15. ryoung57

    ryoung57 Off his meds

  16. pickled egg

    pickled egg Tell me more

    Sooo...in the novel you posted, what was impossible to have considered 250 years ago is coming to fruition.

    The states have attempted disarmament of their citizens. The fed have attempted disarmament of their citizens. The state and fed have systemically chipped away at the sovereign rights of their citizens, debased their liberties and threaten to do more.

    But the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the lowly citizen against the unbridled might of an oppressive government?

    You’ve got a warped view of history, pal...and an even more warped view of the present.[/QUOTE]
     
    sheepofblue and GixxerBlade like this.
  17. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    I just want him to see me quote this.
     
  18. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with everything you posted. I'm curious though. What reaction do you think the federal government would have if 20,000 armed people showed up on capitol hill tomorrow?
     
  19. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    And 20000 at each state capital and major city courthouse. The peoples numbers are easily there.
     
  20. 600 dbl are

    600 dbl are Shake Zoola the mic rula

    That still doesn't answer the question as to what the federal/state governments response will be. Furthermore, where do you go from there? All of the politicians are elected officials. They didn't win their respective seat by putting a gun to someones head. What comes next?
     

Share This Page