‘No Way To Prevent This’

[Jonny Canuck]

Lamp!

[Turdacious]

Johnny Canuck hates science, this is clearly.
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/ ... -likelier/

[JamesonBushmill]

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

James Madison, chief drafter of the bill of rights, specifically wrote about the prospect of defeating a federal army in the federalist papers #46.
He obviously though it a fine thing to retain the power of arms.

New Hampshire's constitution is pretty clear on this, as well:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.]

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784

Do you think they supposed the people would do this without weapons?

The Founding Fathers never envisioned Facebook. All people would have to do to overthrow the government was announce a flashmob for freedom. The attending patriots would then effectively affect change in any tyrannical political or ruling organization.

there is obviously no need for any s̶u̶b̶j̶e̶c̶t̶ "citizen" to own firearms.

[Gene]

]The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even SELF DEFENSE in your home. Self defense from your fellow citizens is just part of the reason behind the 2nd amendment.The 2nd amendment main focus is about your right to defend yourself against your government. This shit isn't hard to look up and read what the founders intended etc.

Awww Bullshit

What the 2nd Amendment was about, is the founders rightfully distrusted huge standing armies owned by the central government, they being the mechanism of tyranny, and so wanted the fighting force to be composed of militia of citizenry. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about being able to oppose the government's military. Its purpose wasn't to allow the citizens to arm themselves to the point that they could overthrow the government when they got the uppity. It was about being the government's military.

The idea of a Militia was to deter (not conquer but deter) a large standing Army. Same as our Nuclear forces deter a nuclear strike.

A government which launches aggression against an unarmed subject population does not wage war - it launches a purge.

Kind of like this movie, Nafod....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxujYNp2q10[/youtube]

The Bolsheviks shot anyone in possession of a firearm. So that they could kill people in cellars.

Citizens of Maoist China and Nazi German suffered similarly.

You are correct that the Militia was intended to be armed by Congress BUT "well regulated" meant that it could "shoot straight". The term "Shall Not be Infringed" is pretty damn strong. So the 2nd Amendment had two purposes - to furnish a supply of good shooters for certain government purposes AND to deter a standing Army.

The thrust of the Declaration was that people delegate power to the government and not that the government gives them liberties. The 2nd seems consistent with this idea of people giving up some power for the greater good. The European idea of the State as monopoly of Force is alien to us.

Divide the number of just the Jews Hitler had killed by the annual number of US "gun deaths". You get about two hundred years before the US catches up with just the Jews the Nazis bumped off.

[nafod]

Gene, the historical record of recommended amendments and state constitutions show the militia was to be instead of a standing army. Not deter it.

Russia has a 500 year or more history of shooting or hacking its citizens at all times. We have an amazing history of adherence to our constitutional form of government for over 200 years, holding constitutionally mandated elections even during the civil war.

Etc.

[Gene]

Gene, the historical record of recommended amendments and state constitutions show the militia was to be instead of a standing army. Not deter it.

I recall quotes to the contrary. What of it?

Let's reexamine the 2nd Amendment....

"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.".

"Well Regulated" meant that they could shoot well, not that they were subject to bureaucratic oversight.

Why not - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Power of the States to Arm their Militias shall not be Infringed"? Why involve "the People"?

You cannot simultaneously say, "The Militias were to replace the Standing Army" while neglecting that THE PEOPLE had the right to keep and bear arms.

Was the 2nd Amendment a "bait and switch" to get the States to ratify the Constitution or were Thomas Jefferson's sentiments of "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed by the blood of Patriots and Tyrants" a bit more common sentiment in those post Revolutionary times?

How many Rebellions were there between 1780 and 1820 Nafod? Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, Fries Rebellion and Dorr's Rebellion. At least. All crushed by Professionals or Called up Militias. All leading to reforms of Government.

Go look up those rebellions. What improved after they were addressed? Faith and credit between States, no secret taxes, no bullshit house taxes and people could vote without having to own property.

[Gene]

Yes, you and your firearms will valiantly oppose a military that can circle the world and kick the shit out of any country on the planet, and do it in days.

If the US military subjected the American people to such attack they would destroy their own ability to wage such a war. It's asinine to even consider the US military bombing its own people the way it would bomb anywhere else.

If one out of a thousand gun owners would fight back, and out of them one in ten would kill or severely wound a US Military person how large would the military have to be, Nafod, to conquer 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 gun owners? 10,000 soldiers willing to become pariahs in their own nation, a wrecked economy and a destroyed political system. This assumes just 1 in 10,000 will hurt or kill a Military person.

I do not like it either, I would prefer reason. The people who run our Country are not always reasonable people.

[Gene]

Notice that nobody is talking about who will protect us if we are disarmed?

The Police in the US are not obligated to defend anyone. You cannot sue the Police for failing to protect you.

Here the effort to separate the hostile assailants from the victims—a necessary part of the on-scene responsibility of the police—adds nothing to the general duty owed the public and fails to create a relationship which imposes a special legal duty such as that created when there is a course of conduct, special knowledge of possible harm, or the actual use of individuals in the investigation.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2006

So what do we do? Use caveman weapons? Dial 911 and die? Give 'em EBT cards and free rent?

Some of you folks think that the US would be better off without handguns. Really?