[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
Things were different in their time. Somebody could just pick up their musket and go off to fight a war in their day, some guy can’t pick up his rifle and fly off to Afghanistan to help out now no matter how tacticool he or his rifle may be. A well trained and regulated militia would ensure a better soldier than a man that just goes out hunting and doesn’t have any real military training.
[/quote]
you opinion makes more sense to me tha some others
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
This was just covered within the last couple pages, and yes.[/quote]
I read back a page , other than a quote from Tench Coxe what gives you the impression that our founding fathers thought our GOV. was supposed to be in check by an armed populace ? And if that was the intention who is to organize this militia ?
looked like an interesting character . it is like he morphed in his career
[/quote]
My bad, pages 33-34 mostly.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
Yes and no. Independant only when it needs to be in order to save the country from evil men in government.
But when the government is following the directions laid out for it, the militia works with the government.
Point being, standing armies were not seen as good things by everyone at the time, and the militia kind of got a good rep, like slightly overrated rep really.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I hope the American “justices” will not become brainwashed into this version of “justice”:
So much for a “civilized” society.[/quote]
Interesting situations there. I MIGHT be able to see why they wouldn’t agree with our version of justice for a hacker, but for the rapist…dang. Then again, isn’t it Europe in general, and England in particular, where you’ll get more time for smoking pot than for raping someone?[/quote]
I believe you are thinking of Canada, if not, the disease has already spread to North America:
England, most definitely, this “justice” needs to be questioned:
Without hijacking, I can tell you the “criminals have rights” reached a ridiculous level even two and a half years ago when I left. Police officers literally could not use any physical force to detain criminals for fear of being accused of assault.
America needs to pay attention to what the English system has become so that this doesn’t overtake your culture.
A concern I kept hearing when Obama was re elected was regarding the Supreme Court.
Some justices are very old and if they die during this term, Obama can replace them with an extreme liberal “justice” and they will change the Constitution, based on their belief that the Constitution is “a living, breathing thing” ( just like the inanimate guns, I guess ).
In my opinion, this is just another way to say: “The law is what we make it”, a spin of “I am the law”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
Yes and no. Independant only when it needs to be in order to save the country from evil men in government.
But when the government is following the directions laid out for it, the militia works with the governmendo t.
Poyint being, standing armlies werle not seean as good nthings by everyoone at the time, asnd the mirlitia kind eof got a goodp rep, like slightly overrated rep really. [/quote]
I personally do not think parts of the standing army is good today DEA specifically . I personally do not think the framers of the constitution had the threat of Military Coup. I have to come down on the side the founding fathers never wanted a standing army so a Militia would be the prescription .
I will post a link where our Gov. is launching a war on it’s own people . And I am curious where is the righteous indignation I see with infringing on gun rights
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
So do you think the second amendment means we should have a militia that is independent from our government [/quote]
This was just covered within the last couple pages, and yes.[/quote]
I read back a page , other than a quote from Tench Coxe what gives you the impression that our founding fathers thought our GOV. was supposed to be in check by an armed populace ? And if that was the intention who is to organize this militia ?
looked like an interesting character . it is like he morphed in his career
[/quote]
My bad, pages 33-34 mostly. [/quote]
I personally do not think parts of the standing army is good today DEA specifically . [/quote]
I would imagine the justification given today would be “times changed”, when in reality they haven’t. Technology has, but the situations are laregly the same, if not LESS of a threat of a full scale foreign invasion.
The population was wildly different then for the most part. If people were left alone to smuggle and evade taxes they could give two shits about taking over a government. So while I agree, I feel like that was a function of the limited government in the first place, and not much else.
I believe you are correct. Pretty much the majority opinion was standing armies = empires = wars = taxes = the countries they fought to escape from.
Some wanted one, and even Jefferson “started” a war in Trippole or whatever to get his Navy some expierence.
But I feel like they knew a standing army was coming no matter what they did, hense the 2nd.
besides liking drunk pigs name I also like his train of thought . If the military was under control of each state then the Fed would have to suck up to states if it expected the states to chip in in a military expedition
I can not believe I agree with Thunderdolt
The DEA really does suck . I know of other cases of DEA abusing children
I agree our right to bare arms has nothing to do with militia .
Conservative dog has to realize the Right is as guilty as the left on walking on our rights
Hungry 4 more , by your own admission well regulated does not mean by the Government but who else could regulate it . It would require authority of some type
Hungry 4 more , by your own admission well regulated does not mean by the Government but who else could regulate it . It would require authority of some type
Enter push harder king of Circle Jerk Society :)[/quote]
Exactly, hail Colonel Push lol. I think it was intended to be regulated by normal citizens.
“Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person ? much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court. The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office,” he continued, “they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger. If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When the second amendment says a “well regulated Militia” I wonder if they thought America would have a professional military the way we do . And possibly they thought we would always have a rag tag bunch to defend from foreign invaders rather than the preemptive force we have at present.[/quote]
Things were different in their time. Somebody could just pick up their musket and go off to fight a war in their day, some guy can’t pick up his rifle and fly off to Afghanistan to help out now no matter how tacticool he or his rifle may be. A well trained and regulated militia would ensure a better soldier than a man that just goes out hunting and doesn’t have any real military training.
[/quote]
That is actually what our founders were against. We were never meant to go “liberate” the world. They were against the kind of perpetual warfare that we have been mired down in for the past 70 or so years.
That is precisely what prevented me from joining the military in the first place. I do not believe in fighting wars for peoples who won’t fight for themselves.
The militia has always been intended to guard US, from enemies foreign and domestic.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally do not think parts of the standing army is good today DEA specifically [/quote]
I agree. I think the technological advances of today’s age necessitate a small standing army, just because of the amount of training involved in operating and maintaining equipment.
Well, weren’t they technically the victors of a successful military coup? I know they didn’t overthrow the British Monarchy, but they threw them out of the country.
And that a militia should be well versed and practiced in the operation of the instruments of war. They were fairly unanimous in their opinion that We the People should, ourselves, be a fighting force so terrible that the thought of messing with us would be dismissed as suicide.
[quote]I will post a link where our Gov. is launching a war on it’s own people . And I am curious where is the righteous indignation I see with infringing on gun rights
Most people don’t know that federal interference in state drug laws is unconstitutional. I bet that the grand jury on that case had no idea that they had the power to ‘no-bill’ that case whether he did anything illegal or not. I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.
I know my DA got pissed at me for bringing up the subject of jury nullification when I was on the GJ last year. Threatened to have me held in contempt. He backed off when I called his bluff, and we successfully had a case thrown out.
The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.
…
The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.[/quote]
This is how we fight if they take our means of defense. No you don’t have to stand in your doorway shooting ATF agents. You find people not guilty… End of story.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I bet the petit jury didn’t know that they could find him ‘not guilty’ by reason of jury nullification.
…
The system does not want you to know that We the People are in charge. They fight like hell to hide those situations where you have direct power and then make empty threats when you flex that power.[/quote]
This is how we fight if they take our means of defense. No you don’t have to stand in your doorway shooting ATF agents. You find people not guilty… End of story.[/quote]
Are you saying that we should surrender our means of forceful resistance, and expect that our peaceful method will be allowed to continue?
