crickets...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long.

I wonder how many times this has been supposed through human history

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"demanding that the federal government "do something," please take constant and specific care to note that whatever limits there might possibly be on the Bill of Rights, those limits are absolutely forbidden against federal intrusion."

Agreed. I get careless and say the feds should do this or that, I mean the states...

"And so you then unintentionally enjoin the notion of such an unspecified power of the federal government. That is the road to federal government expansion and further erosion of the Constitution. "

Yes, that is the road to tyranny.

"Does that sound reasonable to you?"

No, it doesn't. Just because the road exists for the government to become tyrannical, doesn't mean they will. I do not think it's reasonable to assume that my liberties have been trampled upon, if we do away with bump stocks and high capacity magazines. If the feds want to send in Seal Team 6 to kill me and steal my stuff, bump stocks and high capacity magazines aren't going to stop them. They can launch a missile through my bedroom window anytime they feel like it, a bump stock does absolutely nothing to protect me against that. But it makes it easier for me to kill a huge number of innocent people.

If you agreed to my reasoning of what led to the road to tyranny, and then said it was unreasonable because if the government takes that road there is nothing you can do to stop it, then I don't know what reasonable means to you.

Unless . . . oh . . . unless, since reasonableness can't stop the fed from killing you, reasonableness can give the fed power to stop you from killing others. Yeah, I see a sort of symmetry there. Yeah, tyranny is the only reasonable way to stop killings, except of course, it can't stop government from doing so.

I kind of think that's what I sort of said or implied by references to Brave New World and world wide bans on production of guns which are portrayed as nonsense suggestions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I never said that...you like to state what someone else said and then argue against it...when they never said it...it's very odd

You said this..."so we should legislate more opportunities to drop the ball?"

Please tell me what you meant by this? I am 100% confident that what you meant is, "laws aren't enforced perfectly, therefore future laws are unlikely to have a positive effect, and will only result in more government bungling, and nothing else".

If that's not what you meant, please tell me what you did mean.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Read your post again please. Only a die hard liberal, would fail to see a silver lining, when an ordinary citizen hears a mass shooting, and runs towards it, in this case without stopping to put shoes on. As the shooter fled, the hero flagged down a motorist and said "we must go after him". Only a dedicated liberal could so completely fail to be moved by such an act of love.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

. Act of love OMG there a twist... Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But thats not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their solution to the gun issue . is Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt .

people run in to burning houses to save people . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors and suggest we need more people who can smell smoke . but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting who helped stop a shooting to suggest we need good guys with gun more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am 100% confident that what you meant is,

yes, you are great at divining what I meant...and what Jefferson and Madison "clearly" thought...any thoughts on Monroe or Adams?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

. Seems conservative love the needle in a haystack argument. I am not saying the guy didn’t help stop further deaths . But that not the portrait 2 a or the NRA want to paint .. their soulution to the gun issue . Bad guy with a gun good guy with a gun = no shootings. Once 26 people are killed we are past it could have been worse rationally. The man did a stand up thing no doubt . And people run in to burning houses to save people they don’t know . We don’t use those examples to not have smoke detectors but we’ll use the one guy in how many shooting helped stop a shooting to suggest we need more guns??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oooohh...Gun Detectors would be a great idea

[Got Stripers]

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

I give up...how many?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

"The federal military is still composed of the sons and daughters of the people at large. Who do you think the military would side with? So, at this time I don't hold to, as you put it, "the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population."

Thanks for making my point, a militia isn't ever going to be required, because we have a military comprised of people just like you and I regardless of our differences in opinions. So if the shooter had no AR weapon, and the good Samaritan had none either, how many people would likely be saved?

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

still waiting from way back on page 1 for specifics on what should be done....despite claims of not wanting to ban guns entirely that is logical conclusion, is it not? .... claims of only wanting to limit the deaths and injuries through some "common sense laws" only last till the next incident, then what ???? pat yourself on the back for saving lives that may otherwise have been lost if bump stocks or high capacity magazines were used...... and what do you blame then ? what is your next "common sense law" when these incidents occur after enacting common sense law?... if you read the comments associated with the stories of this tragedy you see that there are a LOT of Americans that believe no one should own a gun....

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had.

I going to guess you got that from one of the left leaning media channels like CNN or MSNBC etc.
As already corrected by detbuch, it was an AR-15 rifle.
Thank God he did not have a handgun or he may have wound up dead also.


Stop wasting energy with wanting reactionary gun laws about this and that since we already have too many already, start working towards those term limits. I am all ears if anyone has and solutions. It will take too long to get enough Libertarians elected so something needs to happen soon.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Like I said before I have no problem with guns, yes I have issues as I'm sure many do, of illegal handguns getting into the wrong hands; but not legal sale of guns to anyone who can qualify. I'm glad there was a Texan with a handgun ready to stop that nut job from doing more damage then he already had. Same goes for rifles, shotguns and anything else needed to pursue your passion for hunting and shooting.

As mentioned, he was stopped by a guy with an AR. A barefoot guy with a handgun, against body armor across the street, would have had even less a chance.

One problem is a lot of people have weapons attained illegally and have no regard for the law. How do we fix that? How do we have an inefficient Government enforce existing laws?

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If we take the argument that you should be able to arm yourself in order to form a militia to defend or defeat a tyrannical government, I think the list needs to include far more than your over the gun counter AR rifle. First the premise that the government is going to control all branches of our military in order to take control of the civilian population might be really good stuff for that next science fiction movie, but that's all it is fiction. Again, if you feel that scenario is actually possible in today's society, I think you have been wearing that foil hat far too long. But lets assume for a minute that it actually a possibility, what percentage of the civilian population are armed and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military? Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

Fortunately those that served or are serving took an oath to the Constitution, and not to any one person. The likelihood of a military coup or getting behind one person and forgoing the Constitution - IMO - is remote. But it is that Constitution thing again.

So by some reasoning, a civilian population with ARs and deer rifles might be less than what the Founders thought necessary (some civilians had cannon back in the day ; ) ). Perhaps Civies can get Apaches and Abrams now.

Maybe we should just get Mini 14s with wood furniture and the stigma would go away. But no that would be next.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights have never been considered absolute and limitless...this is historical fact. Putting limits on those freedoms in the name of public safety, isn't the least bit contradictory to what the founding fathers clearly believed.

The founders / framers believed to their very core that the federal government only possessed the very limited and specifically delegated powers that the people granted to it via the Constitution. Our rights were considered the "great residuum" of everything NOT conferred to government.

There is no fluid, undefined power to restrain rights, even for the lofty goal of "public safety". Our rights are, "exceptions of powers not granted", interests that were held out from the view / influence / control of government, they are not within the grasp of government.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The same guys who wrote the constitution, passed a rule that no one could possess firearms on the campus of UVA. Your conclusion that any restrictions amount to a trampling of the rights, doesn't pass the common sense test.

The standard of "constitutionality" is not that the restriction is deemed to violate some interpretation of what a right is . . . What makes a law unconstitutional is that it was enacted by the legislature operating outside the powers granted to it.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Should wealthy people be able to buy a nuke?

Again, the Constitution is a charter of conferred powers. Those interests that "We the People" have surrendered control over we can not claim as a right. The power to acquire, maintain and deploy the weapons of indiscriminate warfare was conferred to the federal government through the warmaking clauses. Neither the people or the states can claim any power / right to those weapons.

There is no claimable right to own NBC WMDs or fighter jets or missiles -- for at least as long as the people consent to be governed.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If you can show me that what I said is wrong, I will admit you are right and I was wrong, and then I will shut up.

You have had the constitutional principle and the law explained to you multiple times and you persist making this profoundly erroneous point. I have no doubt you will continue on this path.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fine, let the states do it, I agree with you there 100%. My point was, if states impose limits, that's not necessarily trampling upon anyone's constitutional rights.

Of course it is.

We already experimented with the idea of states having unfettered powers to write gun control laws and in 1868 an Amendment was added to the Constitution, it said:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

14th Amendment

Until 2010, the 2nd Amendment was not held to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment. In 2010 the right to arms was held to be a fundamental right and enforceable upon the states.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We also need to make sure any proposed laws, don't make it impossible for people like the hero who lived across the street from the church, to legally obtain firearms.

Well, the fact is he responded and shot the murderer with a modern AR platform rifle with an extended magazine, so I'm not sure how you reconcile the above statement with your past statements with the facts of this incident . . . I'll just say my opinion is that they are irreconcilable.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And I want people in the mold of Scalia, deciding what limits are OK, and what is going too far.

Scalia isn't the greatest RKBA / 2ndA authority. Heller should have been 3 pages long, simply relying on SCOTUS precedent and sparing us the useless and dangerous textual analysis. You keep harping on the fact that the RKBA isn't absolute but you forget that, as Scalia did say correctly, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table".

Just because we agree the right isn't absolute does not mean that I must agree that all gun control propositions are "on the table".

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

All I'm talking about, are the tools that make mass murder easier. It's sad to me that we (as a nation) can't come close to an agreement on that.

And we never will when gun control supporters refuse to consider what can legally be done when making their demands of what they want to be done.

Why should gun rights people even acknowledge such foolishness, let alone engage in a "conversation" about ideas that are baldly unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We need to prevent them from having such easy access to that firepower, to begin with. That's one of the points of this.

And as we have seen, there were laws and regulations in force that would have frustrated his legal acquisition of guns but the people entrusted and charged with making the laws work didn't do their jobs . . . And your answer is to give these incompetent jackasses more power?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

what percentage of the civilian population are armed

Numbers of gun owners range from 65 to 80 million. With an adult population of 250,000,000 that gives us a crude percentage of 26% - 32%.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

and then you have to ask; what percentage of those people will take up arms against the military?

Before the 1775 Revolution it was said that 3% were committed to oust the British. I think it would be higher today and possibly much higher, depending on the actions of government.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Then taking this bizarre scenario further, we have X number of willing civilian militia armed with guns, rifles, shotguns and a smaller percentage with AR style assault rifles, all going against 4 branches of the military; all controlled of course by some mythical leader with unreal power to control and persuade the leaders of the military this is what needs to happen to form the new world order.

Yeah, that's the idea. It hasn't changed at all from 1788 when Madison laid out the principle in the Federalist 46. Madison recognized that the biggest standing army that could be supported amounted to just 1% of the nation's population (3 million people at the time = 30,000 troops).

Madison said that if those troops "entirely at the devotion of the federal government" ever acted against the liberties of the citizen, those troops would be "opposed" by 500,000 armed citizens -- a ratio of 17 citizens "with arms in their hands" opposing each soldier.

Today the ratio's are pretty much in alignment . . . 320 million total population, just under 3 million active duty and reserve "standing army" and say 75 million citizens with arms in their hands. That gives us a ratio of 25 armed citizens vs each soldier in modern times.

IMNSHO, all the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was preserve this beneficial numerical superiority of armed citizens vs "standing army" and to ensure that they had useful weapons if the ugly scenario ever materialized . . . And it is clear that by how Madison framed the scenario, that AR's and other military style guns are indisputably protected arms.

Just for info's sake, here's Madison's exposition (paragraph breaks added):

"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 . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . .

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."

James Madison, Federalist 46

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

It demonstrates that Progressives / Liberals are so invested in their agenda they can not allow themselves to engage in reasoned discussion.

They have their demands flowing from positions grounded only in emotional constructs. That's why they react with either anger or hateful derision when simply challenged on a legal / constitutional basis. Such a challenge is processed as an attack of their feelings and as such can not be rebutted with reason and facts.

Heartstrings and virtue signalling are completely immune to Supreme Court citation.

As the old debate maxim says, you can't reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Talk about living in a bubble ...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Talk about living in a bubble ...

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

[wdmso]

People dont have a right to an AR or an AK they just want one .. its the rambo effect .. just look how their marketed buy the gun lobby and the makers .. look at some picks of the open carry states .. walking around looking like I did in Iraq but they are in Mc Donalds ...

Have as many guns as you what register all of them have them on a searchable data base.. and admit that theirs a gun problem in America .. But they wont they'll just run and hide behind the 2a and the NRA ..

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

some great stuff in there....you should read it twice

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I did .... just changed it


ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

I assume that ReelinRod is invested in more than one agenda. Some may be more important to him than others. You know . . . like getting and eating the right foods (whatever he considers right), maintaining his home and autos, taking care of his family. His agenda in this thread seems to be defending the Constitution. You know . . . the thing you swore to protect and defend.

I'm sure you have some important agendas. Would defending them be considered by you to be in a bubble?

ReelinRod has certainly engaged the discussion here with informed reason in response (in discussion) to other posts (discussions). His discussion is actually what can rhetorically be called "argument." Your response in this post is not argument. It is simply ad hominem abuse. A sort of name-calling slander. A sort of dirty politics.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

ReelinRod is so invested in his agenda he can not allow himself to engage in reasoned discussion. AKA bubble

Reasoned Discussion

Originally Posted by wdmso

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...8&postcount=95Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did you notice the qualifiers "still" and "at this time" in the passage by me that you quoted. The 2A is a preventative, so that the people might have some recourse when the "if"s in the unquoted previous passage above your quoted one might happen: "If the people no longer take their constitutional rights as inherent and to be protected by the methods that the Constitution affords them, and if the federal military no longer is willing to protect and defend the actual Constitution they swore to protect and defend, and if the people and their militaries believe in the supreme power of the federal government and swear allegiance to it, rather than to the Constitution, then your trust in the federal government better be justified."

If enough citizens and military personnel remain who have not become part of those ifs, the 2A can provide some recourse if there is the will and desire to "fight the power."

And if there is not enough will and desire, then, as I said, "your trust in the federal government better be justified." History does not justify such a trust. But we are conditioned to be blind to history, especially if we are not conscious of the signs or trends which should cause us to be wary.

Those signs and trends are so in our face, it is amazing that so many of us don't see them. You call that view a tin foil hat. I call it head in the sand.

It would still be easy to make a course direction by political rather than military means. That is my desire. And no, in spite of the 2A recourse the Constitution gives us, I also see the signs and trends that the Progressive model has been so implanted in the American psyche that recourse to the 2A would probably be a futile bloody mess if there were even enough of those who would rebel.

That's why I so want a thorough discussion on Constitutionalism vs. Progressivism. But, contrary to the notion that there is no "reasonable" discussion re guns, the actual discussion that is avoided is the constitutional one.

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So many if's and and's in your immaginary government/military coo to happen, that foil hat is really messing with you.

The 2A is contingency driven. If's are contingencies. Most laws suppose an "if." Everything you do involves an "if." Life depends on "so many" ifs.

"And" merely connects a few "ifs."

If you think there are too many "ifs," regardless of what material your hat is made of, it is a dunce.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Numbers of gun owners range from 65 to 80 million. With an adult population of 250,000,000 that gives us a crude percentage of 26% - 32%.



Before the 1775 Revolution it was said that 3% were committed to oust the British. I think it would be higher today and possibly much higher, depending on the actions of government.



Yeah, that's the idea. It hasn't changed at all from 1788 when Madison laid out the principle in the Federalist 46. Madison recognized that the biggest standing army that could be supported amounted to just 1% of the nation's population (3 million people at the time = 30,000 troops).

Madison said that if those troops "entirely at the devotion of the federal government" ever acted against the liberties of the citizen, those troops would be "opposed" by 500,000 armed citizens -- a ratio of 17 citizens "with arms in their hands" opposing each soldier.

Today the ratio's are pretty much in alignment . . . 320 million total population, just under 3 million active duty and reserve "standing army" and say 75 million citizens with arms in their hands. That gives us a ratio of 25 armed citizens vs each soldier in modern times.

IMNSHO, all the 2nd Amendment was intended to do was preserve this beneficial numerical superiority of armed citizens vs "standing army" and to ensure that they had useful weapons if the ugly scenario ever materialized . . . And it is clear that by how Madison framed the scenario, that AR's and other military style guns are indisputably protected arms.

Just for info's sake, here's Madison's exposition (paragraph breaks added):

"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 . . . It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . .

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."

James Madison, Federalist 46

Once again, the thought of our president or enough of the upper ecchilon having the support of all the branches of the military is absurd, I’d have better odds of winning mass millions.

In our forefathers days the militia was necessary and would have and was very effective, I just think our country has evolved past the point that will ever be required.

I realize that I’m debating this point with the wall, the arguments don’t change. This board is as always a circular discussion, inevitably leading back to were it began.

I guess we are a microcosm of the politics in the White House and while I’m neither an evil Dem as they are so foundly refereed to, or a republican; my views of where I’d like to see our country and our world for that matter just don’t fly on this board.

If we could do a rewind and no AR assault rifles were available to either the bad guy or good guy, I have to belief there might have been less loss of life. Consider that maybe less fire power might have made him less bold to begin with.

And now back to your previously schedule stance, time for Detbach to choose a color and set me straight. I hope you are self employed and spending all this time making a legal argument on your nickel and not your employers. I’m retired and frankly can’t take the time to read all the counter arguments; in fact I think it’s time for me to sign off this thread as I’m getting dissy of the circular thought process.

Beam me up Scotty, there must be common sense somewhere in the universe!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Once again, the thought of our president or enough of the upper ecchilon having the support of all the branches of the military is absurd, I’d have better odds of winning mass millions.

In our forefathers days the militia was necessary and would have and was very effective, I just think our country has evolved past the point that will ever be required.

Good for you. My post was not trying to convince you that such a thing is possible or probable today, all I was doing was bringing some factual, historical background to the discussion. The history shows us "the thought" was not an outlier or fringe consideration.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I realize that I’m debating this point with the wall, the arguments don’t change. This board is as always a circular discussion, inevitably leading back to were it began.

My "wall" is only the truthful philosophical, legal and historical record that I present to rebut policy ideas that are dismissive or violation of the Constitution. Correct, my arguments don't change and I can understand why you might feel like you beating your head against a wall.

Your choice when up against such a wall is either:
1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong
2) modify your positions / proposals to align with the Constitution
3) throw up your hands and say there's nothing to discuss
4) just come clean and admit you hold the Constitution in disdain and contempt and would support the government ignoring the Constitution and demand government to enact and enforce law that violates the rights of the citizenry.

I am always open to option 1. I beg for it; I throw a large amount of information out there and try my best to present clear and understandable statements. I know liberals vehemently disagree with me but I rarely get reasoned, supported argument back.

I expect option 2 to occur on rare occasions but it never does.

Option 3 is the usual response unless they are so defeated they just abandon the thread.

Option 4 is of course the true and core belief of modern liberals but they don't demonstrate the honesty to admit it. Everyone knows it to be true which is why the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

Your statement that "government has evolved beyond that" is laughable for it is precisely that kind of government that appears in leftist utopian fantasies of gun rights people being blown to bits.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Beam me up Scotty, there must be common sense somewhere in the universe!!!!!!

Your passive/aggressive claim of intellectual and cognitive superiority is weak and impotent given the complete lack of supported argument coming from you.

.

[wdmso]

1) present reasoned supported argument that proves me wrong

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

So as a time machine Conservative what year do want to travel Back to? For your Utopia views on the Constitution in America when every American reads it the same way ?

because that statement below explains much. Is that your example of " your reasoned approach "?..


the citizens who do cherish and respect the Constitution will never give up our guns -- BECAUSE, liberals want that government that would take up arms against us . . . exactly the kind of government that you claim has been evolved out of existence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

To think your argument is right from the start.. if only the world was as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Remember, this is a religion to some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device