crickets...

[scottw]

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.

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

your entire "statement of fact(s)" is based on something that you stumbled across in a google search that you think supports whatever point you are attempting to make...and so you keep repeating it no matter how many times it's pointed out that you are in error....it's very odd behavior....I'm confident that you've never actually read anything that Jefferson and Madison said and wrote regarding the Constitution, Bill of Rights, nature of rights, States rights, freedom, liberty, role of government...hint ....hint...it's voluminous...

No, see, you keep saying again and again that I am in error. That doesn't make it so. Some of the founding fathers were fine with banning guns on campus. I therefore conclude that they never intended the second amendment be absolute. Along the same lines, I have freedom of speech, but I cannot threaten someone or yell "fire", which is (I think) further evidence that limitations on the bill of rights, are not necessarily unconstitutional. I think I make a compelling case. Telling me to shut up, isn't refuting what I am saying. That's what liberals do when they have no cards to play.

[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.

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.

WOW, I can't wait for the book and then the movie, I think it's going to be a dynamic read and exciting movie

[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

[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 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

[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.