https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...8d&oe=5B2D1D85
Printable View
ANTI FEDERALIST...
This thread got noticed.
POWERs THAT BEE...
....Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty
I wonder how many are teachers, I suspect the majority with more older women being school teachers nearing retirement. Democrat women nearing retirement concerned about pensions and Social Security support all Democrat causes combine that with post menopause authoritarian tendencies. Factor that with average ignorant young women buying more easily authoritarian propaganda and you have your average at 49.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannno
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/.../HaveSuBee.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Aratus
AF2
...???
FB had
Bernie ppl
in itz FBjail
this weekend...
Comment on bump stocks:
https://www.regulations.gov/document...018-0001-35714
Comment Period Open for Bump Stocks
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...or-Bump-Stocks
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBounding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Actually he said: "No, I think it's not enough provoc."
https://image.ibb.co/ejt5kS/20180329_234746.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by dannno
Another example of widespread ignorance of U.S. own history. From colonial times through the beginning of the 20th century, communities with some Swiss and/or German immigrants would have schuetzenfest. Think firemans picnics and homecomings that used to held on weekends everywhere from spring through fall. These were not merely shooting competitions but also swap meets and opportunities for gunsmiths to show off their latest innovations. They drove weapons technology forward. Up until WW1 it was likely the private gun owner had more advanced technology than the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody's_hero
XNN
Here's what a guy i've been arguing with states about militias and the second amendment:Quote:
Originally Posted by XNavyNuke
I spent three weeks arguing with this guy about Russiagate. He is exhausting. :(Quote:
That isn't the point of the 2nd Amendment especially when we have a standing army rather than a militia. Such a proposal allows all, including those who misuse weapons, to be armed with military weapons until the tragic fact of their actions.
BTW, Jefferson never said that people should arm themselves in order to become the last line of defense against Federal tyranny. He simply said people should be able to arm themselves to defend themselves on their own property. The 2nd Amendment itself talked about the right to bear arms in the context of the Militia. However, the Militia would be under the President's command, supplied and trained from funds supplied by Congress, and was to defend the nation against criminals, insurrection, and invasions. That is in The Constitution.
And if you read Federalist #29 and #46, you will find that the political structure of relying on the Militia rather than the standing army is what protected the citizens from a tyrannical Federal government. It was not arming each citizen that did that.
And the question becomes, once we rely on a standing army rather than the Militia, how do we protect against Federal Tyranny? It can't be by arming ourselves with the same weapons--there are too many ways in which we can't afford that. We have to rely on finding new people and political parties to vote for and on the Courts as they hold to The Constitution.
In a series of tweets late Thursday evening hog went after Arby’s for their advertising on Ingraham’s show. Hogg went as far as to publish the private names and emails of executives at Arby’s to pressure them into pulling their advertisements.
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-cont...e5-750-563.jpg The tweets have since been deleted but the screen grab above was captured by Business Insider.
Multiple influential followers of Hogg followed suit, tweeting Arby’s executive board information.
There has been no official statement yet from Arby’s on the issue.
More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/30/af...st-food-chain/
bumpQuote:
Originally Posted by dannno
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel
Quote:
Originally Posted by charrob
I just read that...
https://media.giphy.com/media/yjJS8xEdRLoAM/giphy.gif
David Hogg's reddit account
https://www.reddit.com/user/davisgreen111
https://i.imgur.com/KMggePU.jpg
https://8ch.net/cow/res/391751.html
https://8ch.net/tv/res/1243207.html
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/ccf...8117b16e6d.png
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/027...e81effa942.jpg
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/332...2214b8b1e8.jpg
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/a5e...70873ffa5c.jpg
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/f25...23186470c0.png
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/4c6...0af196df8e.jpg
I am using that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZJoe
Is he the real shooter?Quote:
Originally Posted by milgram
Quote:
Originally Posted by charrob
Jefferson was "simply" talking about property? Seems to me Jefferson was talking about government and a lot of other things. Here's some other quotes.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
--Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
http://tjrs.monticello.org/archive/search/quotes
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty
NorthCarolinaLiberty, thank you so much for sharing this. I wish i could rep+ you a thousand times over; one of the reasons I love this forum is because people here are so well read and I always learn when i come here. I copied/pasted these quotes last night when I saw them on your post right before going to sleep hoping they might open this guy's eyes a bit. I just looked to see if there was a response: the result is good and bad. He still is arguing against the second amendment however at least now he is not saying Thomas Jefferson was opposed to individuals carrying their arms off their property: so i think your post has definitely helped on that end!
Here are his more recent posts. I've responded to each one but, apparently, he remains unconvinced:
Quote:
There is something else we should note about The Constitution, it was not written to limit federal power, but to expand it. It was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. In fact, when discussing the length of a Senator's term, Jame Madison argued that it should be long enough to make Senators somewhat invulnerable to popular opinion.
IN addition, during the discussions on what Senators could do, Madison expressed his dismay at elections in England being opened to all classes of people because such could bring agrarian reform.
We have a standing army instead of a Militia now. But to arm civilians with the same weapons as the military would put all of us at risk of our fellow citizens. As technology makes the individual more powerful, it also makes the individual more vulnerable.
The way to battle Federal tyranny is through peaceful non-cooperation and reliance on the courts.
Quote:
Look at history. Because of The Constitution, the Federal government could better respond to rebellions like Shays Rebellion. It could not beforehand.
There is nothing astonishing in my claim. Just follow the Constitution as it talks about the Militia. Federal power is expanded, not diminished by The Constitution. Just look at the 2nd Amendment. It is written in the context of maintaining a well-regulated militia. But that Militia is put under the command of the President with one of its purposes being to put down insurrections. Or look at the Constitutional debates, especially about eh Senate. There, Madison argued that the Senate must be protected from popular opinion.
Yes, governments are responsible for a lot of deaths. But trying to arm yourself like the military does invites the kind of attention from government that increases the chances that you become part of the stats you're citing. You simply can't compete with the government in armament nor should you. Those who wrote The Constitution could not see how technology makes the individual both more powerful and more vulnerable. And comparing that to the internet and the first Amendment does not employ a good comparison for your argument. Tell me how free speech exercised on the internet poses the same danger to others as someone who owns his/her own RPG, Bazooka, Tank, Fighter Jet, Missile or bomb, and I won't even include any nuclear weapons to give you a sporting chance.
Quote:
I read what you wrote, but the same person who wrote The Constitution wrote the Bill of Rights along with Federalist #46 and his fellow Federalist wrote Federalist #29. Along with the fact that the Bill of Rights is based on Virginia's Declaration of Rights. So those documents come into play when trying to interpret what the 2nd Amendment means.
And, btw, that the Militia is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment means that the military is mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Finally, I don't care if you think this is going in circles. What I care about is that we not only read The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we read the other pertinent documents that provide the context for The Constitution and the Bill of Rights so we can better understand them.
I've always understood that the Bill of Rights were rights given by our Creator which cannot be taken away by government and by which our government was responsible for protecting. That the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with government rights or the enumerated powers... that they were beyond the enumerated powers and created for an even greater check to prevent government tyranny. These are rights for the people and individuals, not the government. The military is part of the common defense within the enumerated powers. However "Curt" argues that the militia mentioned in the second amendment is the federal military. I've explained to him my understanding as written in this paragraph, that the militia mentioned in the second amendment is not the federal military and that this is supported by the following in Federalist #46:
Quote:
" 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."
Federalist 46
Unfortunately my argument seems unable to convince him. Not sure anything else can be said.
Quote:
The way to battle Federal tyranny is through peaceful non-cooperation and reliance on the courts.
http://semperfiparents.com/wp-conten...013/02/490.jpg
He argues like a Big Government Statist.Quote:
Originally Posted by charrob
Weapons most civilians have are not in the same class as weapons of the Military. What is the risk? Is it greater than Democide that millions have died at the hands of their own governments? To think it cant happen here is arrogant and not founded in history. People being armed is a check on government power.Quote:
We have a standing army instead of a Militia now. But to arm civilians with the same weapons as the military would put all of us at risk of our fellow
citizens
As the government becomes more powerful it makes the individual more vulnerable.So to make individuals less vulnerable he wants to make the government more powerful. That always works out great. The technology is available to all individuals to make them less vulnerable, unless the government denies them the technology or makes them a criminal.Quote:
As technology makes the individual more powerful, it also makes the individual more vulnerable.
Tyranny is rule of man or a small group of men. Courts only work for everyone when there is rule of law. An unarmed populace makes it very easy and will pave the way for rule of men.Quote:
The way to battle Federal tyranny is through peaceful non-cooperation and reliance on the courts.
Only if that individual violates another's right to life, liberty or property. Otherwise an honest government of the people by the people it serves should not be concerned.Quote:
But trying to arm yourself like the military does invites the kind of attention from government that increases the chances that you become part of the stats you're citing.
They saw that the biggest threat to the individual is the state. That is still true today. The tools are more advanced because the state has more advanced weapons as well. What the government has in superior technology is checked by the people's self defense tools in overwhelming numbers, all over the entire country.Quote:
You simply can't compete with the government in armament nor should you. Those who wrote The Constitution could not see how technology makes the individual both more powerful and more vulnerable.
Several months prior?!?!?!!?
https://westernrifleshooters.files.w...ng?w=500&h=295
Yup, a lot of things had to be lined up. Some up them didn't. The most important thing is we did it!:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by AuH20