This variety of nut thinks that 'the people' need access to any and every type of weapon available to the army (militia), in order to keep the militia in check (regulated). Based on that logic, the answer would be 'yes'. Exactly why the militia would be coming for them is never specified.
Jesus fuck, you guys, I turn my back to drive home from my Bacchanalia celebration, and y'all go buckwild with the posts. I guess this is what I guess for driving instead of fiddling with my droid nonstop for a few hours. [scrolling and reading comments below]
People who think of our democratically elected government as a present or future enemy are traitors. If the only thing preventing government tyranny is armed citizens then our 223 year Constitutional experiment is a failure and should be abandoned. Love it or leave it traitors.
On "Hardball" last week, Matthews pressed Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America, for an example of citizens turning their guns on the government and he cited Athens Tennessee in 1948. So I googled it. A group of citizens got into a firefight with Sheriff's deputies to recover ballot boxes from an election. No one was killed and those ballot boxes swung the election. The theory is that without the firefight, the election would have been stolen.
During the firefight, other citizens basically rioted, destroying police cars and businesses. Kinda reminds me of the riots after Rodney King verdict when L.A. citizens rose up in opposition to their county government. Would Mr. Pratt agree that those riots were a Constitutionally protected use of the Second Amendments? I doubt it. I suspect he'd argue the Rodney King grievance could be addressed through the courts. And it was.
But couldn't the Athens Tennessee ballot box grievance also have been addressed through the courts? We'll never know because of that rebellion/riot was settled by armed conflict. And, it's certainly not clear whether taking up arms against your county government is why the Founders adopted the Second Amendment.
As to whether someone would "fire our own troops"... Exhibit A is the Civil War. Exhibit B is any number of right wing paranoia threads involving Jews (hey, that's me!) and the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). They would not see them as "our own troops" and fire at will.
To point out the obvious, pretty much one contemporary tank has enough firepower to take out all the armed citizens. The NRA will need more than a "good guy with a gun" to prevail in that contest.
Ya know, I've had the same notion. The "original intent" that Scalia and the TP'ers want to make the standard for court decisions was muskets. Can we hold the Second Amendment to only cover muskets?
Luntz should read the 2012 Republican Platform. It says <blockquote>We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines, or otherwise revising the ill-considered Clinton gun ban.</blockquote>
this. laugh out loud.
(sorry about the hangover...)
i&#039;ve forgotten. who is this?
(actually, for realz)
This variety of nut thinks that &#039;the people&#039; need access to any and every type of weapon available to the army (militia), in order to keep the militia in check (regulated). Based on that logic, the answer would be &#039;yes&#039;. Exactly why the militia would be coming for them is never specified.
Jesus fuck, you guys, I turn my back to drive home from my Bacchanalia celebration, and y&#039;all go buckwild with the posts. I guess this is what I guess for driving instead of fiddling with my droid nonstop for a few hours. [scrolling and reading comments below]
People who think of our democratically elected government as a present or future enemy are traitors. If the only thing preventing government tyranny is armed citizens then our 223 year Constitutional experiment is a failure and should be abandoned. Love it or leave it traitors.
On &quot;Hardball&quot; last week, Matthews pressed Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America, for an example of citizens turning their guns on the government and he cited Athens Tennessee in 1948. So I googled it. A group of citizens got into a firefight with Sheriff&#039;s deputies to recover ballot boxes from an election. No one was killed and those ballot boxes swung the election. The theory is that without the firefight, the election would have been stolen.
During the firefight, other citizens basically rioted, destroying police cars and businesses. Kinda reminds me of the riots after Rodney King verdict when L.A. citizens rose up in opposition to their county government. Would Mr. Pratt agree that those riots were a Constitutionally protected use of the Second Amendments? I doubt it. I suspect he&#039;d argue the Rodney King grievance could be addressed through the courts. And it was.
But couldn&#039;t the Athens Tennessee ballot box grievance also have been addressed through the courts? We&#039;ll never know because of that rebellion/riot was settled by armed conflict. And, it&#039;s certainly not clear whether taking up arms against your county government is why the Founders adopted the Second Amendment.
As to whether someone would &quot;fire our own troops&quot;... Exhibit A is the Civil War. Exhibit B is any number of right wing paranoia threads involving Jews (hey, that&#039;s me!) and the Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). They would not see them as &quot;our own troops&quot; and fire at will.
To point out the obvious, pretty much one contemporary tank has enough firepower to take out all the armed citizens. The NRA will need more than a &quot;good guy with a gun&quot; to prevail in that contest.
The Ranty Folks do some times get asked this; the answer is usually Yes. Because of patriotism.
pretty bad when Wormtongue Luntz is the voice of reason
Grima libel!!
<a href="http://icanhascheezburger.f..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/200...">http://icanhascheezburger.f...
long before they demand a sharpshooter accompany a black kid in a hoodie
Or plowshares. Plowshare making is something the right-wingers should be able to support. Reagan or someone was for it.
What is this &quot;newspaper&quot; you speak of?
I love the Repubicans just the way they are. I hope they never change.
Ya know, I&#039;ve had the same notion. The &quot;original intent&quot; that Scalia and the TP&#039;ers want to make the standard for court decisions was muskets. Can we hold the Second Amendment to only cover muskets?
Frank Luntz: putting lipstick on an AR-15. Craven asshole.
Luntz should read the 2012 Republican Platform. It says <blockquote>We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines, or otherwise revising the ill-considered Clinton gun ban.</blockquote>