Posted on 02/24/2007 5:18:52 PM PST by xsrdx
That's for sure. Nothing about hunting at all in the 2nd Amendment.
Because an insurrection could be mounted by those wishing to overthrow a free country. Stopping that and preserving the free country would be a legitimate use of the militia under the 2nd amendment.
Conversely, some politicians could gain control of the country and try to turn it into a police state, and being unable to change things with traditional manner (say the government doesn't allow or follow elections, or recognize the right of the people to petition their government), then the 'radical' model of the 2nd amendment is called for.
Take what you're saying a few steps further:
If there was no 'right' of the citizens to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government, what limit on their abuse of power would there be? By that viewpoint, there would be none: A government could continue to seize power and deny rights until it's a completely police state with no representative government.
Do you think the founders didn't understand that? I'm pretty sure they did, which is why they spoke so strongly about resisting tyrants.
Remember, according to them, the ultimate power rests with the people. So a corrupt congress can call up the militia, but the people who make it up can still say "no" with their guns.
Exactly!
The phraseology of "overthrowing the government" carries with it severe connotations of illegitimacy. Better perhaps would be "overthrowing any tyrants who might try to subvert the legitimate government".
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Response 243 is perfect.
LBT
-=-=-
It is right and proper for people to overthrow an illegitimate government. It is right and proper for a legitimate government to protect itself from being overthrown. In case of conflict, the Constitution is meant (among other things) as a guide for people to determine which side is the right one.
Such an occurrence would only be an "insurrection" if the government were able to successfully "quell" it. If not, if there were enough of "we the people" supporting said insurrection, then history would simply record it as another successful war for independence and freedom from an oppressive government. The Second Amendment is simply the mechanism to deny a minority (government) the power to oppress the majority (we the people) by having a monopoly on the use of force.
Put more simply, we DO have the right to try to overthrow our government by force any time we feel like it, and the government IS authorized to enlist our fellow citizens (the militia) to stop us. The historical verdict as to whether our cause is right and just will be determined by who wins. If the government is truly and sufficiently oppressive, then we (who are also militia) will be able to persuade enough of our fellow citizens (militia as well) to join us to prevail. If our grievances are unreasonable and unpopular, however, the majority of the "militia" will remain loyal to the government, and we will be defeated.
This is simply the concept of checks and balances carried through and applied to the use of force. There is no contradiction, as you seemed to think in the first paragraph above.
Well said. MSNBC wouldn't understand, but I think most here at FR do.
I got the impression that the War of Northern Agression proved this point.
You're just another fence sitter! Make a choice and stick with it! No diversity allowed!
- I love my wife's shirt that says celebrate diversity, and its a bunch of different hand cannons-
"Who's to decide who's corrupt and who is not? Is it just to be the faction who has the most and biggest guns at a given time?"
No. Just the biggest guns and the biggest will to fight.
"But there's still a big difference between "overthrowing the government" and refusing as a militia to oppress our own people."
And when those people refuse to oppress their own people, what happens to them? Why the government goes after them too! And if those armed people resist the government, what are they doing? They're rebelling against a corrupt government.
Logical extrapolation. Always try it on your own arguments before you make them. When you do, your arguments hold up to scrutiny. Yours don't because when you take them a few steps further, they fall apart, sorry to say.
"but we have to work with all our heart and soul to preserve the Union, not bandy about ideas of overthrowing the government."
No one here is bandying about ideas of overthrowing the government. We're stating the correct fact that one of the reasons the founders put the second amendment there was to overthrow a corrupt government. There is a difference, even if you're not willing or able to see the distinction.
Opening a person's eyes to the true intent of the 2nd amendment is the best way to turn someone from a casual support of the 2nd amendment to a strong supporter. Of course, depending on their current beliefs, pre-conditioning by educating them on other facts may be necessary before they'll be receptive to the real reason for the 2nd amendment.
(hold mu' Beer)...bttt
OBTW~~~#8's gunna Win !!!
GO JUUUUUUNIORRRR!!!!...;0)
"So who among you actually hunts prairie dogs? Do you machinegun them? They are big and fat, they’re slow and easy targets. A 22 or a slingshot would the weapon of choice."
They are not all that big, or fat, and while they are fairly slow across open ground they are quick to tuck back inside their holes. The .22 LR doesn't have the effective range or hitting power to be the preferred weapon. The .223 solves that problem. In most cases the only difference between an ar-15 and the .223 rifles is color. Perhaps its the black color of the ar-15 that offends the closet racists.
Using an ar-15 with hi capacity magazines is not the best weapon for hunting. Shooting prairie dogs isn't really hunting though. Its more of a infestation control issue.
The man made a mistake as we all do. Being a high profile person his mistake gets lots of attention. Rather than ban him for the rest of eternity it would be more beneficial for our cause to educate him. That would address the ar-15 issue.
Calling people jerks and idiots for being offended at being called a terrorist shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
"Which side will the military be on. Not all will be on one side."
No politician in their right mind would take it so far as to use the military enmasse to take on the gun owners in America. Even the rabid anti-gunners know it has to be done one at a time.
That is what they are doing. Making more crimes into felonies, and working to further control or ban weapons one at a time.
Socialism demands the populace be unarmed. Just as the citizens won't accept socialism in one bite they won't accept being disarmed in one step. Incrementalism is the preferred tool of both movements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.