changed my views on that asshole that was elected.

however i have always been pro 2nd amendment/rkba

i hope this makes sense, if not feel free to ask me any question's.

and it is still extremely dangerous and deadly. Clearly, according to the Second Amendment, the use of firearms should be - in the words of the Amendment - "well regulated." I have noticed that the NRA appears to be completely ignorant of the concept of the regulation of firearms, which is one reason that I refuse to join it or support it in any way.

The first thing I did when I bought my firearm was to take it to the local Police Department to register it and to be fingerprinted. I urge all responsible citizens to do the same. Trump has nothing to do with any of this. He is barely literate. He has provided no evidence that he has ever read read our Constitution, and he can barely function in the esteemed office he temporarily occupies. So, no, I have not changed my mind at all.

i respect your view, however i disagree.

well regulated means well trained/drilled. not gov. regulated.

im against registration because it allows a tyrannical gov. know who is armed.

45 has been compared to hitler.

i hope this make sense. if not, feel free to ask me any question.

he is not yet tyrannical. And if he ever becomes so, I'm firmly convinced that political action, not firearms, will be the solution. If we turn to weaponry to solve our internal problems, we have surrendered the power of democracy to base violence. But - regardless of any responses I receive from this reply - I know that this could become an interminable discussion, so this is the end of my dialog with you or any other interested persons. We could be on this topic for a hell of a long time. eom

for your reply

does not legalize sedition or treason, it's there for you to fight FOR the government

the us colones did not fight for the gov. we fought against it.

in the civil war, the south fought against the gov.

SHAYS’ REBELLION http://www.history.com/topics/shays-rebellion

the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/25/no-the-2nd-amendment-does-not-authorize-armed-sedition.html

...that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to organize private armies independent of the state."

Seriously? Perhaps you're unfamiliar: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14138208/ns/us_news-life/t/where-were-you-during-battle-athens/

You up against the 82nd Airborne is pretty laughable, isn't it?

Anyone that thinks

Anyone that thinks the 2nd Amendment legalizes sedition/treason against the United States of America (82nd Airborne++++ and that peashooters against bazookas, F-18's, v.3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks is delusional, aren't they?

Last edited Sat Apr 1, 2017, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

And no one here does, except that straw man up there. ⇧

It seems apparent you don't trust my judgment.

Understanding of the subject.

Too funny

That it indicates the individual's argument is likely not worth the time.

it only bolsters my position, since the statement is still true, using obsolete technology

thank you.

As I said, it's useful in identifying who to ignore.

A threat to ignore is to opposing opinions

as a bazooka or cruise missile is to a .45/AR15/anything you may own

You seem to have the time. Why haven't you?

in too high regard

I doubt you can hold a candle to the VC

An enemy in asymmetrical warfare?

Resistance is the natural enemy of tyranny. The idea of restricting the tools of resistance due to some doubt about qualifying resistance efforts as successful is best described as a brain-fart.

In the words of W. Churchill:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Effectively engage an enemy in asymmetrical warfare. Why haven't you answered?

agree

Where the government fears the people, there is liberty; where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The weight of history here is on the side of the government trusting the people. With that trust comes the people's responsibility to act within the law. This is the very basis for the idea of individual rights.

To address the 'tribe against the army' question: there is no scenario I can envision where a serviceman in the US would make war against his neighbors. However, should the time come as mentioned in the Declaration...

...I see at least as many service against the government as would be for it.

I don't trust government nor do politicians deserve any trust but I do trust our Guardsmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines.

but your/our peashooters will be worthless

Without benefit of tanks, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft, all of which the current Afghan
government possesses.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/23/afghan-taliban-seize-key-district-sangin-helmand-province

It seems your grasp of military tactics is on a par with your grasp of history and Constitutional law.

asymmetric warfare. Only a fool goes head to head with a much stronger opponent, but there are other ways to fight that min/max strengths and weaknesses.

Also what is lost is the idea a war must be won by conquering. Sometimes a side can win by simply not losing.

{cough} Viet Nam {cough}.

Us and the French.

{cough} Afghanistan {cough}

So far, mostly us, and Russia (The CCCP one).

For the win.

Afghanistan, Vietnam, 9/11, Stuxnet... are all examples.
The Washington Navy Yard shooting, the activities of the French underground during WWII and many others show what determined but out numbered and out gunned groups can accomplish.

Something along those lines.

I don't think yours is working either. Have a nice day.

prefer to fight, than just give up.

that's assuming it came to it.

i prefer not to fight.

i only believe in fighting to defend oneself and family.

in other words be quiet to get along.

Depending on the circumstances.

and California declares secession. The Federal government says that is illegal and will use force if needed to prevent secession.

California calls on armed citizens to join the militia to defend their Free State. D.C. government calls on armed citizens to resist any secession. Which government do they fight for?

Rifle Association. You sound like a very reasonable person. Jason Kander could be the posterboy.

It would be a good way to fight back and make a good point. I don't own a gun. I'm certainty not opposed to hunters (even though I am a vegetarian) and collectors owning guns. Many women I know own guns because their houses were broken into. We need a counter organization that advocates the reasonable ownership of guns. The name itself is an advocation because it is in contrast to the values and misinterpretation of the Constitution by the NRA. I would help.

They explained that we do not do that. No they do not keep fingerprints of firearm owners. Glad I live here.

those who live a violent life, shall die a violent life.

however owning weapons does not mean one lives a violent life.

hope this makes sense, if not feel free to ask me any question.

What exactly would "live by the sword" mean?
The origin of that is from the story of the last supper and subsequent betrayal and arrest.

The follower who attacked with the sword attempted to resolve a problem with laws of the day and the conspiracy which led to the arrest and conviction of an innocent. Cunning and fabrication led to the death of someone who had not broken a law but was out of favor with those of influence and power.





Taking the whole of the related events of that evening in the admonitions to both 'sell some of one's clothes if need be to buy a sword' and 'not to live by the sword' it is my conclusion that the ownership and even use of a weapon isn't wrong. However, the unlawful use of the weapon, regardless of the intended end, is wrong.

Have a nice day.

Basic Rights are constant regardless of political change

The election made me realize that I am a Democrat, but I have always been in favor of RKBA.

Am supporter of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. ALL the rights.

as am i.

thank you for your response.

includes
roe v. wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Obergefell v. Hodges, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District
District of Columbia v. Heller, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
McDonald v. City of Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
Brown v. Board of Education,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

and got a signed copy of his book. Good read for those liking motivational reading. He had a hard life early on, and I guess that is what made him want to fight so hard to keep what he had earned.

I know I've posted this article a bazillion times, but it exposes the hypocrisy of the gun restriction crew exceedingly well:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-

When we say:

...what we mean is these acts are against the law and you may suffer legal consequences for them.

I have a pet peeve about the very term "gun-control" because the only real control in the world is self-control. Referring to laws as "gun-control" has infected the thinking of the general public that these laws actually control something. They don't. Control is a myth. Why is it we don't call laws against murder "murder control"?

I suggest we move into the 21st century where an internet video can teach you to repair your clothes dryer, change your disc brake pads and build a full-auto rifle. Using archaic and inaccurate terminology in attempts to collect the thoughts and will of the people on an important topic only serve to confuse the issue and impede bringing any priorities to their legislators attention.

An exception to the 1A is prior restraint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint


My view of the RKBA is that it is a logical consequence of the universal right to life in that a right to life implies a right to self-defense. I find it amusing that many refer to "frontier justice" and "lawless old West" saying that without laws on buying and carrying guns, it would be like the OK Corral. Tombstone, AZ in 1881 had gun control and restrictions on carrying in town which, in fact, was the cause for the famous shootout.

The more things change, the more they remain the same and, regardless of what may be demonstrated by the events of the day, lots of folks are seemingly unable to learn anything.

Great post.

I have a pet peeve about the very term "gun-control" because........

Oh yeah --- so much wrong with this label that it's difficult to know where to begin. I wonder if there's ever been a thread dealing with it?

My view of the RKBA is that it is a logical consequence of the universal right to life in that a right to life implies a right to self-defense.

Yup. I think that ignorance relating to the ease at which criminals can obtain "large capacity clips" etc. leads restriction supporters to believe that bans are the answer. Whatever is easily available to criminals needs to be readily available to innocents -- to argue otherwise is immoral in the extreme. The genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Restriction supporters may never get this simple truth though.

The more things change, the more they remain the same and, regardless of what may be demonstrated by the events of the day, lots of folks are seemingly unable to learn anything.

Right -- the Backfire Effect. Maybe we should stop speaking truth to lies.

...in the past lawyers and doctors studied Latin simply because the vocabulary and grammar enabled the forming of thoughts into words with precision not merely an accuracy but in razor sharp and concise form. I have an appreciation for understanding a topic and being able to express relevant ideas in the language of the subject. Naming a law "...control" conveys the idea that control is the object.

If you tell folks for long enough that you can control crime and prevent the evil that scares them, some will begin to believe you.


Control is a myth.

Once you accept that the purpose of a law is to be a criteria upon which to base prosecution and conviction in court and not much more, you're on the right path.