• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Jesus Guns Babies

Armitage72 said:
They forget, or likely never knew, that George Washington personally led troops armed under the provisions of the Second Amendment to put down a rebellion by farmers who were refusing to pay taxes.
Click to expand...


But you have to remember that they approve of the right kind of tyranny. Probably the kind with Jesus, guns, and babies.
 
Mojo said:
But you have to remember that they approve of the right kind of tyranny. Probably the kind with Jesus, guns, and babies.
Click to expand...

Especially if it's led by a pathological liar, serial adulterer, racist, bigoted sociopath. You know, the kind of guy Jesus would choose.
 
newyorkguy said:
I saw video the other night of a woman at a school board meeting literally screaming at the board members -- it was a budget hearing -- how about family budgets? To treat the long term damage their kids will suffer from having had to wear face masks in the classroom. Other attendees were cheering her on.
They became so unruly they finally had to be escorted out by police. Fortunately, none of them were prepared to exercise their second amendment rights, though I'm sure most believed the school board was acting 'tyrannically.' :(
Click to expand...

Not to derail, but her source might be a little left than you think. I heard the information about developmental problems due to young children wearing masks in school from...NPR.

I have NPR on most of the time when I'm driving and a few days ago they had a story about this. Apparently, masks hide a lot of visual cues that children need for learning and social development.
 
Mike! said:
Wasn't that the name of a Warren Zevon song?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...it would almost work...

I went home with a waitress
And I took a little risk
Send Jesus Guns and Babies
Dad get me out of this
 
TomB said:
Not to derail, but her source might be a little left than you think. I heard the information about developmental problems due to young children wearing masks in school from...NPR.

I have NPR on most of the time when I'm driving and a few days ago they had a story about this. Apparently, masks hide a lot of visual cues that children need for learning and social development.
Click to expand...
COVID renders them dead, and that point fairly moot.
 
d4m10n said:
Against whom did they want to have the militias armed?
Click to expand...

The kind of 'militias' the prepper movement puts together, to take a modern case. The militias of the time, being "well regulated" and an important adjunct to a Continental Army, would be presumed to be supportive of and loyal to the Republic. Any rabble who might raise arms against Her, or in numbers refuse their legal obligations such as paying taxes, could be the sort the then "well regulated militia" would be arrayed against.

While the Founders could envisage the eventuality for such as today's traitorous GOP to be **** out of the bowels of the nation's deplorables, and potentially needing a corrective administered by patriotic Americans, surely this could not be the sole purpose of an armed, "well regulated militia". Such a narrow remit of action against the State only would imply the 2A to be almost a suicide clause.
 
d4m10n said:
Against whom did they want to have the militias armed?
Click to expand...

The native people. The French who were still on the frontier. To really understand the 2nd Amendment you have to understand the Roman early Republican period and how much the Founding Fathers saw themselves as creating the second Roman Republic. It would be difficult to overstate the impact of having an education rooted in the Roman classical period on our Founding Fathers.

The 2nd Amendment is the only one of the first ten Amendments that speaks to the duty a citizen has to the state. In the Roman Republic, a citizen owned his own military equipment and in time of war, reported for duty with his gear. That's the vision of the Founders when writing the 2nd Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the impact of a professional, full time army on the end of the Roman Republic. The Founding Fathers knew that the young country needed an army but they didn't want a standing army. So, they wanted citizens to keep arms and then be formed into a "Well regulated militia" when needed.
 
Craig4 said:
The native people. The French who were still on the frontier. To really understand the 2nd Amendment you have to understand the Roman early Republican period and how much the Founding Fathers saw themselves as creating the second Roman Republic. It would be difficult to overstate the impact of having an education rooted in the Roman classical period on our Founding Fathers.

The 2nd Amendment is the only one of the first ten Amendments that speaks to the duty a citizen has to the state. In the Roman Republic, a citizen owned his own military equipment and in time of war, reported for duty with his gear. That's the vision of the Founders when writing the 2nd Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the impact of a professional, full time army on the end of the Roman Republic. The Founding Fathers knew that the young country needed an army but they didn't want a standing army. So, they wanted citizens to keep arms and then be formed into a "Well regulated militia" when needed.
Click to expand...

They certainly could have worded it better and made their intentions clearer.
 
Warp12 said:
The concept of resistance to tyranny has always been part of the 2A landscape. Like...since the beginning.
Click to expand...

The people who argue for this almost exclusively turn a blind eye to actual tyranny such as police killing back Americans in absurdly high numbers.
 
d4m10n said:
Against whom did they want to have the militias armed?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the founding fathers considers a large standing army to represent a direct threat to freedom and that state run militia were thought of as an alternative to the large federally run army that they feared. The militia, therefor, would do all or nearly all the things a standing army would normally do.

Again, though. In today's context how many of the "gun rights" people actually support radically downsizing the US military?
 
lomiller said:
The people who argue for this almost exclusively turn a blind eye to actual tyranny such as police killing back Americans in absurdly high numbers.
Click to expand...
It goes without saying, I'd have thought, that the definition of tyranny was always equivocal, or the amendment would have excused the mass assassination of slaveowners from the start, and even if we manage to squeak out of that, excuses of excluded groups diminish after emancipation. It's not surprising that the Black Panthers are considerable contributors to the revival of attention to the amendment. One might consider it generous of them to have stuck to the literal part and not taken the interpretation as far as some right wingers have been doing.
 
Craig4 said:
...The 2nd Amendment is the only one of the first ten Amendments that speaks to the duty a citizen has to the state. In the Roman Republic, a citizen owned his own military equipment and in time of war, reported for duty with his gear. That's the vision of the Founders when writing the 2nd Amendment...
Click to expand...

Extremely well put. I'm sure that's exactly the way the courts viewed the second amendment for decades.

shemp said:
They certainly could have worded it better and made their intentions clearer.
Click to expand...

That's actually a frequent criticism by Constitutional scholars.

If you've been around a while you know that the emphasis on people arming themselves was an outgrowth of the crime wave of the 1960s-1980s. When I first joined this forum there were several 'gun threads' going on. The pro-gun people always mentioned crime. One post I remember from a pro-NRA poster was -- he wrote this any number of times -- you and your family are accosted in the street by thugs. Without a handgun what would you do? Cower and turn over your valuables? Try not to watch as they assault your wife or daughter? Or, newyorkguy, would you run away, leaving your family to the mercy of the thugs?

Now it's suddenly all about resisting tyranny. But who gets to define 'tyranny.'

Them? ↓ :(
 

Attachments

  • We are the REAL Americans Be careful!.jpg
    We are the REAL Americans Be careful!.jpg
    151.4 KB · Views: 13
The problem with strict 'originialist' interpretation of the Constitution is that times change, conditions change, threats change, technologies change. The Founding Fathers could no more envisage our times than we can envisage 300 years from now. What we can interpret is the spirit of their vision.
 
Stacyhs said:
The problem with strict 'originialist' interpretation of the Constitution is that times change, conditions change, threats change, technologies change. The Founding Fathers could no more envisage our times than we can envisage 300 years from now. What we can interpret is the spirit of their vision.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is very clear that when it comes to apportioning Congressional representation the Borg all together only count as one person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom