Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
It should be interesting to you that it wasn't until 1905 that the first court determined specifically that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, I guess that those first 125 years of our countries existence consisted of moronic judges who probably couldn't even name the signers of the declaration OR the constitution.
|
Well first it's 118 years because before 1787 we were under the Articles of Confederation (and judges between 1776 and 1787 would have been quite amazing if they had been able to name the signers of the constitution)
Second, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here. Want to elaborate?
Quote:
|
Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.
|
OK. You first. Go buy a nuke. Have fun getting your hands on one. FYI it's gonna cost you several million so you might wanna polish off that platinum Visa. See, my point is that even if the 2nd meant what you think it means (it doesn't) it wouldn't matter because the people cannot financially keep and bear arms that equal the government's.
Quote:
|
yes, they are. But just like YOU said that the government would use all of it's tools available, so they will shift military hardware (tanks) over to law enforcement agencies. They did it at waco.
|
well I'm glad you brought that up! Waco is an excellent point. Koresh and his gang had one of the biggest civilian arsenals around, and what happened? They all died in a fire. They managed to drop a few ATF agents, and that's it. And that wasn't even a coordinated military assault. See my point here? You're not going to win if the government decides to get you, so why endanger the rest of the public with your fantasies about warding off an evil government with your rifle?
Quote:
|
to order such an attack would be COMPLETE political suicide. It will never happen.
|
6 years ago I'd have said that to order a bullshit war in a foreign country would be complete political suicide after Vietnam, but Bush managed to get reelected.
Quote:
|
He'd be dead pretty quick, wouldn't he. One nutcase gone from the gene pool. I would think that would make you MORE comfortable with less nuts having guns, after a time.
|
And how many would die from him shooting them before he was dropped? How many would die in the crossfire as everyone around them whipped out their machine guns and started blasting away? You need to think these scenarios through. "Kill all them motherfuckers" is almost never the answer.
Quote:
|
irrelevant because we're discussing machine guns.
|
Bullshit. That's not irrelevant at all. You tried to slip an argument past me but it didn't work. You tried to suggest that legally posessed machine guns aren't used in crimes very much. Nice try, but if someone steals my machine gun that I bought legally, the machine gun is no longer legally owned and therefore drops off your narrow statistical analysis. As the old saying goes, figures may not lie, but liars can figure. Manipulating the statistics to try and prove a point that's broader than the statistics you limit yourself to is dishonest.
Quote:
|
regulated does NOT mean having a government run structure.
|
Yes, I know that. I've said that.
Quote:
|
YOU are a member of the unorganized militia,
|
Great, and since an unorganized militia is unregulated, I don't have a 2nd amendment right to a gun.
Quote:
|
therefore YOU are part of the militia. IF you were to be called in to service,
|
I won't be.
Quote:
|
try to say you're NOT well regulated and see if that gets you out of it. It won't. Because you don't have a CO, you are part of the UNORGANIZED militia.
|
Then if it's unorganized who the hell is going to be calling me into service?
Quote:
|
Do you have a good explanation WHY you aren't 'regulating' yoruself? It is YOUR responsibility to be well regulated...meaning you can shoot, maintain, and keep your weapon and follow basic orders.
|
Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.
Quote:
|
Before 1903, they weren't. It was a ready reserve, meaning that they were NOT a standing army. The Dick Act federalized them, essentially making them available upon notice, turning them in to a standing army, hence they were no longer a state militia.
|
1) The dick act is named for its sponsor, Senator Charles Dick, who was a republican. So quit blaming the democrats.
2) The states still have a well regulated, armed militia. They're called cops.
Quote:
|
Strawman argument and you couldn't afford a nuke anyway, much less bear one.
|
My point exactly. I can't afford a nuke. The government can.
Quote:
|
There is that political suicide thing also.
|
If the government has turned totalitarian and is out to oppress us, they don't give a damn about political suicide, because you can't commit political suicide in a dictatorship. Do you think the Iraqis who were killed by Saddam's soldiers were tittering into their beards thinking "haha! He's committing political suicide!"
And btw Iraq was a society that DID have much more powerful weapons than American civilians had, and it STILL took an outside army to topple Saddam.
Quote:
|
Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment.
|
Their intent was to insure states had militias. Not to insure that hunters get a deer, or that you get to play with guns and pretend to be a freedom fighter.