Reply With Quote
In other words, if you ever see it happen, it will probably be the spursncowboys of the world rise against the unpatriotic kenyan nig.
It makes complete sense it would never happen. Government wouldn't be in control at that point, the military would. It would basically amount to self-defeat.
Like I said, if it ever happens, it won't be the government unleashing anything. It will be the military uprising on their own.
The difference here is that the military in the US is very well paid and taken care of (education, health coverage, pension, etc).
In other words, if you ever see it happen, it will probably be the spursncowboys of the world rise against the unpatriotic kenyan nig.
I highly recomend it:
great book
Or Federalist papers
I don't really understand what you are inferring or grouping me into.
I would say that, historically, it normally starts with the unarming of the civilian population.
They would probably dispute that considering how the US Government has on them and sent them on multiple tours into that hole that they know they can't win..
military personnel
Oh we are so close to Godwinning this thread.
Like what?
Here's a list where gun availability was not a problem:
- Hitler
- Stalin
- Pinochet
- Franco
- Ongania
- Pinilla
- Bainimarama
- Pangalos
- Montt
- Mussolini
- Santa Anna
- Porfirio Díaz
- Somoza
... and there's plenty more...
There's one thing they *all*, except Mussolini, have in common: they all have military background. Either full blown generals or in the case of Hitler a military career right before going into politics.
EDIT: I should add, a lot of those fought inside rebellion one way or another. Dictatorships always do.
Last edited by ElNono; 01-16-2013 at 01:19 AM.
Nobody is ever happy. That said, insurrection is a failure at multiple levels. Intelligence, justice, equality... this country isn't anywhere near there yet.
I notice he doesn't quote any of the federalist or anti-federalist papers. I wonder where he gleans his information from?
The anti-federalist papers were not written in support of the Cons ution. It's pretty obvious with the whole 'anti' thing. The Federalists didn't want the Bill of Rights to be enumerated. James Madison was certainly against it
The Federalist papers, while certainly influential, were a newspaper op-ed. They showed the intent of a few men and not the entire assembly.
The author looked at the assemblies where the government was actually founded ie "in Congress during the War of Independence, in the postwar Confederation years, during the writing and ratification of the Cons ution, in the First Federal Congress, and into the Jeffersonian period." He was interested in the discussions where all parties are involved when they formed our government.
Basically what you are doing is saying that an author a hundred years from now should look at WSJ op-eds in determining the basis for legislation. On the floor of the assemblies where our government was founded, that is where the consensus was found. What is telling is that while Jefferson, Madison et al were all together they brought up the right to bear arms in teh manner that the author speaks of. They did not speak of it on the basis of the individual. It was not brought up. they talked about militia groups supplied by the states as the author states.
Great book. Loved it. Is there some particular passage germane to this thread that you'd draw our attention to?I highly recomend it:
Loaned it out and never got it back. Sorry. Even if I had it it's impossible to cut and paste from a hardback and I'm not typing all that out. I'm sure you understand.
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Cons ution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .
"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."
George Mason expressed a similar fear:
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Cons ution] . . . "
Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Cons ution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Cons ution], can call forth the militia."
And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?
"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Cons ution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority at ude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Cons ution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").
The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):
"[T]hey will search that paper [the Cons ution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."
He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."
James Madison, the "Father of the Cons ution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.
"I was struck with surprise," Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Cons ution]. If there be, I know it not."
But the southern fears wouldn't go away.
Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Cons ution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:
"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Cons ution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have calleddysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890...eserve-slavery
so, you don't remember how it relates to the conversation. just propping yourself up on it, then?
samples are available in google books if you remember about where the passage was.
http://books.google.com/books?id=E9T...epage&q&f=true
I actually preferred the back and forth letters between Jefferson and Adams and more times than not sided with Jefferson.
really dude? get a ing life. I've got better things to do than chase down book passages to validate myself to some asshole on the internet.
To throw you a bone, here is a good one from Jefferson.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
hey, you brought it up. not my problem if it has no demonstrable bearing on the conversation.
You'd do better looking up Madison's quotes in the Federalist. He is just regurgitating Two Treatise on Government there.
There were 39 people that signed the Cons ution and quite a few of them didn't like Tom. Nevermind that legislatures of all 13 colonies had to ratify them.
what about it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
