Because when the document was written it was understood that the people's loyalty was to their State, not the federal government. They were trained militarily twice a year and had State appointed officers that they reported to. Most of what I have read from that time, the people defending themselves against a tyrannical federal government was in the context of individual State defense of soveriegnty and their militias being that defense. There was no standing armies, and so the people were the military of the States, and were trained as such.
That is why I have proposed mandatory military service for gun owners, like our founding fathers intended. As George Washington said in your link: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
Interesting that he says in there "owes a portion of his property". I assume you now agree with that and have changed you position on taxation based on these quotes, and that it isn't "stealing" lol Also like that quote because it clearly lays out the intents and purposes of the 2nd amendment, that many still dispute or ignore. It was for military service to the country
Nobody gives a sh1t. Democrats dont want to lose elections over guns and Republicans are in the pocket of gun manufacturers and the NRA. It is sad that "American exceptionalism" doesn't seem to translate in keeping our citizens safe
I have heard others say that but I think the end was twofold. I do think part of it was because it was a historical night with two women main eventing a WWE special event. But I also felt like part of it was a farewell to Sasha as well. They did a similar thing for CM Punk in ROH. And Sasha is the BO$$ As Ric Flair once said, "Whether you like it, it dont like. Learn to love it, because I'm the best thing going today! Wooooo"
???? Dude. What are u even talking about? I dont think Sanders is libertarian. I do think there are some areas that he can work with libertarians in things like criminal justice reforms, gay marriage, and fed oversight.
And about the audit the fed bill. Sanders wanted it as Paul and Grayson wrote it, but had to change it to get the narrower audit or else it would not have passed. How do I know that? Because Senator Vitter offered an amendment that restored the original language. Ron Paul strongly supported it the amendment http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-06/america-deserves-an-up-or-down-vote-on-audit-the-fed/ It failed 62-37. One of those who voted in favor of restoring the language, Bernie Sanders.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00138 He wanted to do a full audit, but got all he could get passed. Ron Paul actually ended up praising Bernie Sanders: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-11/ron-paul-disappointed-but-the-fed-is-no-longer-untouchable/ So wrong again @twylyght
One of those is a cloture vote (filibuster) and those are all appropriation bills. I thought you were talking about voting on the PATRIOT Act. Not if we should stop funding and shut down our entire intelligence and homeland security apparatus lol.
No i got it. I just got lost in my own story and didnt really mention or illustrate my point properly I was agreeing with you, and just making the point that in these two instances having a gun would not have mattered. I would have lost and/or it would have ended in someone's death I wasn't trying to make the point that having a gun would never matter because it didn't matter in those cases. But situations are different. You are right. You dont really know how you will react. I could have tried to rush the guy who actually pointed the gun right at me and my friends. And if he pulled the trigger on one of us that may have happened (there were three of us standing next to each other) or we may have just scattered. It is hard to think straight in that situation. I just remember thinking (hoping) to myself that if he really wanted to shoot us he would have done so immediately. So I just said something like "You dont want to do that man" or something stupid like that and the dude talked some sh1t and ran off.
I have had two close calls with guns being pulled on me (well one wasnt really on me, but at a party where he shot it in the air cause he got pissed at some guys talking poo). Luckily both situations ended with nobody getting hurt, but both situations i felt like even if I had a gun either A) it would have made thing worse and one of us would have been dead or B) wouldnt have mattered because the guy already had the drop on me. If I tried to pull out a gun (which i didnt have one so it really didnt matter) I would have been dead anyway and I was able to talk to him and he just ran off.
There is actually quite a few of these I can agree with. 1 - I like it but others have brought up good points about how logistically this would be tough to actually do 2 - yes. 3 - yes. 4 - not 100% sure what you are talking about, but I don't like the idea of limiting a person from holding the government accountable if they feel they have been wrongfully injured. Even during the commission of a crime 5 - I like this idea.. a lot. However, doesn't that essentially create a registry? 6 - if you interpret that Washington law correctly that does seem silly, but I agree we have to have stronger laws of private transactions of guns 7 - yes.
So basically, me a radical (not really) agrees with basically 6 of your 7 ideas. See we can get something done :)