Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2nd Amendment Email


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,277 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

politicians would never ever go for low lying fruit or easy votes or tell people what they want to hear to get/remain in office. never.

#17 gospodin shuttlesworth

gospodin shuttlesworth

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 08:06 PM

health care, lets bring up sweden. guns, lets NOT bring up the swiss.

oh you libs are so predictable.


where are you getting that? sure seems like london is just fine with it

i always enjoy it when these kind of people bring up switzerland.

most males age 20-30 are militia members and are issued a firearm because switzerland has no standing army. all but 2000 people who are either military police or spec-ops types are disallowed from storing ammunition for the weapons in their homes. before that, something like 50 rounds was delivered in a sealed box that was routinely audited for unauthorized use. if that seal was broken, your ass was in trouble. that hardly matters now seeing as to how the government recalled (read: seized) all the ammunition issued to militia members in 2007.

this notion that it's some kind of safeguard against home invasions and gives the citizens the means to fight back against its government is bullshit. their laws dictating private purchases of guns are also draconian compared to what US citizens are used to.



#18 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,716 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:51 AM

This better?



#19 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    ►►►►►

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,889 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

health care, lets bring up sweden. guns, lets NOT bring up the swiss.

oh you libs are so predictable.

its not always about being able to stop your govt because you have your guns. its like Al Golre and his analogy of the frog in his climate change/no global warming/no climate change movie.
Little by little the heat is turned up on the frog but it's comfortable and he doesn't notice and he is now being served at the Shrimp Boat in Lancaster SC.


but i also love those emails. funny


the argument that "lol it works for the swiss" is misleading if not outright incorrect. that is the problem. the notion that switzerland is full of loud and proud gun toters is nonsense.

also the healthcare:gun control analogy you're trying to set up is puzzling to me. the united states is an outlier when it comes to (relatively) lax gun control laws but is also an outlier when it comes to not having some flavor of universal healthcare whereas sweden is hardly special in the first world when it comes to the latter.

#20 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,277 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 16 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

yes i know the outlier card is played the way it is.

im goofing on tinderbox wisdom of its own confirmation bias. truth is you have a hard time comparing the states to anyone else for health care or guns to get fair comparison. you can to a degree, just not straight up apples and oranges.

usually, sweden is mentioned for health care and that's one of the worst countries to compare to. germany or japan would be better for sheer size and age and diverse population.

same with the us and the swiss on guns. england and maybe germany and japan again would be a bit more fair.

#21 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:51 AM

hey did you guys know that if political dissidents in the nuclear-armed soviet union had firearms they could have stopped the purges


Well you are exactly right, what is your point?

#22 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:59 AM

The entire Republican ideology can be summed up in one word: hyperbole

In other words, they use extreme exaggeration and unrealistic comparisons to scare their small minded followers.

Topic:Gay marriage might become legal

Republican translation: What's next, we allow people to marry horses and dogs??

Topic: Assault weapons ban

Republican translation: THEY WILL COME DOOR TO DOOR AND TAKE YOUR PISTOLS. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HITLER DID AND THE GOVERNMENT IS PREPARING FOR A TAKEOVER. CLING TO YOUR WEAPONS AND BIBLES BECAUSE OBAMA IS COMING FOR US ALL!!!!!!!

Topic: Obama wins the presidency

Republican translation: This is the beginning of the end of our country. Buy farmland and stock up on gold and other precious metals. It won't be much longer before the country falls apart completely and all will be chaotic. (Glen Beck actually said something along these lines)


It has nothing to do with right vs. left, but it is sad that the liberals see it that way.

It is about protecting our liberty and Constitution.





The Constitution is nothing but a peice of paper without armed citizens to protect it. If people fear their government, you have tyranny. If the government fears their people, you have Liberty.

#23 SooSlow84

SooSlow84

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • LocationYour mother's basement

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:37 PM

It has nothing to do with right vs. left, but it is sad that the liberals see it that way.

It is about protecting our liberty and Constitution.





The Constitution is nothing but a peice of paper without armed citizens to protect it. If people fear their government, you have tyranny. If the government fears their people, you have Liberty.

Good luck with your semiautomatic AK versus drones and tanks bro.

#24 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,737 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:10 PM

Last time I can remember an actual, honest to god attempt by just people, with no state assistance, to overthrow the government happened in 1786/87. The fighters were armed with the same weapons as the states.

The MILITIA that was necessary for the security of the Free State was called out to stop it.

And they succeeded in stopping it quickly, leading to not only the complete disintegration of gun nuts wet dreams of today, but also led to the far more federal centric government we have today.

http://en.wikipedia....Shays_Rebellion

What happens when the elected government gets tired of threats post Shays Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia....iskey_Rebellion - at least they fought over booze and not guns.

In effect, people deciding to get their guns and go after the government for perceived injustices ended up in helping the government attain more power with the publics backing, and instead of anarchy based on people being nuts, we became the greatest nation in the history of the world.

At the time of the rebellion, the weaknesses of the federal government as constituted under the Articles of Confederation were apparent to many. A vigorous debate was going on throughout the states on the need for a stronger central government, with Federalists arguing for the idea, and Anti-Federalists opposing them. Historical opinion is divided on what sort of role the rebellion played in the formation and later ratification of the United States Constitution, although most scholars agree it played some role, at least temporarily drawing some anti-Federalists to the strong government side.[60] By early 1785 many influential merchants and political leaders were already agreed that a stronger central government was needed. A convention at Annapolis, Maryland, in September 1786 of delegates from five states concluded that vigorous steps needed to be taken to reform the federal government, but it disbanded because of a lack of full representation, calling for a convention of all the states to be held in Philadelphia in May 1787.[61] Historian Robert Feer notes that several prominent figures had hoped that convention would fail, requiring a larger-scale convention, and French diplomat Louis-Guillaume Otto thought the convention was intentionally broken off early to achieve this end.[62]
In early 1787 John Jay wrote that the rural disturbances and the inability of the central government to fund troops in response made "the inefficiency of the Federal government [become] more and more manifest."[63] Henry Knox observed that the uprising in Massachusetts clearly influenced local leaders who had previously opposed a strong federal government. Historian David Szatmary writes that the timing of the rebellion "convinced the elites of sovereign states that the proposed gathering at Philadelphia must take place."[64] Some states, Massachusetts among them, delayed choosing delegates to the proposed convention, in part because in some ways it resembled the "extra-legal" conventions organized by the protestors before the rebellion became violent.[65]
The convention that met in Philadelphia was dominated by strong-government advocates.[66] Delegate Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut argued that because the people could not be trusted (as exemplified by Shays' Rebellion), the members of the federal House of Representatives should be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote.[67] The example of Shays' Rebellion may also have been influential in the addition of language to the constitution concerning the ability of states to manage domestic violence, and their ability to demand the return of individuals from other states for trial.[68] The rebellion also played a role in the discussion of a number of the executives. While fearing tyranny, delegates of the Constitutional Convention though that the single executive would be more effective in responding to national disturbances.[69] Federalists cited the rebellion as an example of the confederation government's weaknesses, while opponents such as Elbridge Gerry thought that a federal response to the rebellion would have been even worse than that of the state. (Gerry, a merchant speculator and Massachusetts delegate from Essex County, was one of the few convention delegates who refused to sign the new constitution, although his reasons for doing so did not stem from the rebellion.)[70]
When the constitution had been drafted, Massachusetts was viewed by Federalists as a state that might not ratify it, because of widespread anti-Federalist sentiment in the rural parts of the state. Massachusetts Federalists, including Henry Knox, were active in courting swing votes in the debates leading up to the state's ratifying convention in 1788. When the vote was taken on February 6, 1788, representatives of rural communities involved in the rebellion voted against ratification by a wide margin, but the day was carried by a coalition of merchants, urban elites, and market town leaders. The state ratified the constitution by a vote of 187 to 168.[71]
Historians are divided on the impact the rebellion had on the ratification debates. Robert Feer notes that major Federalist pamphleteers rarely mentioned it, and that some anti-Federalists used the fact that Massachusetts survived the rebellion as evidence that a new constitution was unnecessary.[72] However, Leonard Richards counters that publications like the Pennsylvania Gazette explicitly tied anti-Federalist opinion to the rebel cause, calling opponents of the new constitution "Shaysites" and the Federalists "Washingtonians".[73] David Szatmary argues that debate in some states was affected, particularly in Massachusetts, where the rebellion had a polarizing effect.[74] Richards records Henry Jackson's observation that opposition to ratification in Massachusetts was motivated by "that cursed spirit of insurgency", but that broader opposition in other states originated in other constitutional concerns expressed by Elbridge Gerry, who published a widely distributed pamphlet outlining his concerns about the vagueness of some of the powers granted in the constitution and its lack of a Bill of Rights.[75]
The military powers enshrined in the constitution were soon put to use by President George Washington. After the passage by the United States Congress of the Whiskey Act, protest against the taxes it imposed began in western Pennsylvania. The protests escalated and Washington led federal and state militia to put down what is now known as the Whiskey Rebellion.[76]



#25 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,015 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:48 PM

Last time I can remember an actual, honest to god attempt by just people, with no state assistance, to overthrow the government happened in 1786/87. The fighters were armed with the same weapons as the states.

The MILITIA that was necessary for the security of the Free State was called out to stop it.

And they succeeded in stopping it quickly, leading to not only the complete disintegration of gun nuts wet dreams of today, but also led to the far more federal centric government we have today.

http://en.wikipedia....Shays_Rebellion

What happens when the elected government gets tired of threats post Shays Rebellion

http://en.wikipedia....iskey_Rebellion - at least they fought over booze and not guns.

In effect, people deciding to get their guns and go after the government for perceived injustices ended up in helping the government attain more power with the publics backing, and instead of anarchy based on people being nuts, we became the greatest nation in the history of the world.

[/sup]


No one brought up an overthrow of anything.

The second amendment is supposed to prevent that scenario from ever going too far in the first place. It is to defend Liberty, not to attack anyone.

#26 YourMomsLover

YourMomsLover

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,871 posts

Posted 24 February 2013 - 11:42 PM

Good luck with your semiautomatic AK versus drones and tanks bro.


Translation: "oh well they already have us beat. Might as well not even attempt to stand up against them if they become tyrannical. Lets just cower in the corner and do as they say."

Sounds like a forfeit to me. Pussy move.

#27 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,741 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:53 AM

so if everyone is armed to the point of being able to defeat governmental forces at will, what's to stop states from dissolving into warring clans? what's to stop attempts at group autonomy at will if they cannot be stopped by some governing body? is it not dangerous for any group in the country to have the technological means to overthrow a government?

actually i'm going to make a thread about this after i flesh that thought out a little bit

#28 gospodin shuttlesworth

gospodin shuttlesworth

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,642 posts

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:31 AM

Translation: "oh well they already have us beat. Might as well not even attempt to stand up against them if they become tyrannical. Lets just cower in the corner and do as they say."

Sounds like a forfeit to me. Pussy move.


based on the posts in this forum the government is already tyrannical so why aren't you doing anything about it

sounds like a forfeit to me

#29 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,737 posts

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:22 PM

No one brought up an overthrow of anything.

The second amendment is supposed to prevent that scenario from ever going too far in the first place. It is to defend Liberty, not to attack anyone.


Thats kind of baloney, as the guys involved in Shays Rebellion were defending liberty, or more to the point, defeating what they considered tyranny. By George Washington and some other of the FF.

The definition means whatever you want it to mean. To a Mormon, perhaps bigamy laws are tyrranical and preventing him from enjoying the liberty God and Joseph Smith granted him.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.