Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
He who commands the military branches controls the country, be it President or rebel leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Be careful, not all their answers are correct.

For example. The first question asks which right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It gives several examples such as protection from unreasonable searches, free speech, and the right to own a gun.

They list the correct answer as the right to keep and bear arms. This is not correct. The 2nd Amendment protects ALL of the Constitutional rights. That is the only reason it was included.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

---

You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

When do propagandists bother themselves with factual info?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.

---

Quote:

---

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!

I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!

I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!

---

Really? You just lost your vote, what do you do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?

---

Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.

---

Quote:

---

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

---

Quote:

---

The Battle of Matewan (also known as the Matewan Massacre) was a shootout in the town of Matewan, West Virginia in Mingo County on May 19, 1920 between local miners and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.

---

Quote:

---

Tom Felts, the last remaining Felts brother, planned on avenging his brothers' deaths by sending undercover operatives to collect evidence to convict Sid Hatfield and his men. When the charges against Hatfield, and 22 other people, for the murder of Albert Felts were dismissed, Baldwin-Felts detectives assassinated Hatfield and his deputy Ed Chambers on August 1, 1921, on the steps of the McDowell County Courthouse located in Welch, West Virginia. Of those defendants whose charges were not dismissed, all were acquitted.

---

Quote:

---

The Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the largest civil uprisings in United States history and the largest armed rebellion since the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders, who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

---

Quote:

---

The Battle of Kings Mountain was a decisive battle between the Patriot and Loyalist militias in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. The actual battle took place on October 7, 1780, nine miles south of the present-day town of Kings Mountain, North Carolina in rural York County, South Carolina, where the Patriot militia defeated the Loyalist militia commanded by British Major Patrick Ferguson of the 71st Foot.

Ferguson had arrived in North Carolina in early September 1780 with the purpose of recruiting for the Loyalist militia and protecting the flank of Lord Cornwallis' main force. Ferguson issued a challenge to the rebel militias to lay down their arms or suffer the consequences. In response, the Patriot militias led by James Johnston, William Campbell, John Sevier, Joseph McDowell and Isaac Shelby rallied for an attack on Ferguson.

---

Quote:

---

The Battle of Kings Mountain lasted 65 minutes. The Loyalists suffered 290 killed, 163 wounded, and 668 taken prisoner. The Patriot militia suffered 29 killed and 58 wounded.

---

Quote:

---

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.

---

*blink*
.......
*DOPESLAP!*

MADISON, you dimwit - in Federalist #46, fer cryin out loud you gettin senile on us or what ?!
No extra credit for YOU, lawyer-boy!

Oh, and 10/11 is wrong in light of the assertions of Tench Coxe and others.

Quote:

---

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

---

10 USC @ 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Just because some find it inconvenient, just because the rule of law is ignored and trampled upon, makes it no less the law of the land - restricting the Second Amendment without invoking the amendment process would be like passing laws to forbid persons of certain race/religion from using public transportation, for example, the legal superiority of a Constitutional Amendment would forbid this.

Let's not pretend that isn't what's going on here.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
A) Take up arms
B) Do nothing, your vote never counted anyways
C) Petition the government through legal means and protest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.

---

Quote:

---

Another example is Germany in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch

---

Quote:

---

The things you point to are 1780, 1920, 1921, etc. Think of how different things are now--merely the population of the country, and you have to have a large portion of the population willing to rebel. Do you REALLY imagine enough Americans standing up to rebel in these times?? I just cannot. And anything less than a major revolt can easily be put down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Battle of Kings Mountain was a decisive battle between the Patriot and Loyalist militias in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. The actual battle took place on October 7, 1780, nine miles south of the present-day town of Kings Mountain, North Carolina in rural York County, South Carolina, where the Patriot militia defeated the Loyalist militia commanded by British Major Patrick Ferguson of the 71st Foot.

Ferguson had arrived in North Carolina in early September 1780 with the purpose of recruiting for the Loyalist militia and protecting the flank of Lord Cornwallis' main force. Ferguson issued a challenge to the rebel militias to lay down their arms or suffer the consequences. In response, the Patriot militias led by James Johnston, William Campbell, John Sevier, Joseph McDowell and Isaac Shelby rallied for an attack on Ferguson.

Mind you, describing the Wataugans as Patriots is kinda stretching it there, they were the closest thing the colonies had to Anarchists, and bore as little love for the Colonials as they did the Crown, you see ?

But then along comes Ferguson, and he tells em to hand over their guns or he would lay waste to the countryside with fire and sword, aka OR ELSE.
Of course, no fools the Wataugans, they made the obvious connection that if they DID hand them over, they'd wind up staring down the barrels of those same weapons in the hands of Fergusons men as he did much much worse than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And for anyone thinking of saying "See, this is why the Second Amendment is useless!" - allow me to point out that if said amendment had not been so badly infringed, distorted and abused by well meaning and gullible fools, those miners would have obliterated them

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Just a subject we'll have to agree to disagree on, if you can be even that reasonable. You've pretty much pushed our friendship right out the door with your nastiness, snarking about it being "inconvenient" just pushes it further. I've made reasonable arguments against your position; if you can't do the same without snarking, just don't respond. You've done enough damage with that particular obsession, and I've mourned the loss of how I felt about you ever since.

---

Quote:

---

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are - for if one can pass a law infringing on the Second Amendment in that way, it then becomes precedent and ammunition for infringing on the First, Fourth and others in a similar fashion, eventually rendering the whole purpose of those Amendments an exercise in futility and reducing them to naught more than a mostly ignored pretense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,

---

That's the funniest thing I've seen since Manti T'eo's fake internet girlfriend died.

"If you need a friend get a dog." G.G.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
There is a reason some things are Constitutional Amendments, it is to prevent state laws from overturning what were felt to be essential human freedoms, a check against tyranny of the majority by insisting on a difficult process which requires an extreme and overwhelming amount of support to prevent abuse of the system by folks with agendas not supported by the whole of the people, in fact it's the closest thing our entire legal structure has to mutually agreed consent.

---

Quote:

---

As you well know I am an Anarchist, and I begrudgingly accepted the Constitution as a minimum standard in tolerance of the fact that others seem to want and need a structure even if I feel it is not the benefit they believe it is, therefore I am bound by both ethics and oath to support that Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded - something I take pretty damned seriously as it has put me in conflict with many persons and factions over the years.

---

Quote:

---

I say again, *IF* you wanna mess with a Constitutional Amendment, then you go to the Amendment process - this is how it's done, it's called the rule of law, due process, and it is there for a reason

---

Quote:

---

Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are -

---

Quote:

---

I find this hurtful and confusing, but you've a right to your own life and feelings

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I've heard of rights being added, but I have not heard of rights being taken away.

Which national laws have been "whittled" away?

---

Quote:

---

Not much of an Anarchist...hell, you sound like a Federalist. That's like saying, 'I'm a Christian, but I worship Allah because...you know...its the popular thing around here."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I want to point out that the precedent for weapons ban was established by Congress in 1934, I'm referring to the National Firearms Act, which, in effect, established a ban on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?

---

Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

For example, in the Soviet Union there was one party, no opposition. There was a Constitution that had even more expressions of liberty and freedom then our own. They had elections with near 100% turnout. You go in, you vote for the one choice you had...party line votes all the way down the ballot. If you don't vote (which is your only choice) you get a visit from the Committee for State Security and possibly an all expenses paid trip to summer camp...in Siberia...in winter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.

---

Quote:

---

And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power. After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.

---

Quote:

---

Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.

---

Quote:

---

But I noticed something, that I only heard of in passing, that sounds very much like a BAN of a certain type of gun - Congress passing the National Firearms Act of 1934, in response to a mass killing, very similar to the outrage of Newtown and the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary.

"The grisly shooting on Feb. 14, 1929 was the result of a “disagreement” between Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Seven of Moran’s men were riddled with bullets fired from two Thompson submachine guns. One contained a 20-round magazine, the other 50-rounds. The assailants also used shotguns. The escalating firepower being used by criminal gangs alarmed law enforcement, Congress, and the public."

Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?

---

Quote:

---

I get from your statement, among other things, that you feel that the Amendment process is being bypassed? How so? It is my understanding that Congress is imbued with that power, as determined by the Constitution

---

Quote:

---

And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.

---

Quote:

---

Less than 24 hours after his appearance on PBS’ Frontline, where he struggled to explain why his office had brought not one single indictment against a high-level Wall Street executive related to the 2008 financial crisis, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer has reportedly decided to step down.

The Washington Post reports that no specific time-frame for Breuer’s departure has been given, so it’s possible he’ll continue to not prosecute bank executives for some time.

---