That is such an ignorant and overused comment against the founding fathers. It has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights. None of what was drafted in those documents concern protecting slavery.

The point is that the founding fathers weren't perfect and neither was the country or documents they created.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

You do realize that one of the many reasons the southern states joined the revolution was because of a rather strong abolitionist movement in England at the time, right? The British Empire outlawed slavery in all of its colonies long before our Civil War finally brought it to an end here.

As far as slavery in the Constitution? Why do you think they included the 3/5ths rule? That was so the Southern states could count a portion of their slaves towards representation in the Congress which would have been much worse for them because their white population was so much smaller than the Northern states, even then. The abolitionist movement brewing in England was already starting in New England and the Middle Atlantic states, and the South knew that a majority of NOrthern states might just take away their slavery driven agrarian economy.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

Jesus fucking Christ, people. That situation is never ever going to happen. Ever.

Which situation you ask? The one where all of a sudden the United States Government goes all tyrant like and the POTUS declares himself emperor and starts rounding people up.

Never ever ever happen. Not here.

As a democratically elected republic this is a virtual impossibility. Any President that tries a power grab of that magnitude here wouldn't remain in office very long at all. Not only would the freedom loving generals of our armed forces instantly start disobeying orders, but so would a huge portion of enlisted men and women and officers everywhere. And then there's local law enforcement. Round up our own citizens? Are you kidding me?

Imagine what kind of shit storm that would be on every news station. I haven't even mentioned the monied interests and lobbyists. Something like that happening here, in the United States, would cripple not just the local but the global economy. It's such a bullshit argument.

_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.

Never say never. People can be brainwashed into believing that taking away rights is a good thing (see: 2nd amendment). Take away one right, then move onto the next.

An emp hits the united states, could be caused naturally by the sun even. One happened about a hundred years ago which woulda blown the fuck out of our infrastructure today. So, electricity is down, most of the vehicles don't work, no internet. The president takes charge, starts organizing the military to provide aid to the US. They've gotta move all these people in the cities to camps so they can properly feed them and take care of them, they'll be disarmed of course or they could riot or attack the authorities. People would flock to the camps, who knows in this day and age how to survive without their car let alone electricity? The infrastructure would take a lot of time to bring back up, probably a year or more. The people start getting used to the camps, but there's a shortage of food, clean water, medicine. There are a lot of people to take care of after all. So some people try and leave the camps, but the military is told to keep them there for their own safety.

I don't even need to extrapolate on this whole scenario. It could never happen, not in the United States. It's inconceivable. Except in a disaster, then it would actually be expected of our government to do this sort of thing.

I'm not saying I believe this will happen, but I absolutely see it as a possibility, and this wouldn't even be seen by the people as a form of tyranny, because the government is just trying to help.

No. The Japanese leadership had no intention of invading the US. Not because of the guns. Because it didnt have the people to do it. It was already engaged in a war in China. You think Japan thought it could sustain an invasion of China, not win that, and then think it could invade the US? Youve fallen victim to the simplified version of WWII where people simply say the Axis was trying to take over the world. I have no idea where Nazi Germany drew their lines in their head, but Italy and Japan had more concrete goals. If you can show me a single document by the Japanese army or navy that talks about invading the US mainland I will eat my hat.

The founding fathers instilled a republic as a way of circumventing tyranny. Like Marx did in his late years, they realized that by having a representative democracy you in theory eliminate tyranny. The 2nd amendment makes it very clear the purpose of having guns..its not to protect the people from government..it is to protect the government from rebellion. In the 1780s there were a series of rebellions and near rebellions in the the new United States, partially as a result of the weak government in place under the Federalist papers. The biggest and most famous rebellion was the Shay rebellion and had to be put down by militia.. its not a coincidence then that 2 years later it was in this context that militia are mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

As far as me not mentioning that Jews were forbidden by the 1938 law in Germany from having firearms.. that wasnt some weird academic dishonesty. I felt that was already widely known, its the part anti gun control activists love to go on about.
But lets talk about guns in the 3rd Reich.. the Jews and Roma (Gypsies) were the groups that suffered the most. But they were not the only ones. ALL of Germany was suffering from Hitlers policies by 1945.. he continued a hopeless war that the people knew was hopeless. So.. did the arm populace rebel against Hitler and his tyranny? Oh. No. Did the parishioners of churches whose priest had been taken away take up arms? Did the families and parents of the disabled and mentally handicapped fight back? Did the firearm owners who were later accused of being communists then use their firearms rather than be arrested, say, in 1944 when people knew that when you were taken away on a train you never came back?

No. The lesson of Nazi Germany isnt one of what a population will do against its government if armed. The lesson is one of a strange social dynamic. Well after Jews realized they were being exterminated, they continued to board trains..continued even to be herded into the "showers". Those here boldly proclaiming that YOU would be the one to shoot back might take some time to ponder if you are truly so special.. 6 million Jews..led to their deaths.. 99.99% of them without armed protest. Millions of homosexuals, gypsies, disabled, POWs, communists.. the same. But you , you would rather go out in a gun fight. Knowing its certain death anyway..why didnt those being rounded up? yes..in 1943 they didnt know what was in store. But those in the camps themselves didnt try to over come the gaurds.. well after they knew what was happening.
The lesson to be learned isnt about firearms. Its about the power of psychology, propaganda.. the power of evil and standing up to it BEFORE you are being herded onto a train.. before its YOUR group they are coming after..

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

awww yes excuses, excuses, excuses. Same old bs.

And of course a government would never take over the population like that. No of course not. Just ask Hitler.

He took over when the country was in chaos, restored order, gave the people something to believe in. Came close to conquering the world. In face might have done it if he had let his military people make the proper military decisions. If he had done that we might be speaking German and all be blonde and blue eyed. And for sure not Jewish.

so no.......could never happen.

In a pigs ass it couldn't!!!

_________________

Still missing you everyday pal.

Yes Radish..and he did it all with an armed population. So..what is the relevance? Hitler didnt "take over" a population, he was voted into power and was a popular leader. As I wrote, even when he rode them into destruction..even when he sent peoples priests, disable relatives, "communist" professors, "traitorous" media to death camps.. the armed population sat by.

If the US were "taken over" by such a person.. it would mean he was voted into power, so guns would be of no use. The protection against domestic tyranny doesnt come from a gun in your house. It comes from an educated and active electorate.

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

Finally, some actual intelligence in the discussion.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Yes, guns aren't to protect a tyrant from getting elected, but rather are meant to be used as a tool to protect yourself from and overthrow the tyrant.

You don't overthrow a tyrant, you never give him power.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Tyrants do gain power, and they do get overthrown. Usually a person isn't known as a tyrant until they gain power. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Tyrants rise to power, they don't just suddenly have unabated power.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.-Thomas Jefferson



And one more for all you who just love government control...“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Now feel free to discuss how our modern society is so much smarter than theirs, how nothing bad can ever happen to us, and how our president loves to drop candy canes Popsicles and drone strikes... I mean fairy dust all over the world.

Modern society is much smarter than theirs.

All these quotes are from the 1700s. The 1700s is a different place and different time with different circumstances. Your using his quotes of specific reactions to things in the 1700s not great enduring philosophy.

We learn from history, we don't use direct quotes and assume they work in our times.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

You're right man, rights are subjective. The first amendment shouldn't count for the internet, because, well, who saw that coming right?

Free speech is constantly under scrutiny and debate. Limited free speech is also a basic human right.

Good one!

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

We might know more than they do, but I don't believe we're more intelligent.

You're using a bunch of made up quotes. Those were invented.
For example, prior to 2007 you will find no reference or mention of the "the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that...." quote. Because he didn't say it. That one is particularly obvious because it's not 18th century speech.
A bit of a hint: if you get quotes from a mass email from you particular political leaning, and it seems almost to perfect to be true-- it's probably made up.
The quotes here date from 1992, 1994, 2007.. And can easily be found online in their original . The research debunking then can also be found.

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”