The Goat Pen

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:00 am**

Correct. And Cletus' desire to nullify a Constitutional Amendment is precisely the kind of tyranny that the 2A is there to protect against. With so many people around that agree with Cletus, we need the 2A now more than ever.

What other Constitutional Amendments do you want to get rid of, Cletus? The First is pretty outmoded and dangerous too. In a truly Enlightened society, we just can't have citizens speaking, journalizing, assembling, praying, and petitioning their government. That would be unsustainable.

PS, how's that overseas house hunt coming along?

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:06 am**

Toemeesleather wrote:The 2nd A has nothing to do w/wars or law enforcement, it's all about gov't/prez/tyrants getting too big for their britches. The founders knew the odds of losing "freedom" was most likely to come from within. So it IS relevant and proves the founders prescient.

This is another piece of American mythology. While it was plausibly true in the 18th century, it's not remotely true today.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:24 am**

I've always thought that the 2nd Amendment was a good idea for the beginning of our country and in my ambivalence (at best) and outright scorn (at worst) towards "the government", I have still held onto the belief that it's probably not a bad thing to have an armed populace, just to keep the government honest. But let's face it, we are not in danger whatsoever of the US government turning tyrannical or fascist, and it is a measure of the level of freedom that we do have that Donald Trump, who would be considered somewhere left of Nancy Pelosi in any truly fascist, right-wing regime (this is Prof's cue to start whining about how every despotic regime of the past century has really been leftist and liberal, blah blah blah) is getting so much anti-fascist grief.

Now clearly, I don't like the fact that we're now at the point of defending our president by having to say "well, he's not as bad as Stalin", but such appears to be the case. That said, I really don't think we're in danger of the US government and military turning on private citizens but if in some fantasy world they really did, no amount of shotguns and handguns would stop them or even slow them down in the slightest. It would be worse than when German tanks rolled into Poland and the Poles opposed them on horseback.

So really, while the idea of gun ownership as a bulwark against tyranny is an idea that resonates on some level even with me, i.e., someone who has never owned a gun and never will, it's really a pretty lame argument (if you can even call it that). Yes, in the earlier decades of the US and maybe even up until the 20th century, it might've been an argument (although I don't believe that we were in any danger even back then of the government turning against the people), it's just no longer the case. It's like the gold standard, back in the day maybe it was necessary to have gold backing the money (like maybe it was necessary to have citizens with guns to back up the rights of the people), but those days are over. We are no longer on the gold standard and we don't need to be, just like we don't need an armed citizenry to protect us from government tyranny.

Most gun owners just like having their guns, maybe it really does make them feel safer and clearly they like going out and popping them off at the firing range. And of course there's the issue of now that there are so many guns out there, it would take many generations to get rid of them, but that's another issue entirely. Ironically, the more rabid gun owners and 2nd Amendment hawks tend to be right wing, they don't see any problem when the US government is more right leaning. It seems like the only right they want to defend is their right to have a gun. Most of the other civil rights that we enjoy in the pursuit of happiness seem to be much further down the scale for them...

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:28 am**

"And Cletus' desire to nullify a Constitutional Amendment is precisely the kind of tyranny that the 2A is there to protect against. With so many people around that agree with Cletus, we need the 2A now more than ever. "

Any amendment in the Constitution can be repealed by democratic process. Voicing one's opinion about any of them or trying to get it changed is not tyranny, it's the cornerstone of our entire political system. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it tyranny. You clearly seem to think that having a gun gives you the right to dictate how things are going to go. I'd say your view of things is far more tyrannical then Cletus's...

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:30 am**

But that's really just in line with the NRA's motto "From my cold, dead hands." Many gun owners would reject every other principal of civil life and government and go to war if enough people were against it and the 2nd Amendment got repealed. Again, it seems pretty clear who are the supporters of tyranny are in this case...

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:40 am**

If Cletus wants to go through the legal process of amending the Constitution to abolish the 2A (or the 1A for that matter) by getting two thirds of both the House and Senate to propose it, and then get two thirds of the the state legislatures to ratify it, then I will have no complaint, and good luck with that.

But I don't think that's what Cletus has in mind. If/when the 2A is ever nullified, it would be by a liberal dominated SCOTUS. That has usually been the way the Left gets its way, rarely by the ballot box.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:46 am**

Cletus wrote:
Toemeesleather wrote:The 2nd A has nothing to do w/wars or law enforcement, it's all about gov't/prez/tyrants getting too big for their britches. The founders knew the odds of losing "freedom" was most likely to come from within. So it IS relevant and proves the founders prescient.
This is another piece of American mythology...

As usual, wildly incorrect:

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....

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.

-James Madison, Federalist #46

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:49 am**

So if the Supreme Court made a decision that in any way (in your mind, at least) infringed on what you perceive to be your 2nd Amendment rights, that would be the "tyranny" you cited in your original post, right?

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:51 am**

you're thinking too narrowly in your definition of government and not enough in your definition of tyranny.

Does an individual with an AR-15 stand a chance against a tank? Of course not. No one is going to take up arms against the entire Federal government in an attempt to nullify it.

But the second amendment isn't limited to the people overthrowing a tyrannical government who wields their armies against them.

The army is made up of our people. The theory there is that if there is an armed resistance against a corrupt government of any size and scope, the armies filled with the sons and daughters of Americans will side with the people.

The second amendment is more about tyranny at the local level - all government is at the local level. Its about not having to fear your government - whether its the local sheriff or the BATF, Homeland security, FEMA or the IRS.

We see examples of this in various forms over the years. The coal mining wars comes to mind as well as many other instances of unionization, fighting imminent domain/eviction, water rights, etc.,

Just 2 years ago, a group of armed citizens held off a branch of the government from confiscating the cattle of Clive Bundy. Given Waco, Ruby Ridge, and a handful of other instances, its very likely that had Clive Bundy pushed back against the BATF and in this case the Bureau of Land Management, he'd be six feet under. Instead, an armed citizenry made those men question whether confiscating cows was worth them being shot at by a sniper up on a hilltop and maybe a different approach where you don't show up with men in tactical gear and automatic weapons to discuss a cattle grazing issue was a better option.

Look at the struggles of black America - if it came down to you dying at the hands of a police officer who sees you as a criminal and you've done nothing wrong, wouldn't you want to be armed to stay alive and at least get your day in court? Even though I don't support BLM and often side with the police, there is no arguing that a young African American male is targeted by certain representatives of the government and a percentage of those black men are dying needlessly because of it. To defend yourself against that, if you choose to do so, is part of the second amendment.

Look at that Antifa group in Berkley where the Mayor tells the police to stand down. So you go there to attend a rally to support the president and you have to worry about people with masks hitting you with chains, bats and whatever - and the police are choosing a side, not the law. Is an armed citizen an outmoded model there?

You can't live in a country whose foundation is freedom , and using that freedom as its virtue to promote your views on immigration, gay rights, and whatever is the current "I talk about this to show how enlightened I am and it gets me laid" issue and then talk about how I shouldn't be able to own a gun.

You can say whatever horseshit you want about citizens owning a gun being an outdated idea, but there is no shortage of instances of government abuse simply because they assume the citizens are unable to stand up to them.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:51 am**

"It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops...."

That is laughable today. Like Cletus said, and I agree, maybe in the early days of the republic that was true, but not anymore...

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:54 am**

"The theory there is that if there is an armed resistance against a corrupt government of any size and scope, the armies will side with the people."

Evidently that's not what James Madison had in mind when he wrote "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops...."

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:57 am**

Ironically, when a group of citizens actually does exercise their right to take up arms against what they perceive to be a tyrannical government, as the South did in the Civil War, it's called treason when they lose. I guess might really does make right...

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:58 am**

More "pieces of American mythology" that the Founders considered the right to keep and bear arms essential to guard against tyranny.

George Mason of Virginia:

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." — Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." — Within Mason`s declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

Samuel Adams of Massachusetts:

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." — Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

Richard Henry Lee of Virginia:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

James Madison of Virginia:

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." — The Federalist, No. 46

Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania:

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people." — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Noah Webster of Pennsylvania:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Alexander Hamilton of New York:

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." — The Federalist, No. 29

Thomas Paine of Pennsylvania:

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

Fisher Ames of Massachusetts:

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:58 am**

hedge wrote:"The theory there is that if there is an armed resistance against a corrupt government of any size and scope, the armies will side with the people."

Evidently that's not what James Madison had in mind when he wrote "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops...."

A militia in his day was the people, the farmers, the shop keepers - there was no standing army. The weaponry was what was available to be had by anyone.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:59 am**

hedge wrote:Ironically, when a group of citizens actually does exercise their right to take up arms against what they perceive to be a tyrannical government, as the South did in the Civil War, it's called treason when they lose. I guess might really does make right...

in that case, the North was fighting secession from the Union.

The south didn't take up arms against a tyrannical government, they took up arms against a foreign government.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:03 am**

I haven't hunted anything in 30 years, but neighborhood squirrels know the wrath of my 8x-scoped pellet rifle. I've got guns in the house I haven't touched in 'I can't remember'. But I can get to one quick if I need it...home protection is a fundamental American right and that will never change. People make claims otherwise for their own nefarious reasons.

OTOH, I've never heard one reasonable defense of open carry laws. Open carry is archaic and has no place in a modern society.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:09 am**

hedge wrote:Like Cletus said, and I agree, maybe in the early days of the republic that was true, but not anymore...

What other Constitutional rights do you think were true in the early days of the Republic, but not anymore? Speech? Press? Religion (I think I already know the answer to that one)? Assembly? Present grievances to the government? Voting?

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:11 am**

bluetick wrote:I haven't hunted anything in 30 years, but neighborhood squirrels know the wrath of my 8x-scoped pellet rifle. I've got guns in the house I haven't touched in 'I can't remember'. But I can get to one quick if I need it...home protection is a fundamental American right and that will never change. People make claims otherwise for their own nefarious reasons.

OTOH, I've never heard one reasonable defense of open carry laws. Open carry is archaic and has no place in a modern society.

fortunately most people, as in an overwhelming number of people agree with that. Consider the number of gun owners in America and then think about how many you see walking around in public with a rifle slung on their shoulder or a handgun strapped to their leg.

I also think its absurd to carry a gun in public for just everyday concerns. We live in an America (with the exception of Chicago) where you can go to the grocery, movie theater, a bar, public park, whatever and have no reasonable concern of violence or robbery. Matter of fact, if you don't live in the highest crime ridden counties in America, somewhere around 60 or so (hello Chicago), the chances of you even encountering a felon with a violent past is almost negligible and consequently experiencing gun violence is almost struck by lighting type odds. Add to it the common sense belief that if you're going somewhere where you think you'll need a gun, then why in the world are you going?

That's the difference in viewpoint of us Middle Americans versus people that live in violent prone cities. Yes, moving is the answer.

I disagree completely with the surge of CCW people and the reasoning behind it. If I feel I need a gun to protect myself, I don't need a piece of paper saying I listened to a cop for 4 hours in order to use it. At the same time, there is no compelling reason to be carrying a gun if you live in the heartland. I know many people who have their CCW and mostly I'm muted about my opinions in regards to it, but it seems like a power trip to me more than a rational need.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:14 am**

hedge wrote:But that's really just in line with the NRA's motto "From my cold, dead hands."

"You can have my gun if you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers". I had an uncle who had that sticker taped to his cash register all the way back to the 50's.

Just as catchy as "Keep the government out of my uterus" if you ask me. Plus, the reasoning is absolutely the same.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:16 am**

We live in an America (with the exception of Chicago) where you can go to the grocery, movie theater, a bar, public park, whatever and have no reasonable concern of violence or robbery.

Well, I would add to that list of exceptions Compton CA, East St. Louis IL, Detroit MI, North Philly PA, and a few other places.

The Goat Pen

Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles

Re: Florida State Seminoles