PDA

View Full Version : Slaying leftist mythology.



LWW
09-28-2012, 07:46 AM
It has long been an argument of the statists the the second amendment has been misinterpreted, and that our founders didn't see the citizenry as te militia standing between tyranny and freedom.

Today, let's review what they actually believed ... and explore how these thoughts cause yet another leftist myth to shed it's lifeblood on the sharp blade of truth.


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-Thomas Jefferson-

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

-Patrick Henry-


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

-George Washington-

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton-

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."

-From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775-

Next ... let's review what some famous leftists believed.

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

-Mao Tse-Tung-

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

-Adolf Schiklgruber Hitler-

Any questions?

CLASS DISMISSED (http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html)

Soflasnapper
09-28-2012, 10:01 AM
It has long been an argument of the statists the the second amendment has been misinterpreted, and that our founders didn't see the citizenry as te militia standing between tyranny and freedom.

I think you misstate the case, and who made it.

Until the Heller case, it was the consistent ruling of the SCOTUS (not a haven of leftists nor statists, historically, in my opinion) that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but a societal right related to being in the militia (of all able bodied men, but to be well regulated), as the early, independent clause of the 2nd amendment more or less says, directly on its face. Which I think is the opposite of what you've claimed.

Then there's the perplexity of the COTUS, Article I, section 8 (the (enumerated) powers of Congress):

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>suppress Insurrections</span> and repel Invasions;

So the idea that the militia is there to perform insurrections, as well as to suppress them, is confusing.

Still more confusing, the ruling in Heller says the 2nd amendment provides an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms, not with relation to being in the militia, but just period. I believe the reasoning was self-defense, and not the ability to resist the government with violent force in the alleged defense of freedom against tyranny, but I may be mistaken.

Heller case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290) linked, with the oral arguments and summaries linked at that site.

LWW
09-28-2012, 02:47 PM
You just aren't capable of getting it are you?

Soflasnapper
09-28-2012, 05:04 PM
Your points? I agree, hard to get them.

But how is it that the COTUS says the militia is there to put down, suppress, insurrections, and you claim they are there to be the insurrection? At a minimum, wouldn't the militias then be arrayed against each other?

LWW
09-28-2012, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your points? I agree, hard to get them.

But how is it that the COTUS says the militia is there to put down, suppress, insurrections, and you claim they are there to be the insurrection? At a minimum, wouldn't the militias then be arrayed against each other? </div></div>

It's actually quite simple.

The defense of a government that is operating within the confines of the COTUS against insurrection is as equally justified as creating an insurrection against a government that is imposing tyranny.

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 09:37 AM
And when opinions differ?

Qtec
09-29-2012, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">t has long been an argument of the statists the the second amendment has been misinterpreted, and that our founders didn't see <u>the citizenry as te militia standing between tyranny and freedom.</u> </div></div>

When the US Con was written, there was a real threat of invasion. That threat is no more. Now you have an army to protect you.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 01:20 PM
Back in those days, the idea of a standing army was anathema to the Founders and their era.

Having an army loitering around could lead to no good. Either they'd lobby for and start a war, or turn on the people and the government, or be used by the government against the people.

That was the reason that uniquely, the COTUS prescribes no funding bill for the military shall be for more than a 2 year period.

The sick irony is that the supposed strict constructionists, limited government special pleaders only focus on restricting the social welfare side of government spending, and wholly ignore the Founders' and the COTUS' grave doubts about the utility of a standing army or military structure, or Washington's Farewell Address' warnings concerning the dangers of foreign entanglements and allying ourselves with foreign governments.

And actually now, most people consider the National Guard to be the bulwark of the homeland defense, not the regular military per se.

LWW
09-29-2012, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when opinions differ? </div></div>

If you want Jefferson's opinion ... it was that an armed revolt happen every twenty years or so.

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 02:16 PM
You supplied the rest of his thinking, and it was bizarre and unfortunate.

That misinformed people ought to get in the face of the governmen with armed rebellion, be put down in bloody fashion while being educated with the proper information, and then have the rebels pardoned???

Yes, I'm presuming the total quote you gave is true, but wtf?