well ok. i dont know the area. the federalist papers arent law. the supreme court never discusses the right to bear arms in terms of killing local tyrants, i dont think….but if thats what the constitution really really means, then i guess thats what it means. it doesnt feel like the political process should work like that, but maybe it should. “should i lose, the vote is rigged, and your vote is not counted …avenge my loss. kill the tyrants. kill them all. blast them with muskets and blunderbusses!! cut off their heads with farm tools!!!”.
[/quote]Taking a quote out of context might work with Trump, but not me. I never said that an individual or small group should take action. The weapons are there should the citizens as a majority need to take collective action.
To think about:
What if the vote is rigged but law enforcement decides to do nothing? – Remember that the Executive branch controls law enforcement.
What is our vote worth? Is it ok for the vote to be rigged so long as it goes in the direction a particular person wants?
At what price does integrity sell for?
What insures that our vote does get counted?
[quote=scaredyclassic]
that just doesnt feel right to me…but maybe i dont really understand the 2nd am. i guess what your saying it means, historically, is that a presidential candidate (or really, any leader of the People, at least those people who are Oppressed)) is merely following the spirit of the constitution if he tells his followers to kill the other side upon losing because theyre tyrannical? is that really what you mean?[/quote]
No, you don’t get it. The Federalists Papers, while not law, go to intent and why certain parts are written the way they are.
The “picking up of arms” is not to be taken lightly, and should ONLY be considered on last resort.
The intent is to prevent Oppression. How do you defend life when the government decides to operate outside of the constitutional and legal processes? To take when it feels like – giving any reason it feels like? To potentially kill or imprison citizens at will?
To make it simple:
Scenario 1:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – no body around. What do you do? What happens.
Some people will look around to see if anybody is looking and then take the money and run.
Some people will look around to see if anybody is there and if nobody, take it to the police/lost and found.
Some people (very few) will just walk on by.
Scenario 2:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.
Some people if armed or larger than the scrawny person may just walk up and take it – particularly when there is nobody around that could assist the scrawny person.
Some people would go up and ask about it and offer to help watch it or help take it to the police.
Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.
Scenario 3:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a some really scrawny people are near it – may be guarding it. There is nobody else around.
A few people, particularly if armed, will go and take it by force.
Some people will go up and ask what is going on, maybe offer to help.
Some people (more than a few now) will just walk on by.
Scenario 4:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.
Very few people would try to take the money, and probably only if they were armed too.
Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.
Some people will be scared off just because the scrawny person has a firearm.
Scenario 5:
A picnic table with $10,000 on it – a really scrawny person is near it – may be guarding it. The scrawny person is obviously armed.
Hardly anyone would consider trying to take the money, even if armed and stronger. Too many scrawny people with firearms.
Some people will ask what’s up and potentially ask if help is needed.
Some people will be scared off just because of a lot of scrawny people with firearms.
The money represents our collective rights. The right to walk down the street safely, the right to our freedoms.. the good old life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The scrawny person is us. The people possibly taking the money are those who want to profit from our loss of rights. I use money in the analogy above because the concept of rights are intangibles but the consequences of the loss of those rights are not intangible. Many people just punt on the idea of defending something intangible, but react when it is something tangible. Money is a lot easier for some people to relate to in terms of identifying human behavior.
Your comments kind of remind me of an argument of sorts that I had a long time ago. The person who I was arguing with was arguing against actions to defend our rights. His attitude was that ‘someone else will take care of that’. He was quite stubborn in his position. I tried everything to explain it. Then I thought of something. The person was quite proud of their faux cowboy hat (not even proper size and composition). I threatened to take that hat, at which the person threatened to beat me up. Kind of funny considering that at the time I weighed in at 190lbs, 6’2″ was known to practice martial arts and he was 140lbs soaking wet and about 5’6″. I asked him if it wasn’t a little stupid to get all worked up and risk getting the crap beat out for a stupid hat, yet not investing anything in defending basic human rights and expecting everyone else to take the sacrifice to defend them.
I don’t feel the comments that you made are serious, and may be reverting to a troll styled reply.
