[Xbow]

Very true. The only thing more dangerous than an infantryman with an assault rifle is a patient pissed off hillbilly with a 30'06 and a scope.

True. Or the friendly dentist that owns a rack of hunting/semi automatic rifles, The surveyor with a .22-250 Varmint rifle, The banker with a Quad-Runner and a few rifles and shotguns. The bottom lines is that a government that has gone over to the dark side is in serious trouble from:

The civilian population (The militia organized or un-organized), the majority of the constabulary, and as time passes the regular military and the national guard will be in a state of non compliance with respect to the agents of totalitarianism and assist the citizenry in the reestablishment of the constitution. And as you said the tradition of citizen soldiers is still very strong.

But I still maintain that we do not need privately owned MANPADS, F-15 fighters or cruise missiles.

[Baff]

Yeah but that guy the other week totally failed to assasinate Mr Obama with his assault rifle.
A bazooka might have been a better bet.

[Drlee]

But I still maintain that we do not need privately owned MANPADS, F-15 fighters or cruise missiles.

I absolutely agree with you. I believe there are some natural limits on the peivate ownership of weapons and that those limits are not hard to figure out.

[Xbow]

Yeah but that guy the other week totally failed to assasinate Mr Obama with his assault rifle.A bazooka might have been a better bet.

Baff! I thought you wanted to be taken seriously? As bad as he appears to be, Mr. Obama has not destroyed the Republic, he has not attempted to make himself king or dictator, has not suspended habeas corpus etc etc etc....he is simply a garden variety progressive Jerk that will be dealt with through the traditional non violent method of being tossed out of office. The shooter in question is a deranged individual who's actions are in no way relevant to this discussion.

[Baff]

Why?
Because you don't happen to agree with him?

Neither do I, but it's the same right was exercising that your constitution advocates.
The right to hold the government to account by force of arms.

This is why it's a stupid precedent.

It's the same problem as your Marine Corp scenario.
Who gets to decide when the government is illegitemate and needs to be removed by men with guns?

[Xbow]

Why? Because you don't happen to agree with him?

NO! because the constitution doesn't agree with him. The few rounds that were fired at the white house were the act of a deranged moron that could care less about the constitution. How was that nutbag defending the constitution by shooting at a building in the hope of hitting a man that has not violated the constitution by suspending it and has not set himself up as a dictator? Answer that.

Additionally it is the RIGHT and DUTY of THE PEOPLE to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Note: this is a collective right not an individual right. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Sic Semper Tyrannis

Neither do I, but it's the same right was exercising that your constitution advocates.

NO IT IS NOT! the right of THE PEOPLE to hold the government to account by force of arms is a measure of LAST RESORT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

This is why it's a stupid precedent. It's the same problem as your Marine Corp scenario.

Jesus you must be kidding! Are you trying to be stupid or do you have reading problem?
YOU INVENTED THE MARINE CORPS scenario not me. You stupidly pulled a reference to the USMC out of context because you can't mount an effective argument.

NOW, LETS SEE IF YOU CAN READ.

I know its a terribly difficult concept but a pack of assholes like the Montana Free Men do not have the right to break away from the union because it pleases them to do so. If a pack of assholes said Obama must be removed because he wants to redistribute the wealth of the nation I would say to them Fuck Off and then watch the FBI, DHS, ATF etc chew their heads off and then applaud the action of the government.

However if a president declared Martial law, dissolved congress, rendered the will of the people meaningless and set up draconian internal control mechanisms me and about 150,000,000 other adult citizens of the USA would take whatever steps were necessary to restore the Constitution and that would include the vast bulk of the military and state & federal law enforcement. Would the Rogue government stand a chance of holding on to power? I think not unless the tiny fraction of the U.S. military and FLE that remained loyal to the unconstitutional government were in some way capable of killing huge numbers of citizens that were bent on restoring the Constitution the tyrants would LOSE very quickly.

The Military, militia, citizenry (The People) are sworn to defend the CONSTITUTION not the Government or the leadership of that government that is violating the constitution via the misuse of the appendages of government. In such a case any actions taken by THE PEOPLE (a very large group) to restore the Constitution are completely legal and can in no way be considered to be an insurrection. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

It is completely legal for the Government to suspend certain elements of the constitution for a limited time during a real war (Read Invasion) or a:
National Emergency such as a natural disaster, atomic attack, or a Plague that has been naturally or artificially induced. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Is this you Baff? People should give up their liberty for freedom 01:20 to 01:29. I have faith that the British population is not delusional. And even if the UK doesn't have a single document like the constitution the UK is one of the last places on earth where a totalitarian government could set up shop. If such a government took power the people in conjunction with the military would remove such a government FULL STOP.

With respect to YOU this discussion is closed as far as I am concerned.

[Drlee]

IT IS NOT! the right of THE PEOPLE to hold the government to account by force of arms is a measure of LAST RESORT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I want to add another caveat to this. The consitution CLEARLY says "A well ordered militia..." Now come on folks. The constitution does not imagine, and no thinking person could possibly assign to the founders the idea that they favored giving each citizen the right to keep arms so he could individually overthrow the government simply because he thinks someone is behaving in an unconstitutional way. Consider:

. The president is NOT the government. The founders did not imagine a powerful president anyway.

CLEARLY they thought of militias as state controlled organizations. The keys being state controled and organizations. They did NOT imagine some group of yahoos called the "National Defense Club" thinking of itself as defender of the constitution. When the founders used the term state they were talking not about the central government but the individual states. So. Protecting the constitution by force of arms would be accomplished by militias under the control of the governors of the several states.

Now guess what happened? About 60 years after the ratification of the constution, some states tried to violate it and succeed. Who did they call? Both sides. A bunch of GI wannabees with rifles? Nope. Under the orders of the governors of the various states the state militias were called upon to defend the constitution against a threat to the constitution by the southers states in the case of the north.

Are we sure about this? Yup. in 1807 the Supreme Court ruled, ""there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war." So an individual can't levy war against the US by definition. An individual who undertakes to depose the government is a common criminal guilty of assault or murder but not treason. They are not afforded the honor of having their actions looked at in that light. This is key. So pay attention to this decision. These justices were appointed by George Washington and John Adams. They knew quite well what the "intent of the founders" was. They could knock on the door and ask them if they wanted. You could say that these justices WERE "the founders".

So the individual possession of any particular type of weapon has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with overthrowing some errant government. Nothing at all.

I favor the individual right to keep and bear arms. I do not think this has anything to do with defending the constitution from some internal threat. That is what state militias may be called upon to do. For some assembly of men to take up arms against the central government on the pretext that they are defending the constitution is treason. And it is punishable by death.

Tyhe fuck wad who shot at the white house the other day is a common criminal. There is no political significance to what he did. To even think that there could be does this piece of shit criminal too mucn honor.

[Xbow]

I agree 100% Dr.Lee and I think that your post is clear enough to end the discussion.

CLEARLY they thought of militias as state controlled organizations. The keys being state controled and organizations.

I agree, the militia was meant to activated and controlled by a State Government that is acting in accordance with the Constitution hence If the Militia is activated it is assumed that whatever they will be doing will be in compliance with the constitution. If that is not the case and the Militia were to be used to round up citizens en-mass or operate concentration camps the militia, the Regular military & National guard, the FEL and LLE would refuse such unlawful orders may refuse an activation order. And please no one tell me about Katrina, that was simple incompetence and stupidity.

I favor the individual right to keep and bear arms. I do not think this has anything to do with defending the constitution from some internal threat.

This where we differ a bit but in truth it is a small difference because in order for the militia to be used legally to oppose an errant government the States would have to have formed a consensus that the federal Government was acting outside of its authority and in violation of the Constitution and thus the people. And the consensus would have to be very broad! And that is a far cry from something the inbred boneheads in "The Glittering Knights Of The Round Table Of Universal Light and Second National Defense Beer Drinking Club" is capable.

I'm sorry Baff no MANPADS, No ATGMs, No AAA guns, ABMs, Double impulse mines or Nuclear weapons, needed to defend the constitution in the unlikely event of a rogue unconstitutional government taking control. In fact no such government could accomplish the task with a sweeping bid for control. The reason is that the Constitution could be and is being mutilated and castrated via small administrative regulations that the citizenry isn't equipped to notice. Reference a great many things that have happened since the implementation of the DHS, The (forever) War On Terror, and FEMA's COG program.

[Decky]

Ah! Are you trying to be a gormless cunt or are you just being a faggot moron?

The BNA of 1981 ha! Well I guess you had to do something to keep the Chinese out of the home islands! Now smile for the security camera boy

I'm sorry being a little tool for the aristocracy won't wash off of you that easy Deckey. By the way have fun with the little air rifle that you need a license for you little tool. I think I'll go out and rev up a few of my rifles and pistols...and I think I'll do that on BLM land way out in the desert instead of a boring old shooting range. Ahh the joys of Citizenship! A slag just wouldn't understand.

Did you have a point at all?

We are citizens and not subjects and have been for a very long time. I was right and you were wrong, do you have anything constructive to say?

[Xbow]

Did you have a point at all? We are citizens and not subjects and have been for a very long time. I was right and you were wrong, do you have anything constructive to say?

It doesn't please me to communicate with a person of your titanic stature Deckey you are the best Subject I know .Now go play with your sling shot and Air Soft toys Lad.
[edit]
But I am not above assisting one of her Majesty's groveling subjects in his quest for enlightenment. Deckey, the term Citizen used to describe a British Subject means nothing. I can call a truck a dirigible, does that make the truck a dirigible? I don't think so. It is very simple, a citizen (me) has rights, a subject (you) has privileges. My rights can' not be removed or abridged without extraordinary measures on the other hand the few privileges that your government has seen fit to bestow upon you can be removed quickly and easily.

Your countries inferior form of government relies on tradition and precedent to enforce structure and shape legislation; but that's all there is. You have no comparable document to our constitution that defines the form, and structure of government that very stricly limits how that government can restrict the liberty of the Citizenry. The constitution iteslf makes it crystal clear that the governments powers are limited, and that power rests in the people.

The only real limitations as to what your parliament can or cannot do are its traditions and its prior acts.

From Wiki we have, "The legal scholar Eric Barendt (UK) argues that the uncodified nature of the United Kingdom constitution does not mean it should not be characterised as a "constitution", but also claims that the lack of an effective separation of powers, and the fact that parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to overrule fundamental rights, makes it to some extent a 'facade' constitution.

But OK if you want to think of yourself as a citizen do so but keep your knee pads ready because you are by definition a subject.

[Baff]

NO! because the constitution doesn't agree with him. The few rounds that were fired at the white house were the act of a deranged moron that could care less about the constitution. How was that nutbag defending the constitution by shooting at a building in the hope of hitting a man that has not violated the constitution by suspending it and has not set himself up as a dictator? Answer that.

Says you.
Different people will interpret the constitution differently.
Is your interpretation of it more valid than anyone elses?

It's simple. The guy who fired the gun believes that he is defending the constitution against an unconstitutional leader every bit as much as you believed your deranged moronic bunch of nutbag marines would be if they did the same thing.

It's stupid constitution that encourages people to hold the political process to account by force of arms. It simply encourages every whacko to take the law into his own hands and achieve his political goals through violence.

[Baff]

I'm sorry Baff no MANPADS, No ATGMs, No AAA guns, ABMs, Double impulse mines or Nuclear weapons, needed to defend the constitution in the unlikely event of a rogue unconstitutional government taking control. In fact no such government could accomplish the task with a sweeping bid for control.

Then if you don't need militia's with guns in your constitution...
You should amend it out.

Or more cranks with guns will just keep on shooting at your presidents.



We don't pander to our a written constitutions like you do yours because we consider that it is an inhibitor to political reform.
What made sense in the historical context that it was written, doesn't hold much relavance to the country we live in today.
It's too dogmatic for us. Repressive even.


Your rights get trampled all over by the government in your country.
I would never dream of describing my country as the land of the free, I'd never dream of describing your country as the land of the free either.
Ours are too of the most tightly controlled societies on the planet.
Your constitution does not defend you from the apparatus of state. More of your citzens are incarcerated than anywhere else on the planet.
How many laws is that you currently have to abide by exactly?

More of our citizens here are incarcerated than anywhere else in Europe and by a large factor, but even our shoddy record pales in comparison to what you guys and the Russians do.
We're in entirely the wrong league.
Oh how free your guns have made you. O how your constitution has protected the freedom of the individual.
Pull the other one matey. It's got bells on it.

[Drlee]

It's stupid constitution that encourages people to hold the political process to account by force of arms. It simply encourages every whacko to take the law into his own hands and achieve his political goals through violence.

The constitution does nothing of the sort. What gave you that idea? The state militias are not about the central government they are about state control of the central government. Remember how people were elected when the second amendment was written.

Read the constitutional definition of treason and then reconsider this.

[38hollowpoint]

Criminals prefer unarmed victims. The police can't protect us exept in rare cases when they just happen to be at the scene of the crime.
They spend most of their time just cleaning up the mess after the fact. I have an obligation to protect my family, and the god-given right to protect myself.As long as the authorities do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns, I will keep mine. If they won't take them away from the criminals, they can have mine when they pry my cold, dead hands from the triggers.

[Xbow]

Then if you don't need militia's with guns in your constitution...You should amend it out.
more cranks with guns will just keep on shooting at your presidents.

More meaningless tripe Baff! Why should we amend it out because we aren't allowed to have MANPADS or atomic weapons? Baff, Not being a bleating ungulate I accept the fact that a bit of freedom comes with a price...a bit of uncertainty. And that is just fine with me and most of my fellow citizens.

We don't pander to our a written constitutions like you do yours because we consider that it is an inhibitor to political reform.

Yes political reform, such as attenuating the rights of the common man? You can keep that crap in your shit-hole. But perhaps you don't pander to a constitution because YOU DON'T HAVE ONE! You don't have a single document that defines the limits of government or the 'rights' a 'citizen' has from birth. You also dont have the separation of powers that we have (How stupid). And that makes your government an interesting construct that has unlimited powers and is entirely capable of withdrawing the privileges (Including what you thought were your fundamental human rights) by a simple majority vote in parliament or by an administrative decree. Welcome to INGSOC...long live Big Brother.

Your rights get trampled all over by the government in your country. I would never dream of describing my country as the land of the free, I'd never dream of describing your country as the land of the free either. Ours are too of the most tightly controlled societies on the planet. Your constitution does not defend you from the apparatus of state. More of your citzens are incarcerated than anywhere else on the planet. How many laws is that you currently have to abide by exactly?

I don't know how many laws are on the books that relate to the conduct of a citizen...a small fraction of what binds you to the wheel I suspect. But I can tell you this, I can buy and assault rifle and a thousand rounds of ammunition tomorrow and nobody that matters in the government gives a shit...can you? I might even go out to the range and blast some rounds down range with some of my active duty and retired cop buddies that are members of the NRA and staunch proponents of the 2nd amendment.

Your government has turned the British population into a herd of compliant sheep under constant surveillance. What is it one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK?

More of our citizens here are incarcerated than anywhere else in Europe and by a large factor, but even our shoddy record pales in comparison to what you guys and the Russians do. We're in entirely the wrong league.

The vast majority of prisoners in state and federal facilities in the USA are Black, Hispanic or Illegal immigrants and most of them that have been jailed belong right where they are.

Oh how free your guns have made you. How your constitution has protected the freedom of the individual.

Once again you have made a stupid that comment Baff because compared to the UK the USA is in a state of Anarchy. No one is completely free but I wouldn't trade my constitutional rights for all the 5.7 million CCTV cameras in England & Wales. I would be willing to bet that you are an excellent drone Baff.

[Dr House]

Is it really better that in the UK people are stabbed rather than shot?

= All that needs to be said here.

[Xbow]

Dr. House if it is my fate to be killed by a criminal I think I would prefer a shot to the head instead of a stab to the liver or gut. I agree with your assessment!

[Drlee]

House.

Welcome back.

[Suska]

Rock
Axe
Knife
...
gun
etc small arms
combat weapons
bombs
tanks
..
nuclear weapons

It's really inevitable that society exercise some control of it's weaponry. The debate about small arms, concealed, automatic etc is petty dickering compared to the fact WE ALL HAVE GUN CONTROL LAWS - EVEN NATIONS HAVE THEM. And if small arms become future tech hand-held house destroyers I welcome the controls. I would like to keep my hunting rifles and small revolver, but I have enormous respect for safety measures.

Cops in America point their guns at the drop of a hat though, as such they are wielding terror on civilians. Shooting dogs every time they bust a pot smoker. That shit must stop. I don't know exactly how to make it stop but I do believe it has something to do with the war on drugs, and general recruiting-morons trend.

[Dr House]

House.

Welcome back.

Why thank you.