Pierce Morgan OWNED by Ted Nugent

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by bradl

Trying to apply a term in today's meaning to something that happened almost 300 years ago is a straw hat argument, and is useless.

If you are now going to equate anything like a militia to terrorism, 9/11 really has screwed with your heads, which is just what the true terrorist groups want.

Also, if you are worried about 'rebelling' against our own government, you may first want to look up the treason laws, which part is also listed in the Constitution, as well as take a look at yourselves as what is truly causing your fear and paranoia. Rebelling isn't going to solve that, as you'd become the very thing that you'd be rebelling against; Very Orwellian indeed.

You want to help? come to the table and talk it out. Fearing that someone is going to take away your guns isn't going to help things, and would cause it to be made worse.

BL.

If we rebelled it would be because our government committed treason against it's citizens. There would be no point in started another revolution otherwise. I never said I wanted to rise up just for the heck of it. It would have to be a pretty dang good reason. And at that point, I don't care what the government labels me as. Call me a terrorist, call me a traitor. They become the traitor first if it's own citizens had to fight for themselves against it's own government.

Not just a dang good reason, but I would have to see offensive action from our own government against it's citizens before I would even think about attempting to rise up against them.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by vastoholic

If we rebelled it would be because our government committed treason against it's citizens.

Some people tried that once; it was called the Civil War. We all know what happened with that. And how exactly would you know or say that the government committed treason, especially if the government is comprised of laws made up by the people's representatives? Again, tin foiled and straw hat, because it was your votes that sent the people you elected to Washington to create the laws and government you would then be rebelling against.

In short, reap what you sow.

There would be no point in started another revolution otherwise. I never said I wanted to rise up just for the heck of it. It would have to be a pretty dang good reason. And at that point, I don't care what the government labels me as. Call me a terrorist, call me a traitor. They become the traitor first if it's own citizens had to fight for themselves against it's own government.

Not just a dang good reason, but I would have to see offensive action from our own government against it's citizens before I would even think about attempting to rise up against them.

Where were you when the PATRIOT Act was passed? How about FISA? Then, the government compromised your freedom for safety, and a good number of people on the Right did absolutely NOTHING about it. You can't have it both ways (being complacent about it then, when the time to stand up was then, but now be completely up in arms about what the fearing and paranoid perceive is going to happen).

Talk about a concept a Founding Father built this country on, but apparently got thrown out the door 225 years later.

BL.

[vastoholic]

Originally Posted by bradl

Some people tried that once; it was called the Civil War. We all know what happened with that. And how exactly would you know or say that the government committed treason, especially if the government is comprised of laws made up by the people's representatives? Again, tin foiled and straw hat, because it was your votes that sent the people you elected to Washington to create the laws and government you would then be rebelling against.

In short, reap what you sow.

The government barely represents the people anymore. It represents investments, corporations, and lobbyist. My votes didn't send a large majority of the people into office.

Where were you when the PATRIOT Act was passed? How about FISA? Then, the government compromised your freedom for safety, and a good number of people on the Right did absolutely NOTHING about it. You can't have it both ways (being complacent about it then, when the time to stand up was then, but now be completely up in arms about what the fearing and paranoid perceive is going to happen).

Talk about a concept a Founding Father built this country on, but apparently got thrown out the door 225 years later.

BL.

The Patriot Act and FISA are both crimes against privacy. People did try to fight back against. Just not enough people did, and again, the government doesn't really represent the people. But there was no direct offensive action taken against the people (i.e. troops rolling down the streets armed to come arrest citizens) so why should a small group of citizens (the few that even knew or cared about those bills) be responsible to rise up against the government on behalf of the entire nation?

What I picture as a government committing treason or tyranny is when they turn on an overwhelming majority of it's people and label them as criminals for no substantial reason (holocaust style, rounding up people to put in camps/prison/etc).

Stop labeling me as a tin foil hat nut job. I'm the guy who sits behind his computer reading conspiracy theories all day long plotting my attempt to overthrow the government. I'm merely a person who believes that the government only exists because of the people and if they ever lose sight of that fact and decided to turn against it's people, I won't be falling in line with them.

edit:
I'm not going to participate any further in this discussion. I'm honestly not sure why I got involved. Every time I get into a debate online, I let myself get carried away. I'm dealing with some personal issues right now that sometimes make me get too emotional on here. So I apologize, but I need to see myself out of this debate.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

I would say there are 1st Amend. & 5th Amend rights being decided in all courts all day long...I would say however, national security is real, not a tag line, not a Lib/Conserv issue or an ad hominem attack from someone...It is the military and an armed society that the Supreme Court is able to continue...Although this whole thread is tongue and cheek, you know my statement (here) is true....

Here is an interesting blog/article you may find interesting...It does have a slight pro gun slant. but interesting none the less...

http://bradyreports.com/americas-unseen-army/

I think it would certainly make an interesting discussion - though, I'm not as sure about potential invaders thinking twice because we have so many "armed citizens".

I'm also not as sure about an armed society having an effect on our SCOTUS. I could argue that the things like SCOTUS and the "democratic process (flawed as it is)" are some reasons we haven't needed an armed society (most of the time).

Historically, though, there have been some examples post-Civil War where armed rebellion by citizens led to policies and/or laws being changed. Like Blair Mountain and the war in Tennessee over convict-leasing.

It's also woth mentioning that more has been changed through non-violent means in our country than through armed uprising. The women's suffrage movement in the early 1900's, the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, and the LGBT fight for equality have all been furthered by other non-violent methods.

As I said, I thnk it would be a fascinating discussion.

[werther]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I think it would certainly make an interesting discussion - though, I'm not as sure about potential invaders thinking twice because we have so many "armed citizens".

The part of the article referring to Japanese questioning attacking the mainland because of armed citizens is NRA nonsense. Basically, the quote goes like this:

"Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto

It is completely unsubstantiated and all roots of this statement point to NRA pamphlets. I have to hear this drivel every year during the holidays at my in-laws house. They believe every email they receive...like Obama is wearing a muslim ring or some other idiotic balderdash.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I think it would certainly make an interesting discussion - though, I'm not as sure about potential invaders thinking twice because we have so many "armed citizens".

I'm also not as sure about an armed society having an effect on our SCOTUS. I could argue that the things like SCOTUS and the "democratic process (flawed as it is)" are some reasons we haven't needed an armed society (most of the time).

Historically, though, there have been some examples post-Civil War where armed rebellion by citizens led to policies and/or laws being changed. Like Blair Mountain and the war in Tennessee over convict-leasing.

It's also woth mentioning that more has been changed through non-violent means in our country than through armed uprising. The women's suffrage movement in the early 1900's, the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, and the LGBT fight for equality have all been furthered by other non-violent methods.

As I said, I thnk it would be a fascinating discussion.

Agreed....

----------

Originally Posted by werther

The part of the article referring to Japanese questioning attacking the mainland because of armed citizens is NRA nonsense. Basically, the quote goes like this:

"Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto

It is completely unsubstantiated and all roots of this statement point to NRA pamphlets. I have to hear this drivel every year during the holidays at my in-laws house. They believe every email they receive...like Obama is wearing a muslim ring or some other idiotic balderdash.

If you read the link provided, we can agree on your statement...I never heard anything tho about a muslim ring.....Perhaps we can get this out of the way...President Obama, IS my president, he IS my commander and Chief...He was born in America, he is Christian...He was duly elected...He is not a closet Muslim...He has only one wife....Really, did I miss anything....I believe in gun rights, I think Ted Nugent is a hoot..I think Moyank is one of the most intelligent persons on this board...I dislike foreigners making observations about my Gov't, Democratic or Republican..Especially Brits, everyone else I ignore...OK...Anything else...Oh yea, I still believe in Gun rights...Sorry if that makes me bad...

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Battle of Wanat? Siege of FOB Salerno?

There is always a bigger and more powerful entity, but those two instances are clear examples that bigger weapons don't nullify the ability to fight of those with smaller weapons.

This is not an exercise in moral equivalence, just an illustration that resistance, even if you are staring down a much larger barrel, is the historical norm, and modern weaponry changes nothing.

I had JTAC's putting in work nightly at one point, that never seemed to diminsh the amount of motar rounds and kalashnikov fire. That's a hell of a disparity, and we certainly dished out more hurt, but there we were, every night again and again. Next year we withdraw with a dubious victory at best, despite our incredible combat abilities and their massive losses.

I think you misunderstood my argument. Compare the firepower available to the 200 or so guerrillas at the Battle of Wanat to the firepower available to the Lamb's Continental Artillery Regiment. We're talking about big differences in accuracy, range, and explosive power. And, that's ignoring the firepower available to US forces in Afghanistan.

The Afghans know this, which is why they ditched all those Lee-Enfields and Mausers for Saudi-imported AK-patterned rifles.*

*Though apparently, the Enfield No.4 Mk I is coming back into style for its use as a sniper rifle.

[werther]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

Agreed....

----------



If you read the link provided, we can agree on your statement...I never heard anything tho about a muslim ring.....Perhaps we can get this out of the way...President Obama, IS my president, he IS my commander and Chief...He was born in America, he is Christian...He was duly elected...He is not a closet Muslim...He has only one wife....Really, did I miss anything....I believe in gun rights, I think Ted Nugent is a hoot..I think Moyank is one of the most intelligent persons on this board...I dislike foreigners making observations about my Gov't, Democratic or Republican..Especially Brits, everyone else I ignore...OK...Anything else...Oh yea, I still believe in Gun rights...Sorry if that makes me bad...

I never implied anything of the sort.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Also, last I checked, slavery is most definitely referenced in the Constitution.

If you took a moment to properly follow the discussion rather than being eager to type, you would see we were discussing the period prior to the 13th.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

... I dislike foreigners making observations about my Gov't ...

I'm assuming that you therefore refrain from making observations about foreign governments.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

If you took a moment to properly follow the discussion rather than being eager to type, you would see we were discussing the period prior to the 13th.

Which comes down to a matter of semantics. Slavery is mentioned in Article I§2.3, I§9.1 and IV§2.3, and Article V explicitly enjoins any amendment prior to 1808 allowed to affect I§9.1. You are about the only person here who disputes these points.

It would also be worth revisiting Blue Velvet's post that links slavery pretty directly to the second amendment. While Thom Hartmann is not a historian or constitutional scholar, his argument for the origin of the militia clause is quite compelling and worthy of consideration.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Which comes down to a matter of semantics. Slavery is mentioned in Article I§2.3, I§9.1 and IV§2.3, and Article V explicitly enjoins any amendment prior to 1808 allowed to affect I§9.1. You are about the only person here who disputes these points.

Thank you for sharing this information. Please quote the language here with the word slavery in bold.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Thank you for sharing this information. Please quote the language here with the word slavery in bold.

Sure, after you quote the part of the constitution with the word "gun", "rifle", "pistol" or any similar specific word. "Flintlock"? "Blunderbuss"? Anything?

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Sure, after you quote the part of the constitution with the word "gun", "rifle", "pistol" or any similar specific word. "Flintlock"? "Blunderbuss"? Anything?

Don't need to. The language of the 2nd covers all the above, but I'm not suggesting otherwise.

You're suggesting slavery is directly addressed, but the language would also cover debtors, and indentured servants. Hence the need for clarification above and beyond slavery in the 13th Amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That vagueness is the real power of the 13th. The great thing about the framers, and the early representatives of the people is they knew specificity on certain matters would lead to technicalities and splitting hairs for abuse.

Same is true for the 2nd, which is why it says right to bear arms and not right to flintlocks.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Don't need to. The language of the 2nd covers all the above, but I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Same is true for the 2nd, which is why it says right to bear arms and not right to flintlocks.

Then following your very flawed logic, the same needs to be done for the 2nd. Here's why:

A guy goes to work every day, wearing a sleeveless shirt, or no shirt at all. Why? He is expressing his second amendment right 'that the right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed'.

Arms is ambiguous following your logic and needs further clarification.

If you want to argue semantics, start another thread and let's argue semantics. But as far as this goes, the logic in your view, as Spock would say, is flawed.

BL.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm assuming that you therefore refrain from making observations about foreign governments.

I absolutely could care less about the internal workings and work arounds of foreign governments....Unless it is of course to destroy them....

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Then following your very flawed logic, the same needs to be done for the 2nd. Here's why:

A guy goes to work every day, wearing a sleeveless shirt, or no shirt at all. Why? He is expressing his second amendment right 'that the right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed'.

Arms is ambiguous following your logic and needs further clarification.

If you want to argue semantics, start another thread and let's argue semantics. But as far as this goes, the logic in your view, as Spock would say, is flawed.

BL.

Baring arms and bearing arms are not the same thing from what I recall from elementary school. Or are you making an inference to sawing off human being appendages, which I am sure is unconstitutional.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Squadleader

I absolutely could care less about the internal workings and work arounds of foreign governments....Unless it is of course to destroy them....

Lovely world view you have there.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Baring arms and bearing arms are not the same thing from what I recall from elementary school. Or are you making an inference to sawing off human being appendages, which I am sure is unconstitutional.

Oi.

Now you are being really obtuse.

Again, bluntly. ARMS is the issue here, nothing more. ARMS by your flawed logic, is ambiguous. By your logic, ARMS should be clarified.

If you can't understand that with your own logic, there's no use in arguing this with you anymore, because you will never understand it, let alone understand your own logic.

Wait a minute.. If you are confusing 'bear' with 'bare', and 'bear' is in the Constitution, and 'bare' is not, you are proving my point that our Founding Fathers were fallible and messed up on the very Amendment you are cherishing the most in this thread. That in itself would call for clarification.

Or perhaps you need a refresher from your elementary school:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bare

Originally Posted by Mirriam Webster

Definition of BARE

archaic past of bear (bold for emphasis)

2: open to view : exposed <laying bare their secrets>

I would go for the latter; your English is off from what the Founding Fathers had to say, which again, is ambiguous.

EDIT: It is definitely your English and grammar. Again, from Mirriam-Webster:

bear: verb \ˈber\

1

• to be equipped or furnished with (something)

4

• apply, pertain —often used with on or upon <facts bearing on the question>
  bear arms
  1. to carry or possess arms
  2. to serve as a soldier

Again, 'bear' isn't the problem of the ambiguity. ARMS is the problem of the ambiguity.

BL.

[Mac'nCheese]

Can a thread jump the shark?

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by bradl

Oi.

Now you are being really obtuse.

Again, bluntly. ARMS is the issue here, nothing more. ARMS by your flawed logic, is ambiguous. By your logic, ARMS should be clarified.

If you can't understand that with your own logic, there's no use in arguing this with you anymore, because you will never understand it, let alone understand your own logic.

Wait a minute.. If you are confusing 'bear' with 'bare', and 'bear' is in the Constitution, and 'bare' is not, you are proving my point that our Founding Fathers were fallible and messed up on the very Amendment you are cherishing the most in this thread. That in itself would call for clarification.

Or perhaps you need a refresher from your elementary school:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bare



I would go for the latter; your English is off from what the Founding Fathers had to say, which again, is ambiguous.

EDIT: It is definitely your English and grammar. Again, from Mirriam-Webster:



Again, 'bear' isn't the problem of the ambiguity. ARMS is the problem of the ambiguity.

BL.

This is an incoherent mess.

[Sydde]

This thread is due for locking and unloading.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Sydde

This thread is due for locking and unloading.

Frankly, the thread should've ended with this post:

Originally Posted by Squadleader

If you read the link provided, we can agree on your statement...I never heard anything tho about a muslim ring.....Perhaps we can get this out of the way...President Obama, IS my president, he IS my commander and Chief...He was born in America, he is Christian...He was duly elected...He is not a closet Muslim...He has only one wife....Really, did I miss anything....I believe in gun rights, I think Ted Nugent is a hoot..I think Moyank is one of the most intelligent persons on this board...I dislike foreigners making observations about my Gov't, Democratic or Republican..Especially Brits, everyone else I ignore...OK...Anything else...Oh yea, I still believe in Gun rights...Sorry if that makes me bad...

And I'm not just saying that because it's the best post ever written....

Well, maybe I am.

[Eraserhead]

For the government to not be able to label you a fringe extremist you'd need massive popular support. So why not protest peacefully ala Gandhi?

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

For the government to not be able to label you a fringe extremist you'd need massive popular support. So why not protest peacefully ala Gandhi?

Some had labeled G.Washington as an extremist...He didn't use his right to free speech to fight the british, he shot them....