DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on July 22, 2015, 09:31:36 PM
-
(http://s13.postimg.org/l3ml6b75j/Obama_Guns.jpg)
-
Yep......the very definition of why the 2nd Amendment was created
-
The difference is that this country is not ruled by Assad or threatened by Isis fanatics.
-
Yea....in many ways its worse, when our own Rule of Law and Constitution are ignored by those in charge
-
Of course, Isis and Assad might be overthrown eventually by people using assault rifles.
I doubt that the US government would be thus affected.
-
Which is precisely why the 2nd amendment is so integral to this country's freedoms, and diametrically opposed by those who would seek to dominate/oppress its citizenry
-
The most likely thing that would cause a US government to be forced to resign would occur when the military and/or police would refuse to fire on demonstrating citizens.
There is no way anyone could defeat the US government with any sort of weapon that is obtainable legally by citizens.
The Second Amendment was thought at the time it was passed to enable citizens to overthrow an unjust government, but it was obviously false as proven by the results of the Whiskey Rebellion.
The Missouri Legislature voted to secede from the Union at the start of the Civil War, but despite local militias, the Union Army easily quashed the rebellious secessionists, and Missouri remained a Union state.
So you can rant all you want about this, but history has proven you wrong, and with the weapons that the government has now, it is even more wrong.
Non lethal heat and sound weapons and gas that puts people to sleep are but three of the weapons that the government has that would quell rebellions quite easily.
-
No one, not even Texas, is advocating, or even fantasizing about "retiring the Federal Government" That'd be yet another deflection attempt.
The 2nd amendment wasn't put in place to overthrow but to protect itself from an unjust government. A subtle but distinct difference. Under the current limitatiosn imposed on the citizenry, we sould not be able to stop a dictorial coup by the Fed, but we'd make it so bloody, they'd think twice
....as in its not about overthrowing anyone, oh master of deflection
-
Give me a break.
You know, you are so full of horseshit I do not understand how you manage to dress yourself.
The government will "think twice" what the Hell does that mean?
There are idiot Texans rattling on all the time about secession. The state legislature has done nothing other than some shit about Project Jade Dildo or whatever that was,
The fact is that you and all your guns are no threat to any government. About all you could do is threaten the postman and that would not end well.
-
You've been given far more than you fair share of breaks. What you fail to understand, or more so attempt to ignore, is how often you're caught trying to argue a point no one is making....in this case, that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrow. That has never been a realistic premice to the 2nd, only fodder for hard core leftiests to try and claim that's the issue, and thus demonstrated how flawed that tact is.
Seccession is not overthrow.
"Thinking twice" is the point that because the citizenry is armed, it won't be a nice simple rollover, if ever the notion came into an oppressive minded Government intent on "improving security"
So, one more time, the 2nd amendment isn't about overthrow Professor Wrong. That would only occur if the oppression effort was so over the top, the military would turn. But the left has learned that slow & methodical is the way to go....suppression of this here, regulation of that there, restriction of just this, and limitation of just that. All those little efforts, while the lunatic left cooks the frog in the slow-to-boil pot
-
Secession is indeed overthrow. The first step is to separate the location from the national government, the next step is to create a replacement government.
And from Thomas Jefferson himself:
We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
Footnotes
-
Ha Ha....XO's myopic views are sometimes hilarious.
Are you unaware that many powerful seemingly unbeatable
armies have been easily overcome when the people set their mind to it?
The people with protests and weapons are a 1-2 punch against despotic regimes.
It's happened many, many, many times.
See Syria....first protests...then weapons.
See Libya...first protests...then weapons.
It doesn't always happen that way....but does.
A better equipped, feared military can be overcome by the people.
Again...ask the Shah, ask Assad, ask Mubarak, ask Qaddafi, ask 1000 others throughout history.
Of course this is not something that happens everyday,
so you pretending..because overthrowing the gvt in power has not happened here..it never will..is pretty ridiculous.
It will eventually happen here...and they know it is coming.....thus Jade Helm.
-
Yeah right, Jade Helm is how Obama is taking over the country by force.
But "Christians" will not allow this to happen. No siree.
Watch out for the Black Helicopters.
Notice how quickly the elected government of Egypt was recently overthrown by the military and its leaders sentenced to death.
There were over 20 attempts to overthrow General Stroessner in Paraguay. Pinochet was widely despised and it took elections and serious help from abroad to get rid of him. How many years did Sukarno rule? and after him Suharto? Rule lasted a lifetime for Mao and Chou, Papa Doc and Mobutu. Like Mobutu, Mubarak and the Shah were deathly ill and everyone knew it.
The US did its worst to get rid of Saddam using Iraqi people. Fidel passed his rule on to Raul and so it goes.
weapons are not hard to come by if the sentiments of the people are there: they do what Fidel did to overthrow Batista: they take them away from the dictator's troops.
Overthrow with armed citizens was EXACTLY what Jefferson was talking about, You should read it now, since you obviously did not read it before. The Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Portuguese all know about brutal military rule, and yet they do not permit any doofus to buy all the guns he wants.
Jefferson was perhaps right when he said what he said. But all the NRA members in the country could never overthrow the US government.
You sound like those idiots that say that "The Civil War was not about slavery".
Just more rightwing bullshit.
Bask in your ignorance.
-
Secession is indeed overthrow.
NO, ITS NOT. Overthrow is supplanting the existing government, with a new one. Seccession is simply leaving the existing Government to form a new one. But the existing one remains to run everyone else that didn't seceed ::)
Anything else you wish to get wrong in this thread?
-
Stop and consider that the Unionists called the secessionists "rebels"
Look up the word "rebels" The confederates did not say they were not rebels: indeed they were rather proud of it.
Jefferson stated that every generation might need its own revolution. That is pretty much what the local militias were about. Except in the South where they also caught and returned slaves.
-
Doesn't matter who calls who, what.
Secession isn't overthrowing any Government....period. It's merely leaving that existing Government, to start their own.
Overthrowing is replacing the existing Government
-
So the American Revolution was also not overthrowing the Colonial government, since it replaced His Majesty's government with the government of the United States.
I do not thing there were many of the hallowed founding fathers that would agree with you.
I do not thin Abraham Lincoln would agree with you.
I doubt that Jefferson Davis would agree with you, either.
All rebellions and revolutions consist of replacing the standing government with another government.
Perhaps the exceptions would be Ricardo and Enrique, the Flores Magón brothers and Nestor Makhno and his followers, but I really doubt if you have any idea who they were.
-
And you'd be........drum roll........wrong again. The American Revolution WAS an overthrow, since it was replacing the existing English Government, with the one the Founders have so impressively able to put together
The Civil War on the other hand, WAS a secession, as the south simply wanted to run their own little country, within the United States. They weren't replacing anything. However President Lincoln, disagreed with the attempt, and we had the bloodiest of all wars, as it relates to American casualties. But the South wasn't trying to overthrow the North
You really don't know your American history very well, do you
-
The Confederacy did NOT want to run "their own little country, within the United States". Total nonsense!
They wanted to completely separate themselves from the United States. They did not want to pay taxes to the Federal Government. Fort Sumter was about collecting tariffs on imports.
In the decade prior to the Secession, the South had managed to pass fugitive slave laws, which meant that any Black person could be enslaved by slave catchers, unless the Black person could show that he had been freed. Since free Black people were not born with papers, this meant that slaves could be held as slaves anywhere in the United States. California was admitted as a free state, but the there was a movement by California senator W.M. Gwin to divide it into two parts, one slave state and another a free state.
The South believed that it had achieved through clever deals and the Supreme Court dominance of the country. Previous presidents like Buchanan and Polk and even Pierce and Fillmore were either pro slavery or anti abolitionists. When Lincoln won with only 39.8% of the vote, they felt they had been cheated, since only Lincoln was sympathetic to abolitionists.
And of course, the South expected war from the very first secession. They WANTED war, because they thought they had all the great generals and the advantage of defending their own territory.
The Southern States were entirely replacing the Federal Government with their own Confederate government. And they started it by firing the first shot as well.
YOU are the one who does not understand history
-
The Confederacy did NOT want to run "their own little country, within the United States".
They wanted to completely separate themselves from the United States. They did not want to pay taxes to the Federal Government. Fort Sumter was about collecting tariffs on imports.
That's exactly the same thing as running their own country. IT WASN'T ABOUT THEIR TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE NORTH OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND REPLACE IT WITH THEIR OWN. They simply wanted to leave the Union ::)
-
Here is what they did NOT want to do:
They did NOT want to "run their own little country within the United States."
That is what you said, and it is simply bullshit.
I suppose slavery is fine with you as well. If there were slavery and Al Sharpton pissed you off, you could just buy him and whip the Hell out of him. Teach him a lesson!
Slavery, like ordering people to stop smoking, was, of course LEGAL. Hell it was even in the Constitution you worship.
If your slave sasses you, you would have a perfect right to beat him and set him right.
-
Here's what they did NOT want to do.....overthrow the Federal Government (the North). As such, the only way to Govern themselves, was within the United States
Apparently you skipped Geography as well as U.S. History ::)
We'll just dismiss the rest of your garbage, since that's all it amounts to
-
Garbage is all you spew.
The United States is a political entity.
North America is a geographical entity.
The Confederacy wanted to entirely and totally separate itself from the United States of America. They did not wish to be part of the USA, and in fact, they wanted to fight the USA from the first day of secession and said so at the time.
-
Yes.....they wanted to separate, as in SECEDE, as in LEAVE THE UNION & GOVERN THEMSELVES, as in THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE IT WITH ONE OF THEIR MAKING