Yes, that's correct. What we need to remember as to this is that our Framers did not know how effective our new government would be. They had just gone through a difficult and oppressive government under England which they overcame with force, hence their favor with this recourse. We now see their error in over-reliance in this regard when you look at how effective the checks and balances they put into our government actually have turned out to be. The notion that armed rebellion is the only prevention to tyranny in this country is outdated and wrong, but this is a GOOD thing.
Effective checks and balances? Not any longer. The checks and balances have failed. The govt has been working for over 100 years to minimize and avoid the checks and balances. Obama (and Bush to a lesser extent) uses the regulatory agencies and Executive Orders and Signing Statements to circumvent oversight by the Congress. The Supreme Court upheld New London v Kelo which declared govt could take property for essentially any reason. Remember Obamacare? The people were opposed to it, and when Scott Brown was elected and the Dems lost their super majority in the Senate and would lose the final ratifying vote, the Dems pulled a tricky maneuver to avoid the final vote. The govt thwarted the will of the people, and the Constitution, and the founding principle of representative govt, in order to do what the govt thought should be done. We now have a President that thinks he knows best and should be given dictatorial powers to avoid the hurdles of representative govt. And some in Congress support him in this idea. People in and out of govt think the commerce clause and the welfare clause give the govt unlimited power to do whatever is thought "best" at that moment. There are people- including Supreme Court Justices - that believe the Constitution is a "living" document, with no absolutes, and whose dictates change with time as morals and desires change. In other words, these people have thrown away the Constitution. How about the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, TSA, and its associated organizations. And McCain Feingold and the many anti-free speech campaign regulations. The govt has put itself above the people. The govt is out of control. There are no checks and balances between the 3 branches, and the people no longer function as the ultimate check through the vote. The Founding Fathers had very good reason to arm the people, and their reasons are still very valid. And read my signature below. Its as valid today as it was then.
The right to bear arms is not outdated, and you don't need tanks and airplanes to resist and overthrow a government. And a military with tanks and airplanes is not immune from revolution either. Many revolutions succeed with only basic weapons - rifle, pistol, knife, improvised explosives, and devious and smart thinking - against a fully equiped military. Castro taking over Cuba, for example. The insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq have done pretty well with basic infantry weapons and home made bombs.
I don't view armed rebellion against the government as the only prevention against tyranny, I view it as the last resort against tyranny. I view armed rebellion against a tyrannical Federal government like I view the use of nuclear weapons - it's not something to be taken lightly, and all other means have to be tried and have failed, all other resources have to be exhausted before I'd consider it. But with that said, I'm glad that I have that option and I don't want it taken off the table. Whether or not in an era of armored vehicles, smart bombs, and Predator drones a paramilitary group armed with small arms could actually overthrow the Federal government is debatable - there are a lot of factors besides armament that need to be considered. I just wouldn't want to live in a society where I don't have a method of standing up to my government should the need arise.
Ayuh,.... The last 10 years in the middle east has proven that statement Very Wrong.... It ain't been Tanks, 'n airplanes, but cold Cash that has slowed the killing over there....
Small arms, homemade explosives, and a restrained occupying force. You aren't going to over throw an oppressive government in a Red Dawn style fantasy with sporting arms.
Been a while since I have watched it..... Cold War era movies are so interesting. I just wish there were more of a truly high caliber. Dr. Strangelove is my favorite thus far.
Castro did, just like many others have overthrown brutal dictators. Castro did it with third world peasants. And the US isn't third world. We don't have a history of unquestioning obediance to DC. Do you think the US military personnel will take up arms against their own people? What about the National Guard? A well trained, well equiped force with very close ties to their community. They aren't going to fight against their own neighbors, just the opposite. Whether they stay as a cohesive force or are distributed (with their equipment) throughout the community to train and equip militia and insurgents is another matter. Maybe you think if (for example) Texas rebels, then DC will send the Illinois NG to Texas to put down the rebellion since Illinois has no ties to Texas? No way. Illinois is going to think carefully, the road to Texas goes both ways and that rebellion is going to quickly make its way to Illinois. And when its over, people in Texas and elsewhere are going to hold a grudge against Illinois, and for years there will be trouble in Illinois. And "sporting arms"? Really? Have you taken a look at what is in the catalogues lately and what people are buying? And what is a sniper rifle anyway? A Remington 700 series accurized with a 10x scope, or for the Squad Advanced Marksman its a accurized M16, or an accurized M14, and person behind it that can use it. Theres nothing there that a person can't buy on the internet or at the local gun store. Sounds like the hunting/sporting/"neat I want one" rifles all my neighbors have. And there are a lot of well trained ex-military people, with recent combat experience fighting against insurgents, and the best counter-insurgency training in the world, all over the US. This idea that DC is just going to send in the Army and Air Force and its a stand up war with civilians is incorrect. It will be a mix between the US Civil War and Iraq, times 10. It will catstrophic and probably be the end of the US as we know it.
Of course, and we all know the Nazi's looked at their neighbors and compassionately let them go instead of killing them. Your fantasy relies on a rather large assumption. Sporting Arms, the 1968 GCA. All firearms on the market are sporting arms.
Sorry. You've used a false dichotomy fallacy. The fact remains that the three are not mutually exclusive and can all equally exist at the same time........ guess you missed that.
Our conservative SC, you mean? This conservative Court has been responsible for activist Opinions that you should be horrified with. Somehow I doubt you are though. You mean the Affordable Care Act? Be clear please. Apparently you don't understand the concept of representative government. The Framers specifically avoided the sort of democracy you claimed to be for above. They chose a Republic that elects representatives to act on our behalf and our minorities to temper against majorities and fads. A cool head, if you will, to act on our behalf. In large part this particular legislation worked in this regard. Fearful nonsense. Even the First Amendment is not an absolute right. There are limitations to this right, just as there are limitations to the Second Amendment. Absolutism is a dangerous road to follow, friend. Really? Your blind zealotry is unconvincing. Hopefully you are using hyperbole. Certainly what you have claimed is not as dire as you described. There ARE issues, however with our government and the heart of it lies in what you so flagrantly have denied. Our legislators now spend a minimum of 30% and possibly up to 70% of their time raising funds for their next election. Refer to a good video by an author of a book that I have almost finished now, Lawrence Lessig. Our activist conservative Supreme Court has seen fit to turn our Constitution on its ear to rule that corporations have the same rights as citizens. A dangerous precedent, in my view, where they effectively gutted McCain-Fiengold, which sought to limit corporate (and union) influence. The Farmers had very good reason at that time and acted to that effect. I believe their efforts have been far more effective than even they might have imagined. The need now for armed rebellion is far less than they thought as evidenced by 230 some odd years of effective representative government complete with an effective set of checks and balances. They could not have known this.
And sometimes a significant country can be overthrown WITHOUT the need for weapons at ALL! Imagine that............ Oh, that's right..... you didn't.
Either a straw man or you have completely missed my point. You had previously claimed that you spoke for "the positions of men who originally founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence and/or the United States Constitution". I argued that our circumstances have changed making their original intentions as to this outdated. I NEVER said anything about banning or taking your guns. This was your own irrational fear.
Quite frankly,I'm going to need a lot more than just your say-so Our declaration says it is a baSIC RIGHT TO OPPOSE TYRANNY BY ANY MEANS NECCESSARY
You need more than my say-so to understand that it's possible to have both a Constitutional Right AND understand the notion that armed rebellion being the only prevention to tyranny in this country is outdated and wrong? Your insistence that one needs to make a choice between the two is a classic false dichotomy. Our Declaration of Independence doesn't say that specifically, friend. You should know this, and you should also know that the Declaration of Independence is NOT part of our Constitution......two distinctly different things. This, of course is only a red herring on your part. The fact remains that it IS possible to have a legal Right that is also partly outdated. Your argument is not a valid one.
I must have missed your point. I fail to understand how you can say the "...circumstances have changed making their original intentions as to this outdated." Thomas Jefferson said "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". Patrick Henry said "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." What in your opinion has changed in the approximately 200 years since these statements were made? How have these original ideas of theirs become outdated?
Again you'refull of it..Inever claimed the declaration was part of our constitution.you're put-ting words in my mouth----------------------------------------Armed rebellion is never outdated as long as someone uses force to impose will on citizens
Wrong, I did think of it, but the subject is that times have changed and arms (2nd Amendment) are no longer needed for one of the original purposes which was armed rebellion against a tyrranical govt. I disagree with that idea. Just because the people are armed does not mean the end result is armed rebellion, but it does even the playing field and makes it a lot easier to come to an agreement. Of course, if you lived in Syria right now, you would wish you were armed. Or Mexico, or any number of other countries.
You are very selective in your response, and assume too much - a sign of a closed mind. Are you a liberal? Kelo, upholding the Patriot Act, McCain Feingold, were all SC decisions during Bush 43. Declaring a corporation - basically a sheet of paper - as a pseudo-person with rights is a ridiculous decision and has had some bad consequences. I could go on, but that's enough. You dodge the issue. Scott Brown (R-MA) ran as the vote that would stop Obamacare, he was elected, and the Democrats pulled a sneaky political maneuver to avoid the final ratifying vote. The Dems manipulated the system to get what they wanted and thwarted the peoples elected representatives. Absolutely wrong. The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative, slow, body of Congress to avoid rash legislation. With Obamacare, there was tremendous opposition, and the proper course of action was to examine both sides - which was NOT done by the Dem controlled House and Senate - and come to a consensus. As I mentioned above, the Senate and the Dems created the legislation in secret, most in congress did not read it, and the Dems rushed the legislation through. The exact opposite of what the Founders and the Constitution called for. What goes around comes around. When the conservatives are in control, and that will eventually happen, will you support the same means of sneaky subversion to achieve conservative ends? Irrelevent to my point. You dodge the issue again. Your comment has nothing to do with mine or the relevence of an armed citizenry. Not hyperbole at all. I agree the activist judicial system has overstepped its bounds. Its not limited to "conservative" or "liberal", its the SC itself. To believe a conservative court would uphold Kelo is assinine. The rest, irrelevent. 230 years of effective govt? I guess the US Civil War wasn't in your history book. The Framers were much more perceptive than you give them credit. They knew that govt always seeks to expand its power and influence, and anticipated that would happen and warned people to be vigilant. Read Federalist 25 and 51, or just google "Founders distrust of Power" or something similar. People were not vigilant and now we are on the verge of collapse.
Perhaps guns should be kept away from black, hispanic, and muslim youths. I do not see any reason why 16 year old white children should be denied guns when the problem lies with another group. In regions where 95% of the people are white, there are no serious gun problems. Treating all races the same is both unfair and impractical. Whites (and asians) should not have to suffer just so the law that is really aimed at minority problems will remain 'politically correct'.
