Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Armed better than the armies, is what the citizens should be.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Armed better than the armies, is what the citizens should be.

    http://bearingarms.com/yes-professor...ssault-rifles/

    Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves. Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves. Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves. To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid….If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms.

    “The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.)
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ants-not-deer/


    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny......

    Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

    The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    A .30-06 is far more effective at 400 yards than a M-4. Get both.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Re: Armed better than the armies, is what the citizens should be.

    I say that if I can't own it, then the state shouldn't be allowed either. And OC for me is right, people should have an AR-10 (or something in 30 caliber) in addition to 223.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chesterfield
    Posts
    340
    I think that is reasonable until one comes to heavy arms MOAB type and nuclear type. I am not sure I have an answer to those things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    If you are in the radius of the MOAB/nuke you won't need an answer.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If you are in the radius of the MOAB/nuke you won't need an answer.
    You'll need a refrigerator .. like in that movie raiders of aliens or something ... with H. Ford

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I say that if I can't own it, then the state shouldn't be allowed either. And OC for me is right, people should have an AR-10 (or something in 30 caliber) in addition to 223.
    We also all agree with Thomas Jefferson: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MamabearCali View Post
    I think that is reasonable until one comes to heavy arms MOAB type and nuclear type. I am not sure I have an answer to those things.
    The answer is the same, if we can't trust ourselves to own heavy arms, why would we trust a government to own them?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    The answer is the same, if we can't trust ourselves to own heavy arms, why would we trust a government to own them?
    Uh, no. I would trust a great many folks that i know with heavy arms, the government, not so much.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Uh, no. I would trust a great many folks that i know with heavy arms, the government, not so much.
    I believe the intent of his message was as follows, we cannot grant powers to the government that we don't first have ourselves.

    He just presented it in a very round about sort of way.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    We also all agree with Thomas Jefferson: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
    Or Madison...

    Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).

    Or,or,or..many examples from our founding fathers ...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I believe the intent of his message was as follows, we cannot grant powers to the government that we don't first have ourselves.

    He just presented it in a very round about sort of way.
    That's not what I meant. I was trying to say that the answer that MamabearCali doesn't seem to have was the same(answer) as the post I made just prior. Round about sort of way none the less.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 08-28-2013 at 07:10 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Or Madison...

    Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).

    Or,or,or..many examples from our founding fathers ...
    That doesn't necessarily address the "type" of weapons. Jefferson's quote better points out the issue of 'government can, citizen can't", all weapons included.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I do not wish to grant the fedgov any domestic powers. I want them to do what they were "chartered" to do. Advocate for the US of A on the international stage and settle any disputes between the several states. If I do not like what my state is doing I will move to a state that does what I like.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I do not wish to grant the fedgov any domestic powers. I want them to do what they were "chartered" to do. Advocate for the US of A on the international stage and settle any disputes between the several states. If I do not like what my state is doing I will move to a state that does what I like.
    Well said.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •