• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun owners aiming to shoot at government

E

Equinox

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, Colorado, USA
imported post

“The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from tyranny, which will certainly be enforced with government ‘assault weapons,’” one writer patiently explained to me. “Logically, that is the type of weapon that we the people should have access to if we ever need to resist.”

The whole point to constitutional protection of gun ownership, another said, was “for the purpose of arming people so they could revolt in case of government gone wrong.”

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/dec/02/gun-owners-aiming-shoot-government/
 
S

ScottyT

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
imported post

Wow, this guy seriously needs a history lesson.

Protection from govt tyranny is EXACTLY what the 2nd A is all about. Understanding this basic constitutional truth doesn't mean I WANT to violently overthrow the government, but that option must always be there.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

ScottyT wrote:
Wow, this guy seriously needs a history lesson.

Protection from govt tyranny is EXACTLY what the 2nd A is all about. Understanding this basic constitutional truth doesn't mean I WANT to violently overthrow the government, but that option must always be there.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right.

Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things were as basic and fundamental to the Founders and their fellow citizens as breathing. No one in their right mind would have questioned the right of someone to defend themselves or to harvest game for food. It was just something that was not done. The real reason for the Second Amendment was to stand as a warning to government that it had better not betray or usurp the rights and the power of the people. It was the ultimate arbiter, the final check against a government gone bad, the physical embodiment of the famous flag, "Don't Tread On Me".

As for the article, clearly the writer has either never read/studied history (as in the writing of the Founders), or he has forgotten everything he might have learned. The worse case is he believes what he learned to be anarchy.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
ScottyT wrote:
Wow, this guy seriously needs a history lesson.

Protection from govt tyranny is EXACTLY what the 2nd A is all about. Understanding this basic constitutional truth doesn't mean I WANT to violently overthrow the government, but that option must always be there.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right.

Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things were as basic and fundamental to the Founders and their fellow citizens as breathing. No one in their right mind would have questioned the right of someone to defend themselves or to harvest game for food. It was just something that was not done. The real reason for the Second Amendment was to stand as a warning to government that it had better not betray or usurp the rights and the power of the people. It was the ultimate arbiter, the final check against a government gone bad, the physical embodiment of the famous flag, "Don't Tread On Me".

As for the article, clearly the writer has either never read/studied history (as in the writing of the Founders), or he has forgotten everything he might have learned. The worse case is he believes what he learned to be anarchy.
Click to expand...

I usually don't play grammer police, but in this case, the well written post above could easily be misread.

"Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game."

The bold section should read "Frequently we hear mentioned" as in "Other people have said".

What it implies as originally written is "Frequently weat OpenCarry.org mentioned"

Just didn't want some anti grabbing the quote and using it to say "OpenCarry.org believes 2A is for home protection and hunting."
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
ScottyT wrote:
Wow, this guy seriously needs a history lesson.

Protection from govt tyranny is EXACTLY what the 2nd A is all about. Understanding this basic constitutional truth doesn't mean I WANT to violently overthrow the government, but that option must always be there.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right.

Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things were as basic and fundamental to the Founders and their fellow citizens as breathing. No one in their right mind would have questioned the right of someone to defend themselves or to harvest game for food. It was just something that was not done. The real reason for the Second Amendment was to stand as a warning to government that it had better not betray or usurp the rights and the power of the people. It was the ultimate arbiter, the final check against a government gone bad, the physical embodiment of the famous flag, "Don't Tread On Me".

As for the article, clearly the writer has either never read/studied history (as in the writing of the Founders), or he has forgotten everything he might have learned. The worse case is he believes what he learned to be anarchy.
Click to expand...

I usually don't play grammer police, but in this case, the well written post above could easily be misread.

"Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game."

The bold section should read "Frequently we hear mentioned" as in "Other people have said".

What it implies as originally written is "Frequently weat OpenCarry.org mentioned"

Just didn't want some anti grabbing the quote and using it to say "OpenCarry.org believes 2A is for home protection and hunting."
Click to expand...
Thank you, sir. I don't mind one bit when someone points out a typo I have made. I am also somewhat of a stickler when it comes to grammar. Good catch.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:
Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure I could think of a few things that are farther from the truth.

(since the grammar police are here, I think it's "farther", not "further")

While the 2A was written with tyranny in mind, it's important to understand that resisting tyranny is still a matter of self-defense. The criminals are just better organized.

The language used by the founders in instructive. We today like to say that you "can't trade liberty for security". But read this line from the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...

The concepts of liberty and security were not mutually exclusive. A government which provided you with security meant that it was securing your rights, not your physical security. The notion of a government employee coming to protect you from a fire hazard or a dog attack or even a mugger was not even considered. If you have problems with your neighbors, use the court system. The government's job is to leave you alone and protect the borders.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
SouthernBoy wrote:
Frequently we here mentioned that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to defend themselves, their homes, and their loved ones, and to hunt game. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure I could think of a few things that are farther from the truth.

(since the grammar police are here, I think it's "farther", not "further")

While the 2A was written with tyranny in mind, it's important to understand that resisting tyranny is still a matter of self-defense. The criminals are just better organized.

The language used by the founders in instructive. We today like to say that you "can't trade liberty for security". But read this line from the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...

The concepts of liberty and security were not mutually exclusive. A government which provided you with security meant that it was securing your rights, not your physical security. The notion of a government employee coming to protect you from a fire hazard or a dog attack or even a mugger was not even considered. If you have problems with your neighbors, use the court system. The government's job is to leave you alone and protect the borders.
Click to expand...

Your comments about security are correct in the context of your Declaration of Independence quote. Many people certainly do seem to forget, or worse, pervert that little word, do they not?

Another phrase that has received contemporary perversion is from the Preamble to the Constitution. "promote the general Welfare". Madison did a little backstep on that and explained that he never intended its meaning to be for welfare protections we see today.

As Chubby Checker sang in 1961, "Let's Twist Again".
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Oh, I'm sure I could think of a few things that are farther from the truth.

(since the grammar police are here, I think it's "farther", not "further")

While the 2A was written with tyranny in mind, it's important to understand that resisting tyranny is still a matter of self-defense. The criminals are just better organized.
Click to expand...
The usages of these two words are converging. On-line (post-modern) dictionaries make them nearly synonymous.

The Harbrace College Handbook, 11th Edition, 1990 has the entry (Ch. 19i, 'Good Usage and Glossary, p219) "farther, further Some writers prefer farther in references to geographic distance: six miles farther. Further is used as a synonym for additional in more abstract references: further delay, further proof."

In writing the above, I realized that it is the failure of abstraction in d'masses that is allowing this convergence and gutting our language.
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Oh, I'm sure I could think of a few things that are farther from the truth.

(since the grammar police are here, I think it's "farther", not "further")

While the 2A was written with tyranny in mind, it's important to understand that resisting tyranny is still a matter of self-defense. The criminals are just better organized.
Click to expand...
The usages of these two words are converging. On-line (post-modern) dictionaries make them nearly synonymous.

The Harbrace College Handbook, 11th Edition, 1990 has the entry (Ch. 19i, 'Good Usage and Glossary, p219) "farther, further Some writers prefer farther in references to geographic distance: six miles farther. Further is used as a synonym for additional in more abstract references: further delay, further proof."

In writing the above, I realized that it is the failure of abstraction in d'masses that is allowing this convergence and gutting our language.
Click to expand...

One of the things I like about OCDO is that this is one of the few places on the internet where we actually care about this stuff.

The use of proper language, be it English or whatever they speak where you live, is so important to conveying ideas. Dumbing people down so that they are incapable of understanding the concepts of liberty and unalienable rights, or unable to read and comprehend Locke or Jefferson, is a great way to make them dependent and subservient.

My favorite part of Orwell's 1984 is the appendix at the end of the book which describes the history and purpose of NewSpeak which is the official language of Airstrip 1. The idea is to force people to use a language so simple and dumb that they cannot even discuss complex ideas or think about ideas like freedom. If you browse the comments on youtube.com you can see stupidity in action, and the future looking bleak.
 
SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Oh, I'm sure I could think of a few things that are farther from the truth.

(since the grammar police are here, I think it's "farther", not "further")

While the 2A was written with tyranny in mind, it's important to understand that resisting tyranny is still a matter of self-defense. The criminals are just better organized.
Click to expand...
The usages of these two words are converging. On-line (post-modern) dictionaries make them nearly synonymous.

The Harbrace College Handbook, 11th Edition, 1990 has the entry (Ch. 19i, 'Good Usage and Glossary, p219) "farther, further Some writers prefer farther in references to geographic distance: six miles farther. Further is used as a synonym for additional in more abstract references: further delay, further proof."

In writing the above, I realized that it is the failure of abstraction in d'masses that is allowing this convergence and gutting our language.
Click to expand...

One of the things I like about OCDO is that this is one of the few places on the internet where we actually care about this stuff.

The use of proper language, be it English or whatever they speak where you live, is so important to conveying ideas. Dumbing people down so that they are incapable of understanding the concepts of liberty and unalienable rights, or unable to read and comprehend Locke or Jefferson, is a great way to make them dependent and subservient.

My favorite part of Orwell's 1984 is the appendix at the end of the book which describes the history and purpose of NewSpeak which is the official language of Airstrip 1. The idea is to force people to use a language so simple and dumb that they cannot even discuss complex ideas or think about ideas like freedom. If you browse the comments on youtube.com you can see stupidity in action, and the future looking bleak.
Click to expand...

Double :lol::lol:to you, sir. Man, I could not agree more that your post.
 
G

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Right on Tomakawk, If we be talkin like dis when we be in skool dey woulda flunked us out.:lol:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I have to admit to not being the most eloquent speaker or writer, but I try to communicate clearly. I am afraid that this is not emphasized strongly enough in today's society.
 
KansasMustang

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

Well the spelling police arrived and it's GrAmmAr but thass okay cuz I spell it like I say it anyhow, it's all good folks :D But the founding Fathers would be doin' Cheetah flips in their graves if they knew what we're fixin' to come up against now. Tis okay tho', if not their blood in all our veins it's at least the same fire in our souls. Give me Liberty or give me Death.
Keep your powder dry!
 
T

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Well, in the 1700s spelling wasn't as rigidly enforced as it is today, but grammar was very important. Even more so was eloquence, the ability to convey an idea not only as a piece of simple data, but to give it a style, turn it into a pretty picture. The English language of the day was inspired by such wordsmiths as Shakespeare, who conveyed ideas in poetic terms.

The language of the Declaration of Independence very much reflects this. To read it is to feel the passion of the author. Even if you nitpick the grammar and spelling, you can't deny that it's impossible to read it and not totally grock it, to use a Heinleinian term. It's just a beautiful piece of literature any way you look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top