Sure, but he didn't say the militia should have stayed home instead of showing up with arms to put down the rebellion.
-
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.
-
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.
Elderly woman hit by spray at protest
- Thread starter jbone
- Start date
Sure, but he didn't say the militia should have stayed home instead of showing up with arms to put down the rebellion.
So do you suggest the occupiers take up arms against wealthy WS persons? I hope not, that's inciting and not protected under the 1st.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely allowing you the opportunity to demonstrate exactly how far short your appreciation of liberty falls compared to, say, Jefferson's.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
No, but he did imply that a better solution was to use words to pacify the rebels. His tone and language don't exactly convey the image of riot-suited JBTs pepper spraying nonviolent protestors.
If anything, Jefferson's words can best be read as condoning (or at least admitting the likelihood of) a degree bloodletting on the part of the rebels, but advocating for a peaceful response by government all the same (Jefferson was, after all, a follower of the teachings of Jesus).
Considering the people of whom he spoke were in armed rebellion, it's not hard to extrapolate how he would have felt regarding using paramilitary forces against some people sitting around holding hands.
no such thing as para military. There is only the army and militia. People paid by the government to be full time and enforce laws with arms would be the army. Changing their name to LEO or cop or police does not change what they are. And yes its very clear from the constitution that back then they realized the people should enforce their own order and laws through the militia, not have an army bring tyranny.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Amen.
Are you really that!
Nope, you have made it perfectly clear. To me anyway.
Nope, you have made it perfectly clear. To me anyway.
Thank GOD you final understand that Granny got what was coming to her, and that you cannot tample on the rights of others in your cause. :lol:.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
You mean my cause to preserve the Constitution from brainwashed zombies? Like the ones we encounter on this forum? Please explain to the class how I could possibly trample the rights so publicly forfeited by the indoctrinated. Kool aid drinkers who publicly and quite vocally give up their rights right here on this forum. Like yourself. I can't trample something you don't have.
You mean my cause to preserve the Constitution from brainwashed zombies? Like the ones we encounter on this forum? Please explain to the class how I could possibly trample the rights so publicly forfeited by the indoctrinated. Kool aid drinkers who publicly and quite vocally give up their rights right here on this forum. Like yourself. I can't trample something you don't have.
Do you type while positioned upside down?
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Well, if I was upside down that would be just one more way I could not possibly trample on anyone's rights, just for championing the merits and importance of the 1st Amendment.
Doesn't everyone?
Some folks only want certain Constitutional rights upheld or fought for. When Swat teams are used to restrict 2nd amendment rights, they are jackbooted thugs. When those same LEOs are macing unarmed 1st amendment protestors, they are protecting the public against those evil park squatters. For anyone to suggest that it's OK for SWAT to mace an 80 year old woman for exercising her right is just un-American and un-patriotic.
Last edited:
Its ok if she was tresspassing. 1st amendment rights don't include the non-existant "squatters rights"trespassing and violating property rights.
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Exactly. And these are the same chest thumpers who proclaim themselves to be "sheep dogs".
oak1971
Regular Member
Maybe she was just a 50 year old meth addict, that stuff can really age you fast.