• 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.

Clone this guy!

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Good point. Well, at least there's still a fighting chance when "the system" collapses from all the violations of natural law perpetrated by government.
The good thing is that enough people are starting to realize how horrible violating those laws are. I hope for similar jump in logic, the colonist had when they realized they owed no allegiance to their state or their king.
 

ArtBrownSr

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
19
Location
Anchorage Alaska
Too bad the 2A failed to do what it was supposed to.
We were fighting it fine until the Feds were fighting the corruption and gangsters of the 20s and 30s then we decided to not fight the gov't when it declared certain weapons were not allowed

Good point. Well, at least there's still a fighting chance when "the system" collapses from all the violations of natural law perpetrated by government.
IF WE can gather enough support from those that still are acting like Ostriches

The good thing is that enough people are starting to realize how horrible violating those laws are. I hope for similar jump in logic, the colonist had when they realized they owed no allegiance to their state or their king.
Maybe but it would have been so much easier if we had KEPT what we had RATHER than trying to get it back
Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
We were fighting it fine until the Feds were fighting the corruption and gangsters of the 20s and 30s then we decided to not fight the gov't when it declared certain weapons were not allowed
That surely was a horrible use of a "crisis". Of course that crisis was created in the first place by government prohibition.

I would say it goes back further than that, Lincoln created an empire were folks who used their right to throw off tyranny, were killed and so was their families and farms and etc.



IF WE can gather enough support from those that still are acting like Ostriches
+1
Most posters on here may know I feel the ostriches are on both major political parties.



Maybe but it would have been so much easier if we had KEPT what we had RATHER than trying to get it back
Remember Ben Franklin's words: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Yep, one of my favorite quotes. I go a little further with clarification. All liberty is essential and all safety is temporary.
The founders had created a fairly anarchist society with a minarchist federal government, very limited enumerated powers. Powers many who claim to be 2A supporters are in favor of expanding to virtually everything.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
When the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution and the BoR, WHO was the "militia"?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the militia actually every "able-bodied male", some as young as 14, that could shoulder and use a firearm and defend the fledgling country?

While we may not "need" a militia in that sense any more, what with the National Guard and the "standing army" we have now with our current military levels, I think the reporter is wrong in his assessment that the 2A doesn't mean an "individual right". The original militia WAS every able-bodied male and, in a few instances, some women fought alongside their men.

So I DO believe it is an "individual right" as the individual is still "the militia".
He did cover the differences between the "national guard" and the general militia. If you read between the lines and what was actually said.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

ArtBrownSr

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
19
Location
Anchorage Alaska
I'm sure there could have some areas made a little more clear but in general I think that reporter did a decent job of clearing the air.
 

ArtBrownSr

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
19
Location
Anchorage Alaska
Quote Originally Posted by ArtBrownSr View Post
SNIP "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I think the reason Franklin's words penetrate so well is because rights are safety.
Sir the RIGHTS are the LIBERTY !
Dr. Franklin was speaking to those that gave up a liberty(RIGHT) to gain safety deserved neither.
 

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
917
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
We were lucky enough to have Ben Swann as a reporter here in Cincinnati on the Fox affiliate. His reporting here was spot on in that same manner. He works in a bigger market now, good for him!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
When the Founding Fathers were framing the Constitution and the BoR, WHO was the "militia"?

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the militia actually every "able-bodied male", some as young as 14, that could shoulder and use a firearm and defend the fledgling country?

While we may not "need" a militia in that sense any more, what with the National Guard and the "standing army" we have now with our current military levels, I think the reporter is wrong in his assessment that the 2A doesn't mean an "individual right". The original militia WAS every able-bodied male and, in a few instances, some women fought alongside their men.

So I DO believe it is an "individual right" as the individual is still "the militia".
The militia clause is not at all dependent upon the individual right.

If we were to say, "Schools are important to a states education, the right for people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" not even the anti's deny this type of wording means individuals would have no right to books.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,461
Location
Dallas
The militia in the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteer state units, with members furnishing their own guns. They were not very reliable in battle and it wasn't till late in the war that the Continental generals figured out a role they would function well at.

They were placed at the front of the lines, to fire one shot or two at the British, and then fall back. Then the British would encounter the battle-hardened Continental troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
The militia in the Revolutionary War were comprised of volunteer state units, with members furnishing their own guns. They were not very reliable in battle and it wasn't till late in the war that the Continental generals figured out a role they would function well at.

They were placed at the front of the lines, to fire one shot or two at the British, and then fall back. Then the British would encounter the battle-hardened Continental troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems to me the militia acting as gorilla homeland fighters were way more effective than the government trying to emulate European style warfare.
 
Top