Conservative plans march on Washington with loaded rifles

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing preventing a totalitarian police state is just as stupid as as Trutherism and Birtherism.

[Zarn]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing preventing a totalitarian police state is just as stupid as as Trutherism and Birtherism.

Which is why I do not believe that. There are a lot of measures (checks and balances) to gunk up the works to help prevent tyranny. If someone wants to remove the gunk, because they want things 'done quickly,' then that is when we start to have a problem. It never matters what year it is, a republic can always falter. It has happened throughout history. It can certainly happen again. To believe it is impossible is foolish and a repeated belief from history before the fall of these republics.

[Link]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing preventing a totalitarian police state is just as stupid as as Trutherism and Birtherism.

Which is why I do not believe that. There are a lot of measures (checks and balances) to gunk up the works to help prevent tyranny. If someone wants to remove the gunk, because they want things 'done quickly,' then that is when we start to have a problem. It never matters what year it is, a republic can always falter. It has happened throughout history. It can certainly happen again. To believe it is impossible is foolish and a repeated belief from history before the fall of these republics.

Which has a grand total of zero to do with the topic of the thread.

[Zarn]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing preventing a totalitarian police state is just as stupid as as Trutherism and Birtherism.

Which is why I do not believe that. There are a lot of measures (checks and balances) to gunk up the works to help prevent tyranny. If someone wants to remove the gunk, because they want things 'done quickly,' then that is when we start to have a problem. It never matters what year it is, a republic can always falter. It has happened throughout history. It can certainly happen again. To believe it is impossible is foolish and a repeated belief from history before the fall of these republics.

Which has a grand total of zero to do with the topic of the thread.

There is a connection there. However, since you insist on being rude about this stuff, perhaps I should not try and be so nice and just speak plainly like you. Would that be more to your liking?

[Link]

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only thing preventing a totalitarian police state is just as stupid as as Trutherism and Birtherism.

Which is why I do not believe that. There are a lot of measures (checks and balances) to gunk up the works to help prevent tyranny. If someone wants to remove the gunk, because they want things 'done quickly,' then that is when we start to have a problem. It never matters what year it is, a republic can always falter. It has happened throughout history. It can certainly happen again. To believe it is impossible is foolish and a repeated belief from history before the fall of these republics.

Which has a grand total of zero to do with the topic of the thread.

There is a connection there. However, since you insist on being rude about this stuff, perhaps I should not try and be so nice and just speak plainly like you. Would that be more to your liking?

Individual out of shape over weight gun owners most of whom don't have a college degree are not going to use their little pop guns to prevent the Republic from disintegrating or perturb a downward course once initiated.

[courts]

Oh jee wiz the constitution is flawed then.

It was designed that way for a reason. It is there to prevent a police state. Those who were responsible for the Constitution and Bill of Rights noted the previous failure of republics. These amendments were meant to protect the people from losing the republic. They believed guns were just as important as the US Constitution itself, in terms of protecting liberty.

baha, you and mozambique are like the only countries that recognise guns at all. do you see australians as trapped in a police state? Yeah when it was written hundreds of years ago maybe there was a risk, but it's 2013 man get with the times.

Don't believe every right winger on the internet.  For hundreds of years municipalities have restricted and outright banned guns in the United States.

It was not uncommon for guns to be REGISTERED in Colonial America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/books/in-gunfight-adam-winkler-traces-the-gun-control-battle.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Watch any Western movie.  What usually starts the trouble.  The sheriff demands everyone entering town relinquish their fire arm.  Gun control has been around since the nation was formed.  It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise or to imply it is "unconstitutional."

yes.. but when those regulations didn't deal with weapons maintenance or similar matters they had to do with essentially keeping guns out of the hands of everyone but white males of a certain standing. and as far as i can tell what was meant by 'registration' back in the 19th century was the artillery term not anything like modern serials or what have you. which makes sense since the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to maintain autonomous militias with the expectation that most white men would serve. the 2nd amendment was clearly enacted as a deterrent on unchecked federal power. but it was not the sort of hyper individualist thing most libertarians and movement conservatives romanticize it as now.

[Link]

and as far as i can tell what was meant by 'registration' back in the 19th century was the artillery term not anything like modern serials or what have you.

The points you guys raise get stranger and stranger.

What do serial numbers have to do with anything?  Were gun serial number even ubiquitous back then?  I have no idea whether they recorded them or not back then.  To tell you the truth I never thought about it.  The fact of the matter is it was well established when the founders were alive that government registration of fire arms was totally okay and there were no Constitutional issues.

[Indy Texas]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

And you actually think a handful of nitwits with loaded guns puts fear into the hearts of the people who control the most powerful military in the world?

These guys are asshats, no doubt about that. But they have an active motivation to make sure nothing bad happens. A big scene would probably just make a powerful statement for their sworn enemies.

If they don't, they should have no issues letting the 'nitwits' protest within the confines of the law.

Laws of course can be changed, and the District of Columbia is subject to the control of the United States Congress.

They're not going to intimidate the government. All they're going to do is intimidate the mostly black residents of that city who likely have unhappy memories of what their grandparents went through when a bunch of white men with guns descended on their city.

[Indy Texas]

I don't get people like Kokesh - the military vets who get all reverse Manchurian Candidate and devolve into a world of anti-government conspiracy theories.

Well, I guess when you are sent off to war and watch your buddies die all because of a lie you will change your opinion.

We have an all-volunteer military in this country. No one held a gun to his head (pun) and forced him into it.

And Ariel Castro did not force those girls into his car. Does that make his crime ok?

You're actually comparing these two things? And you wonder why people think your party is anti-woman?

Your argument is no different than Ariel Castro's argument at its base. How is comparing the roots of your arguments “anti-woman.”

A young girl getting in a car with a man who wasn't a total stranger and presuming she won't be spending the next decade getting abused by him is not the same as a young man enlisting in the military and then being shocked when he has to, you know, kill people and possibly be killed by other people. It's not your job to judge the rights and wrongs of it. It's your job to do as you're told.

A better analogy would be a woman getting in a car with a man whom she knows is a pimp. Sure he's offering to take her to dinner and buy her a new dress, but she's a fool if she thinks he doesn't want something in return.

[pbrower2a]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Alienated, politicized militias like an SA are not expressions of democracy.

[Old Man Svensson]

baha, you and mozambique are like the only countries that recognise guns at all.

Fun fact of the day for you: Canada, France, Finland, and Sweden are all pretty damn accepting of guns, and they're all infinitely more left-wing than this country. I'm fairly pro-gun control, but you're so factually ignorant it's not in the slightest bit amusing, and what's worse is you seem to be proud of it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I actually liked Kokesh back when he was an anti-war activists, but this...

Seriously this sums up my whole problem with the pro-gun people. If you want to buy guns, fine. If you live in the US, you live in a place where it's pretty easy to anyway and that's not going to change. If you want to argue that restricting and banning certain types of guns doesn't have an effect on crime, go ahead, you're probably mostly correct. But what does stuff like THIS do or accomplish? It seems the gun lobby and activists now care more about being needlessly antagonistic jerks than preserving firearms rights or providing the non-political services for gun owners that groups like the NRA were founded for. You can own a gun without being a frothing nutjob about it, I know plenty of people that do, even in Minneapolis. But now being a frothing nutjob seems to be the new rule.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

And you actually think a handful of nitwits with loaded guns puts fear into the hearts of the people who control the most powerful military in the world?

These guys are asshats, no doubt about that. But they have an active motivation to make sure nothing bad happens. A big scene would probably just make a powerful statement for their sworn enemies.

If they don't, they should have no issues letting the 'nitwits' protest within the confines of the law.

Laws of course can be changed, and the District of Columbia is subject to the control of the United States Congress.

They're not going to intimidate the government. All they're going to do is intimidate the mostly black residents of that city who likely have unhappy memories of what their grandparents went through when a bunch of white men with guns descended on their city.

when was that?

[krazen1211]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Alienated, politicized militias like an SA are not expressions of democracy.

On the contrary. The militia is the people.

[krazen1211]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

And you actually think a handful of nitwits with loaded guns puts fear into the hearts of the people who control the most powerful military in the world?

These guys are asshats, no doubt about that. But they have an active motivation to make sure nothing bad happens. A big scene would probably just make a powerful statement for their sworn enemies.

If they don't, they should have no issues letting the 'nitwits' protest within the confines of the law.

Laws of course can be changed, and the District of Columbia is subject to the control of the United States Congress.

They're not going to intimidate the government. All they're going to do is intimidate the mostly black residents of that city who likely have unhappy memories of what their grandparents went through when a bunch of white men with guns descended on their city.

How exactly does one acquire one's grandparent's memories?

[Napoleon]

I have definitely become more pro-gun control over the last few months; admittedly, it is less to due with crime or shootings and more to do with the sheer insanity of the pro-gun side. I can't stand them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have definitely become more pro-gun control over the last few months; admittedly, it is less to due with crime or shootings and more to do with the sheer insanity of the pro-gun side. I can't stand them.

Same.

[Mehmentum]

I have definitely become more pro-gun control over the last few months; admittedly, it is less to due with crime or shootings and more to do with the sheer insanity of the pro-gun side. I can't stand them.

I actually used to be fairly moderate on gun control, more moderate than on most other issues, actually.  I'll admit, Sandy Hook was the turning point for me.  Call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like, but something's wrong when shootings like this start to become routine. 

[pbrower2a]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Alienated, politicized militias like an SA are not expressions of democracy.

On the contrary. The militia is the people.

Do you even know what "SA" means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Would it be acceptable to you if those militias were connected somehow to a political party?

[MaxQue]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Alienated, politicized militias like an SA are not expressions of democracy.

On the contrary. The militia is the people.

Do you even know what "SA" means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Would it be acceptable to you if those militias were connected somehow to a political party?

"Yes, it would help Republicans to win elections by lowering the DemocRAT vote."

[Old Man Svensson]

I have definitely become more pro-gun control over the last few months; admittedly, it is less to due with crime or shootings and more to do with the sheer insanity of the pro-gun side. I can't stand them.

I actually used to be fairly moderate on gun control, more moderate than on most other issues, actually.  I'll admit, Sandy Hook was the turning point for me.  Call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like, but something's wrong when shootings like this start to become routine.  

I'd remind you, like I routinely remind other pro-gun control lefties, that the gun is really not what we should be most concerned about. It's not the fault of the gun that American society tolerates, and even glorifies, the notion of violence, nor is it the fault of the gun that our society nowadays routinely creates mentally ill individuals, like Adam Lanza, who it then refuses to treat or even so much as acknowledge as people. The gun, what with its ease of access here, is only a part of the equation - it's only the tool. The shootings, plus the plague of cyberbulling, plus our frightening tolerance of frothing warmongers, prove that our problems go far, far deeper than than just a tool.

Furthermore, to address Napoleon, spite for the opposing side of the debate - no matter how insane it may become at times - is no reason to change your political philosophy. Believe something because you believe it.

[Indy Texas]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

And you actually think a handful of nitwits with loaded guns puts fear into the hearts of the people who control the most powerful military in the world?

These guys are asshats, no doubt about that. But they have an active motivation to make sure nothing bad happens. A big scene would probably just make a powerful statement for their sworn enemies.

If they don't, they should have no issues letting the 'nitwits' protest within the confines of the law.

Laws of course can be changed, and the District of Columbia is subject to the control of the United States Congress.

They're not going to intimidate the government. All they're going to do is intimidate the mostly black residents of that city who likely have unhappy memories of what their grandparents went through when a bunch of white men with guns descended on their city.

when was that?

Pretty much any time they thought someone in the Negro part of town was being "uppity" or had allegedly "dishonored" a white woman. Vigilante justice was rampant in the South. If they didn't have guns, they had nooses to hang someone or gasoline to torch someone's house.

[Smash255]

I have definitely become more pro-gun control over the last few months; admittedly, it is less to due with crime or shootings and more to do with the sheer insanity of the pro-gun side. I can't stand them.

I actually used to be fairly moderate on gun control, more moderate than on most other issues, actually.  I'll admit, Sandy Hook was the turning point for me.  Call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like, but something's wrong when shootings like this start to become routine.  

I'd remind you, like I routinely remind other pro-gun control lefties, that the gun is really not what we should be most concerned about. It's not the fault of the gun that American society tolerates, and even glorifies, the notion of violence, nor is it the fault of the gun that our society nowadays routinely creates mentally ill individuals, like Adam Lanza, who it then refuses to treat or even so much as acknowledge as people. The gun, what with its ease of access here, is only a part of the equation - it's only the tool. The shootings, plus the plague of cyberbulling, plus our frightening tolerance of frothing warmongers, prove that our problems go far, far deeper than than just a tool.

Furthermore, to address Napoleon, spite for the opposing side of the debate - no matter how insane it may become at times - is no reason to change your political philosophy. Believe something because you believe it.

No question the problem goes far deeper, and that absolutely needs to be addressed also.  However, we should not be making it even easier for these type of things to happen, or make it easier to cause as much damage as possible.  There is no reason why someone should legally be able to purchase a gun without having a background check.  There is no reason to have guns with 20 and 30 round magazines in the arms of citizens.  There is no reason why guns brought into gun buyback programs should be forced o be resold to dealers so they go back on the street instead of being destroyed.

[krazen1211]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Alienated, politicized militias like an SA are not expressions of democracy.

On the contrary. The militia is the people.

Do you even know what "SA" means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

Would it be acceptable to you if those militias were connected somehow to a political party?

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia describes the militia as composed of the body of the people. There is no reference to concepts such as democracy or political parties.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

V: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

And you actually think a handful of nitwits with loaded guns puts fear into the hearts of the people who control the most powerful military in the world?

These guys are asshats, no doubt about that. But they have an active motivation to make sure nothing bad happens. A big scene would probably just make a powerful statement for their sworn enemies.

If they don't, they should have no issues letting the 'nitwits' protest within the confines of the law.

Laws of course can be changed, and the District of Columbia is subject to the control of the United States Congress.

They're not going to intimidate the government. All they're going to do is intimidate the mostly black residents of that city who likely have unhappy memories of what their grandparents went through when a bunch of white men with guns descended on their city.

when was that?

Pretty much any time they thought someone in the Negro part of town was being "uppity" or had allegedly "dishonored" a white woman. Vigilante justice was rampant in the South. If they didn't have guns, they had nooses to hang someone or gasoline to torch someone's house.

It sounded like you were saying people had come into DC at some point to do this, but I guess you meant pre-Great Migration.