Biden calls 9mm ‘high-caliber weapons,’ suggests banning them

No one gives a damn about failed attempts.

 

The Election Riot of 1874. The White League attacked polling stations, murdered blacks waiting to vote, refused to count any Republican votes, removed all Republicans from office, all without provoking a response from the Feds.

The Democrats performed a successful coup.

 

Some declare flatly that this would never even be necessary, because “in a democracy, the government is the people’s government.” That begs a very big question. I wish I could be so complacent that it can’t happen here.

The Founding Fathers didn’t ask why it was necessary to provide the people the means to resist a tyrannical central government. It was a problem they had very recently encountered in real life, in the form of thousands of Redcoats sent across the Atlantic by a distant central government to suspend civil rights and enforce oppressive laws. So when they drafted their own system of central government and provided it sufficient military force to repel or deter foreign threats, they were profoundly concerned that this new national government would not be able to turn its power back against its own citizens.

Their solution was to make sure that the government drew its military power from the citizens themselves. That is the meaning of the much misinterpreted preamble to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The idea was to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves arethe military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.”

None of this is obsolete, despite advances in weapons, training, tactics, and the professionalization of the military. We still adhere to this system, both in letter and in spirit, in three ways: an armed citizenry, a military of citizen soldiers, and the National Guard...

https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/22/how-the-second-amendment-prevents-tyranny/

 

Your only criteria at the time was "when did it ever happen".

Only now when I responded so overwhelmingly now you require successfully attempted resistance.

 

Which one?

 

1946

 

You ignore the obvious.

The only reason people believe this Bull about "the people resisting a tyrannical government" is because it makes people interest in guns sound like something noble.

The real reason Americans love guns for the most part is THEY ARE FUN!!

Nothing more.

 

Not quite — that was heavily armed military veterans vs a corrupt local sheriffs office.

Note: I said military

I 100% agree people that have been trained should have weapons available to them, especially veterans.

 

You're moving those goal posts just as fast as you can.

 

That looks like a reason not to allow extremists to have weapons — not to allow anyone to have them.

 

I am moving goal posts by saying military after I said military?

LOL. Ok friend.

You can click the little up arrow to see my goalposts remain firmly planted. I am sorry that you are unable to make your historical point.

 

We will never be the people government as long as the screaming minority can overrule the will of the people.

 

It is noble to protect our rights vs a future tyranny or a present one that tries to take away that constitutional right.

 

The constitution was specifically written to frustrate the unruly mob that is direct democracy and to place checks on the power of full undiluted majority rule with a variety of checks on such. The Senate set up, the filibuster, the electoral college, the bill of rights, were all designed to protect a minority against the whims of the majority.

 

Not every "right" is worth protecting. Sad perhaps but true never the less.

 

According to who? The constitution is worth protecting in full at all costs come what may. The 2A will be protected just in that manner. It can only be taken away by force of arms.

 

No its not. There are lots of "rights" in the U.S. Constitution that I don't give a damn about and that I'm not bothering to shed anyones blood to defend.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.

 

Other than not having to quarter hostile soldiers in your house, which rights would you freely give up? This constitution is a part of what makes us an exceptional nation on this earth and I’m not abandoning it for a mess of pottage or less much less under duress

 

The filibuster is NOWHERE mentioned in the Constitution

Your use of the Electoral College shows a profound misunderstanding of its real function

The Bill of Rights was widely criticized since it was thought unnecessary and as interpretable as being the only rights we have, which conservatives in fact still do to this day.

The Constitution ITSELF is the ONLY protection the Founding Fathers thought necessary against the "unruly mob" (conservatives just can't keep from betraying their REAL feelings, can they?) which these violent tyrannophiles see as "WE, (not just a few self-appointed "leaders" but ALL of us, conservatives AND liberals) the people"

 

the federal government was never given ANY PROPER power to ban citizens owning any weapon.
the second amendment reiterated that the federal government was not invested with any power that would allow it to disarm private citizens, acting in their own sovereign states of arms that a citizen would normally keep and bear This all was screwed up when a dishonest FDR crapped all over the tenth amendment and pretended that the commerce clause somehow gave congress such powers but remember one thing

The second amendment i s not about what private citizens can do but rather what the federal government cannot do

 

I have never seen any proposed common sense gun laws that have any common sense in them. They are all about harassing gun owners and doing nothing about crime. How is a required training regimen either constitutional or effective against premeditated murder? What type of weapons should be banned in light of Caetano?

 

The filibuster was added in the early 1800’s as part of a erroneous rule change. It was not included by the founders and wasn’t even used until the 1830’s.

The house also is far less representative of the population as intended by the founding fathers — so much so that I believe trump would have lost in 2016.

You don’t care about what was designed, only if it helps your team win.

 

Quartering soldiers is in the Declaration of Independence, Excepting for the Bill of Rights, rights aren't mentioned in the Constitution and well they're not. The Constitution is to PROTECT our Rights, not grant them.

I believe our rights are implied in the English Common Law, which the Constitution is a part of and they are VERY broad, We have a right to do almost any possible thing we please as long as there is no law (in statute or as stare decisis) against it. This is, as I understand it, the basic meaning of our being a FREE country.

 

The United States was a nation years before the U.S. Constitution took effect.

The one requiring a jury trial in suits of over 25 dollars is irrelevant as well.

 

The ninth and 10th amendments assure thst all rights not mentioned are the people’s rights and that all powers not enumerated to the federal government are powers of the states and the people.