The founding fathers would tell the "tea bag crowd things, such as they are REALLY misinterpreting the Second Amendment and that they are wacky to think it allows them to revolt against the government.
Such as Samuel Adams saying: "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
Add in that Franklin would tell them that climate change is FOR REAL.
Of course, people like FWM would say they were elite idiots.
Strange how there's no mention of limited government, less government waste and taxes. I thought that was part of the primary focus of the "Tea Party Movement."
There are quotes abound from many of the the founding fathers about THOSE principles, yet Maher just makes jokes about religious differences, and points out a couple of the dumbest sound bites from some of the lamest so-called conservatives there are.
@Laci: The 2nd Amendment doesn't ALLOW a revolution against the government. The SOLE purpose of ANY of the Bill of Rights is to LIMIT government infringement of those PRE-EXISTING rights. What else is the 2nd Amendment for if not to protect the right to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty? The Declaration of Independence stated that IF a government becomes destructive towards our rights, it is the right of the people to abolish it - how else do the people do so against a tyrannical government when all reasonable recourse is lost without arms?
Of course we're not near that point yet where force is necessary to change the government. But if you take that ability, the power of the FINAL say away from the people, how CAN they ever abolish a government gone completely awry?
Orygunner said, "But if you take that ability, the power of the FINAL say away from the people, how CAN they ever abolish a government gone completely awry?"
The fallacy of your position is that you, all of you 80 million gun owners, don't have that power now. What could you do with your little guns against a true tyrant? Nothing, that's what. It's just adolescent school-yard bravado that your spouting.
Furthermore, our founding fathers didn't revolt against a democracy. If they'd had a democracy, armed revolution wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
In a democracy, armed revolt gives you such things as the Civil War, where one part of the country got into a snit about losing an election.
Sure, they were afraid that their slaves were going to be taken from them, but Abraham Lincoln was NOT proposing such a thing. True, he was personally opposed to slavery, but the hysteria down South was... well, kind of like the irrational hysteria of the Tea Party today. Did Fox "News" exist back then?
"By ballot or by bullet," huh? We've already seen how that goes. Talk about "Second Amendment remedies"!
@MikeB said: "The fallacy of your position is that you, all of you 80 million gun owners, don't have that power now. What could you do with your little guns against a true tyrant? Nothing, that's what. It's just adolescent school-yard bravado that your spouting."
You fail to learn any lessons from history, do you? A determined, smaller force can wreak HAVOC on a larger, better equipped military. Remember Vietnam? How about the Russians in Afghanistan? Even in Iraq, we took out Saddam's military easily enough, but surely you know the problems insurgents have caused?
Even if just 3% of currently existing gun owners took up arms against the government, it would outnumber the existing military by about half again their number. And that's assuming that all of the military would protect their corrupt, tyrannical government (And again, before you think I'm suggesting this, we are not to that point yet and it's still possible to work within the system.)
Nobody wants a civil war, but what easier way to beat a nation of citizens into submission than to take their guns away?
"No free man should ever be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson.
Orygunner, I've heard all the references to tyrannical regimes of the 20th century that have disarmed their populations and then removed the other rights or worse. First of all, I question the accuracy of some of those examples. I question if you yourself are a true student of history or if you're just repeating what the other pro-gun guys have been repeating.
But, secondly, I wonder what that has to do with the USA of the 21st century. I think you suffer from a form of paranoia which serves to justify your love of guns.
The irony is you keep accusing gun control folks of being fearful.
WCG, Thanks for the comments. You made a good point that what we have is far from a tyrannical government in spite of what some of the extremist Obama-haters like to say.
That was hilarious! Thanks for posting it!
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers would tell the "tea bag crowd things, such as they are REALLY misinterpreting the Second Amendment and that they are wacky to think it allows them to revolt against the government.
ReplyDeleteSuch as Samuel Adams saying: "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
Add in that Franklin would tell them that climate change is FOR REAL.
Of course, people like FWM would say they were elite idiots.
Yes. I do agree with Laci. Bill Maher and most of his liberal ilk are elitist idiots.
ReplyDeleteStrange how there's no mention of limited government, less government waste and taxes. I thought that was part of the primary focus of the "Tea Party Movement."
ReplyDeleteThere are quotes abound from many of the the founding fathers about THOSE principles, yet Maher just makes jokes about religious differences, and points out a couple of the dumbest sound bites from some of the lamest so-called conservatives there are.
@Laci: The 2nd Amendment doesn't ALLOW a revolution against the government. The SOLE purpose of ANY of the Bill of Rights is to LIMIT government infringement of those PRE-EXISTING rights. What else is the 2nd Amendment for if not to protect the right to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty? The Declaration of Independence stated that IF a government becomes destructive towards our rights, it is the right of the people to abolish it - how else do the people do so against a tyrannical government when all reasonable recourse is lost without arms?
Of course we're not near that point yet where force is necessary to change the government. But if you take that ability, the power of the FINAL say away from the people, how CAN they ever abolish a government gone completely awry?
Orygunner said, "But if you take that ability, the power of the FINAL say away from the people, how CAN they ever abolish a government gone completely awry?"
ReplyDeleteThe fallacy of your position is that you, all of you 80 million gun owners, don't have that power now. What could you do with your little guns against a true tyrant? Nothing, that's what. It's just adolescent school-yard bravado that your spouting.
Furthermore, our founding fathers didn't revolt against a democracy. If they'd had a democracy, armed revolution wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy, armed revolt gives you such things as the Civil War, where one part of the country got into a snit about losing an election.
Sure, they were afraid that their slaves were going to be taken from them, but Abraham Lincoln was NOT proposing such a thing. True, he was personally opposed to slavery, but the hysteria down South was... well, kind of like the irrational hysteria of the Tea Party today. Did Fox "News" exist back then?
"By ballot or by bullet," huh? We've already seen how that goes. Talk about "Second Amendment remedies"!
@MikeB said:
ReplyDelete"The fallacy of your position is that you, all of you 80 million gun owners, don't have that power now. What could you do with your little guns against a true tyrant? Nothing, that's what. It's just adolescent school-yard bravado that your spouting."
You fail to learn any lessons from history, do you? A determined, smaller force can wreak HAVOC on a larger, better equipped military. Remember Vietnam? How about the Russians in Afghanistan? Even in Iraq, we took out Saddam's military easily enough, but surely you know the problems insurgents have caused?
Even if just 3% of currently existing gun owners took up arms against the government, it would outnumber the existing military by about half again their number. And that's assuming that all of the military would protect their corrupt, tyrannical government
(And again, before you think I'm suggesting this, we are not to that point yet and it's still possible to work within the system.)
Nobody wants a civil war, but what easier way to beat a nation of citizens into submission than to take their guns away?
"No free man should ever be debarred the use of arms" - Thomas Jefferson.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, I've heard all the references to tyrannical regimes of the 20th century that have disarmed their populations and then removed the other rights or worse. First of all, I question the accuracy of some of those examples. I question if you yourself are a true student of history or if you're just repeating what the other pro-gun guys have been repeating.
ReplyDeleteBut, secondly, I wonder what that has to do with the USA of the 21st century. I think you suffer from a form of paranoia which serves to justify your love of guns.
The irony is you keep accusing gun control folks of being fearful.
WCG, Thanks for the comments. You made a good point that what we have is far from a tyrannical government in spite of what some of the extremist Obama-haters like to say.
ReplyDelete