Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
To impeach, or not to impeach
The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

Ah I see! Thank you for that answer. Now that makes sense regarding what I have read.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.

All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.
Yes. You are correct about the Second Amendment and you are correct in your observation that firearms have significantly advanced since the time of the musket or the end of the American Civil War era. Like I said, if the liberals were able to completely focus on the real issues related to improper gun use by some of its citizens and show us that they're willing to seriously address them instead of focusing on disarming us, emptying prisons and establishing communist like governments instead we could effectively address and eliminate most of the violence associated with guns.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 10:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.
Yes. You are correct again. However, what you fail to take into account or realize for whatever reason, is the amount of people in charge of law enforcement is relatively meager in size when compared to the over all size of the country and the overall population of the country which is currently unknown and unable to determine at this time.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-28-2019, 02:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.
Yes. You are correct about the Second Amendment and you are correct in your observation that firearms have significantly advanced since the time of the musket or the end of the American Civil War era. Like I said, if the liberals were able to completely focus on the real issues related to improper gun use by some of its citizens and show us that they're willing to seriously address them instead of focusing on disarming us, emptying prisons and establishing communist like governments instead we could effectively address and eliminate most of the violence associated with guns.

In other words, you would support some kinds of gun control if it were passed by conservatives instead of liberals.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-28-2019, 02:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 12:15 AM)taramarie Wrote: I may be wrong, but reading that second amendment of yours, it seems that it is implying that it is for the right of all people to own and use a weapon in self defence if they choose to. I believe it was created post the war for independence from the British and so it was created at a time where it was intended to give the citizens of your country the right to fight against a tyrannical federal government. It seems it was created to give individuals the right to defend themselves in case it is needed. What has changed however is how guns are made compared to a couple of hundred years ago and cautionary laws around the ownership of such guns should be taken into consideration due to said change. Feel free to correct the resident foreigner. It is just a simple observation.
Yes. You are correct about the Second Amendment and you are correct in your observation that firearms have significantly advanced since the time of the musket or the end of the American Civil War era. Like I said, if the liberals were able to completely focus on the real issues related to improper gun use by some of its citizens and show us that they're willing to seriously address them instead of focusing on disarming us, emptying prisons and establishing communist like governments instead we could effectively address and eliminate most of the violence associated with guns.

Interesting. Could you state what the actual issues are and what you would do to solve the issues your country is facing with regards to shootings. With regards to emptying prisons, do you mean the legalization of marijuana and cannabis and freeing people who were charged with drug related crimes?
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the American war effort.

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
I think we would more likely vote to divide as a country at that point. We have the right to do that too. What's the point of going to war to keep some cities and keep a bunch of people that we aren't all that interested in financially supporting and keeping at this point? Oh, you can call us sore losers, racists, fascists or whatever else as we are voting to do it and you can call us stupid, racist and whatever else as our President our troops begin to erect and secure our national borders and you can cheer as American run bulldozers are removing the portion of the American border that liberal fools like you had in place to protect you as well. As you already know, Americans don't care and Americans don't stop or get in the way it's government doing what its supposed to do that upsets liberals these day.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 02:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 10:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: All correct, but the militias had a law enforcement side as well.  Remember, few police existed in any sense of the word: no sheriffs, no marshals, no constables. So the militias acted as a supplement to the meager law enforcement in place, hence the 2nd Amendment.  Because our society and institutions have changed so drastically, it makes sense to view the Constitution as a living document, but dogmatic conservatives believe the opposite and hold power for now.  So the 2nd stays in its perverted Scalia form, and so does the arcane amendment process that makes changing that nearly impossible.

Yes. You are correct again. However, what you fail to take into account or realize for whatever reason, is the amount of people in charge of law enforcement is relatively meager in size when compared to the over all size of the country and the overall population of the country which is currently unknown and unable to determine at this time.

If you only count sworn law enforcement officers, and ignore other law enforcement personnel and all of Homeland Security (not sworn officers), here's the number.  That's hardly meager.  For example, the city of New York has roughly 32,000 city cops.  How many do youthink are needed?  Violent crime is at a nearly all time low.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

FYI, even writing this in jest is pretty serious,  If you're serious, it's even worse.  In the past, conservatives passed sedition laws, and what you wrote above is a textbook example of the things that would have gotten you thrown in jail.  Luckily, we don't have those laws anymore, but the thoughts are still pretty dangerous.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.

Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

We do not have ideological tests to determine who would be a suitable soldier of police officer. Maybe we can deter extremists from even applying, and we can drum out those who get through. Police departments have internal-affairs divisions to check the police who align themselves with criminals and extremists. 

Know well: firing weapons is not a big part of their job. Training, perhaps, but it is safe to say that practically no police officer wants to blow someone away. Cops don't want to get killed themselves and leave behind a grieving widow and orphans, either.  Still, pull a gun on a cop and expect to die. Know well, also: police work is becoming a more attractive job than it used to. The pay is good, and the risk of being killed by a criminal has become much lower. Because cops have bullet-proof vests, it is the police officer who is now much more likely to survive an armed confrontation. Take note that fewer offenders are being sentenced to death for, among other reasons, that the people who might get away for a short time before being caught and convicted for capital murder, variety "murder of police officer" are being killed by cops -- or offenders know about this and are getting an even stronger deterrent to any attempt to murder a cop by firearm.

Police work is beginning to attract liberals who think that they can do more good as cops than as glorified (and under-paid) clerks in Corporate America. Note also that more cops are coming from minority communities , and as you can expect they maintain their loyalties, at least politically, to the communities whence they come. Police work is now middle-class work, and middle-class Hispanics and blacks are still rather liberal.

Because politics and conscience often go together, it is not safe to assume that the cops will largely take the side of those who want a fascistic America. The standards of rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances may not yet be ages-old, but they are the norm in America. Those are turning against Donald Trump, who shows despotic tendencies that we Blues are the first to find abominable. Those tendencies will either drive him out of office, make his role as President personally intolerable, gut his authority, or (least likely in view of his character) compel him to change his way as President. 

To get your way you will need a veritable civil war within both the military and within police forces, something that will not happen. I see it this way: the hearings in the House Intelligence Committee  have demonstrated that our President has no loyalty to old decencies that make democracy possible and that prevent the slide into tyranny in practice, if not ideology, to those of fascists and commies. The military, the intelligence services, the diplomatic corps and federal law enforcement have given up on this President. The center-right is turning against this President; even if it is poorly represented in Congress it is a significant enough part of the electorate that your side cannot win the House majority, and cannot hold the Presidency and the current Senate majority without it. 

We Blues prefer elections to purges, persecutions, and massacres. So does the center-right. That may now be only 5% of the population, but we Blues are more reliable allies of the center-right than are fascists. We will need their votes, and we may need to make some compromises to win them over.

You have lost that war before it had a chance to start because that war is not going to happen.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

I think there will be plenty of soldiers and police who support democracy and the constitution to crush your rebellion against a duly-elected quasi-socialist government of some sort.

The ownership of guns and semi-automatic guns is being more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer citizen hands. One wonders just how big this army of yours is going to be.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-29-2019, 01:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
I think we would more likely vote to divide as a country at that point. We have the right to do that too. What's the point of going to war to keep some cities and keep a bunch of people that we aren't all that interested in financially supporting and  keeping at this point? Oh, you can call us sore losers, racists, fascists or whatever else as we are voting to do it and you can  call us stupid, racist and whatever else  as our President our troops begin to erect and  secure our national borders and you can  cheer as American run bulldozers are removing the portion of the American border that liberal fools like you had in place to protect you as well. As you already know, Americans don't care and Americans don't stop or get in the way  it's government  doing what its supposed to do that upsets liberals these day.

You'll need to vote state by state to secede, and I don't know how a blue government would take that "illegal" act. But if you did, as you know, it would likely be OK with me; unlike the blues of Lincoln's time. My only concern is that much of the natural beauty of America is located in now-red states that might secede, and that would mean the likely destruction of these beautiful wild scenic places. But a civil war to protect some national parks and forests and such might not be worth the cost.

I don't know how many states would secede, but Minnesota is not likely to be one of them, so to live in your red right-wing utopia you'd have to move to some place like Wyoming or Oklahoma or Alabama.

And as I said, your closed-off society would be at a disadvantage, because the remaining states would have more immigrants that add to our economic productivity. And since our approach to government that provides help to those who need it works better than your stingy approach which concentrates wealth into a few hands, your red-state republic would quickly fall behind our rump USA, and you'd be asking to rejoin the union soon, with your tails between your rumps and your sorry legs.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-29-2019, 01:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 02:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 05:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The second amendment was not instituted to allow citizens to take up arms against the federal government. That is treason, and that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. From what I have learned, the amendment was instituted because the nation had no army and was dependent to defend itself on a militia composed of well-trained citizens who supplied their own arms. These militias were used to put down revolutions and riots by those who considered the government oppressive, such as the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, and likely was passed so that southern slaveowners could put down a feared slave revolt.
I know a commie or quasi socialist of some sort would/could view it/feel that way if they were to ever succeed with their goal of taking over or destroying the power of the American government.

If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
I think we would more likely vote to divide as a country at that point. We have the right to do that too. What's the point of going to war to keep some cities and keep a bunch of people that we aren't all that interested in financially supporting and  keeping at this point? Oh, you can call us sore losers, racists, fascists or whatever else as we are voting to do it and you can  call us stupid, racist and whatever else  as our President our troops begin to erect and  secure our national borders and you can  cheer as American run bulldozers are removing the portion of the American border that liberal fools like you had in place to protect you as well. As you already know, Americans don't care and Americans don't stop or get in the way  it's government  doing what its supposed to do that upsets liberals these day.

Another characteristic of your red state utopia would be the likely abolition of higher education, because it's a breeding ground for socialist and atheist opinions like permission for women to have abortions. These loonies would be the majority of voters in your red utopia.

In September, Tennessee State Senator Kerry Roberts (R-Springfield) declared that he wanted to eliminate higher education (presumably only for women, because abortion) which would save America. His excuse: he was on talk radio. He (still) hasn’t apologized.

https://www.wjhl.com/news/regional/tenne...ng-ground/

How do you think your seceded state would do economically if it had no universities?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(12-02-2019, 07:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

I think there will be plenty of soldiers and police who support democracy and the constitution to crush your rebellion against a duly-elected quasi-socialist government of some sort.

The ownership of guns and semi-automatic guns is being more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer citizen hands. One wonders just how big this army of yours is going to be.
Reply
(12-04-2019, 12:26 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(12-02-2019, 07:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 10:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(11-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the quasi socialists of some sort take over the American government, as I expect them to do soon with a sizeable, legal voting majority, I expect that the right-wingers who oppose it already have enough AR-15s to stage a rebellion. But it would not succeed, and they would lose their guns then.

Our government's ruling party is not yet determined by which folks have the most guns. I expect Trump would like it that way, since he wants to take over and become dictator to make America great again. After all, he IS Mussolini.

Your previous statement that you support democracy is contrary to your statement above that your faction should be allowed to overthrow a quasi-socialist government of some sort by force of arms if it is duly elected.
Yep. We have enough AR-15's and other similar weapons, other semi automatic weapons of all kinds (pistols, rifles and shotguns), high powered rifles and ammunition that are exclusively made for killing large wild animals and so forth available to us right now to start out with and this doesn't include the amount of real weapons of war that we be removing from the bodies of blue soldiers and liberal  law enforcement officials or the ones so the called traitors will decide to take with them when they decide to join us/ the American cause. Just so you know, you and every other blue fool is going to be in for one hell of a war which will be fought where you live street by street, house by house and that's if your lucky enough to live in a blue area that is viewed as needed for the support of the  American war effort.  

Oh, we also have enough soldiers in and out of uniform and enough police and a large enough population of American people with all kinds of knowledge and professional skills who will completely support the American war effort and an American system that's far more advanced than the primitive age old system that you seem to prefer that basically imploded before your very own eyes about thirty years ago. Unfortunately, you don't have the benefit of surprise on your side because the other half the country see's it, knows it and understands what the liberal side is still all about these days.

I think there will be plenty of soldiers and police who support democracy and the constitution to crush your rebellion against a duly-elected quasi-socialist government of some sort.

The ownership of guns and semi-automatic guns is being more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer citizen hands. One wonders just how big this army of yours is going to be.

United States Army. Mess with it and your life will be either short or miserable. Despite its power it does not go around spoiling for a fight.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
Morning Consult/Politico, Dec. 19-20, 1387 RV (prior poll Dec. 14-15)

This poll was conducted entirely after the House impeachment vote.

Approve 41 (nc)
Disapprove 56 (+1)

Strongly approve 27 (+3)
Strongly disapprove 46 (+2)

Do you approve or disapprove of the House of Representatives impeaching President Trump? (Previous wording: would you approve of...)

Approve 52 (+2)
Disapprove 43 (nc)

And would you approve or disapprove of the Senate removing President Trump from office?

Approve 51 (+1)
Disapprove 42 (-1)

So much for a sympathy bump for the President.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Vote to impeach Trump and risk death, adviser says nebraska 0 433 12-26-2017, 08:08 AM
Last Post: nebraska

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)