No, YOU THINK she has no competency. If you want to relate competency with debacles then nearly every president or secretary of state during their term was not competent since nearly every secretary of state had at least one incident under their belt. She had as much business entering politics as any other senator/rep in congress.
It isn't about trusting or not trusting the government. It's about understanding that your glock isn't going to do anything against 80mm mortars or an m1 abrams. My initial point seems to have flown right by you. Basically it was: You seem rather closed minded for not visiting a state based on it's gun regulation policies.
Exclusive video of new yorkers who hate texas <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sIzivCJ9pzU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You mean how George W became governor of Texas without any experience by virtue of who is father was? Dude, welcome to politics, where an actor can become your greatest president. Hilarious that you can even utter the words qualifications.
There is possibility - probably not in your lifetime, but there is. Here's the thing, your ak-47 isn't going to stop the gov't when they have tanks.
I stopped watching The Daily Show when Jon Stewart interviewed Obama in person and it turned into one of those "Fox News interviews Prez Bush" type interviews. Stewart just gladly bent over and took it deep. It made me a bit upset as I had long been a defender of his, insisting that he would speak truth to power sooner than anyone on the major news networks. Boy, was I wrong. As for Lewis Black, I never really found him funny. So I don't curr.
Wow... comparing an interview on the Daily Show (an entertainment show on The Comedy Channel) to an interview on Fox News. I know this wasn't your intent, but I think that speaks volumes about Fox News...
How many tanks did they have in Iraq when they were killing 3K military a month? Zero? You guys are talking about tanks and "f-18" with a complete ignorance of fourth-generation warfare.
Actually I wasn't entirely accurate there. To certain guests, certain Fox News hosts will ask "tough" questions in a way that makes them easy questions. Stewart, on the other hand, asked a legitimately "hard" question, was given a BS answer, then apologized and started lubing up his *******. Either way it stinks. I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. And, of course, other obviously partisan news networks do similar things. It doesn't bother me anymore when they do it because I expect it, but I thought John Stewart actually had some integrity.
I've read the Federalist Papers and they don't quite say what you think it says. The right to bear arms as put forward by Hamilton and Madison isn't so much an individual right to protect against tyranny as it is the ability of the states to provide for common defense in the absence of standing armies. That does include against an overbearing Federal government but also for suppressing internal insurrection. This is one reason why the 2nd Amendment is written the way it is including the term "well regulated". I suggest you reread Federalist Paper 29. Don't forget only a few years after the writing the Constitution a citizen militia was raised by the government to put down a citizen rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion. That showed how much the founders actually considered the 2nd Amendment as a check on government power and a guarantee of personal liberty. Anyway National Guards and the Civil War rendered privately armed citizen militia in the service of the states as a check on the Federal government largely anachronistic.
*sigh* Nice try. Let's have a look. An excerpt from No. 29 (Hamilton): What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. No. 46 (Madison): Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Both of the above are addressing the need to have decentralized governments (the states) and a military force (the militia) aside from a standing army in order to ensure against tyranny. Keep in mind that as they envisioned, according to the Militia Acts of 1792, basically every able-bodied male at the time was considered to be the militia; being who they were they excluded blacks and women, but in their terms they intended the entire able-bodied mass of the citizenry to be that militia. More... No. 28 (Hamilton): If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. So, are you sure it doesn't say what I think it says? Remember, Hamilton was the relative statist among the two, and even he "got it". More... the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! And sometimes talking just isn't enough. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm You may consider the concept of a citizen militia an anachronism, but that is your opinion. There are many of us who do not share that view. Does that mean that we are pining for a fight? Of course not, but the Founders always intended an armed citizenry to have the last word, and to be the final guarantors of freedom if all else fails. I must also say that the argument that you can't fight a standing army that has high tech weaponry is absurd. Ask the Iraqis about that, they'll have quite a bit to say about it. And, as I said before, that army consists of American citizens - brothers, fathers, sons, daughters - and the VAST majority would refuse to engage in such a fight. I know this because I used to be one, and I know what the culture's like. Unlike what many (particularly libs) picture the military to be - a vast array of unthinking drones who happily follow every order to kill - the reality is that it is an organization composed of thinking American citizens, many of which take their oaths, duties, and obligations far more seriously than most Americans. Anyway, the Supreme Court has ruled that an individual right to bear arms exists, and that is not going to be reversed. You can argue against it if you like, but it's an argument that isn't going anywhere.
Okay let's take your premise that soldiers don't want to kill their fellow citizens. I believe there's chance it's probably true. I don't know. But under your premise of soldiers not doing that, which will make them less inclined to kill their fellow citizens? A. if those citizens were shooting at them and at govt. officials etc. Because they are armed and want to stop tyranny. B. If those citizens didn't take up arms against anyone but were simply to peacefully refusing to work. I think if second amendment defenders took their guns and began killing soldiers they'd be much more likely to fight back, blast them out of their bunkers, hideouts, etc. than large peaceful crowds who'd done no harm to them and were simply refusing to work. Also the govt. did burn a whole neighborhood in Philadelphia killing not only the armed people who were there targets but other innocents as well. That's already happened and they were willing to do that. That happened in 1985.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. 2nd Amendment defenders aren't planning on starting a shooting war with the military. It wouldn't come to that until it was *blatantly obvious* that something outside of the normal process had gone terribly wrong - like soldiers/LEOs going door to door confiscating firearms or something. That's really about the only circumstance I could see it coming to a shooting war. Problem is, most of those soldiers and LEOs are also firearms owners who are themselves 2nd Amendment defenders. A quite large majority of them, actually. Are they going to lose their firearms too? What happens when they leave the service? They think about things like this. All member of the military have an obligation to disobey any order that is illegal, unethical, or immoral. A firearms confiscation would be quite clearly illegal and I would bet dollars to donuts that that is the point at which most of the military would refuse and we'd likely be looking at a coup. Something else about the military that most people don't understand is that the US military would be physically incapable of enacting nationwide martial law. There literally aren't enough soldiers, marines, etc to try and control, much less fight across, the US. It's too much land area and too few bodies. Look at the problems the military had just trying to cover Iraq, and area roughly the size of TX - and they had many other nations and a very large Iraqi police and Army assisting them. COIN is VERY manpower intensive, and VERY difficult when you're killing the locals. Also, there are millions of gun owners out there and while surely most of them would not be willing to fight, if even 1% of them did they would likely outnumber the US Army by 2:1. Personally I am not worried about this scenario. It's so unlikely so as to be not worth losing sleep over. Right now the powers that be are content to enslave us subtly and in ways that we don't generally notice. They know better than to turn it into a gunfight. But you take away the citizenry's guns and the dynamic changes.
I'm guessing you're talking about the MOVE incident? Well, we could also talk about Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. There are lots of examples of the government overstepping its bounds and using excessive force. They are quite capable of killing the crap out of lots of people when they are able to focus their considerable combat power. When they have to diffuse that power to cover a large area they lose most of their efficacy. Also, those are fantastic examples why you should NOT trust the government.
All very nice in an era of muskets. I don't think an individual right to bear arms or to arm bears is in doubt. But the extent of that right in an era where ballistic technology has been sped up to the point that not even the most Delphic of the founders could see weapons that could kill dozens in one swing---that is very much in contention, especially when balenced with the government's obligation to maintain a relatively peaceable environment. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/12/17/would-an-assault-rifle-ban-survive-the-courts/ myself, I don't like bans very much, but I'd like very high taxes on someone who needs to have an AR-15 to feel safe.
LOL, if the Founders were around today they'd probably *mandate* that you own an AR15 and enough ammo to fight a war. That's effectively what they did with the 2nd Militia Act of 1792. Go read it. The argument that because today's weapons are more effective than muskets they need to be banned is ludicrous and based entirely upon emotion and ignorance. There is ZERO evidence that banning "assault rifles" (which are already heavily restricted, but of course you're really talking about semi-auto sporting rifles, which is what the AR15 is) has any actual significantly measurable effect upon crime. At best it had a tiny impact. The types of people who own AR15s and such are not the types of people who typically go out and commit crimes. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/ http://publicintelligence.net/nij-assault-weapons-ban-study/ That could go on and on but you get the point. To what end? Just to make you feel warm and fuzzy that you "did something"? If you are actually worried about firearm violence you should look elsewhere. Me and my AR15 are not a threat to you. You ought to worry about, you know, actual criminals, who likely don't legally own a firearm in the first place. And they most likely have a pistol anyway. Until I see a focus on that I am not buying the "for the children" BS on "assault rifles".
I don't have time to reread the Federalist Papers right now but will get to them later but in response to the particular quotes you bring up. That is what I described as a call for establishing the militia as opposed to a standing army. Exactly what I said above. Madison is here is still talking about collective self defense through citizen soldiers who are not full time professional soldiers. He is contrasting that to a European situation where the military was a separate class from the rest of the citizenry. Yes but this was in the absence of a standing army and the first use of that militia was to crush a citizen led revolt. If the Second amendment was considered the check on an overbearing government it had the opposite effect when Washington called up militia to crush citizen tax protestors. I will give you that and will have to reread that portion further but again in practice that wasn't really the case. This is talking about the states and the federal government being a check on each other. It still goes back to the contention that the 2nd Amendment is about collective self defense and not individual. Yes sometimes it isn't when you consider that the first use of citizen militia was to crush a citizen rebellion. And the actions of the Washington and the US government in regard to the Whiskey Rebellion says otherwise. What that shows is that armed citzenry was meant for collective defense in the absence of standing army. That is literally what the 2nd Amendment says. So at the cost of 100,000's of thousand Iraqi lives the destruction of their country. As someone who was in the military you should also remember that the US military acted with restraint in Iraq. We sent in troops twice into Fallujah when it could've been flattened by air. I have a lot of respect for the military but if you look at US history the government has crushed several citizen insurrections including several states in the Civil War. Outside of the original revolution there hasn't been an instance of a successful citizen or even state led rebellion as an actual check on the US government. True it has and I am not arguing for disarming the populace and agree that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to personal arms. That said though it isn't the absolute right that many make it out to be nor is it's primary purpose one of individual defense. Other than the one Hamilton quote, which I will check when I get the chance, none of the quotes speak of an individual right but a collective right as exercised by the states.
Just to add to my above post. Regarding Iraq first off Iraq isn't a victory for Iraqi insurgents as while the US is leaving neither the Sunni insurgents nor the Sadr Shiite insurgents are actually in charge of Iraq. The US established government is still in charge of Iraq. Further Iraq isn't a good argument for the success of personal small arms against a mechanized military. Consider that most of the damage done to the US military was done through two ways. 1. IED's that were primarily either rigged up munitions from heavy arms (artillery shells, missile warheads and etc.) or were supplied by outside forces such as Iran. 2. The ability of insurgents to hide among locals and use locals as human shields. The question I have then is to those of you who are arguing that small arms can be a check on the mechanized military are you then also willing to engage in the other tactics that the Iraqi insurgents engaged in?
