“Carnivorous wookie machine gun! Neoplastic conundrum homophonic infundibulum! Ki-tang, ki-tang, ki-tang!”
I was mocking you, dummy, for referring to him as “Wayne.”
Oh really? I was mocking you back, dipshit.
Are you under the impression that states rights=slavery in 1789? Don’t be coy, just say what you mean.
WTF are you going on about?
Are you trying to say that an armed citizenry with 300 million guns couldn’t resist a tyrannical government? Is THAT what you are trying to say? Just say what you mean, its getting tedious trying to tease out the words you would use if you only had the courage to do so.
Like I said, I don’t think it can happen here any time soon but history is replete with examples of democracies going tyrannical. How many examples would it take
to convince you that this could happen?
I see why you keep posting this. Its the most effective argument you have been able to come up with.
Ah, the “I know you are but what am I” gambit. Your wit knows no bounds.
I’m trying to think of examples: Nazi Germany, where the Nazis eased gun control among non-Jews. Other democracies to go tyrannical- I don’t know, maybe Spain for a time. Can’t think of other 20th century and later examples.
No, it’s the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” “I know you are but what am I” is said straight up in response to an insult.
Effectively, yes. That was the cover story. Don’t pretend otherwise. Later, “states’ rights” came to mean Jim Crow, then segregation, now it means economic policies that disproportionately affect the colored. IOW you damn well ought to know your own country’s history a little better than you do.
YOUR assertion that the Japanese-American roundup is an example of why citizens need to be armed. The nonsensicality of your own damn argument is your own damn problem. The fact that you don’t even remember you said it is another reason not to post drunk.
More than you’ve provided, which add up to zero so far. So, can you support your own damn argument on this subject, either? :rolleyes:
You’re really not very good at this.
:dubious: Are we posting from the same timeline? In my universe, however flawed or inconsistent the Framers were, they really did care about liberty, at least by the standards they knew and without the benefit of hindsight. You sound like your Framers were proto-Nazis and all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was just cynical propaganda.
Its not an either/or. Part of the genius of our Constitution, the “checks and balances”, is born from the subtle truth that the Framers didn’t trust each other any further than Al Hamilton could throw “Little Jimmy” Madison. About eight feet, but I digress…
As a general rule of history, the privileged and comfortable are at great pains to ensure that radical government change is not too radical, that the social order is not upset. Nonetheless, there are glimmers of Tom Paine scattered throughout, and the Constitution, for all its flaws, is a wondrous experiment in governance. Feet of clay, each and every one, and flawed. But, oh my, how much worse it could have been!
Which would be the reason for all the compromises put in to protect slavery and slaveowners, right? :dubious: Really, read the original text sometime. Liberty, as you and they call it, was meant only for wealthy white men. It was up to later generations, including ours, to fix that problem, in painful steps.
Or, as Samuel Johnson rightly asked, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” Got an answer for him?
The events surrounding WWII are the most obvious examples in the 20th century. Democracies under stress can devolve. Many people in power are more concerned with their power than our democracy.
I think you are rewriting our country’s history to make your point.
People were concerned about states rights because theyw ere concnered about handing over their sovereignty to a central government. They were concerned about a tyranny from the center.
But the concept of the right of the second amendment right in the Second Amendment is a bit different.
“Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court recently decided).”
I think that part of the right in the second amendment was a right retained by the states to keep a militia. This was the interpretation that permitted places like DC (and Chicago) to impose severe restrictions on firearms, until heller et al declared that teh right was an individual right as well.
MY assertion was that our government is imperfect, that tyranny is not as far fetched as you seem to think. You like to make things up don’t you?
/sigh. never mind. yes you are smart
Ah yes … We need to be armed to the teeth because …Hitler! :rolleyes:
Gee, whatever could the Southern states who were pushing for that have been worried might happen? Hmm, thinkthinkthink … :rolleyes:
Also commonly called a slave patrol. But there was quite some prissiness about actually putting the word slavery in the Constitution; that would have made the true motives clear.
And you went on to assert that that’s why the populace needs to be armed against it. You then gave the Japanese-Americans in WW2 as an example. But you won’t go on to tell us how guns would have helped them, will you? :rolleyes:
Did you realize that whatever you’ve posted in the past is still there? And that anyone, including you, can scroll up and read for themselves? This Internet stuff is amazing.
They would have held off the entire US Army long enough for tens of thousands of armed freedom-loving, government-fearing patriots to come to their defence.
Duh.
Sure. That’s just what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco too, didn’t it?
Absolutely. I remember it all going down precisely like that. 
You asked for examples of when democracies descended into tyranny and I give you an d example now you think that I believe that is the only reason to want a gun? I thought I had already said that I don’t really buy the whole defense of liberty argument (not in my lifetime) but at some point in the future it may be a real concern.
You got a cite for the notion that it was only southern states pushing for the second amendment?
Have you ever heard of the minutemen?
Or are you just fishing for reasons to vilify the second amendment?
Are you just parroting the historical perspectives of a radio talk show host and psychotherapist?
He has been pretty thoroughly debunked as someone who is simply rewriting history and doing his own cause no favors.
Like I have said before, when it comes to the second amendment, the liberals are like Republicans, they believe things regardless of the facts.
http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amendment-passed-protect-slavery-no
No you’re wrong again.
Show me where I said “if only the Japanese had guns during the internment, it would have never happened” I was giving you proof that our government is as capable of tyranny as any other government.
Jesse Jackson says banning semi-automatic assault weapons is a matter of national security, because they can be used to shoot down airplanes and blow up railroads.
Well, to be fair to Mr. Dipshit Jackson, I did blow up the moon once with a semi-automatic assault weapon.
You’d have a better chance of bringing down a plane using mutated sea bass with freaking lasers.