View Single Post
Old 02-19-2013, 01:48 PM   #95
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkporter View Post
And here's where you lose me again. If the purpose of owning a weapon is to protect yourself from the federal government, then you're fighting a losing battle. You've already ceded the rights above to own firepower that might help you in anyway against the feds. A fed comes knocking, and you shoot him? You are finished. Plain and simple.
One, using this logic, honey bees are defenseless. The threat of the sting is just as important as the ability. Needless to say there are plenty of corrupt federal and local officials willing to exchange your life for something of value to them. It's only natural to expect that they'd be much more hesitant to risk their own in the process. Myopic faith in government at the height of the age of skepticism is one of the greatest ironies we have on display today.

Quote:
The protections against our government turning tyrannical are not contained in the second amendment. They are contained in the right to vote, the checks and balances in the three branches of government, civilian leadership of the military, the freedom of speech and assembly, and the due process of law. The second amendment was written at a time when we didn't have a strong national military, and external threats required that we had "well-regulated" militias..
Dead wrong. I've put out the challenge, after quoting numerous founders myself... show me who said that the 2nd amendment was only about defense from foreign invaders. Virtually every founder is on record stating that an armed citizenry was a last check against a runaway government.

Quote:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource 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. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28
  Reply With Quote