Your sitting there in judgement of me is a position opposite of the Lord's too. I can't stand a pious hypocrite.Originally Posted by Champ967
|
|
|
|
|
Your sitting there in judgement of me is a position opposite of the Lord's too. I can't stand a pious hypocrite.
The separating was started by Obozo!!
You misunderstand. I dont judge you.
Shoot back at a gang of thugs, if you feel that's what's right. Shoot at immigrants, if you like. Shoot at me. Pray to a goat. You do you.
I dont know what you profess to believe. I just noticed the difference between your stance and that of the Nazarene.
Another example of the left advocating violence. So sad...
Thanks! That said, we are human and of course not Christ. And our first instincts are not to back down but fight; especially against a gang of thugs per the example.
We have a military and police departments because if we didn't, our society could not exist. This is due to the fact that evil also exists in our world. We, as a society, do not expect our military or police departments to surrender without a fight against tyrants and thugs. We expect them to at least neutralize them, or better yet, to destroy them entirely. If one uses Champ967's standards, the military and police departments would not exist and we'd all live in a world of chaos, and that's if we could even survive.
We should make sure they are well trained and armed so that if they ever come for our guns we will have no hope of protecting our freedoms from a despotic government.
I love the assumption that once you work for the government, you will be in lock step with their every move, even into despotic measures.
Quick question for you, was Col. Jessup wrong for ordering a "Code Red?"
So are you saying we don’t need our guns because the military will do the right thing?
Nice obfuscation attempt. Are you saying the military/police are all mindless drones that will follow any order?
So what is the point of the 2nd amendment if you are just going to trust a well armed military and police force?
We've been over this, and I think honestly you know it, you just want to be dense.
How do you reconcile your belief that you need to be armed to defend yourself from your government with your belief that your government to have the strongest force in the world?
This is just one of the internal contradictions of so-called “conservatism” today. If you trust your government to have such decisive power of force, the civilians don’t need protection from such force. If you do believe they need protection from such force, why would you support such strong police and defense forces be held by the government?
I do not think it is a contradiction in conservatism as opposed to your straw man of conservatism. I like to think of it of a trust but verify type situation.
"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses 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." James Madison, Federalist 46
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 entrusted 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. Alexander Hamilton,Federalist No. 28
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
I am glad you could find some relevant quotes about the second amendment, but how about applying them to the conservative cause that advocates for a strong government run military.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
