Yes, silliness. Just like LTJF intimated, this country was founded on stupid little people that were not happy with the powers that were trying to suppress and control them. They resisted. I think the only aspect of silliness here is that people in this country are so hypnotized by their own perceived comfort that they cannot comprehend any alternative.
Resistance at the barrel of a gun is like building a fence to keep out the Mexicans. We need people who are willing to pull out plugs not fire guns. Information is digital and that's not controlled by a gun barrel.
Ghandi was assassinated. Egypt is going through their second public turnover because the US has installed a leader that obeys them all the while placing harsh muslim laws on the people to force the country to further embrace westernism. I'll need further explanation to understand what Nixon has to do with this.
Again, you are speaking from a state of perceived comfort. You cannot comprehend the idea that people need to fight for their lives anymore. We are slaves to capitalism at this point. Not that I embrace any other form of government, but I think this one may be the worst. The elements of our government-sponsored society are sucking the souls out of our people. We regularly medicate our children. We sell products to our people for years until it is proven that they cause cancer. We blast the subconscious of our television watchers with subliminal imagery that amounts easily to brainwashing. We suppress people because of race, and then make it right by suppressing other races to make them happy. And then do the opposite again. Keeping out the Mexicans is the least of our worries. We need to keep out the government.
The 2nd amendment along with the entire Constitution prior to it's major amendments after the Civil war were all about State's rights and very little to do with individual rights unless granted by the State. The Federal government eviscerated States rights after winning the civil war. Without a legitimate counterbalance to Federal power armed individuals are merely instruments of chaos that legitimize the actions of the Government to suppress anarchy. Roving gangs or armed individuals are not a legit counterbalance to Federal power and it's more likely that fear of these individuals will strengthen the political legitimacy of a police state. The Patriot act being a prime example. If you really want a counterbalance you should be supporting Police and State Militia's that provide security and legitimate power to take on the Federal government while supporting the overthrow of the volunteer army and the outsourcing of military operations to private companies. A draft army is a far more effective way of counterbalancing the power of the State then untrained people with guns and their own axe to grind.
The federal government has so well integrated with state government now that it's nearly indistinguishable where one ends and the other begins. Governors and congressmen take turns in the presidential seat. They cannot compromise their position by separating federal from state. Sometimes states will clash in law to the feds, but rarely on the really important issues. Only on the hot button ones that get press coverage like abortion and the legalization of marijuana. Only now with the recently and suspiciously frequent gun incidents, which is obsessively tracked by the government controlled media, are we really talking about an issue that states clash with the feds about. Anarchy is as much a myth as the stability that the government is trying to portray in the face of a possible collapse in the economy while also facilitating control in Arab states to attempt to consolidate a one world government that certain world powers are dead set against, meaning Russia, China, India, Ecuador and Brazil. State issues are secondary except for the disarming of our populace. For very specific reasons that few people want to understand or accept. The police can be controlled by the FBI whenever federal jurisdiction is demanded, and state militias have been all but replaced by the National Guard. A group of people with guns are only a group of people with guns until they find a cause to consolidate and declare themselves an army. I think it is more likely that we see WWIII with the US playing the part of the villains than it will be to see the current state of our government exist for another 20 years.
The huge difference is that the weaponry possessed by the British army was only a miniscule amount better than the weaponry possessed by the colonists, if at all. The government has nuclear weapons, armored tanks, air superiority, and unmanned drones. And those are just the things we know about. The days of a citizen militia being able to put a dent in governmental power by force are LONG gone. Anyone with a brain can see that it isn't even worth trying. Any type of uprising would be crushed without the feds even breaking a sweat. Any real change at this point would have to come by political means, not force.
You assume everyone in the federal military would be fighting for the feds. The people could get there hands on military weaponry if they were clever enough and had the right people on there side. The British severly outnumbered the mostly untrained colonial army and was very well trained. No one with a brain gave the colonials a shot. There's more than one way to win a war. Why couldn't the US with it's superior weaponry win the vietnam war? Why not just use one of those magical nukes? They should have won without breaking a sweat, except they didn't. I do agree that with a defeatist attitude like yours it would be impossible.
Biggs, thats ridiculous. 2 points. In the Constitution, The People, and the States are different entities. The right of the People, means...individual. And. You might be hard pressed to explain "letters of marque and reprisal" in a State sponsored context.
The right of the people prior to the Civil War was subject to the States in which they lived with the exception of specific Supremacy of the Federal Government. The Bill of rights protected indentured slavery imposed by the States up until it was amended. Regarding the VN war we lost the war because we had a draft army and the country along with the military rebelled against the war. Now that we have a professional army along with corporate for profit contractors the likelihood of public opinion ending US military involvement is virtually none existent. We had a Presidential election with the country at war and it wasn't even a campaign issue. If all of our citizens were drafted into the military we wouldn't be at war today. We just had an expose about our information being collected by a for profit company on behalf of our government. Hardly an outcry. Guns aren't going to solve the problem of an apathetic public.
Just pointing out that the Bill of Rights was mostly about individuals. With the exception of the 10th Amendment, which was partly about states and partly about citizens, all of the other amendments were about individual rights and protected people from excesses by the federal government and the states.
We all know how this country was founded......and thats why the 2nd amendment was created......but 250 years later, the game has changed a little bit. I have to stick by my ealrier premise that the US military's weaponry is SLIGHTLY more effective than yours and LTJF's glocks
The thread has somewhat gone off a bit but I am curious what everyone thinks about the legal and illegal events of that night. Zimmerman being a pussy, as some think, is certainly not illegal. Martin walking in the rain is certainly not illegal. Lets look at what is legal and illegal though. Following someone. Legal Calling the police on someone. Legal Hitting someone. Illegal Defending your life when someone decides to start beating on you and you feel your life is in danger. Legal. Of the above, which did Zimmerman do and which did Martin do?
Those examples dance around the point. The People, are a seperate and disticnt element, from the State Later amendments, further solidify the rights of The People. Or, did you mean to suggest that only States have the Rights, of Free Speech, Assembly, and the Press ? Or that States have the right to be sucure in their homes, persons and effects from Unreasonable Search and Seizure? You disagree with gun ownership, I get it, but the State Militia argument, is a development of legal sophistry invented during the mid 20th century. It defies plain English, stands logic on its head, and has been debunked by LIBERAL legal scholars...("the embarassing second amendment" is the title of the biggest book in particular), it stems from (much like the bizarre Separation of church and State argument), from an obscure statement in the Miller decision, as the defendants were not permitted a constitutional argument for a sawed off shotgun, because it was not a regular arm born by a member of a militia.. (roughly) It also defies a plain reading of the Federalist papers principles. If people dont like the 2nd they should amend it or STFU. But those against ownership know that will never happen. But that argument demeans us all, both in making it, and on the other side having to point out its imbecility, while those making it stick their fingers in their ears, and refuse to adopt the mandated Constitutional process of amendment. Now, much like Roe invented a right that never existed, and caused a civil fight that has spanned decades, the fact that the Second A. Will never be amended out of the constitution, because Americans will not stand for it, so irresponsible legislators, the decendants of the state milita sophistry, spawn bizarre laws to attenuate it, has done the same. /sidebar, Back to Martin.
That is actually illegal, if you were the first aggressor. You cannot start a fight, then kill someone and claim self defense. That is the point of the entire case.
Once again Following someone. Legal Calling the police on someone. Legal It comes down to who approached the other with the intent of physical harm. If the jury believes that Martin threw the first punch and was on top of Zimmerman hitting him then it seems that the shooting would be in self defense and Zimmerman should be acquitted.
