Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Drayno

The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

109 posts in this topic

And that is why in every democracy that turned totalitarian or fascist it started with the majority.

Quite wrong, ask Pinochet what he had besides the army and the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority is a loose term.

In terms of majority, I am referring to the support of a cult of personality more so than political logistics.

As in a majority of the population being misled or enabling bad policies.

Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see well organized malitials should also have black hawk helo`s and tanks and Jets

My state militia does have these. And they are actively flown within the states border today. Other states have tanks or jets. It depends what your National Guard Unit designation is. I hate to tell you this but National Guard Units are suppose to be state militias.however our government has chosen to use them for duty in foreign lands instead of reinstitute a draft which would be highly unpopular to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee and here I thought the King's soldiers got defeated because France, Spain, and the Dutch got involved, because the British wasn't fully committed to the fight, and because the American clued in that random armed citizens sucked and they needed an actually trained army. Silly historical research.

There were some other factors too, if Cornwallis had refrained from attacking the Irish Scots on the other side of the Appalachians he might have won after all. But they had a few scores to settle and hardly had their own life in mind if they could take a few English with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

You must be talking about House and Senate voting because with the abuse of EO's anythings possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understood it, it was less about the tyranny of Britain and more the tyranny of lack of representation. If the King had said "rightio, have a few seats in Parliament, and a couple of Lords" America would still be a colony (or at least Federated a la Australia).

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's your solution for dire straights. Bend over and take it? Ah, vote you'll say. And what if votes become ignored? How can you so easily preach complacency? Even if such scenarios are unlikely why do you refuse to acknowledge the history of governments past? It's not impossible and even if we have no chance at all having a gun is a better chance than not.

Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off. Who cares if it was sloppy? It still got done. Please don't make me make fun of Canada again for its mediocrity. I really likes ya guys but you have no bragging rights about anything except maybe hockey and in the grand scheme of things sports aren't important.

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yamato...Yes you are correct there was also an outcry as the British tried to enforce taxation on the Americas to pay for another war that Americans had fought and died in.

http://totallyhistory.com/us-history/pre-revolutionary-war/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

Not saying your wrong but this is about overthrowing tyranny which suggests to me that elections would be meaningless or nonexistent. Wouldn't the outcome of a revolution depend heavily on who won and what the ideals behind the revolution are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be talking about House and Senate voting because with the abuse of EO's anythings possible.

It is certainly not, executive orders can be overturned by the courts and both Clinton and Trumann got a bloody nose from them. The problem is if nobody goes to court because in reality all want the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

Last time that was tried it took 2 elections to turn the Presidency back into one of the people ala James Adams following the Whiskey Revolution.

http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

*sigh*

There's a process for Amending our rights. 3/4 of the States must ratify any repeals of Constitutional law either by legislature or convention. People aren't "crying for rights" they already have, they're responding to people crying about the rights expressly protected by law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some rights are considered not be infringed upon even thouigh they were listed in the Constitution. Others are considered so basic that they werent even listed. Such as who you can marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*

There's a process for Amending our rights. 3/4 of the States must ratify any repeals of Constitutional law either by legislature or convention. People aren't "crying for rights" they already have, they're responding to people crying about the rights expressly protected by law.

Anybody can sue the government if he feels his rights are violated. If nobody does I must conclude that those rights are either not important enough to the individual or they are complaining because that is what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody can sue the government if he feels his rights are violated. If nobody does I must conclude that those rights are either not important enough to the individual or they are complaining because that is what they do.

People shouldnt have to sue to keep rights there already guarenteed

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People shouldnt have to sue to keep rights there already guarenteed

Then we don't need courts anymore. But wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we don't need courts anymore. But wait...

:passifier: :passifier: Theres still other things sue over just not basic rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

yeap. they disn't like being taxed without having a say in what the taxes were used for. Which is perfectly fair, and somethnig the British should have known because they'd suffered similar uprisings amongst the peseantry over much the same things in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

I was referring to my usage of the term majority - applying not political logistics of people voting, but rather the amount of support from people; Germany would never have operated so well if the population wasn't brainwashed into compliance; that's why Hitler was never at risk in his speeches - the idea of assassinating him at first was hogwash, as everyone loved him so much - the majority supported his actions - as he was a cult of personality.

That's my point. Get the jest of what I'm saying?

A commander is not strong without support from majority of his people, or fear from majority of his people..

And we all well know Stalin commanded both fear and support.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeap. they disn't like being taxed without having a say in what the taxes were used for. Which is perfectly fair, and somethnig the British should have known because they'd suffered similar uprisings amongst the peseantry over much the same things in the past.

Then what you just described isn't this impossible thing that the gun controllers agreeing with you are claiming it is. It happened before, multiple times as you yourself are admitting, it can happen again. You've just admitted the real need for the 2nd Amendment.

The profound moral question underneath all this surface buzz is this: Should the government redistribute its citizens wealth by forcibly taking money away from some citizens through taxes in order to provide goods and services to others? When that central activity of government is deemed by the people to be maldistribution, that may well be enough by the examples cited to reverse the polarity of this force, and it becomes the people who force government to the peoples' will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off. Who cares if it was sloppy? It still got done. Please don't make me make fun of Canada again for its mediocrity. I really likes ya guys but you have no bragging rights about anything except maybe hockey and in the grand scheme of things sports aren't important.

Yes they pulled it off because they brought in French and Prussian officers to train them to fight like a regular army instead of an armed mob. And given one of the causes of the Revolution was that the British wanted the colonists to stop fighting the Natives and trying to take their land the issue of right is quite debatable. Not sure where the hell the Canada rant came from. Sorry if historical fact doesn't fit with your cultural myths but that's just the way things are.

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

Actually the core issue of the Revolution was a question of representation. The British felt that members of Parliament spoke for all subjects no matter where they were, while the colonists wanted to have their own members. If the colonies had been given representation in the form of seats in Parliament there's a good chance that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

If the King had given then some seats in the commons and a thrown a lordship or two at the colonies, then in a few years the American Colonies would have simply federated themselves like Australia did in 1900.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the King had given then some seats in the commons and a thrown a lordship or two at the colonies, then in a few years the American Colonies would have simply federated themselves like Australia did in 1900.

Possibly, but you were ruled by some dumb king 10,000 miles away and we went on to form the greatest country the world has ever known and that's not just a personal opinion. That's historical fact.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the core issue of the Revolution was a question of representation. The British felt that members of Parliament spoke for all subjects no matter where they were, while the colonists wanted to have their own members. If the colonies had been given representation in the form of seats in Parliament there's a good chance that the Revolution might never have happened, or would have taken on a much different form.

Oh I see, so that's what it is. And you've even further unwittingly justified the 2nd Amendment by admitting that sometimes governments do not represent us adequately. That is a very fine reason to have the right to bear arms.

Does the Congress represent the interests of the American people today? Do I think my Congress represents my best interests? My best interests are to pay my bills and live and love in peace with my fellow man. Even people who live across an arbitrary line drawn by government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you've even further unwittingly justified the 2nd Amendment by admitting that sometimes governments do not represent us adequately.

That was perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.