testtest

Kidnapping a governor!?

ScottJ said:
"...I also believe some states have passed laws banning that as well."

Yep, as far as I know, in hard-core Blue-run states from what I've heard.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely and that was the point I was making. I also believe in some Red states that believe in constitutional carry but feel it’s best to keep it out of state government run buildings.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Only way in America to overthrow a govt is at the election ballot box. Any other schemes whether its voter fraud or armed initiative should be reported and dealt with by the proper authorities. This is not Venezuela or Cuba.

this news make every single gun owner in America look bad
Click to expand...

I agree those folks trying to kidnap a governor make the rest of us look bad, this is not Venezuela or Cuba, and, the BEST way to overthrow a govt is at the ballot box. But, my understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment is that if all else fails, a free people have a duty to use force to overthrow a govt.
 
somorris said:
I agree those folks trying to kidnap a governor make the rest of us look bad, this is not Venezuela or Cuba, and, the BEST way to overthrow a govt is at the ballot box. But, my understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment is that if all else fails, a free people have a duty to use force to overthrow a govt.
Click to expand...
That was unquestionably one intent of the 2nd, but certainly not a requirement. And we have to remember and accept that back then the average citizen 'kept and bore' exactly the same arms as King George's army (yes, even including cannons). There was no restriction on what kind, type, number of nor size of the arms an American citizen could "keep and bear". Affordability of those arms was the only restriction to the arms any American citizen could "keep and bear".

Today it would be nearly inconceivable that an armed citizenry or militia could in any way defeat our own standing army .......... unless the majority of the military chose to refuse to take a stand against their fellow citizens. Of course there would/could be a lot of guerilla fighting if it ever came to that, and a lot of citizen terrorism, but the odds of the citizenry actually defeating the military is today a weak afterthought at best. And remember there was no standing army at the time, it was only a consideration for a tyrannical gov't, or another country's army. However, since that was never the full, complete or even the main intent of the 2nd to do that, the 2nd still holds (or should hold) as much meaning today as when it was written.
 
jumpinjoe said:
That was unquestionably one intent of the 2nd, but certainly not a requirement. And we have to remember and accept that back then the average citizen 'kept and bore' exactly the same arms as King George's army (yes, even including cannons). There was no restriction on what kind, type, number of nor size of the arms an American citizen could "keep and bear". Affordability of those arms was the only restriction to the arms any American citizen could "keep and bear".

Today it would be nearly inconceivable that an armed citizenry or militia could in any way defeat our own standing army .......... unless the majority of the military chose to refuse to take a stand against their fellow citizens. Of course there would/could be a lot of guerilla fighting if it ever came to that, and a lot of citizen terrorism, but the odds of the citizenry actually defeating the military is today a weak afterthought at best. And remember there was no standing army at the time, it was only a consideration for a tyrannical gov't, or another country's army. However, since that was never the full, complete or even the main intent of the 2nd to do that, the 2nd still holds (or should hold) as much meaning today as when it was written.
Click to expand...
And you are forgetting the United States Military can not be used against its own citizens so that is a moot point.
 
Keystone19250 said:
And you are forgetting the United States Military can not be used against its own citizens so that is a moot point.
Click to expand...
Certainly not a moot point when you consider all the changes, misinterpretations, and infringements we accept today. Yes, it is a law, but I'm pretty sure other laws have been overlooked by some of our elected leaders when they see an opportunity to gain a little extra power ...............

Arbitrarily.....
Closing of businesses
Closing of churches, etc
Prohibiting crowds (except when rioting)
Allowing painting banners in the middle of streets
Allowing burning of buildings, vehicles, etc
Looting of businesses
Vandalism
etc
etc
etc
with NO or very limited consequences

Don't misunderstand, I recognize most, or at least some of it was for the public good, but that still doesn't make it right.

I understand your point and it's a valid one ........... until TSHTF. (y)(y)

And another valid assertion can be made if we accept that the National Guard has been used against American citizens even if that's not the actual US Army. We live in very confusing and convoluted times Keystone. I for one can say I've been on this dirt ball for more than 7 decades, and never in my wildest adult dreams did I ever think I'd see our country in this much disorder, and with a potential this Nov of an invariable total destruction of our republic.
 
somorris said:
I agree those folks trying to kidnap a governor make the rest of us look bad, this is not Venezuela or Cuba, and, the BEST way to overthrow a govt is at the ballot box. But, my understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment is that if all else fails, a free people have a duty to use force to overthrow a govt.
Click to expand...
The govt has not failed to the point of warranted armed insurrection, let alone kidnapping. no even a fraction of being close. lunatic fringe mentality plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top