Biden Shuts Down Right Wing M*****a Talking Smack About Guns...Says They Need F-15s And A Few Nukes (Page 2): Here is what the Founders intended:...

JW

PeterS wrote:

The right has misconstrued the second amendment si... (show quote)

Here is what the Founders intended: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

PeterS

JW wrote:

If you were rebuilding the nation, I would be standing with you. You're not. You are turning what was once a bastion of liberty into a perverted pleasure palace for a few of the self-appointed nobility, the uber-rich, and you are volunteering yourself and your children for the positions of lackey first class and court jester.

I will do wh**ever I can to see that you fail.

Oh come now, you're the party of the uber-rich and you protect them more fiercely than a fetus at Planned Parenthood!

PeterS

JW wrote:

Here is what the Founders intended: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

Ah, a bunch of quotes out of context instead of a concrete example of a founding father using the second amendment as it was intended to be used!

American Resistance to a Standing Army

Question

Print, Life Magazine, 1951, James Madison, New York Public Library
Quote from Madison: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have ens***ed the people."

I understand what he means, but can you give some specific examples of which events Madison was talking about. Can you give other ancient examples where foreign wars are used as a type of diversion?

Answer
In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have ens***ed the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”

Experiences in the decades before the Constitutional Convention in 1787 reinforced colonists’ negative ideas about standing armies. Colonials who fought victoriously alongside British redcoats in the Seven Years’ War concluded that the ranks of British redcoats were generally filled with coarse, profane drunkards; even the successful conclusion of that conflict served to confirm colonists’ starkly negative attitudes towards the institution of a standing army. The British Crown borrowed massively to finance the conflict (the war doubled British debt, and by the late 1760s, fully half of British tax pokiesaustralian.com revenue went solely to pay the interest on those liabilities); in an effort to boost its revenues, Parliament began to pursue other sources of income in the colonies more aggressively. In the decade before the Declaration of Independence, Parliament passed a series of acts intended to raise money within the colonies.

The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
That legislation further aggravated colonists’ hostility towards the British Army. As tensions between the colonies and the crown escalated, many colonists came to view the British army as both a symbol and a cause of Parliament’s unpopular policies. Colonists viewed the various revenue-generating acts as necessitated by the staggering costs associated with maintaining a standing army. The Quartering Act, which required colonists to provide housing and provisions for troops in their own buildings, was another obnoxious symbol of the corrupting power represented by the army. Many colonists held the sentiment that the redcoats stationed in the colonies existed not to protect them but to enforce the king’s detestable policies at bayonet-point.

No event crystallized colonists’ antagonism towards the British army more clearly than what became known as the Boston Massacre. In March 1770, British regulars fired into a crowd of civilians, k*****g five. That event provided all the proof the colonists needed of the true nature of the redcoats’ mission in the colonies. Six years later, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence contained numerous references to King George’s militarism (particularly his attempts to render the army independent of civilian authority, his insistence on quartering the troops among the people, and his importation of mercenaries to “compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny”); by the end of the War of Independence, hatred of a standing army had become a powerful and near-universal tradition among the American people; the professional British army was nothing less than a “conspiracy against liberty.”

Colonists’ experiences with British troops, and the convictions that sprang from them, help explain Madison’s reference to armies having traditionally “ens***ed” the people they were commissioned to defend. After winning their political independence, the victorious colonies faced the difficult task of providing for their own security in the context of a deep-seated distrust of a standing military.

Madison’s language reflected a common concern that the maintenance of a standing army in the new United States would place [financial] burdens on the young government [of the United States].
Madison’s use of the imagery of s***ery points to the multiple meanings of that term in the 18th century. In Madison’s statement to the Convention, it referred not to the literal notion of armies marching the citizenry through the streets in shackles but to a kind of metaphorical s***ery. The immense costs necessary to raise and maintain a standing army (moneys required for pay, uniforms, rations, weapons, pensions, and so forth) would burden the populace with an immense and crippling tax burden that would require the government to confiscate more and more of the citizenry’s wealth in order to meet those massive expenses. Madison’s language reflected a common concern that the maintenance of a standing army in the new United States would place similar burdens on the young government; their experiences with the British army under Parliament in the 1760s and 1770s likewise led to concerns that the executive would use a standing army to force unpopular legislation on an unwilling public in similar fashion.

Other members of the founding generation worried that an armed, professional force represented an untenable threat to the liberty of the people generally. Throughout history, the threat of military c**p—governments deposed from within by the very forces raised to protect them—has been a frequent concern. In 1783, Continental Army officers encamped at Newburgh circulated documents that leveled a vague threat against Congress if the government continued its refusal to pay the soldiers. Historians generally conclude that a full-blown c**p d’etat was never a realistic possibility, but the incident did little to assuage contemporary concerns about the dangers posed by a standing army.

The experience with professional armies during the 40 years before the Constitutional Convention, and the values that sprang from those experiences, helps explain why the founders never seriously considered maintaining the Continental Army past the end of the War of Independence. The beliefs that grew organically from their experiences with the British also help explain Madison’s passionate anti-military rhetoric (he would later refer to the establishment of a standing army under the new Constitution as a “calamity,” albeit an inevitable one); together, they cast a long shadow over the debates surrounding the kind of military the new nation would provide for itself.

A well-regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

During the Revolution what "Well-Regulated" M*****a did the founders rely on to press their war against the British? The Minute Men? Those who drilled regularly and who reported to a chain of command so that they could be called up anytime they were needed?

But you guys still think that tobacco chewing yahoo is "well regulated" even though they drink more beer than they partake in target practice. But that's what you think is "well-regulated" even though you would never report if called up by a Democratic government! What do your quotes say about that?

So why is it that a 'Well regulated M*****a' is necessary for a free state and not a bunch of knuckle d**ggers who wouldn't know what a well-regulated m*****a was if it kicked them squarely between the cheek and gums?

Again, look no further than the Whiskey R*******n where President George Washington notified the governors of the surrounding states to call up their well-regulated m*****a and send them to him. So how many of today's right-wing knuckle d**ggers would report if Biden called them up to do the same? Any?

The problem with you conservatives is that you understand only what you what to understand. There are countless articles and even books detailing our founder's fear of a free-standing army when placed in the hands of a despot such as King George had just put them under.

But you people think that the second was intended to put guns in the hands of the most paranoid people in this country whose only desire is to take down an ideology that they see as hostile to themselves. Yeah boy, thank god for the second amendment.

American Vet

permafrost wrote:

As always, you needy, insecure gutter snips on the... (show quote)

Your ignorance of history is appalling.

And you are operating under the assumption that the military would support a radical, anti-American regime.

And, if you were in the military, I would remind you of the oath you took and note the very FIRST part...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

America 1 Loc: South Miami

PeterS wrote:

Ah, a bunch of quotes out of context instead of a concrete example of a founding father using the second amendment as it was intended to be used!

American Resistance to a Standing Army

Question

Print, Life Magazine, 1951, James Madison, New York Public Library
Quote from Madison: "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have ens***ed the people."

I understand what he means, but can you give some specific examples of which events Madison was talking about. Can you give other ancient examples where foreign wars are used as a type of diversion?

Answer
In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have ens***ed the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st.

While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”

Experiences in the decades before the Constitutional Convention in 1787 reinforced colonists’ negative ideas about standing armies. Colonials who fought victoriously alongside British redcoats in the Seven Years’ War concluded that the ranks of British redcoats were generally filled with coarse, profane drunkards; even the successful conclusion of that conflict served to confirm colonists’ starkly negative attitudes towards the institution of a standing army. The British Crown borrowed massively to finance the conflict (the war doubled British debt, and by the late 1760s, fully half of British tax pokiesaustralian.com revenue went solely to pay the interest on those liabilities); in an effort to boost its revenues, Parliament began to pursue other sources of income in the colonies more aggressively. In the decade before the Declaration of Independence, Parliament passed a series of acts intended to raise money within the colonies.

The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
That legislation further aggravated colonists’ hostility towards the British Army. As tensions between the colonies and the crown escalated, many colonists came to view the British army as both a symbol and a cause of Parliament’s unpopular policies. Colonists viewed the various revenue-generating acts as necessitated by the staggering costs associated with maintaining a standing army. The Quartering Act, which required colonists to provide housing and provisions for troops in their own buildings, was another obnoxious symbol of the corrupting power represented by the army. Many colonists held the sentiment that the redcoats stationed in the colonies existed not to protect them but to enforce the king’s detestable policies at bayonet-point.

No event crystallized colonists’ antagonism towards the British army more clearly than what became known as the Boston Massacre. In March 1770, British regulars fired into a crowd of civilians, k*****g five. That event provided all the proof the colonists needed of the true nature of the redcoats’ mission in the colonies. Six years later, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence contained numerous references to King George’s militarism (particularly his attempts to render the army independent of civilian authority, his insistence on quartering the troops among the people, and his importation of mercenaries to “compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny”); by the end of the War of Independence, hatred of a standing army had become a powerful and near-universal tradition among the American people; the professional British army was nothing less than a “conspiracy against liberty.”

Colonists’ experiences with British troops, and the convictions that sprang from them, help explain Madison’s reference to armies having traditionally “ens***ed” the people they were commissioned to defend. After winning their political independence, the victorious colonies faced the difficult task of providing for their own security in the context of a deep-seated distrust of a standing military.

Madison’s language reflected a common concern that the maintenance of a standing army in the new United States would place [financial] burdens on the young government [of the United States].
Madison’s use of the imagery of s***ery points to the multiple meanings of that term in the 18th century. In Madison’s statement to the Convention, it referred not to the literal notion of armies marching the citizenry through the streets in shackles but to a kind of metaphorical s***ery. The immense costs necessary to raise and maintain a standing army (moneys required for pay, uniforms, rations, weapons, pensions, and so forth) would burden the populace with an immense and crippling tax burden that would require the government to confiscate more and more of the citizenry’s wealth in order to meet those massive expenses. Madison’s language reflected a common concern that the maintenance of a standing army in the new United States would place similar burdens on the young government; their experiences with the British army under Parliament in the 1760s and 1770s likewise led to concerns that the executive would use a standing army to force unpopular legislation on an unwilling public in similar fashion.

Other members of the founding generation worried that an armed, professional force represented an untenable threat to the liberty of the people generally. Throughout history, the threat of military c**p—governments deposed from within by the very forces raised to protect them—has been a frequent concern. In 1783, Continental Army officers encamped at Newburgh circulated documents that leveled a vague threat against Congress if the government continued its refusal to pay the soldiers. Historians generally conclude that a full-blown c**p d’etat was never a realistic possibility, but the incident did little to assuage contemporary concerns about the dangers posed by a standing army.

The experience with professional armies during the 40 years before the Constitutional Convention, and the values that sprang from those experiences, helps explain why the founders never seriously considered maintaining the Continental Army past the end of the War of Independence. The beliefs that grew organically from their experiences with the British also help explain Madison’s passionate anti-military rhetoric (he would later refer to the establishment of a standing army under the new Constitution as a “calamity,” albeit an inevitable one); together, they cast a long shadow over the debates surrounding the kind of military the new nation would provide for itself.

A well-regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

During the Revolution what "Well-Regulated" M*****a did the founders rely on to press their war against the British? The Minute Men? Those who drilled regularly and who reported to a chain of command so that they could be called up anytime they were needed?

But you guys still think that tobacco chewing yahoo is "well regulated" even though they drink more beer than they partake in target practice. But that's what you think is "well-regulated" even though you would never report if called up by a Democratic government! What do your quotes say about that?

So why is it that a 'Well regulated M*****a' is necessary for a free state and not a bunch of knuckle d**ggers who wouldn't know what a well-regulated m*****a was if it kicked them squarely between the cheek and gums?

Again, look no further than the Whiskey R*******n where President George Washington notified the governors of the surrounding states to call up their well-regulated m*****a and send them to him. So how many of today's right-wing knuckle d**ggers would report if Biden called them up to do the same? Any?

The problem with you conservatives is that you understand only what you what to understand. There are countless articles and even books detailing our founder's fear of a free-standing army when placed in the hands of a despot such as King George had just put them under.

But you people think that the second was intended to put guns in the hands of the most paranoid people in this country whose only desire is to take down an ideology that they see as hostile to themselves. Yeah boy, thank god for the second amendment.

Ah, a bunch of quotes out of context instead of a ... (show quote)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated m*****a being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,”
James Madison.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to ens***e them.
James Madison
Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.
James Madison
A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an ens***ed press and a disarmed populace.
James Madison
The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.
James Madison

Wonttakeitanymore

woodguru wrote:

Interesting point of view...says what I always have, the government has always had the right to say what kind of guns people have. It has always drawn the line at military grade ordnance such as fully automatic and overly destructive capabilities.

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-right-wing-m*****a-guns/?utm_source=push_notifications

And that’s not scary hearing an i***t threaten citizens? Wow you guys are unbelievable!!

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

woodguru wrote:

Interesting point of view...says what I always have, the government has always had the right to say what kind of guns people have. It has always drawn the line at military grade ordnance such as fully automatic and overly destructive capabilities.

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-right-wing-m*****a-guns/?utm_source=push_notifications

Did you hear from the lips of Biden "We need nuclear weapons against domestic terrorism " referring to anyone opposing his governments ideology?

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

jack sequim wa wrote:

Did you hear from the lips of Biden "We need nuclear weapons against domestic terrorism " referring to anyone opposing his governments ideology?

I think he was saying that if you or your m*****a wants to have success fending off the government, you will need F15's and nukes.

Of course it was really hard to understand much of anything that our beloved prezzy mumbled. I also think he said "Yo querro Taco Bell."

Radiance3

woodguru wrote:

Interesting point of view...says what I always have, the government has always had the right to say what kind of guns people have. It has always drawn the line at military grade ordnance such as fully automatic and overly destructive capabilities.

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-right-wing-m*****a-guns/?utm_source=push_notifications

====================
USA is on the road to Marxism or C*******m by the Biden Administration:
The series of violence that continue to plague our cities are done with a purpose. B*M's and A****AS, or even MS13, are the tools used to foment these violence of destructions that have caused hundreds of billions of dollars public and private , plus thousands of injuries and loss of human lives.

Reasons why these thugs/mobs continue doing these crimes without being held accountable. The purpose is to weaken the power of the law enforcement. Defunding the police , and minimize their power to enforcing their duties protecting the public . Thus 50% to 75% of them have resigned or retired.

Results, the B*M'S and A****AS continue to burn cities and destroy properties public and private. They have the freedom doing violence, ignored and defended by the local elected officials of those cities. Destructions, l**ting, and stealing of merchandise from businesses accelerate. The mayhem are very common on all democrat states and cities. Massive violence happen daily in NYC, Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, or most cities in California. Chicago black youths continue k*****g each other without restraint.

When these massive violence continue, Biden and his administration, have achieved their goal. What is that? Total Gun control.

Why gun control? When they finally and officially declare Marxist government that replaces our Constitutional-Republic, the people have no more guns to fight back. Therefore, they surrender their freedom and rights to the new system of Marxist government of Biden and Obama as the lead dictator. Bernie Sanders, AOC are part of this group.

Therefore our country begins a new system of governance where power lies forever with this Godless Marxist administration. This has been the "hope and change" fully realized . Dream of Barack Obama since 2008, his campaign vision for the US. The 245 years of our freedom under God in this republic has been to replaced by Totalitarian or Marxist government.

coelacanth Loc: Michigan swamp

PeterS wrote:

The right has misconstrued the second amendment si... (show quote)

The amendments were well hashed out and they are in plain, easy to understand language, that is unless you're a 21st Century lawyer.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

wtroxell wrote:

I think he was saying that if you or your m*****a wants to have success fending off the government, you will need F15's and nukes.

Of course it was really hard to understand much of anything that our beloved prezzy mumbled. I also think he said "Yo querro Taco Bell."

My take away was a indirect attack on conservatives at large.
One may dislike Trump, yet be supportive of Trump agendas and the left qualifies that the same as the farthest right extremist , qualifying as a d******c t*******t. I'm connecting dots from multiple statements from left congress, Senate and Media, then what Biden stated.
Christians are included as d******c t*******ts.
I'm seeing a stage being set to prevent any right group from peaceful protest or speaking out against our l*****t controlled government.
First it was Twitter then Facebook and YouTube , now the left government will join forces to suppress speech.
Actually the don't want to silence the right, they want to eradicate the right.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

jack sequim wa wrote:

Did you hear from the lips of Biden "We need nuclear weapons against domestic terrorism " referring to anyone opposing his governments ideology?

Yes,
There are dozens of sources including video

https://tatumreport.com/biden-says-americans-need-f-15s-nukes-take-federal-government/

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

woodguru wrote:

Interesting point of view...says what I always have, the government has always had the right to say what kind of guns people have. It has always drawn the line at military grade ordnance such as fully automatic and overly destructive capabilities.

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-right-wing-m*****a-guns/?utm_source=push_notifications

First, the military doesn't recognize Biden as the l********e p*******t and doesn't obey him, so no F-22 will be used. Second, did Biden just threaten American citizens if they don't obey him? Sounds like to p*******e in Chief is worried to me.

Redangel62

And it figures you'd approve a president who just threatened to nuke his own people 😳 If Trump had said anything even close to that threat another impeachment would be happening

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

woodguru wrote:

Interesting point of view...says what I always have, the government has always had the right to say what kind of guns people have. It has always drawn the line at military grade ordnance such as fully automatic and overly destructive capabilities.

https://www.rawstory.com/biden-right-wing-m*****a-guns/?utm_source=push_notifications

If it were so...why goes the regime change game so slow?
Anyone with experience knows that the policing MUST eventually come. Town to town. Block to Block .Man to Man.
The ability to arm oneself against the government has not much to do with F-15s.