He's a goose-stepping Totalitarian Statist. Anti-Constitution. At least it's on record.

No further use in engaging.

Ping me when you've become an actual American patriot.

George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.

You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?

Having been approved by the requisite three-fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791),the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. President Washington informed Congress of this on December 30, 1791

If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto.

That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)

Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.

Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL

I guess Gatlin hasn't told us yet if he would have been a rebel or a Tory during the Revolutionary War. It is a concrete example of whether man possesses an innate right to overthrow the lawful established government.

So, Gatlin, would you have been a rebel American or a royalist Tory during the American Revolution?

That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)

I wonder how many people with the required gunsmithing skills and machine tools are out there. Has to be at least a half-million, perhaps more.

And modern computerized tools could produce millions of shere kits in very short order. Like in a few days. You'd only need a few guys in a high-end manufacturing facility or at one of dozens of gun/accessory manufacturers.

Not that I've ever thought about it much. I'd better stop before you feel the sudden urge to scope out your lines of sight from the rooftop.     ; )

I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution...

It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership.

NEWSFLASH:

And all that matter is the US Constitution AND ITS CLEAR INTENT.

Thomas Jefferson was one of MANY participants and contributors of the US Constitution. But like most rabid Progs and Statists, you seem to believe Jefferson was the only Founder.

Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL

Heh...

But before busting that move to Canada (or back onto King Georges lap), I'd assume he might have stuck around just long enough to become a Tory informant....then bolted when he felt the heat.

You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?

Nice counter...

George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.

I never denied that hotbeds of Tory royalists were not disarmed. No more than I would deny that the first actions of the Revolution involved the Redcoats marching by night to try to seize the weapons at rebel armories, for which they paid dearly.

But how many were disarmed in these Tory hotbeds? These accounts don't tell us. Was it a handful? Dozens? Hundreds?

It does make a difference in how much weight we should assign to this. Keep in mind that espionage is known to have exercised considerable, if not decisive, influence in the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, etc.

So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?

Nothing would be safe tho. People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.

So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?

Well played. I anticipate an interesting answer (if at all.)

If the Commander wants to engage in Red Herrings, I'm betting on you.

;-)

People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.

On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?

I'm pretty sure everyone here would batten down the hatches and protect their own in such a case.

On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?

The American side!

Isn't it kind of silly to discuss the idea of the Right engaging the Left in America with their existing home arsenals?

The Left would show up with a few million marginal guns. The Right would show up with 400 million guns and tens of millions of people who know how to use them.

The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover. Like if someone like Bernie Sanders but more extreme became prez with a 60-vote Dem Senate and a House majority. But not Sanders himself. He'd know better, even though he knows very little in general.

Had I been there at the time, it would have been General Beauregard Gatlin in this painting and not old George.

I always thought Washington looked like he had indigestion or an itch in that painting. So did many of those semi-creepy paintings of Napoleon back in the day. It was Thing for painters, apparently.

The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover.

I'd bet on some type of massive disaster happening, with resulting citizen unrest/killing, --- triggering a stupid govt attempt to stop the chaos by gun confiscation, instead of relief efforts.. --- At that point, a civil war would likely erupt..

It started to happen in New Orleans...

On which "side" would that be?

That was kinda my point. ALL sides will steal weapons. The government will always try to confiscate weapons of its opposition. The heartbreaker is, everyone against the government will steal from each other too.

“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”

Like most she fails in the comparison. It's not a matter of guns as we all know but of who has them. We used to be a God fearing society which for the most part knew killing was wrong and most held to a divine reckoning beyond this life. Not to mention a temporal punishment of execution for killing others.

The problem is we now live in a nihilistic society who has access to guns.

---- citizens who “are or have been in Actual Rebellion ---

-- in rebellion to the government of the USA, the gov't acting under constitutional principles, --- can have weapons confiscated certainly. And every example you quoted, they were in actual rebellion, only the whiskey tax of dubious consirutinality. As usual gatlin is on the wrong side of a constitutional fence.

the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need"

Always sounds so awesome.... to the L.I.F.E.R. free loader parasites riding the gravy train being pulled by, not them.

the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd.

Au contraire, mon ami.

(A bit of French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.)

The original intent of the second amendment was to offer citizens the opportunity to avoid the type of tyrannical rule that they came to America to escape. This modern government has become so huge and onerous it's fast becoming a threat to all citizens, We hope that a president Trump can stick a sword in the dirigible and deflate it.

Political and social unrest can cause governmental response and unforeseen consequences that impugn the rights of individuals. So, your thinking aobut the purpose and use of the Second Amendment is somewhat skewed.

To protect themselves from a government that, however inadvertently, no longer protects them or, even worse, attempts to persecute them, citizens must be able to maintain their own arms.

Why did the founders write the second amendment, Ms. Rice.....

The elite pansies (and lesbians, in this case)that we allow to rule and ruin our lives and country have their own interpretations.

because she was a potato, with a vagina.

Like Hillary, we assume Condo has one of these. Who knows she may have sprouted a penis.

You do know that I never once mentioned the Second Amendment anywhere In my post, don’t you?

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is the topic of conversation, don't you Parsons?

If you disagree with me you are a dumb ass.

The whiskey rebelllion wasn't about the right to bear arms.

You do however have the right to hold and express your pwn opinion.

You are a snide one, Gatlin! (That's snide....not wise!)

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. Its purpose is to keep us free from tyrants. So it is in case someday we the people can kill the people who would enslave us through government!ent, should that become necessary.

No use trying to reason with that arrogant clown - he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns, he will do so with a smile because by golly - the government is god.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

He should move to Maryland.

he's happy being a slave and when the gooberment says you MUST turn in your guns

Who'da thunk in 1989, before the Berlin Wall came down, that less than 30 years later we'd have the son-in-law of a card carrying Soviet communist staining the sheets of the White Hut... building walls and pondering thoughts of castrating both the 2nd amendment and the 1st amendment which the 2nd protects.

Well, besides commies like Bill and Hillary Clinton, I mean.

"Donald Trump talked politics with Bill Clinton weeks before launching 2016 bid"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill- clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016- launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html? utm_term=.9ee1408b42d1

So saying the Second Amendment was written for the Americans to take up arms against our government is purely opinionated bullshit. George Washington himself proved this to be true when armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed and George Washington’s administration tyrannical government imposing taxes on of all things, whiskey. Well, President Washington called up 13,000 militia men into the army and Washington personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania.

All that proves is that Washington was a hypocrite.

The second amendment protects our pre existing right to own and possess arms. I

The Second Amendment RECOGNIZES our pre-existing rights to own and possess arms.

By saying it "protects" it implies the 2nd Amendment can by repealed at convenience.

Yeah,I know. It's semantics and there is only a hairs width of difference between the two words,but I think "recognizes" is a more powerful statement by implying the right existed prior to the formation of our government,and is a natural right.

Condi Republicans, Taters Coven

"Not a Witch!"

gatlin---- saying the Second Amendment was written for the Americans to take up arms against our government is purely opinionated bullshit. George Washington himself proved this to be true when armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed and George Washington’s administration tyrannical government imposing taxes on of all things, whiskey. Well, President Washington called up 13,000 militia men into the army and Washington personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania.

Gatlins opinion claiming that: --- "saying the Second Amendment was written for the Americans to take up arms against our government is purely opinionated bullshit". --- is purely semantic word-play bullshit itself, --- seeing that everyone here is writing that the first explanatory line of the 2nd explains why the right shall not be infringed.

The milita, the people, --- when no longer living in a free state, --- have a right to take up arms against their oppressive government if it cannot be changed peacefully.

That is the clear intent of the 2nd, and gatlins silly attempt to claim the whiskey rebellion proves otherwise is flawed by the fact that it was about booze taxes, and Washington had no constitutional power to raise an army and confiscate arms.. He acted unconstitutionally, and nothing was done about his act.

Gatlin: Put on your “big boy” facade and try to dispute my facts when you can.