Who cares what this TRPO (token republican Potato only) thinks.

She's a potato, and her most important jobs she's ever been given was because she was a potato, with a vagina... to appease the reverse racist and femanazi's.

She's a Quota Queen,pushed to prominence in an attempt to get blacks to vote for the Bush Crime Family.

She's a potato

Agree.

“I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons."

We don't need them. We want them.

Did you need your $2.3 million house (plus cottage) in Palo Alto? How would you feel if we banned all homes over $300,000? You don't need a bigger home.

But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment.

Why did the founders write the second amendment, Ms. Rice, and what was with that language they included about Militias?

Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection.

Yeah, well, we can't all afford guards.

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

I agree.

But the notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against a rogue government makes perfect sense.

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

The words of a slave.

Tory:

...an American colonist who supported the British side during the American Revolution

No doubt as to which side Parsons will be on when TSHTF.

You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.

Name calling is for a juvenile.

Pay attention and stop twisting peoples' words.

Stone did no such thing as "name calling"; He stated you "sound like" Bernie Sanders or Hillary.

The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and anyone who argues that it does really has no understanding the true nature of that amendment.

The 2A IS designed to allow the citizenry to defend itself from individual as well as organized TYRANNY.

Q: Do you feel it is "impossible" for this government to engage in tyranny?? A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.

I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it

No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship.

I'm sure even you would agree with that, right?

The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government...

Once again - you're wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship.

Absolutely. AMEN!

I'm sure even you would agree with that, right?

*waiting for Gatlin's answer*....

Advocating overthrow of Government

The Second Amendment does not advocate overthrowing the government unless the government descends into outright tyranny.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Rogue governments are rife throughout history. CONSENSUS: The American Founders agreed on the above mechanism that repels the tyranny of a rogue gubmint and re-secures the Rights endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario.

Here is the other stark point that cannot be denied:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

In other words, the "government" IS created BY The People, FOR The People as OUR representatives.

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

Enforce the laws on the books and add only one other: In the case of murder with a gun the perp is to be executed within 24 hours and the hell with injections, hang the bastard.

I can't imagine why you'd prefer beheading by a Muslim, to getting shot?

Why do you want to give the muzzies a loophole, are you one of those ROP bushbots?

Still awaiting your answer to addressing Deckard's declaration by the Founders AS WELL AS the answer to several key questions...

Tick... tick....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

When the government descends into tyranny, we are no longer a free state.

Are you claiming that when that happens, Americans do not have the right and the DUTY to defend themselves against an un-constitutional and rogue government?

How about when U.N. troops join with American military forces and local cops to confiscate all guns - you gonna just bend over?

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

That is very true

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

Think of all the machinists and gunsmiths in this country who have the knowledge and machine tools to produce, in short order, highly reliable shear kits for a wide variety of weapons. And about 0% of those gunsmiths would be on the lib side.

That's before you even start in on people with skills using modern CNC milling machines and 3d printing and what they could do.

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. They'd tell them, like they do in any modern military, to practice firing in single-shot and 2-round bursts or 3-round bursts. Spray-n-pray is not encouraged by any modern military.

But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties.

By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.

It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.

And as far as “gun control”….it is a fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

Bosh. Adams wrote in March, 1776 prior to the Declaration.

Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence.

In the era of the Founders and early republic, the colonies/states/feds had a lot more trouble from forcing colonists to buy weapons (swords at minimum, muskets by custom) than in seizing weapons from Tories. Of course, the most militant Tories abandoned the colonies and mostly fled to Toronto early on so they didn't cause much problem in practice.

Tick... tick....

Stick... stick...

I do WHAT I want to and I do it WHEN I want to do it.

You are dismissed..

I will ping you when I have something to say to you.

I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government.

I don't understand why you don't see that.

And I am saying that no sovereign government in history has ever granted a right to armed rebellion.

So you are mostly bleating a truism, not making some profound point as you seem to imagine.

It's the first law, unwritten, of any government that they will enforce their laws and the recognized lawful regime with force of arms against any and all citizens who rebel (or merely refuse to obey the laws when the police/army insist). Any ruling entity who did not do that is not a sovereign government because the first business of government is always to enforce its laws and protect itself from external and internal threats via its armed forces and police.

So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.”

Adams recommended it to the various pre-Revolutionary committees in the various colonies. You haven't provided any information on just how many weapons were seized during this period of rising Revolutionary sentiment.

And it was practical revolutionary policy. The rebel colonists did not want their Tory-sympathizing fellow-colonists shooting them in the back while the rebel colonists were busy shooting Redcoats in the back from cover in the local woods. You may recall how bitterly the British complained over the cowardly colonists shooting at them from concealment.

BTW, it was illegal for the Founders to rebel against their lawful monarch, nutty George III, or the authority of the English parliament. The English would have hung the lot of them if they could have laid their hands on the Founders.

Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?

That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway.

Thanks for answering the bell, but no, it is NOT a "silly question" to ask given your silly assertions, which are LIGHT YEARS off the mark o the actual issue.

If individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced.

ALREADY happened. NOT the case. There has been NO constitutional enforcement of those who've BLATANTLY and often routinely violated their oaths while in office.

Next...

Nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you?

No I can't. Simply because NO ONE has made anywhere NEAR your breathless hyperbolic assertion. Moreover, gubmint officials have been and are currently ACTIVELY failing to "carry out their [constitutional] duties."

CASE AND POINT: California's State gubmint and judiciary both in the past and actively are ignoring and violating feral law on the issue of preventing ICE officials from carrying out THEIR constitutional duties and oath of office in removing Illegal Invaders. Then there are countless cities and towns across America establishing what are illegal "Sanctuary Cities." President Trump's federal enforcement of the US Constitution are being ignored by Democrats all levels of state and local government over the country. WITH IMPUNITY.

Any so-called "rebellion" against this government has been openly declared by high standing members of the Democrat Party. You may have heard of it; They call themselves "The Resistance." It has been exposed to have found its way into the bowels of the Deep State and DNC via active saboteurs.

NOW WHAT TO DO, Commander Gatlin??

The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government.

Once again you've got it wrong and created a strawman.

The discussion here is over-lapping. But mostly about the clear intent of the Founders (as Deckard quotes from the Founders) with respect to the Rights of the citizenry to repel a rogue governance and tyranny via the Second Amendment.

The American Founders agreed on a mechanism -- guaranteed by 2A rights -- that repels tyranny facilitated by a rogue gubmint that re-secures citizenry rights as well as liberty and freedom endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario.

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOUNDERS? Or do you dismiss the notion of a "rogue, tyrannical government" as even possible?

If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.

On this point we agree. ALTHOUGH the "vast majority of Americans" are never going to agree to an "armed rebellion" or ANY crusade, so the point is moot, thus we circle back to THE original question and issue of the intent and meaning AND rights as written in the Founders' 2A.

By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.

Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.

He's taken a disturbing position that ALL and any gubmint can do as they please without answering to anyone. And damn The Citizenry.

The Commander appears to be advocating Totalitarianism in the democratic Republic of the United States of America.

It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.

He can't see it because he doesn't want to see it. OR just plain agrees with the USA transforming in a Totalitarian gubmint. Just like all the "good Germans" in 1940 or Stalinists.

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.

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's facts about the Whiskey Rebellion are wrong anyway. President Washington did NOT lead the Army against the rebels, but gave the job to one of his Revolutionary War Generals.

President Washington later showed up to beat down that general for abusing his powers and arresting and imprisoning people under cruel conditions without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in any way.

Eventually 2 people were tried and given light sentences for the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington respected the right of armed rebellion against government, so the "perps" were only given a slap on the wrist.

Gatlin's facts about the Whiskey Rebellion are wrong anyway. President Washington did NOT lead the Army against the rebels, but gave the job to one of his Revolutionary War Generals.

President Washington later showed up to beat down that general for abusing his powers and arresting and imprisoning people under cruel conditions without reasonable suspicion that they were involved in any way.

Eventually 2 people were tried and given light sentences for the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington respected the right of armed rebellion against government, so the "perps" were only given a slap on the wrist.

Maybe he'll answer you..

Gatlin is too much of a coward to debate me.. He did in the past, but stopped when he lost a lot, poor little fella.

You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.

Never fear the truth...

Tooconservative --- You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.

Never fear the truth. ---- GrandIsland

Unless the ATF, or the FBI gets on your ass....

Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'

Several thoughts...

1. I'm very much NOT a fan of Ms. Rice

2. Ms. Rice is exponentially smarter than pretty much all of you malcontents in this chat-room

3. Her ideas in this regard are valid and should be considered by any rational intelligent individual.

...when criticizing somebody and pointing out the error of their way or exposing their unpleasant traits.

Unpleasant?

I daresay it is you who are exceedingly unpleasant. I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source.

I'm not worried. They don't even need a warrant to search my house. I have nothing to hide.

You should worry that some agency would question your mental health about the following statement you made : ----

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. ---- GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-25

I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source.

Thank you.

I will continue to post for everyone else to see.

You just sit there and silently take your severe whippings.

Gatlin (#86) ---- .when criticizing somebody and pointing out the error of their way or exposing their unpleasant traits.

Unpleasant?

I daresay it is you who are exceedingly unpleasant. I will in the future ignore any response you make to my posted articles or comments considering the loutish source. ---- IbJensen

Please, don't bozo the oaf. Gatlin needs all the disdain we can give him..

Cowards need to be told the truth. Even they can't ignore it forever...

I'd think bombs and explosives would be the hot item for underground manufacturing.

================================================

...a host of retired police officers also wrote, calling Gonzales a “domestic terrorist.” They described incidents in which Gonzales’ organization, the Crusade For Justice, turned violent.

Members were arrested on bomb charges, and one battle with police resulted in the shooting death of a young man and an explosion next to the Crusade’s headquarters.

Charles Rowland, who worked with the Denver Police Department’s bomb squad for 21 years, wrote that the city was “known as the bomb capital of the United States. Most of these devices led back to the Crusade. I can’t believe Denver would even think of honoring this person. To me, it’s like hugging Jane Fonda.”

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/05/16/governor-lobbies-to-name- denver-branch-library-for-corky-gonzales/

Same Ol'

lol

Open for business.

God bless America, land of the free, and home of the brave. Offer void where prohibited.

Yep.

Denver Lutheran High School went bankrupt and is now named after "The Poet Laureat of Aztlan".

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lalo+Delgado+Campus/@39.69548 54,-105.0278325,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x17b73d028e35f4cd!8m2!3d39.6954854! 4d-105.0278325

But - don't forget to vote for the train! (so Governor Chickenlooper's Jesuit MarxBankster cronies can keep their caboo$e on track to the White Hut).

This non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders have declared that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial.

There goes Parsons again - showing his disdain for those military, law enforcement and first responders who have taken an oath to the Constitution and refuse to obey unconstitutional edicts. Thank God for Patriots like the Oathkeepers who are willing to put their lives on the line and stand against tyranny.

Oathkeepers: Orders we will not obey:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

That must be why Parson loathes them.

...all the other loud-mouth cowards

The only loud mouthed coward here is you Parsons, submissively grovelling before the almighty State, happy to live on your knees as others are willing to fight back against a tyrannical rogue government.

I will continue to post for everyone else to see.

You just sit there and silently take your severe whippings.

A sadist as well.

" Great, legit questions...

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

No further use in engaging. "

That has been quite clear to anyone paying attention !!

And has been for quite some time !!

Most here know how Tater / Parsons is, and what kind of person he is !!

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.

100% BS. That it is. Always was. Always will be.

Gilligan a Troll.

You can't debate a Troll, a forum Vampire. They don't engage with honest or sincere intent.

Most here know how Tater / Parsons is, and what kind of person he is !!

He's just hit the BOZO-TROLL List. The ONLY one. Yes, he's that stupid, useless, and mentally unfit.

" the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship. "

Look to fairly recent history for example.

Look up " Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw

Quite interesting bit of history

" " the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship. "

Look to fairly recent history for example.

Look up " Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9tUQxsrQGw

Quite interesting bit of history "

Pete, I had intended to ping you. Sorry for the oversight !

Oathkeepers: Orders we will not obey:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

That must be why Parson loathes them.

...all the other loud-mouth cowards

The only loud mouthed coward here is you Parsons, submissively grovelling before the almighty State, happy to live on your knees as others are willing to fight back against a tyrannical rogue government.

OUCH.

+100

Look up " Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 "

A beloved story. But can you cite any other similar events.

That's the problem with the argument, however much we all agree on the principles.

It's far too easy to dismiss as a lone outlier in some corrupt inbred hillbilly town. And there are a lot of people who love this story who would nevertheless get upset if something like that happened in their own town.

Making THE case for the 2A -- Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946

But can you cite any other similar events.

That's the problem with the argument...

Uh, no.

Your demand for subsequent examples of the 2A doing what it's supposed to is the problem with pro-Statists. Do you believe 'The Patriot Act' and it's UNREAD LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT was justified or even had the consent of the governed?

"A Beloved Story."

NOT quite feeling the "love" from you.

" But can you cite any other similar events. "

No. I think one is enough.

" there are a lot of people who love this story who would nevertheless get upset if something like that happened in their own town. "

So, you think they should be happy if some thug took over a town ?? Bizare !!!

I am rather surprised at Tooconservative's attitude on this!

At times he likes to play Devil's Advocate just to stir things up.

But at times he does straddle The Fence.

Pete, I had intended to ping you. Sorry for the oversight !

No problem. It looks like you have the situation in hand by mentioning the battle of Athens,Tn.

BTW,there was a movie made about that. A pretty good one,too.

It's far too easy to dismiss as a lone outlier in some corrupt inbred hillbilly town.

When you mention inbred and corrupt you should be talking about the big-city stench of places like NYC and LA"

" BTW,there was a movie made about that. A pretty good one,too. "

Yeah, I posted the link at # 110

BTW,there was a movie made about that. A pretty good one,too.

Some based-on-a-real-story flick, set in Texas.

Not accurate.

I would enjoy seeing an accurate movie or documentary about it but they've never made one.

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. ---- GrandIsland posted on 2018-02-25

My sanity is spot on.----- lol

You should worry that some agency would question your mental health about your statements above..

Laughing out loud about killing parts of your family is "spot on" proof of your insanity...

Please consider deleting.

BTW,there was a movie made about that. A pretty good one,too.

Stoner provided the link to the key part of the flick.

The primary election was held on August 1.

To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once.

At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered.

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "public." A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd.

When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'"

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them.

By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M1 Garand rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.

By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out. Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen.

Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail.

Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail"

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered.

Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs. At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

Interesting account from the poster of the YT video.

Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail"

That is pretty funny. Probably less so for the corrupt deputies in the jail.

Please consider deleting.

The original sin by GI still exists in post #50.... libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=54845&Disp=50#C50

tpaine can't edit the creep's comment.

NOT cool to broadcast that kind of mistake.

Please consider deleting.

Post that to the idiot that put it up originally, and thinks it spot on..

" can you cite any other similar events "

I guess you have never heard of Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Yorktown, Philadelphia, Boston, Battle of Blue Licks, etc, etc, etc Not exactly similar, but they did oppose King George ! Should count !

Should count !

Yeah, yeah.

If you think people in this country want to have armed mobs shooting it out with each other, beating people, stealing ballot boxes, etc., well, you're nuts.

Nobody wants that.

This incident was more Hatfields vs. McCoys than anything resembling the political philosophy of the Founders.

And the G.I. movement in that region collapsed, rather badly and in short order. Their biggest problem once elected: other G.I.'s that decided they didn't have to obey the laws.

It was not a glorious triumph of the principles of the Republic.

" Yeah, yeah "

Yes, we all know you are FOS ! Your opinion on this topic is worth a sack of shit !!

Go up stairs and tell your mother she wants you.

Of all the tens of thousands of county elections in the history of this country, you can cite only this lone example that is so outrageous.

Call me names all you want or throw some other tantrum. It's still stupid.

You paranoid silly fuckers make me laugh, often.

lol

Stoner (#109) --- Look up " Battle of Athens Tennessee 1946 "

A beloved story. But can you cite any other similar events.

That's the problem with the argument, however much we all agree on the principles.

It's far too easy to dismiss as a lone outlier in some corrupt inbred hillbilly town. And there are a lot of people who love this story who would nevertheless get upset if something like that happened in their own town.

Actually, that reminds me of an incident that happened in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, back in 1956/57,_while I was in the army. It's vague in my memory, but goes something like this: ---

Our town 'tough guys' met on main street, downtown, with their motorcycles and hot rods, far too many summer nights. The town cops decided to get tough too, and started to give the boys (many were men of my age, 20/21) tickets, etc. --- harassment, to get them to move..

So they moved one night, when there was a dance? -- at the NG Armory, which was a only a couple blocks away. All the streets around the armory immediately were clogged, and the boys were in the armory, when the cops came to roust them. The 'boy's refused, and spent the night and next day barricaded in the armory (I guess they knew better than to raid the arms room).. The sheriff was called, and it was finally settled with an amnesty and the town cops guarantee to lighten up.

Might even be archived in the St.Paul Press, or the Minneapolis rag...

That's what I remember from letters I got in Munich..

You paranoid silly fuckers make me laugh, often.

lol

It's mutual, you sick clown. ;-)

I'd bet that most here don't believe you're a cop. -- To warped..

Believe what you want

Believe what you want

I doubt you really act/live that way, -- having observed how to act on this site...

Our town 'tough guys' met on main street, downtown, with their motorcycles and hot rods, far too many summer nights. The town cops decided to get tough too, and started to give the boys (many were men of my age, 20/21) tickets, etc. --- harassment, to get them to move..

So they moved one night, when there was a dance? -- at the NG Armory, which was a only a couple blocks away. All the streets around the armory immediately were clogged, and the boys were in the armory, when the cops came to roust them. The 'boy's refused, and spent the night and next day barricaded in the armory (I guess they knew better than to raid the arms room).. The sheriff was called, and it was finally settled with an amnesty and the town cops guarantee to lighten up...

Interesting story tpaine . Glad it ended well. Does not sound like there was any need for the arms room...

My home town back in the 40's, 50's was a pretty rough place, for a Minnesota suburb.. Only about 10,000 people in the area, but there were 7 liquor bars and another 4/5 beer joints in a few mile radius.

We had another incident right after the war, when the town vets straightened out the town cops, who had started to get overly officious about closing the bar's on time, and the rowdy parties..

My father bartended and managed one of the nicer bars in town and came home with stories about the cops vs the vets, young guys who were fed up with taking 'orders'...

I personally don't care what you believe... as long as my NY pension is mailed to me every month. Working on half of a second pension FROM ANOTHER STATE... lol

Don't tell me,let me guess. You now live in Miami Beach or San Francisco,and wear your badge on your speedos?

Do NOT post any photos.

Enforce the laws on the books and add only one other: In the case of murder with a gun the perp is to be executed within 24 hours and the hell with injections, hang the bastard.

You can't throw due process out, so capital punishment but prove the case