Skip to comments.
Behind Supreme Court case: Do gun rights protect against tyranny?
Christian Science Monitor ^
| March 4, 2010
| Warren Richey
Posted on 05/09/2010 8:59:12 AM PDT by An Old Man
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator
To: An Old Man
When the people fear the government, we have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, we have Liberty!
Rebellion is brewing!!
2
posted on
05/09/2010 9:02:42 AM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
To: An Old Man
They worry that any armed person with a beef against the government will look to the Second Amendment for encouragement to lock and load and then rain down armed force in the face of what he or she perceives as tyranny.Well yes, being tyrants, that WOULD be a concern to them.
3
posted on
05/09/2010 9:03:46 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: An Old Man
4
posted on
05/09/2010 9:04:16 AM PDT
by
oldfart
(Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
To: An Old Man
I didn’t notice individuals being disarmed when the Constitution was ratified. I wish people would stop guessing what the framers meant when all you have to do is look at history.
5
posted on
05/09/2010 9:05:19 AM PDT
by
culpeper
(He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,)
To: An Old Man
No, not anymore. No one is willing to use them to stop tyranny.
6
posted on
05/09/2010 9:05:42 AM PDT
by
mad_as_he$$
(If you can read this you are the resistance.)
To: An Old Man
Simple the constitution was written before Karl Marx. If they had known they would have specifically outlawed all socialist concepts.
To: culpeper
To: ConservativeMan55
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
9
posted on
05/09/2010 9:14:32 AM PDT
by
culpeper
(He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,)
To: An Old Man
The Framers plainly did not envision ad hoc groups of armed individuals beyond state control (i.e. a citizens militia) as a constitutional check on tyranny, Mr. Schreiber wrote. They saw them as unruly mobs that must be quelled.Mr Schreiber might want to read just a little about the American Revolution. What he describes as something the framers did not envision is a pretty good description of the the war the framers had just finished.
10
posted on
05/09/2010 9:16:01 AM PDT
by
magslinger
(Tagline impounded as a threat to national security.)
To: An Old Man
Imagine how things might be different if at this point in our history the citizenry had been for decades largely disarmed such as in Australia. Would Obama have boldly created an armed "militia" of loyalists to enforce "order"? Would his first item of business after his innugeration been to curtail free speech through a "fairness" doctrine imposed on talk radio and cable news and would "Internet neutrality" be in effect censoring the Internet?
We have already seen how Obama created a snitch line in the White House, has an enemies list and has controlled the mainstream media in just his first year in office. With censorship and citizens with no means of armed uprising the US Constitution would be gone and a dictatorship imposed long before the 2012 elections.
11
posted on
05/09/2010 9:18:57 AM PDT
by
The Great RJ
("The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'" M. Thatcher)
To: An Old Man
Seems to me the ordering of the Bill of Rights could have had the 1st and 2nd switched, thus keeping the rights in priority order.
If you lose the ability to keep/bear arms, you can't restore it by speaking about it. OTOH, if you lost free speech, the right to keep/bear arms would come in very handy to reset things right.
12
posted on
05/09/2010 9:21:06 AM PDT
by
C210N
(0bama, Making the world safe for Marxism)
To: An Old Man
I read one time that Pennsylvania alone could put 500,000 armed men into the field overnight (these are hunters). Because of numbers like this for other states, the old Soviet Union was very leery about considering invading us.
I always viewed these men as people that would take a shot at the enemy before they got to me, so I could shoot at them.
But most important of all: When that knock comes at the door in the middle of the night, one can meet it with a 12 gauge pump in your hand. The knocker, if he has any sense, will be respectful.
To: An Old Man
>The Framers plainly did not envision ad hoc groups of armed individuals beyond state control (i.e. a citizens militia) as a constitutional check on tyranny, Mr. Schreiber wrote.
Funny; Thomas Jefferson said:
“Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!”
and:
“When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
and:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Taken all together, how can anyone argue that Thomas Jefferson was NOT for armed men “terrorizing” [in the sense of causing some fear] the Government?
14
posted on
05/09/2010 9:24:32 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: An Old Man
Maybe, maybe not, but tyranny cannot happen if the populace have guns and reject tyranny.
15
posted on
05/09/2010 9:25:56 AM PDT
by
Domandred
(Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
To: magslinger
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"
-Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29
16
posted on
05/09/2010 9:27:07 AM PDT
by
Psycho_Bunny
(The Quran and Mein Kampf: if you've read one you've read them both.)
To: screaminsunshine; An Old Man
Simple the constitution was written before Karl Marx. If they had known they would have specifically outlawed all socialist concepts. Right on the mark!
This is why I've been saying that "taking back our country" by winning the Nov. '10 election is only a FIRST STEP.
If we win only the House, we have to start avoiding the Communist Senate and 0bagger's vetoes by defunding all what he did, outlawing Communism and "Socialism**,", investigating all the anti-American activities Especially Soros and his paid agents,) Czars and executive orders, etc.
We have a long way to go if we want to clean up close to 100 years of "Socialism," which is outright Communism that infiltrated and controlled some of the most important elements of our Republic, namely, education and the "free" media.
**I don't call what's going on "Socialism" because many people think that 0kaka is transforming us to Western Europe. I say don't flatter him; he's an outright hard-line Communist that is leading us to slaughter, literally, if his party isn't defeated in '10 and '12. Even if we were ALLOWED a "free" election, one of the two wouldn't do.
To: melancholy
I think we need a new amendment to outlaw it. also we could repeal all the progressive amendments.
To: An Old Man
The Founding Fathers always make sense when they speak, and their words are a whip to beat fraudulent leaders with. They are gone, but ever with us and their authority trumps any aberration cooked up by Obama & Co.
19
posted on
05/09/2010 9:43:35 AM PDT
by
avenir
(I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
To: Jim Robinson
Do gun rights protect against tyranny? Not yet.
20
posted on
05/09/2010 9:51:35 AM PDT
by
Repeat Offender
(While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson