[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready NOTICE WHO SAID ARMED. YOU DID, NOT I.

Didn't you? Did you or did you not say that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enable American citizens to stand up and resist tyrants, and that YOU BELIEVE the time for such resistance is now?

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Sound familiar? And since the 2nd Amendment deals with baring arms, I'm guessing your idea of overthrowing the government did not involve torches and pitchforks. Reasonable guess??

Quote by: Osborn F Enready NOTICE WHO SAID VIOLENT, YOU DID, NOT I.

See, that's what I've been trying to say about guns... firearms are, by their very nature, violent. They were invented and created to be violent. Therefore, overthrowing the government by use of the firearms you say we have the constitutionally guaranteed right to use, for exactly that purpose, will naturally be violent, based on the nature of the means YOU ADVOCATE.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am advocating Ron Paul as change. I am advocating peaceful rebellion. I am advocating people recognize their rights, and advocating they invoke them.

Oh sure.... NOW!

Quote by: Osborn F Enready - Mar. 7, 07 Boy, they really want to provoke a rebellion using violence, don't they?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Assault weapons are essential to protection of rights against militarized forces. YES, we really need assault weapons, and that should be common sense if you understand the role of firearms in society in the United States, and the second amendment.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready How you spin this into advocating armed rebellion is beyond me.

Because you've said so, Osborn. Given your years on this board, how do posts where you support Ron Paul cancel out other posts where you declare we need to be armed and prepared to overthrow what you view as a tyranical government?

Or was that all just the bluff talk that you can back peddle on when called to back it up?

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think the evidence you provide makes my point, not yours.

Umm... and your point being what....??? {read on}

Quote by: Milton Bradley,11/20 Perhaps then, you would care to explain the language where they allude to the citizens having the right to remove, or throw off tyrants in their own government? How were to go about that with a "militia" you cay consists of the National Guard?

Well, there's yet another reference to armed rebellion, but once again, I'd said absolutely nothing about the National Guard, and your enigmatic statement isn't clarifying the issue. {read on}

You also conveniently miss that other question about how one would go about removing tyrannical leaders with a tyrant controlled National Guard. When the National Guard was Federalized, it lost all resemblance to the "militia" defined in the constitution because it came under control of the Federal government, thus, not a "State Militia".

Ahhh, a glimmer of a point... with the militia gone Federal, how do we rise up in armed opposition? That your point?

First off, as I just stated, I agree with your assessment of the National Guard. Therefore "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is meaningless, isn't it! Therefore, so too is the 2nd Amendment itself.

And we go about removing tyrannical leaders the same way we have for over 200 years... we petition our government for redress of grievances, we sic the press on them and then vote them out of office. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy YOU, but I suspect most Americans much prefer it to civil war.

Or, thanks to our lovely gun culture, we assassinate them, like they do in 2-bit banana republics.

.