Cross posted, I hope that's OK.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/11/07/msnbc_analyst_we_should_get_rid_of_the_second_amendment

 

Bill Engvall doesn't get it and the libs are just anti.

 

I've been trusted with access to Nucs but my rights to small arms is limited. Doesn't make sense.

 

Rep. Darrell Issa, now he gets it!

Cross posted, I hope that's OK.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/11/07/msnbc_analyst_we_should_get_rid_of_the_second_amendment

 

Bill Engvall doesn't get it and the libs are just anti.

 

I've been trusted with access to Nucs but my rights to small arms is limited. Doesn't make sense.

 

Rep. Darrell Issa, now he gets it!

 

Bill Engvall? Did you mean, Bill Maher?

Bill Engvall? Did you mean, Bill Maher?

 

No Engval, He ranted about the 2nd Ammendment and hunting in the clip. Poor misguided individual that he is. Said nobody needs an AK... :thsmiley_deadhorse:

No Engval, He ranted about the 2nd Ammendment and hunting in the clip. Poor misguided individual that he is. Said nobody needs an AK... :thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

Maher was making the argument "The government has tanks and marines, this isn't about Bubba and Joe...blah blah blah"

 

That question is answered nicely here: "What good can a handgun do against an Army" http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm

Excellent link Mark.

#1 line that stood out to me from that article:

 

Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them.

It boggles my mind that people can't see that the first and second amendment are closely related. They are things you should not try to do because it's impossible to do, and attempting to do it is the path to evil.

 

You can't stop people from talking about things. We have piles of bodies throughout history to prove that. It's a futile effort that leads to evil.

You can't stop people from believing what they want. You can threaten, torture, and otherwise abuse them. It won't work, no matter how evil a bastard you want to be.

You can't stop people from trying to defend themselves. The worst you can do is kill them, which is the fate they were trying to avoid anyway, so they might as well defend themselves with every ounce of their being. The only choice you ahve is to become the one attacking them.

Excellent observations Raz-o...

 

It boggles my mind that people can't see that the first and second amendment are closely related. They are things you should not try to do because it's impossible to do, and attempting to do it is the path to evil.

 

You can't stop people from talking about things. We have piles of bodies throughout history to prove that. It's a futile effort that leads to evil.

You can't stop people from believing what they want. You can threaten, torture, and otherwise abuse them. It won't work, no matter how evil a bastard you want to be.

You can't stop people from trying to defend themselves. The worst you can do is kill them, which is the fate they were trying to avoid anyway, so they might as well defend themselves with every ounce of their being. The only choice you ahve is to become the one attacking them.

Good post, thanks Frank.

The second amendment gives teeth to all the others.

The truth to the matter is that no one would dare to back an amendment that would repeal the second amendment. Republicans are not the only gun owners out there. It would absolutely screw the voting base of whoever dared to spark that fire, not that it would garner enough votes to be pushed through. And if it did, the resulting ****storm would be gargantuan. Hell, I don't think another civil war would be out of the question in that regard. And I sincerely doubt very many in the military would comply with orders to disarm the citizenry, if it came to that. There is just way too much weight resting on that amendment, and everyone knows it. That's why they don't outright repeal it and go for their roundabout methods of gun control instead.

And I sincerely doubt very many in the military would comply with orders to disarm the citizenry, if it came to that.

 

Ignoring the fact that many members of the military are gun people and choose not to carry out the order, I recently started research to see if it's even legal for the military to carry out an unconstitutional order, ie. disarm the people. All I've found so far really is that any member of the military that does carry out an order that is against the law (Laws of War, Conventions, or Federal) is responsible for it, regardless of the fact that it was an order. I looked in the relevant part of the UCMJ but it only mentions "legal" or "lawful" not necessarily "constitutional".

 

Insubordination is refusal by a subordinate to obey lawful orders given by a commissioned officer or non commissioned officer (NCO). Refusal of a military officer to obey his (civilian) superiors would also count, although in some nations, the head of the government is (at least technically) also the most superior officer of the military (see for example Commander in Chief). Generally, an officer or soldier is expected to be insubordinate to the point of mutiny if given an unlawful order, however. (see Nuremberg defense)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination

 

Then I just found this. Not a real legal or trustworthy source, but the internet said it so it must be true, right?

 

U. S. Military personnel are legally obligated to disobey any Unconstitutional orders, even if they are issued by the President himself. If they follow an Unconstitutional order, they violate their oath of office, and Department Of Defense officials face impeachment and removal from office.

http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Unconstitutional-Orders-Mu-in-Best_Web_OpEds-060904-499.html

That question is answered nicely here: "What good can a handgun do against an Army" http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/handgun.htm

 

Excellent link. Every time I see someone ask how small arms are of any use to a modern military, I simply tell them to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, etc.

Katrina