Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

View Poll Results: Which amendment is more important?
1st amendment 23 41.82%
2nd Amendment 27 49.09%
I don't care 5 9.09%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-13-2019, 09:10 PM   #111
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldPump View Post
Exactly.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 1
DonaldPump6056.00

      06-13-2019, 09:25 PM   #112
openwheelracing
Captain
182
Rep
812
Posts

 
Drives: 5 different 3 Series
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave 90TT View Post
Scurry off, little man. Adults are talking.
Wow the insecurity is stronger than I imagined.
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2019, 09:33 PM   #113
Dave 90TT
Colonel
United_States
1608
Rep
2,026
Posts

 
Drives: BSM 6MT M4 F82
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Colorado Springs

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
Wow the insecurity is stronger than I imagined.
Shh, adults are talking.
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2019, 09:51 PM   #114
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave 90TT View Post
Actually, yes, they do. Just ask the Taliban, or the VC, or plenty of other insurgent groups.
No, they don't.

The Taliban, ISIL, insurgents, etc have all shot at me with better stuff than what we can buy as civilians and none of that was able to stop my JDAM.

How much territory does ISIL have? Does the Taliban control Kabul? Or Kandahar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave 90TT View Post
This would be compounded in the US by a solid amount of the US military sympathizing with the citizens. Sure there would be soldiers that carryout orders no questions asked, but there would also be a significant percentage that would question the legality of the orders.
And this is where the fantasy comes to a screeching halt. No government has successfully been able to subjugate it's population without the support of the military.


If, it ever came down to the US civilian population trying to overthrow our government, the Constitution has already failed fantastically and whatever comes out at the other end will look nothing like what our founders envisioned.
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2019, 10:01 PM   #115
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
No, they don't.

The Taliban, ISIL, insurgents, etc have all shot at me with better stuff than what we can buy as civilians and none of that was able to stop my JDAM.

How much territory does ISIL have? Does the Taliban control Kabul? Or Kandahar?



And this is where the fantasy comes to a screeching halt. No government has successfully been able to subjugate it's population without the support of the military.


If, it ever came down to the US civilian population trying to overthrow our government, the Constitution has already failed fantastically and whatever comes out at the other end will look nothing like what our founders envisioned.
I think this misses the point. No one would quibble that the U.S. military is better armed, or could bomb civilians. The point is the deterrent effect that an armed population has on the government. You can beat a local insurgency. You can take a neighborhood. But can you occupy the country? Can you...and will you...really go to all out war with the American civilian population? Don't you think the government considers the fact that a country as well armed as we are could create an utter and complete shit show if you attempted to control them en masse by force?
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2019, 10:12 PM   #116
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
I think this misses the point. No one would quibble that the U.S. military is better armed, or could bomb civilians. The point is the deterrent effect that an armed population has on the government. You can beat a local insurgency. You can take a neighborhood. But can you occupy the country? Can you...and will you...really go to all out war with the American civilian population? Don't you think the government considers the fact that a country as well armed as we are could create an utter and complete shit show if you attempted to control them en masse by force?
Nope. Not at all actually.

Again, there's two scenarios: 1.) the military is on the side of the government which will not go well for the citizens or 2.) the military is on the side of the citizens and it does not go well for the current government.


The 2A was specifically written to avoid situation 1. The founders were against having a standing Army. Obviously, that's a moot point now.


Your firearms are not protecting democracy or the republic. Your vote does. Free speech does. A free press does. A fair trial does. The checks and balances built into our system does. Everything, absolutely everything has to fail first before an armed populace comes into play any by that point, the US will look nothing like it does now.
Appreciate 1
      06-13-2019, 10:49 PM   #117
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Nope. Not at all actually.

Again, there's two scenarios: 1.) the military is on the side of the government which will not go well for the citizens or 2.) the military is on the side of the citizens and it does not go well for the current government.


The 2A was specifically written to avoid situation 1. The founders were against having a standing Army. Obviously, that's a moot point now.


Your firearms are not protecting democracy or the republic. Your vote does. Free speech does. A free press does. A fair trial does. The checks and balances built into our system does. Everything, absolutely everything has to fail first before an armed populace comes into play any by that point, the US will look nothing like it does now.
I agree with your fundamental point that , if willing, the military could decimate cities, intimidate most others into surrender, I also agree with you that if it comes to this, we have lost our Constitutional Republic, and it will look nothing like it does now.

I also agree that political participation, the structure of our brilliant Constitutional government, checks and balances, etc., is the primary driver of what has kept us free and prosperous. But this includes civil rights.

Where we disagree is in the impact that an armed population has on the everyone's mindset, including those in government and the military. It's inconceivable to us that we will ever be governed by force, and any attempt to do so would be met by armed resistance.

P.S., although you are right that many of the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army, I don't think your characterization of the origins of the 2A is entirely complete or fair. Indeed, the position against a standing army was itself considered to be a check on federal power, albeit at the state level.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 1
DonaldPump6056.00

      06-13-2019, 11:05 PM   #118
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
I agree with your fundamental point that , if willing, the military could decimate cities, intimidate most others into surrender, I also agree with you that if it comes to this, we have lost our Constitutional Republic, and it will look nothing like it does now.

I also agree that political participation, the structure of our brilliant Constitutional government, checks and balances, etc., is the primary driver of what has kept us free and prosperous. But this includes civil rights.

Where we disagree is in the impact that an armed population has on the everyone's mindset, including those in government and the military. It's inconceivable to us that we will ever be governed by force, and any attempt to do so would be met by armed resistance.

P.S., although you are right that many of the Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army, I don't think your characterization of the origins of the 2A is entirely complete or fair. Indeed, the position against a standing army was itself considered to be a check on federal power, albeit at the state level.
For your premise to be correct, then all players in the government would want to disarm the populace. Because Republicans are no different than Democrats that when it comes to one thing, power, that is the most important thing. If an armed populace were an actual existential threat to that power, we would have been disarmed a long time ago. Besides, in modern times, there are much easier ways to subjugate a population and it isn't through force or arms.


There were two factors behind the founders being against a standing army, one simple and one more philosophical:

1.) a standing army is expensive and as a new country we were broke. We couldn't afford it. The only branch we were to have full time is a standing Navy because there is no such thing as a part time Navy that has any power. Remember, any nation that was worth a damn in the previous couple hundred years dominated because of their Navy.

2.) A standing army can be used to subjugate the population. The founders knew that, they experienced it, history supported that claim. But that doesn't mean we didn't need an army. Hence that whole "militia" part of the 2A that is so conveniently left out recently. The militias, when called upon, become our standing army. Our national guard is the closest modern approximation to that. Even with that, anything that wasn't a personal weapon was left in garrison. Naval guns, mortars, etc were not for public consumption. And we had the added bonus everyone already had their own muskets! We didn't have to buy any.


Remember, the Federalist Papers were against the Bill of Rights and so the 2A. I don't agree with that opinion but that's for another discussion.
Appreciate 0
      06-14-2019, 11:55 AM   #119
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
For your premise to be correct, then all players in the government would want to disarm the populace. Because Republicans are no different than Democrats that when it comes to one thing, power, that is the most important thing. If an armed populace were an actual existential threat to that power, we would have been disarmed a long time ago. Besides, in modern times, there are much easier ways to subjugate a population and it isn't through force or arms.
I honestly dont understand your point here. To the extent you are saying that the 2A can only have a deterrent effect if 100% of those in government are influenced by it, this is nonsense on its face. To the extent you are saying that we would already be disarmed if those in government believed it presented a threat to their power, this is also nonsense. The 2A has been under continuous attack by federal and state legislators for at least the last 60 years. Its the Constitution, the popularity of the 2A and the courts that have stopped them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
There were two factors behind the founders being against a standing army, one simple and one more philosophical:

1.) a standing army is expensive and as a new country we were broke. We couldn't afford it. The only branch we were to have full time is a standing Navy because there is no such thing as a part time Navy that has any power. Remember, any nation that was worth a damn in the previous couple hundred years dominated because of their Navy.

2.) A standing army can be used to subjugate the population. The founders knew that, they experienced it, history supported that claim. But that doesn't mean we didn't need an army. Hence that whole "militia" part of the 2A that is so conveniently left out recently. The militias, when called upon, become our standing army. Our national guard is the closest modern approximation to that. Even with that, anything that wasn't a personal weapon was left in garrison. Naval guns, mortars, etc were not for public consumption. And we had the added bonus everyone already had their own muskets! We didn't have to buy any.


Remember, the Federalist Papers were against the Bill of Rights and so the 2A. I don't agree with that opinion but that's for another discussion.
Im not sure I understand your point here either. It sounds like we are in agreement that motivating factors behind the 2A include ensuring individual liberty and checking government power. To the extent you are saying the 2A was merely to prevent the establishment of a federal standing army, or to establish state militias, this is not historically factual, nor does it explain the text of the 2A itself.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-14-2019, 12:47 PM   #120
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
I honestly dont understand your point here. To the extent you are saying that the 2A can only have a deterrent effect if 100% of those in government are influenced by it, this is nonsense on its face. To the extent you are saying that we would already be disarmed if those in government believed it presented a threat to their power, this is also nonsense.
You're not going to overthrow a tyrannical government because you don't like half the people in Congress. Since you're making the claim, maybe you can present some evidence that our government is "afraid" of an armed populace and that's what is keeping us from tyranny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
The 2A has been under continuous attack by federal and state legislators for at least the last 60 years. Its the Constitution, the popularity of the 2A and the courts that have stopped them.
It's not been under continuous attack, but whatever. The 2A has not come up for votes of repeal. But I'm being coy, I know you are abdicating that the NFA or such laws are "attacks". I also see you're not even differentiating between state and federal governments anymore which is good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Im not sure I understand your point here either. It sounds like we are in agreement that motivating factors behind the 2A include ensuring individual liberty and checking government power. To the extent you are saying the 2A was merely to prevent the establishment of a federal standing army, or to establish state militias, this is not historically factual, nor does it explain the text of the 2A itself.
I suggest you read Federalist #46. The 2A was specifically written for militias and armed citizens to make up the ranks of those militias. It wasn't the armed populace that would prevent a tyrannical government, it was the militias role to accomplish that and to keep a standing army nonexistent or small enough to not be a factor.

Even #46 mentions the idea of the US government using it's military to overwhelm the states as almost nonexistent. Since the state militias now (the national guard) are indistinguishable from the regular US military, it's even more of a nonexistent threat. But that doesn't sell fear or firearms so it's beneficial to push a different narrative these days.
Appreciate 0
      06-14-2019, 01:32 PM   #121
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
You're not going to overthrow a tyrannical government because you don't like half the people in Congress. Since you're making the claim, maybe you can present some evidence that our government is "afraid" of an armed populace and that's what is keeping us from tyranny?



It's not been under continuous attack, but whatever. The 2A has not come up for votes of repeal. But I'm being coy, I know you are abdicating that the NFA or such laws are "attacks". I also see you're not even differentiating between state and federal governments anymore which is good.




I suggest you read Federalist #46. The 2A was specifically written for militias and armed citizens to make up the ranks of those militias. It wasn't the armed populace that would prevent a tyrannical government, it was the militias role to accomplish that and to keep a standing army nonexistent or small enough to not be a factor.

Even #46 mentions the idea of the US government using it's military to overwhelm the states as almost nonexistent. Since the state militias now (the national guard) are indistinguishable from the regular US military, it's even more of a nonexistent threat. But that doesn't sell fear or firearms so it's beneficial to push a different narrative these days.
I've read the Federalist Papers in their entirety. More than once. I love this shit. The Federalist Papers were published in an effort to persuade the states to sign up to the federal Constitution. There were many viewpoints and getting it done was essentially an exercise in herding cats. In any event, the argument in Federalist 46 was that the proposed Federal government, even if it had a standing army, would not be powerful enough to oppress an armed citizenry at large, which is exactly what I have been saying. The argument was that individually armed citizens would be able to band together in militias at the state and local level against the federal government. Your suggestion that the 2A was merely to protect militias, as state actors, rather than individual armed citizens who could form them organically should the need arise, is an inaccurate characterization. From Federalist 46:

"In addition to the advantage of being armed (an advantage Americans have over the people of almost every other nation in the world), the existence of subordinate governments that have the support of the people, and by which militia officers will be appointed, will together form a barrier against the ambitious plans of the Federal government, a barrier which will be more insurmountable than any that a simple government of any form would be capable of."

The scope and purpose of the 2A as extending to an individual right, protecting individual liberty, and serving as a check on governmental power is a matter of settled law at this point, regardless of your narrow focus on militias and Federalist 46.

It sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine. You give no credence to the deterrent effect of an armed citizenry; I find it compelling. I also highly value my right to be armed. It shows respect for the natural rights the Founding Fathers held so dear. It gives me a credible opportunity to defend myself, my family, my home, and my liberty.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 1
Dave 90TT1607.50

      06-14-2019, 01:46 PM   #122
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
I've read the Federalist Papers in their entirety. More than once. I love this shit. The Federalist Papers were published in an effort to persuade the states to sign up to the federal Constitution. There were many viewpoints and getting it done was essentially an exercise in herding cats. In any event, the argument in Federalist 46 was that the proposed Federal government, even if it had a standing army, would not be powerful enough to oppress an armed citizenry at large, which is exactly what I have been saying. The argument was that individually armed citizens would be able to band together in militias at the state and local level against the federal government. Your suggestion that the 2A was merely to protect militias, as state actors, rather than individual armed citizens who could form them organically should the need arise, is an inaccurate characterization. From Federalist 46:

"In addition to the advantage of being armed (an advantage Americans have over the people of almost every other nation in the world), the existence of subordinate governments that have the support of the people, and by which militia officers will be appointed, will together form a barrier against the ambitious plans of the Federal government, a barrier which will be more insurmountable than any that a simple government of any form would be capable of."

The scope and purpose of the 2A as extending to an individual right, protecting individual liberty, and serving as a check on governmental power is a matter of settled law at this point, regardless of your narrow focus on militias and Federalist 46.

It sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine. You give no credence to the deterrent effect of an armed citizenry; I find it compelling. I also highly value my right to be armed. It shows respect for the natural rights the Founding Fathers held so dear. It gives me a credible opportunity to defend myself, my family, my home, and my liberty.

Protecting individual rights yes, we've both been saying that, but the 2A does not give you the right as a citizen to overthrow the government. Even in your quote of #46, it discusses the states. Madison clearly lays out it is the role of the STATES to counter an oppressive federal government. That will be accomplished through their militias who are composed of the armed citizenry. Now you delve down one level deeper and contend that equates to the citizen themselves. It is the citizens, as organized as part of a "well-regulated militia" not Uncle Bob's Patriot Militia of Southern Montana. For those state militias to exist, you need an armed citizenry. The 2A protects that. If the citizens were not armed, the state militias would not exist and the federal government could have free reign.


That's all pretty much moot now. The state militia is the national guard. The standing federal army isn't made of a bunch of conscripts like it was back in the 1700s. Both the state militia (national guard) and federal military are an all volunteer force that shares the same equipment, deploy along one another, and fall under Title 10 in those cases.
Appreciate 1
      06-14-2019, 01:58 PM   #123
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Protecting individual rights yes, we've both been saying that, but the 2A does not give you the right as a citizen to overthrow the government. Even in your quote of #46, it discusses the states. Madison clearly lays out it is the role of the STATES to counter an oppressive federal government. That will be accomplished through their militias who are composed of the armed citizenry. Now you delve down one level deeper and contend that equates to the citizen themselves. It is the citizens, as organized as part of a "well-regulated militia" not Uncle Bob's Patriot Militia of Southern Montana. For those state militias to exist, you need an armed citizenry. The 2A protects that. If the citizens were not armed, the state militias would not exist and the federal government could have free reign.


That's all pretty much moot now. The state militia is the national guard. The standing federal army isn't made of a bunch of conscripts like it was back in the 1700s. Both the state militia (national guard) and federal military are an all volunteer force that shares the same equipment, deploy along one another, and fall under Title 10 in those cases.
Yes, we have some common ground between us, and also some disagreements. It's not moot now, regardless of the National Guard. The whole point is that an armed citizenry creates the possibility of armed resistance against the federal government. The point is that it makes the consent of the governed essential. If the federal government lost popular support, or attempted to govern by force, individual armed citizens have the capacity to organize militias and resist. If the National Guard were captive of the Federal Government, then they too could be resisted by the citizenry at large. The argument in Federalist 46 was that the existence of subordinate (non-federal) governments produced the additional advantage of organizational capacity that individual citizens lack on their own. This is no less true today than it was in the eighteenth century. Bob's Patriot Militia is more relevant than you think, IMO.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-14-2019, 02:13 PM   #124
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
1984
Rep
4,401
Posts

 
Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CigarPundit View Post
Yes, we have some common ground between us, and also some disagreements. It's not moot now, regardless of the National Guard. The whole point is that an armed citizenry creates the possibility of armed resistance against the federal government. The point is that it makes the consent of the governed essential. If the federal government lost popular support, or attempted to govern by force, individual armed citizens have the capacity to organize militias and resist. If the National Guard were captive of the Federal Government, then they too could be resisted by the citizenry at large. The argument in Federalist 46 was that the existence of subordinate (non-federal) governments produced the additional advantage of organizational capacity that individual citizens lack on their own. This is no less true today than it was in the eighteenth century. Bob's Patriot Militia is more relevant than you think, IMO.
Bob's Militia is relevant, but not as a liberator. The problem is Bob and his subordinates feel it is their patriotic duty do bring arms to bear against the federal government for any slight. We have seen this in the last decade. That mob rule might work fine in the deserts of Nevada or the mountains of Montana but not in a nation of 350 million people.


It's actually a little bit insulting to the rest of the Constitution that for some reason the 2A has been put on this pedestal as THE amendment that guards our democracy. It's patently false. Our country, like the Constitution is about the sum of its parts not just one piece of it.


The ironic thing about all of this is those state militias (national guard) would be the first to quell an armed uprising under Title 32 long before the federal government got involved. Those state militias Madison wrote so fondly about would be the ones called upon to enforce the law.


You do not have to consent to everything the government does nor does it need your consent on everything. That's why we are a Republic. Good luck arguing where that line is. Do you get to bring arms against if 51% of it you don't consent? 42? 60?


The last time this blew up it was the states oppressing people and the federal government who said stop that. The states were the oppressors and the federal government was the liberators. Odd.
Appreciate 0
      06-14-2019, 02:20 PM   #125
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Bob's Militia is relevant, but not as a liberator. The problem is Bob and his subordinates feel it is their patriotic duty do bring arms to bear against the federal government for any slight. We have seen this in the last decade. That mob rule might work fine in the deserts of Nevada or the mountains of Montana but not in a nation of 350 million people.


It's actually a little bit insulting to the rest of the Constitution that for some reason the 2A has been put on this pedestal as THE amendment that guards our democracy. It's patently false. Our country, like the Constitution is about the sum of its parts not just one piece of it.


The ironic thing about all of this is those state militias (national guard) would be the first to quell an armed uprising under Title 32 long before the federal government got involved. Those state militias Madison wrote so fondly about would be the ones called upon to enforce the law.


You do not have to consent to everything the government does nor does it need your consent on everything. That's why we are a Republic. Good luck arguing where that line is. Do you get to bring arms against if 51% of it you don't consent? 42? 60?


The last time this blew up it was the states oppressing people and the federal government who said stop that. The states were the oppressors and the federal government was the liberators. Odd.
To be clear, I have not advocated the proposition that armed resistance is the remedy of first resort for any governmental action. It is clearly the remedy of last resort, and would mean the end of the Republic. You make a fair point about the wackjob mentality of some hard core 2A militia guys, though I think that is just the fringe, and I don’t find it to be a persuasive counterpoint to what I have been saying about the intrinsic value of the 2A.

By the way, thanks for the civil discourse on a topic that so often finds it lacking.
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.

Last edited by CigarPundit; 06-14-2019 at 02:28 PM..
Appreciate 1
Jockey1984.00

      06-15-2019, 09:01 PM   #126
irishbimmer
Banned
1133
Rep
1,568
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

As an observer of this dialogue which is quite good,I'd recommend reading Chernow's biography of Hamilton for additional information. Of course, you may have both done that and if so, I apologize in advance.
Appreciate 1
      06-16-2019, 02:29 AM   #127
openwheelracing
Captain
182
Rep
812
Posts

 
Drives: 5 different 3 Series
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

iTrader: (0)

Deplorables, reading? LOL
Appreciate 0
      06-16-2019, 02:58 AM   #128
CigarPundit
On the road to serfdom
CigarPundit's Avatar
United_States
1160
Rep
644
Posts

 
Drives: 2018 F80 M3 DCT, 2019 Raptor
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F80 M3 DCT  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
Deplorables, reading? LOL
My drill press.
Attached Images
 
__________________
"God bless our troops...Especially our snipers.
Appreciate 0
      06-16-2019, 03:29 AM   #129
schoy
Captain
636
Rep
781
Posts

 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave 90TT View Post
The 1st Amendment is super important. However, the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st, which makes it more important.

Ask the protestors in Hong Kong what they think about those two amendments, or perhaps Venezuela.
By this ridiculous logic, the Secret Service is more important than the President because the Secret Service protects the President. If by your reasoning the 2nd protects the 1st, that actually proves that the 1st is more important than the 2nd.
Appreciate 0
      06-16-2019, 06:44 AM   #130
1mm2
Lieutenant
375
Rep
534
Posts

 
Drives: M2
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Northern exposure

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
Not the 2nd amendment. Only the will of the people and the check and balance in government can uphold the 1st amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by openwheelracing View Post
Deplorables, reading? LOL


The historically challenged always crack me up.
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2019, 11:32 AM   #131
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
8092
Rep
7,513
Posts

 
Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

CigarPundit , Jockey Thank you for showing us how divergent opinions can have a reasonable discussion.
Appreciate 1
      06-17-2019, 12:25 PM   #132
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
9012
Rep
22,057
Posts

 
Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Its summer so the right to bare arms
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST