Ask Me Help Desk - True or false?

Federalist . 28 ,Hamilton states that when a government betrays the people by becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their right of self defense ,against the government
For most of us, that hasn't happened, as we still vote for all our reps, senators, and presidents, and some judges. If we don't like who we elect we can vote them out, So there goes that argument as unfounded in todays society.

Federalist 29,Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army that becomes oppressive.
Okay show me in modern times where a standing Army is oppressive. Another one bites the dust.

Federalist 46,Madison states that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people had the right to armed resistance.
That ain't happened either. We still vote them out, so who needs a gun to do that. More so, you may not like the choices the people make, but its still the peoples choice, so who is coming for the guns is my question, and as yet, NO answer.

Talk about not having a leg to stand on, and this smacks of opinions based on FEAR, and NOT FACTS!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Federalist . 28 ,Hamilton states that when a government betrays the people by becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their right of self defense ,against the government
Federalist 29,Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army that becomes oppressive.
Federalist 46,Madison states that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people had the right to armed resistance.

Hamilton was trying to win support for the ratification of the Constitution. Let's just put it mildly and say the Federalist Papers were are very well constructed example of persuasive writing.

Hamilton and et.al were pushing an agenda. Could be wrong, but I get the feeling you would cite the Federalist Papers as an example of original intent. My reading of the papers suggests a person(s) who using language in a clever fashion. He minimizes certain risks in order to placate certain factions risks while overplaying others.

I think the Federalist Papers are of historical interest. That's where I would stop.

Tut

They are in fact the primary reference to use in determining intent. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were the primary authors of the Constitution.

Tal ;if you don't like the 2nd Amendment then there is a Constitutional way to amend or abolish it. Work on that after you finish that abolishment of religious liberty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

they are in fact the primary reference to use in determining intent. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were the primary authors of the Constitution.

Hi Tom,

No quite. In the end it is ratification 'is' all that matters. Primary authors don't constitute original intent. What about the secondary? You can persuade and even try to dominate, but in the end you end up with a compromise. There is no original intent.

Tut

Then there is no meaning to the words as Humpty Dumpty said .

How about this?

(quote)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

(end quote)

Im not saying it is currently happening but it could happen and that is why you have to watch and see. That is the intent of the second amendment. Its like a fuse for the constitution.

Ref:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/obama_2anews.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

How about this?

(quote)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

(end quote)

Im not saying it is currently happening ut it could happen and that is why you have to watch and see. That is the intent of the second amendment. Its like a fuse for the constitution.

Ref:

http://www.goal.org/newspages/obama_2anews.html

You say this as if it were a bad thing, but your liberty is a travesty of justice

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

then there is no meaning to the words as Humpty Dumpty said .

Humpty Dumpty shows us that those who control language call the shots. Words mean whatever the skilled architect decides.
The Federalist Papers represent the skilled art of language. Like anyone who writes a piece of persuasive text they choose to make clear certain concepts and leave others obscure. As far as I can see Hamilton was no different.

His words don't echo some underlying reality that governs the universe (or politics for that matter). Obviously Hamilton was a very intelligent man, but that's all he was. No more or no less.

From my readings I get the impression that he was very aware of the fact that government is an experiment.

Tut

Yes and he was aware that republics and democracies have a short shelf life's prone to the eventual rule of the tyrant .

Hi Tom, actually I am a believer in the second amendment, but not paranoid over perceived threats as you seem to be, and until we actually have a tyrant to overthrow by force and not ballots, what's the problem? History has shown us many religious tyrants, and you seem to be pushing for one of those here.

Ain't going to happen. And I grew up in the woods, and a 32 shot glock, and a automatic assault rifle were never used to shoot deer, or rabbits, or bear for that matter. They are collectibles though, and its not citizens I worry about, but criminals who kill innocents.

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?

Hello again, Steve:

Who're you talking to?? It don't matter. I'll answer...

Well, he thinks Obama is waging a "war" on religion. If that thought remains in his head, then I wouldn't think he's a religious tyrant...

But, if he DOES anything about that paranoid thought, I'd say he'd be DAMN tyrannical. He's going to DO something too, or he wouldn't have mentioned it.

Guard your religious liberties.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Who're you talking to??? It don't matter. I'll answer...

Well, he thinks Obama is waging a "war" on religion. If that thought remains in his head, then I wouldn't think he's a religious tyrant...

But, if he DOES anything about that paranoid thought, I'd say he'd be DAMN tyrannical. He's gonna DO something too, or he wouldn't have mentioned it.

Guard your religious liberties.

excon

I've never seen that video, thanks for sharing.
Scare tactics play on the recipient's innate sense of security... or insecurity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You think Romney is a religious tyrant?

No, I think he is a corporate 1%, opportunist, who makes his money off the backs of others. He doesn't care if you or your company goes under, or lose your pension, or lively hood. He cares about making money, and that's it.

As president, ordinary people will get screwed more than they are now.he wants to be king of the oligarchs, so they can keep extracting money at a record pace, and make a lot of poor people to enslave by giving us no other choice but the ones they want us to have.

Quote:

Yeah I'm back, and wondering if I'll be allowed to let liberals speak for themselves this time...

No problem!!

NO sir, I was asking Tal a question, who said to tom "History has shown us many religious tyrants, and you seem to be pushing for one of those here." Which religious tyrant would that be?

P.S. telling the Catholic church they MUST violate their conscience and redefining their ministries - which I have shown predate government involvement - to no longer qualify as religious in violation of our constitution is tyranny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

P.S. telling the Catholic church they MUST violate their conscience and redefining their ministries - which I have shown predate government involvement - to no longer qualify as religious in violation of our constitution is tyranny.

Well then if that's the case the conservatives will be a shoe-in in the next election. Let's see if the populace agrees with your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Well then if that's the case the conservatives will be a shoe-in in the next election. Let's see if the populace agrees with your opinion.

As always, but at least you don't dispute my facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

No, I think he is a corporate 1%, opportunist, who makes his money off the backs of others. he doesn't care if you or your company goes under, or lose your pension, or lively hood. He cares about making money, and thats it.

As president, ordinary people will get screwed more than they are now.he wants to be king of the oligarchs, so they can keep extracting money at a record pace, and make a lot of poor people to enslave by giving us no other choice but the ones they want us to have.

No problem!!!!!!!!!

So who's the religious tyrant tom seems to be supporting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As always, but at least you don't dispute my facts.

Well there are no facts. If it was a violation of the constitution it never would have passed... but it did.

So your church has more rights than my business and that's tyranny?? I say its tyranny when the church runs a business, and doesn't have to follow the rules. When they become employers, and provide services, THEY ARE A BUSINESS, NOT a ministry, and who cares what they did centuries or decades ago.

If it's the rule for a hospital, it's the rule for all hospitals. Ministries got nothing to do with it. You cannot discriminate against any employee, or subject his right to your religious test. What part of obeying the law is it you righties don't understand??

Clearly you think your religious rights trump the law, but they don't. Matter of fact if you had your way, religious law would trump government law, and that would be tyranny. It was in Europe, that's why they ran over here. Have you learned nothing of history? Stop cherry picking the FACTS!!

Since I haven't endorsed anyone except ABO ,I'd like to know which one too. Actually ;if those Obama front group phonies at Americans Elect 2012 field a 3rd party candidate ,I won't vote for that candidate either .

Romney is the republican establishments choice and thanks to Karl, and all the other front groups, you guys have a candidate, whether you endorse him or not. He is the only ABO around, so you got him, nobody else is running as far as that goes.

So unless you have other alternatives, that's your vote, and he will get your vote, right??

So you do think he's a religious tryant ?

No he is a self serving corporate tyrant .And must be checked and defeating at all costs!he doesn't have my interest, or the conservative interests in his heart.

Then who is this religious tyrant you referred to? That is the question.

The one you are trying to create in the name of religious freedom. Don't worry, it ain't going to happen, no matter how you phrase it, so I ain't worried, just wary. Diligent, but not paranoid.

And I defend my females as passionately as you do.

So in fact there is no religious tryrant I "seem to support" .

What is going on here is a replay of what happened to McCain, He was the media darling ;he won the endorsement of the NY Slimes in the NY primary . He was everyone's favorite "maverick " until he locked up the nomination.

Then over night he was an extreme reactionary crazy geezer Senator and the left demonized him the rest of the campaign.

Romney is going to learn that his best friends in this campaign will be the base that he is going to try to etch a sketch away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then over night he was an extreme reactionary crazy geezer Senator

McCain is a sad political story. When he was himself years ago he was likeable and consistent. Once the party handlers got a hold of him it was all over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello wingers:

Looks to me like Ted Nugent is bashing everybody. I thought you guys were the ones who're gonna be nice.. No, huh?

excon

Just thought an update was due, Ted and the Secret Service met and resolved things.