Xitesmai 1 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Demanding the government to follow the laws of the land as intended by the founding fathers is NOT "rejecting government"; it is rather embracing government as the forefathers intended. Also I remind you that the British were not an invading army, they were the legitimate government, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written the way it was. In regards to the executive branch, people complain less when their personal "good king" is in charge. Of course which one is the "good king" depends on your own political point of view. But in either case, the Constitution is supposed to protect us from presidents acting as "kings", even if the majority approve. As the old saying went "NO KING BUT KING JESUS". But today, the executive does function as a king, and the king my friend is about to put the smack down on all imports as his whims dictate. The opportune time to buy imports is fast closing. Did you just recently buy stock in K-Var or something.... No indication that any ban or restriction will pass, let alone lose on appeal from the numerous lawsuits in the event of such legislation / executive order. Gun rights have expanded during this administration... And no the president may not act like a king..a king is not subject to the law of the people..the president is...now a president may choose to work outside the normal scope of due process by issuing an executive order... I see that however as a far fetched notion....the thing to due is try to lobby the NRA to lobby congress to impose gun control that ACTUALLY works... Things like... 1. A required psych eval - yearly ( Granted this can backfire by doctors who are anti-firearms ) 2. A safety class for each type of firearm 3. A criminal background check 4. A modest waiting period 5. Requirement to keep a registry of firearm transactions - basically a requirement to personally keep a record of sale...(I bought it from Bob Guy on this date, sold it to Timmy Someone on this date...) 6. States actually contributing to the NICS denied persons list... The only interest I have in any of this is protecting the liberty and freedom of my children. If you want to know what the president can do on imported weapons read this finding from the department of justice AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO RESTRICT MUNITIONS IMPORTS UNDER THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT .... now ask your self how the ATF shotgun study fits in with that Ok..the question was not whether the President has the authority to do something... see Carnivore (FBI) and Echelon (NSA).. but whether he/she will do something... not to mention... who gives a rats behind, if the executive branch says that Saiga 12s cant be imported anymore... ...We would just make them locally and drum up more business for local guys, and the Saigas would be better quality Other manufacturers are already opening up factories in the U.S. I think HK just opened one in Maryland? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Wow, you really endorse this stuff? I have some choice things to say to you, but I won't. That shit doesn't work. That guy in AZ who just shot up a bunch of people followed all the laws and that didn't stop him. Like I said, people who think gun control works are brainwashed. Politicians who are in favor of gun control have a very specific reason as to why. I just said that its an idea... Lets face the reality that some version of gun control is inevitable...I would rather the control be on the individual rather than the firearm. And it was the system that failed in AZ...Loughner was removed from college due to mental issues, never reported...was denied from enlisting in the Army due to habitual drug use...never reported... Had the systems been in place to report those things to the FBI, Congress woman Giffords might not be eating through a straw right now... Perhaps you might understand my position when I tell you I'm from Virginia Tech and was in my senior year when Cho attacked Norris Hall...Again he was ordered by a court to get mental help...never entered into NICS and as a result my schoolmates died. The problem was Cho and Loughner, not the 22, the 9mms or the extended magazines... You might also consider that I think the FOPA is complete BS and that the distinguished senator from NJ should be taken behind a shed and whipped. Gun control is a reality.....but control the persons access...not the item. Edited February 18, 2011 by Xitesmai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Wow, you really endorse this stuff? I have some choice things to say to you, but I won't. That shit doesn't work. That guy in AZ who just shot up a bunch of people followed all the laws and that didn't stop him. Like I said, people who think gun control works are brainwashed. Politicians who are in favor of gun control have a very specific reason as to why. I just said that its an idea... Lets face the reality that some version of gun control is inevitable...I would rather the control be on the individual rather than the firearm. And it was the system that failed in AZ...Loughner was removed from college due to mental issues, never reported...was denied from enlisting in the Army due to habitual drug use...never reported... Had the systems been in place to report those things to the FBI, Congress woman Giffords might not be eating through a straw right now... Perhaps you might understand my position when I tell you I'm from Virginia Tech and was in my senior year when Cho attacked Norris Hall...Again he was ordered by a court to get mental help...never entered into NICS and as a result my schoolmates died. The problem was Cho and Loughner, not the 22, the 9mms or the extended magazines... You might also consider that I think the FOPA is complete BS and that the distinguished senator from NJ should be taken behind a shed and whipped. Gun control is a reality.....but control the persons access...not the item. OK, so you just pointed out a bunch of things that had everything to do with PEOPLE, and nothing to do with guns. The bottom line is there is always going to be bad things that happen as long as you have a free society. I'm willing to deal with that. The only way around that is to have everyone walking around in their underwear all day long and going in and out of body scanners everywhere they go. You say there is an in between, but who gets to decide what makes a person unfit to own a gun? Could it be they were on some anti depressant 10 years ago for a couple of months? Some people might say so. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Wow, you really endorse this stuff? I have some choice things to say to you, but I won't. That shit doesn't work. That guy in AZ who just shot up a bunch of people followed all the laws and that didn't stop him. Like I said, people who think gun control works are brainwashed. Politicians who are in favor of gun control have a very specific reason as to why. I just said that its an idea... Lets face the reality that some version of gun control is inevitable...I would rather the control be on the individual rather than the firearm. And it was the system that failed in AZ...Loughner was removed from college due to mental issues, never reported...was denied from enlisting in the Army due to habitual drug use...never reported... Had the systems been in place to report those things to the FBI, Congress woman Giffords might not be eating through a straw right now... Perhaps you might understand my position when I tell you I'm from Virginia Tech and was in my senior year when Cho attacked Norris Hall...Again he was ordered by a court to get mental help...never entered into NICS and as a result my schoolmates died. The problem was Cho and Loughner, not the 22, the 9mms or the extended magazines... You might also consider that I think the FOPA is complete BS and that the distinguished senator from NJ should be taken behind a shed and whipped. Gun control is a reality.....but control the persons access...not the item. OK, so you just pointed out a bunch of things that had everything to do with PEOPLE, and nothing to do with guns. The bottom line is there is always going to be bad things that happen as long as you have a free society. I'm willing to deal with that. The only way around that is to have everyone walking around in their underwear all day long and going in and out of body scanners everywhere they go. You say there is an in between, but who gets to decide what makes a person unfit to own a gun? Could it be they were on some anti depressant 10 years ago for a couple of months? Some people might say so. Thats a hard question...one that as of now no one has been willing to take on due to the political implications of it... Any politician that said "I want to legalize all firearms, but restrict the sales of those firearms to those deemed responsible to handle them"...would either A.) Never be elected or B.) Never be relected Now currently politicians paint a picture as citizens who want unrestricted access to all firearms to be crazed anti-government militants...when that isnt the case at all... And I agree with you that as long as there is a free society bad people will do bad things...the only question is how. I would think that there could be a certain set of criteria that covers the legality of gun possession...Thats why I opened up the discussion on it... I'm not saying I have all the answers...and I wanted other opinions on it...Someone who took meds 10 years ago I personally would have no problem with...but maybe someone who is currently on depressants may need a doctor to sign off on a form to allow the purchase...that doesnt seem too unreasonable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Ok..the question was not whether the President has the authority to do something... see Carnivore (FBI) and Echelon (NSA).. but whether he/she will do something... not to mention... who gives a rats behind, if the executive branch says that Saiga 12s cant be imported anymore... ...We would just make them locally and drum up more business for local guys, and the Saigas would be better quality Other manufacturers are already opening up factories in the U.S. I think HK just opened one in Maryland? Well the executive branch has done something; do you think the prices skyrocketed because they did nothing? I care if they say that the Saiga can't be imported any more if for no other reason because it is being done to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, Do you really want your Saiga made by Century? Based on this ATF study the Executive branch could declare the Saiga a destructive device (DD) tomorrow; maybe if we are lucky they will only declare it a DD when you stick a magazine greater than 5 rounds in it. What do you think is going to happen to all the Saiga modification related jobs when the mere act of slapping a MD-20 in your gun makes it a DD? What do you think that is going to do to MD-20 prices? What do you think it is going to do the jobs of people who make and sell conversion kits? Some corporations might possibly benefit from the Saiga / import ban, pretty much like some health care corporations will benefit from ObamaCare; but the freemarket loses as does the Bill of Rights and in the end so do we. The most immediate thing one can do is buy what one needs now, afterwards petition your congress person. Writing a comment letter to ATF study will do a whole world of good too, I'm sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mike1234567 26 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Anyone have stats on how many S-12's have been used to execute illegal violent activities... "percentage" of said activities vs. percentage of S-12 owned vs. other SG's owned? Edited February 18, 2011 by Mike1234567 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
physicsnerd 139 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I see that however as a far fetched notion....the thing to due is try to lobby the NRA to lobby congress to impose gun control that ACTUALLY works... Things like... 1. A required psych eval - yearly ( Granted this can backfire by doctors who are anti-firearms ) 2. A safety class for each type of firearm 3. A criminal background check 4. A modest waiting period 5. Requirement to keep a registry of firearm transactions - basically a requirement to personally keep a record of sale...(I bought it from Bob Guy on this date, sold it to Timmy Someone on this date...) 6. States actually contributing to the NICS denied persons list... Why would we lobby the NRA to lobby congress to make it more difficult for us to buy guns? Does anyone really think that antis would say, "Golly gee, look at all that compromise. We can all call it quits as perfect gun control has been enacted." More likely it would be, "Hey, check that out. Now let's ask for more and get them to compromise again. Soon they'll cradle their pellet guns convinced they won the day." I'll address a few of your points. 1) I would have to go yearly to a psychologist who would then have to sign a legal document stating that I was not a threat to myself or others. How much would that visit cost? A couple of hundred dollars? More? What psychologist would sign off on that once some murder victim's family sues the doctor that signed off on the murderer? It wouldn't be worth it. 2) Each type? Like in California where an OD Beretta 92FS is less safe than a black 92FS? Ok that was a bit of sarcasm but again the issue comes up is cost. And it would be HUGE as there are thousands of different kinds of guns. Imagine trying to buy an ACR when they first came out. 4) Waiting periods are a joke. I had some friend's who wasted almost an entire day trying to get a pair of Mosins because they had to drive the 1-1.5 hours to the shop to buy them and then again the next day to pick them up. This ridiculous argument always assumes that the hypothetical person saved by the "cooling off" period is worth more than the person who feels threatened immediately and can't wait the 1-10 days for the waiting period to be over. 5) Some states require this but it should be personal preference. Many keep this simply to cover themselves but some don't. Criminals aren't going to care one way or another. The others I disagree with but would be even more tangential as we'd need to go into philosophy of government pretty hardcore and I don't want the thread locked or moved to Fight Club. But I will ask if you have proof that the above mentioned things work. You state that pretty strongly but without any evidence. No laws will ever stop all crime. All more laws do is create more crime. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Why would we lobby the NRA to lobby congress to make it more difficult for us to buy guns? Does anyone really think that antis would say, "Golly gee, look at all that compromise. ... No laws will ever stop all crime. All more laws do is create more crime. First off let me state, that I'm for abolishing most of the NFA restrictions except those deemed to be strictly anti-personnel...I dont think anyone should have land mines just for giggles. But I'm also for the responsible ownership of those items...and to that regard there are two options for control....restrict the items, or restrict the people allowed to access them I'll try to address your comments one at a time... 1. My intention was that if one wanted to buy a firearm and it had been a year since you had a psych eval, then one would be required. The doctor doesnt need to know the reason for the visit...but youre right that it could be expensive and dont get me started on TORT law. 2. The classed I was referring to could be thingds along the line of pistol, shotgun, rifle, smg, large caliber...etc...not one for each gun 4. While waiting periods are not ideal...and i'm not even sure if they work...I would think they help with "cooling off"....maybe they dont...I'm not a statistician 5. All I was referring to is a CYA...to help Police in the event of a crime... I understand that many of your take the 2nd Amendment to heart, and to a greater degree I do too...but when schoolmates die because the system failed...the system needs to adapt..and thats all I'm suggesting And I will point out, that not a single person here has offered any alternate suggestions....there is alot of gripe about the government "taking away our guns" yet no one offering any solution to present to your representatives in Congress. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 And I will point out, that not a single person here has offered any alternate suggestions....there is alot of gripe about the government "taking away our guns" yet no one offering any solution to present to your representatives in Congress. No the suggestion has been offered, its a novel concept articulated by our founding fathers known as individual liberty and freedom. And, the sole purpose of government is to ensure that liberty and freedom. But for some unknown reason, people prefer Jim Crow laws. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 And I will point out, that not a single person here has offered any alternate suggestions....there is alot of gripe about the government "taking away our guns" yet no one offering any solution to present to your representatives in Congress. No the suggestion has been offered, its a novel concept articulated by our founding fathers known as individual liberty and freedom. And, the sole purpose of government is to ensure that liberty and freedom. But for some unknown reason, people prefer Jim Crow laws. Whoa first of all Jim Crow laws mandated segregation, and separate but equal in terms of race...And I would rather this thread be locked that get into that subject...so lets leave that at the door So I take it youre suggesting the removal of any and all impedence the purchasing of firearms by citizens..so when the next Seung-Hui Cho marches into youre school, pulls out his AA-12 and chest rig full of grenades and kills your neighbor, sister, nephew and lover...you'll just sit back and say.. .."well the 2nd Amendment said that his possession shall not be infringed....thats the way the ball bounces"... ...nay sir...I say nay...you will be outraged that so mentally disturbed an individual could come into the possession of those items.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 And I will point out, that not a single person here has offered any alternate suggestions....there is alot of gripe about the government "taking away our guns" yet no one offering any solution to present to your representatives in Congress. No the suggestion has been offered, its a novel concept articulated by our founding fathers known as individual liberty and freedom. And, the sole purpose of government is to ensure that liberty and freedom. But for some unknown reason, people prefer Jim Crow laws. Whoa first of all Jim Crow laws mandated segregation, and separate but equal in terms of race...And I would rather this thread be locked that get into that subject...so lets leave that at the door So I take it youre suggesting the removal of any and all impedence the purchasing of firearms by citizens..so when the next Seung-Hui Cho marches into youre school, pulls out his AA-12 and chest rig full of grenades and kills your neighbor, sister, nephew and lover...you'll just sit back and say.. .."well the 2nd Amendment said that his possession shall not be infringed....thats the way the ball bounces"... ...nay sir...I say nay...you will be outraged that so mentally disturbed an individual could come into the possession of those items.. Yes gun control is racist, the very foundation of modern gun control in the USA is post reconstruction legislation. And, any law the seeks to put tests, requirements and qualifications on a fundamental right is by definition Jim Crow. Furthermore, I'll take my chances defending my self against individuals like Cho, over the 100Million innocent civilians disarmed and slaughtered by their governments in the last 100 years. See - The Mother of All Stats The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas http://jpfo.org/file...athgc.htm#chart 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated_Dad 4 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 No indication that any ban or restriction will pass, let alone lose on appeal from the numerous lawsuits in the event of such legislation / executive order. Gun rights have expanded during this administration... And no the president may not act like a king..a king is not subject to the law of the people..the president is...now a president may choose to work outside the normal scope of due process by issuing an executive order... I see that however as a far fetched notion....the thing to due is try to lobby the NRA to lobby congress to impose gun control that ACTUALLY works... Things like... 1. A required psych eval - yearly ( Granted this can backfire by doctors who are anti-firearms ) 2. A safety class for each type of firearm 3. A criminal background check 4. A modest waiting period 5. Requirement to keep a registry of firearm transactions - basically a requirement to personally keep a record of sale...(I bought it from Bob Guy on this date, sold it to Timmy Someone on this date...) 6. States actually contributing to the NICS denied persons list... Wow, you really endorse this stuff? I have some choice things to say to you, but I won't. That shit doesn't work. That guy in AZ who just shot up a bunch of people followed all the laws and that didn't stop him. Like I said, people who think gun control works are brainwashed. Politicians who are in favor of gun control have a very specific reason as to why. I will: Screw you! What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" isn't clear? Since you MAY not be a native English-speaker, let me clear something up for you... We close sentences with a little dot - known as a "period." This dot indicates that the statement is closed. Finished. Done. A statement which is *NOT* finished will use a comma, or - if something's missing - an "ellipsis" -- a set of three periods ("..."). Our Founders (PBUT) Didn't say "...shall not be infringed...". They didn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless it's for the children/we're talking about SCARY-looking guns/unless it's a 'reasonable restriction'/etc." What they said was "...The Right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED <**PERIOD**> Washington DC, NYFC, and Sh*tcago have the top three, without-question, MOST restrictive "gun-control" laws in the US -- they also are the top three, without-question, MOST dangerous places in the US, with the highest rates of violent crime and of gun-crimes. "Gun Control" DOES.NOT.WORK. PERIOD! See, criminals do not obey laws. They IGNORE them -- hence the appelation "CRIMINAL"! Guns are essentially BANNED in the UK. Prior to their ban, UK cops carried a stick and whistle. SINCE the ban, they now all wear body-armor, and most carry MP5s in their car. Why? Because now the citizens cannot defend themselves, and the criminals have pretty much taken over! Worked like a CHARM, didn't it??!! Google "Luty submachine gun" or "BSP Submachine gun" to see how easy it can be for a reasonably-handy person, using basic hand-tools and parts that are available at any well-stocked hardware store, to build a full-auto sub-gun! Look at the havoc some sicko with a chef's-knife just caused in NYFC! All the schemes you can dream up will - quite simply - do nothing but impact the law-abiding and do NOTHING to hamper criminals. Do you know that - per SCOTUS - gun registration schemes DO NOT APPLY TO FELONS??!! It's TRUE! See, SCOTUS found that forcing a felon to register his gun - since he's committing a crime by even HAVING it - is tantamount to forcing him to confess to a crime, and thus is a violation of his 5th-Amendment right against self-incrimination! Ergo, even "registration" schemes only affect the law-abiding, since they DO NOT APPLY TO CRIMINALS!! Currently - since Giffords got shot - the push is on for "mandatory reporting." The (illogical) thought FEELING is that - if we force Docs to report mental-cases to the State, and the State to feed NICS, we could stop folks like the Tucson-turd from buying guns. That sorta SEEMS to make sense -- provided you're FEELING instead of THINKING!! See... What would happen? People who NEEDED HELP would be MUCH less likely to go ask for it - fearing they'd be stripped of their 2A rights! Result? MORE really-unstable nuts running around, untreated -- which WILL result in more chaos! Is this what we want??!! The **FACT** is that the world is a dangerous place. Though we'd LIKE to be able to wrap everything in bubble-wrap, we can't. Bad s**t happpens -- and it always will. Sick people will do sick things - and they always will. Criminals will commit crimes - and they always will. **NOTHING** you can do will ever stop the sick and bad people from doing sick and bad things. So... What can we do? For one thing, we can REMOVE the restrictions that exist on law-abiding people. Had their been a few people packing in Tucson that day, the numbers of people shot would have been much lower. This wouldn't have helped Giffords - she was the target, and recipient of his first round - but it would certainly have helped others. Sadly - though AZ recently passed no-permit carry - there wasn't one person present who was carrying. No surprise -- they were all leftards/collectivists who think guns are "icky" and "evil" -- and who think nobody but the "Only-Ones" should be allowed to carry them. There WAS one guy nearby - in a drug-store - who was packing, but he didn't even know what was happening until the turd had emptied his mag and been jumped and disarmed. The **ONLY** solution to "bad guy with a gun" is "GOOD guy with a gun". EVERY SINGLE mass shooting where there has been no good-guy-with-gun didn't end until the shooter ran out of ammo, killed himself, or got tired of shooting -- UNTIL one of the good guys showed up with a gun!! Meanwhile, EVERY mass shooting where there WAS a good-guy-with-gun had AT MOST only a couple of victims. And yes -- as sad as it is to say -- a couple of victims every so often is the price we pay to live in a (relatively) free society. Our BIGGEST problem is that - every time something bad happens - some collectivist leftard says "We've got to DO SOMETHING!!!" So we pass another idiotic law that does nothing but make the situation worse. NO MORE. As to the impending "import ban" -- it's tyranny, pure and simple. We don't have a problem with Saigas, or Benellis, or WHATEVER - being used in crimes. Even if we DID -- as I've already established beyond any reasonable doubt -- banning their import will do *NOTHING* to stop the gang-bangers from getting them. Once again -- THINK! If human "mules" can move TONS of drugs into the US every year from South America, what stops them from bringing in TONS of guns? The *ONLY* reason they don't bring in MORE of them now is that it's not worth it -- they're available here. The minute they're NOT, then they'll be imported via illegal means, and the only ones who have them will be the gang-bangers. Government is not the solution to ANY problem -- in most cases government *IS* the problem! Don't Tread On Me!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated_Dad 4 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) ...Perhaps you might understand my position when I tell you I'm from Virginia Tech and was in my senior year when Cho attacked Norris Hall...Again he was ordered by a court to get mental help...never entered into NICS and as a result my schoolmates died. The problem was Cho and Loughner, not the 22, the 9mms or the extended magazines... No! The **PROBLEM** was with THE FRIGGING SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION! There was a bill in the VA Legislature to PREVENT colleges from prohibiting concealed-carry-permit holders from carrying. One of the BIGGEST opponents was the VT Admin - and they bragged about how their opposition had killed the bill! They weren't bragging after THAT turd killed 32 students. FTR, I sit here -- RIGHT NOW, AS I TYPE -- wearing a Hokie Polo, a Hokie ball-cap, and a pair of Hokie sunglasses on top. (ETA): Just in case you thought I was BS-ing you... (/Edit) My wife got her MFA from VT. My Son was a Cadet at the time and is now serving honorably and with distinction in our Navy. My Daughter is a Sophomore there RIGHT NOW - and is an RA in Main-Eggleston. My Youngest daughter has a "Future HOKIE!" sticker on her car, and a bedroom done up entirely in Maroon and Orange. Ergo, I'm qualified to speak! I've - PERSONALLY - talked to two people who were in Norris Hall when that sick f*** did what he did -- and BOTH of them would have been carrying if they weren't afraid of being expelled. One of them was in the habit of carrying anyway, but had left his piece in the car that morning because he'd gone straight from the gym to class. How different might this conversation be if either of them had been carrying that day -- or if any number of others had gotten their permit (VA is "shall-issue") who didn't because they knew it wouldn't matter? Compare Norris to the Appalachian School of Law event -- where (2) permit-holders took the guy down - 2 wounded, no dead!! Again -- look at all the dead in Chicago, DC and NYFC - places where guns are essentially banned! Did the ban stop anyone with evil-intent from getting a gun?? Google the phrase "Stalking the Bogeman" and read... This guy -- also clearly disturbed, but a leftard to boot -- describes how easily he bought an illegal gun with a supressor, and found someone to obscure the "ballistic ID" capabilities to boot. Then look at his other writings to see that HE STILL DOESN'T GET IT! **NOTHING** would have stopped either of the turds you mentioned -- NOTHING. All your stupid laws did was make sure that when that psycho walked into Norris that morning, he had a clear field of fire and nobody with the proper tools necessary to resist! Best of all, when the VT Admin-moron was bragging in the paper about how he'd successfully blocked the carry-law, was his statement about "All of our students, faculty and parents will ***FEEL*** much safer knowing that their classmates will not be armed." Yup. I bet you felt safe as hell -- until the shots started echoing all around! Didn't feel too safe THEN, though - did you? You've a **FAR** better chance of dying in a car-wreck than being shot by some madman. Heck - you've got a FAR better chance of choking on your lunch! But you drive, right? Advocate "mental exams" for cars? Advocate everyone being forced to eat through a straw? It **SEEMS** worse because it's so violent -- you FEEL (not THINK -- **FEEL**) that we should be able to do something. We can't. People will die in car-wrecks. People will choke to death on their food People will get hit by lightning. Babies will drown in bathtubs and mop-buckets. BAD S**T WILL HAPPEN -- and there's NOTHING you can do to PREVENT IT. But...!! You wear your seat-belt, right? Keep a fire-extinguisher in the house -- right? Carry a weapon. TRAIN! Be prepared - so the NEXT time you're in a building and some madman starts killing people, you can stop him instead of cowering under your desk and hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you! Edited February 19, 2011 by Dedicated_Dad 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skiboatsp 111 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) The problem is not going to be so much the United States but the united nations They already have a say so in your childrens education. Firearms will be next. Edited February 19, 2011 by saigatechusa Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated_Dad 4 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 The problem is not going to be so much the United States but the united nations They already have a say so in your childrens education. Firearms will be next. I fear that's the point where the cold war goes hot. As I said elsewhere tonight, that would unequivocally answer the "ignorance or malice" question -- they KNOW how many of us would react to that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 First of all there's no reason to respond with such vehemence...I too served my country in the Navy before going to college. Two if you're going to edit the grammar of my posts, do the same to yours...?!?!!!?!?! is not the way to properly end a sentence. Three, Giffords is a Republican, so the people at her rally weren't all leftist liberals...both parties were represented at that gathering...so lets not draw political lines. Four, VA state law prohibits the carrying of a firearm on the grounds of state schools...the VT Administration has no control over that, no matter their other political motives. Not too mention there is an ARMORY on VA Techs campus for the Cadets, but those didnt help either. I was attempting to present a topic for rational discussion, free of heated emotions...but apparently too many on these forums cant take off the tin foil hats long enough for rational debate. And as far as your "car" response goes...we now take classes to learn to drive, we take a test to earn a license, we have our eyes checked every so often when renewing that license, we must carry that license when we drive...and when we violate the law with a vehicle that license is suspended or revoked. And yet a similar approach is unreasonable to firearms? Lets not forget either that the Constitution is a living document...so if there is enough political will the 2nd Amendment could be revoked...just like prohibition.. I'm not saying that its right or just...only that its possible... From the responses I'm seeing its as though you believe I'm for taking away the 2nd Amendment or some such... For those that think that all weapon sales should be unrestricted...where does it stop? Grenades, Rockets, Missles, Artillery, High Explosives, Nukes...? By your logic any idiot with enough money could by any armament they want without any knowledge of how to use it... By your own post you advocate training...alot of people dont train...I know gun owners that dont even know basic safety.....could you imagine that person with an M203 or a Mark 19? And to the individual that said gun control is racism....that doesnt even make sense...gun laws apply to all Americans... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Lets not forget either that the Constitution is a living document...so if there is enough political will the 2nd Amendment could be revoked...just like prohibition.. What a bunch of huey. Our rights are inalienable and granted by God, the Constitution only guarantees those rights it does not grant them, nor can it repeal them. Calling it a "living" document is nothing but a scam to get people to believe that it means what ever the government wants it to mean. Its the equivalent of calling good evil and evil good. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I'm not going to be drawn into a theological debate here either... The rights of this country are defined by law...not god...god didn't invent firearms..the chinese did, at which time most were bhuddists or daoists... so can we discuss facts,law and theoritcal implications on the practice of that law...and not mythology please... ...thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
physicsnerd 139 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 First of all there's no reason to respond with such vehemence...I too served my country in the Navy before going to college. Two if you're going to edit the grammar of my posts, do the same to yours...?!?!!!?!?! is not the way to properly end a sentence. Three, Giffords is a Republican, so the people at her rally weren't all leftist liberals...both parties were represented at that gathering...so lets not draw political lines. Four, VA state law prohibits the carrying of a firearm on the grounds of state schools...the VT Administration has no control over that, no matter their other political motives. Not too mention there is an ARMORY on VA Techs campus for the Cadets, but those didnt help either. I was attempting to present a topic for rational discussion, free of heated emotions...but apparently too many on these forums cant take off the tin foil hats long enough for rational debate. And as far as your "car" response goes...we now take classes to learn to drive, we take a test to earn a license, we have our eyes checked every so often when renewing that license, we must carry that license when we drive...and when we violate the law with a vehicle that license is suspended or revoked. And yet a similar approach is unreasonable to firearms? Lets not forget either that the Constitution is a living document...so if there is enough political will the 2nd Amendment could be revoked...just like prohibition.. I'm not saying that its right or just...only that its possible... From the responses I'm seeing its as though you believe I'm for taking away the 2nd Amendment or some such... For those that think that all weapon sales should be unrestricted...where does it stop? Grenades, Rockets, Missles, Artillery, High Explosives, Nukes...? By your logic any idiot with enough money could by any armament they want without any knowledge of how to use it... By your own post you advocate training...alot of people dont train...I know gun owners that dont even know basic safety.....could you imagine that person with an M203 or a Mark 19? And to the individual that said gun control is racism....that doesnt even make sense...gun laws apply to all Americans... Giffords is a democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords "A Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, she has represented Arizona's 8th congressional district since 2007." Though she is considered to be a "blue dog" democrat. Just pointing out that she is not a republican. I think a lot of people here do take exception to your suggestions because they are clear infringements of the 2nd Amendment. Truthfully, I don't think I should have to ask a psychologist, a firearms trainer or the government if I can have a gun. The more people you have to genuflect before to get permission to exercise your God given rights the more likely it is that you'll be faced with two options: 1) forceful suppression of that right or 2) become a criminal in the eyes of the state. If you haven't noticed drivers licenses have very little to do with driving. They're pathetically easy to pass (even the eye part, ask me how I know because my car was totaled by a nearly blind octogenarian) and list the times you've used your driver's license to show driving aptitude vs. the times you've used it for other purposes. Google "Real ID Act" if you want to see how the loving care of government views those licenses. The US Constitution is not a living document. If you think that the 2nd Amendment can change to the whims of the people then you could also say the same about any other part. What other amendments should we ignore (well besides the direct election of senators and the income tax one ) because the document is living? A living constitution turns our country into a totalitarian democracy where people can be oppressed at whim because your constitutional (and Natural Rights) are meaningless. I'm truly sorry for what you experienced at VT but you're stuck in this cycle that some combination of oppressive laws would have prevented it. This reminds me of McCarthy. She endured a terrible event but she's tried to use that for years to disarm and restrict law abiding people. So yeah, I think I should be able to mail order MP5s to my door. I wonder how many people will just label me as "unreasonable" or dare I say "crazy." I'm too tired to type a full explanation but you probably wouldn't believe me anyway. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
physicsnerd 139 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I'm not going to be drawn into a theological debate here either... The rights of this country are defined by law...not god...god didn't invent firearms..the chinese did, at which time most were bhuddists or daoists... so can we discuss facts,law and theoritcal implications on the practice of that law...and not mythology please... ...thanks Truly sad. I own myself and I believe that is a Natural Right (whether by God which I believe, or just by your existence). Thinking that rights are a product of coercive government truly makes me sad. You can argue natural law without invoking God but it does have everything to do rights. One should not be so quick to assign ownership of yourself to someone else. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) My mistake about Giffords...she was a Republican until 2000...but she's also been a advocate of gun rights, but its late and I'm tired... And thank you for your compassion about VT...I appreciate it And I think you have every right to own that mp5...its actually my favorite gun to shoot. It is only my opinion that since the government is going to regulate firearms sales, despite how some here feel, the regulation should be based on the person...not the item....that's been my argument all along...perhaps I did a ppor job of making that clear I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't feel strongly in favor about the right to bear arms. The items I listed earlier were not representative of "my plan" for gun control...but merely a catalyst for dialog...however I did not expect such a heated backlash...I guess I'm more used to rational debate... As far as the rights of the self go...its not a lack of self knowledge or definition, but a deep respect for law and order... ...and yes any amendment to the constitution can change...given ratification by 2/3 of the states...granted the bill of rights has never changed...doesn't mean that it couldnt Edited February 19, 2011 by Xitesmai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vanveen 0 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) Hey guy interested in English grammar. The exact reading of the 2nd amendment is as follows," A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice that clause that precedes " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yeah, the one that mentions a militia. Thats integral to the understanding of the 2nd amendment, and what are founding fathers actually intended by it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. And to the people that don't believe the Constitution is a living document, I must ask you to examine that clause as well. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on more than one occasion that the part about a militia doesn't exclude private gun ownership, than you'ld probably be shooting squirrels out of a tree with a slingshot right now. If you want to take the constitution as an unchanging document, than you should believe that the only way to own firearms legally would be to join your state militia. Furthermore, were the constitution an unchanging document, you could say goodbye to the right to privacy, something I'm sure everyone on this forum believes in to the highest degree, as it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead based on several Supreme Court rulings deeming it an implied right granted by the Constitution; also, the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, since everything contained within it was an afterthought to the original document; and for that matter any other amendments you might like, say, the right to free speech. You can't just run around using the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it suits your purposes, and ignore it when it does not. Again, I must point out that the commerce clause is also part of the Constitution and allows for the regulation of firearms. Edited February 19, 2011 by vanveen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Hey guy interested in English grammar. The exact reading of the 2nd amendment is as follows," A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice that clause that precedes " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yeah, the one that mentions a militia. Thats integral to the understanding of the 2nd amendment, and what are founding fathers actually intended by it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. And to the people that don't believe the Constitution is a living document, I must ask you to examine that clause as well. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on more than one occasion that the part about a militia doesn't exclude private gun ownership, than you'ld probably be shooting squirrels out of a tree with a slingshot right now. If you want to take the constitution as an unchanging document, than you should believe that the only way to own firearms legally would be to join your state militia. Furthermore, were the constitution an unchanging document, you could say goodbye to the right to privacy, something I'm sure everyone on this forum believes in to the highest degree, as it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead based on several Supreme Court rulings deeming it an implied right granted by the Constitution; also, the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, since everything contained within it was an afterthought to the original document; and for that matter any other amendments you might like, say, the right to free speech. You can't just run around using the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it suits your purposes, and ignore it when it does not. Again, I must point out that the commerce clause is also part of the Constitution and allows for the regulation of firearms. WRONG WRONG WRONG. I hate it when people say...."huuuuuuurrrrr. you need to be in a militia". WRONG. Do you know anything about commas? They don't exclude things in sentences. For example: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". They also don't make the words in front of them a requisite for the words following them. They are just a place holder to put more words and thoughts in a sentance to make it grammatically correct. Try actually reading some writings by the founding fathers sometimes. If all of the capable men in a town were out fighting, and the enemy came into town and try to get into peoples' homes, they wanted the people to have guns to defend themselves with. I know logic doesn't work on gun grabbers, but ask yourself this: do you really think a bunch of guys, who just used guns to secure their new free state, would make it so that only certain members of that state could own guns? Back then wasn't like it is today. The women AND young boys would and could shoot. Anyone trying to argue that it implies guns are only for militias is flat out wrong. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Hey guy interested in English grammar. The exact reading of the 2nd amendment is as follows," A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice that clause that precedes " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yeah, the one that mentions a militia. Thats integral to the understanding of the 2nd amendment, and what are founding fathers actually intended by it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. And to the people that don't believe the Constitution is a living document, I must ask you to examine that clause as well. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on more than one occasion that the part about a militia doesn't exclude private gun ownership, than you'ld probably be shooting squirrels out of a tree with a slingshot right now. If you want to take the constitution as an unchanging document, than you should believe that the only way to own firearms legally would be to join your state militia. Furthermore, were the constitution an unchanging document, you could say goodbye to the right to privacy, something I'm sure everyone on this forum believes in to the highest degree, as it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but instead based on several Supreme Court rulings deeming it an implied right granted by the Constitution; also, the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, since everything contained within it was an afterthought to the original document; and for that matter any other amendments you might like, say, the right to free speech. You can't just run around using the Constitution and Bill of Rights when it suits your purposes, and ignore it when it does not. Again, I must point out that the commerce clause is also part of the Constitution and allows for the regulation of firearms. OMFG. I just read the rest of this drivel. You must be a troll. 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' Secure in their persons, house, papers, and everything else. How, exactly, do you think we wouldn't have privacy if it weren't for SCOTUS? There is nothing fucking implied here. All that there is, is a bunch of politicians that want to infringe these rights, and the brainwashed people that listen to them and don't do any fact checking or critical thinking on their own. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) There were actually many variations of the 2nd Amendment...the one in the Constitution and the ones sent to the States to be ratified... If I recall correctly the differences are in some commas and capitalization of the words Arms and People. Now if we were to take this to a mental extreme lets break down the words "keep and bear" arms. So keep, meaning you can own and bear meaning carry around with you. This Amendment says nothing, absolutely nothing on how those items are sold, traded..etc within the States. The above poster is correct that the provision for regulating the sale of firearms (or anything) is covered under the Commerce clause, both Interstate and Foreign. So either the State you live in or the Federal Government has the authority to regulate arms sales as they see fit. You cant cherry pick the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... Edited February 19, 2011 by Xitesmai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PostsOnPercocet 32 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 There were actually many variations of the 2nd Amendment...the one in the Constitution and the ones sent to the States to be ratified... If I recall correctly the differences are in some commas and capitalization of the words Arms and People. Now if we were to take this to a mental extreme lets break down the words "keep and bear" arms. So keep, meaning you can own and bear meaning carry around with you. This Amendment says nothing, absolutely nothing on how those items are sold, traded..etc within the States. The above poster is correct that the provision for regulating the sale of firearms (or anything) is covered under the Commerce clause, both Interstate and Foreign. So either the State you live in or the Federal Government has the authority to regulate arms sales as they see fit. You cant cherry pick the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... If any legislation, enacted through commerce clauses by the state or federal government prohibits the "keeping" or "bearing" of arms, then it's unconstitutional. After all, you just admitted we can own and carry around with us. So NO they don't, constitutional, have the ability to regulate shit. So let's spend the next month listing all of the current laws that are unconstitutional. This is what pisses me off about gun grabbers. They think they are so smart that they weasel a way to get gun control. Get a gun grabber to admit we can keep and bear arms? OK, then they say, well, the constitution doesn't say anything about how you obtain said arms!! We will ban the importation and sale of them!!! HUUURRRRR Do you honestly think the forefathers meant that we could keep and bear arms, but not be able to buy them? In any way, shape, or form? Give me a fucking break. I'm not the one cherry picking it. YOU ARE. You admit that it says we can keep and bear arms, but then you try to take away that right by limiting the means for citizens to obtain them. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mike1234567 26 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 And I will point out, that not a single person here has offered any alternate suggestions....there is alot of gripe about the government "taking away our guns" yet no one offering any solution to present to your representatives in Congress. No the suggestion has been offered, its a novel concept articulated by our founding fathers known as individual liberty and freedom. And, the sole purpose of government is to ensure that liberty and freedom. But for some unknown reason, people prefer Jim Crow laws. Whoa first of all Jim Crow laws mandated segregation, and separate but equal in terms of race...And I would rather this thread be locked that get into that subject...so lets leave that at the door So I take it youre suggesting the removal of any and all impedence the purchasing of firearms by citizens..so when the next Seung-Hui Cho marches into youre school, pulls out his AA-12 and chest rig full of grenades and kills your neighbor, sister, nephew and lover...you'll just sit back and say.. .."well the 2nd Amendment said that his possession shall not be infringed....thats the way the ball bounces"... ...nay sir...I say nay...you will be outraged that so mentally disturbed an individual could come into the possession of those items.. You're logic is flawed. I'm trying to write this as politely as I can... What part of "control the nut-cases, not the freedom to bear arms" don't you understand?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) There were actually many variations of the 2nd Amendment...the one in the Constitution and the ones sent to the States to be ratified... If I recall correctly the differences are in some commas and capitalization of the words Arms and People. Now if we were to take this to a mental extreme lets break down the words "keep and bear" arms. So keep, meaning you can own and bear meaning carry around with you. This Amendment says nothing, absolutely nothing on how those items are sold, traded..etc within the States. The above poster is correct that the provision for regulating the sale of firearms (or anything) is covered under the Commerce clause, both Interstate and Foreign. So either the State you live in or the Federal Government has the authority to regulate arms sales as they see fit. You cant cherry pick the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... If any legislation, enacted through commerce clauses by the state or federal government prohibits the "keeping" or "bearing" of arms, then it's unconstitutional. After all, you just admitted we can own and carry around with us. So NO they don't, constitutional, have the ability to regulate shit. So let's spend the next month listing all of the current laws that are unconstitutional. This is what pisses me off about gun grabbers. They think they are so smart that they weasel a way to get gun control. Get a gun grabber to admit we can keep and bear arms? OK, then they say, well, the constitution doesn't say anything about how you obtain said arms!! We will ban the importation and sale of them!!! HUUURRRRR Do you honestly think the forefathers meant that we could keep and bear arms, but not be able to buy them? In any way, shape, or form? Give me a fucking break. I'm not the one cherry picking it. YOU ARE. You admit that it says we can keep and bear arms, but then you try to take away that right by limiting the means for citizens to obtain them. Whoa...first off...you dont know me..so dont say that I'm trying to be a gun grabber...As a Saiga owner and an AR-15 owner I think this qualifies me as NOT being a gun grabber... 2nd, I'm not cherry picking...meaning only looking at one point and using that point as definite proof while ignoring counter examples... I freely admit that the 2nd Amendment defines the right of U.S. Citizens to own and carry firearms, and any legislation that infringes on that right is, by law, unconstitutional. However, the Commerce clause clearly states that the federal government has the right to regulate the sale of items, if those items cross state lines... For example, the CA Medicinal Marijuana Act...deemed by the supreme court to be unconstitutional due to the inability to determine California pot, from any other pot.. I prove my point by citing the Montana Gun Sovereignty Law, that states, if a firearms is manufactured in its entirety, along with the ammunition, and is sold to a resident of Montana, then the federal government has no authority to regulate its sale... In fact, guns made in Montana must be marked as such and can never leave the state. I believe Texas, Utah and Tennessee are enacting similar laws...so in fact I am correct about regulation...as it pertains to law... Edited February 19, 2011 by Xitesmai Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Xitesmai 1 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 You're logic is flawed. I'm trying to write this as politely as I can... What part of "control the nut-cases, not the freedom to bear arms" don't you understand?? ....thats what I've been trying to advocate the entire time... Some folks here just dont understand that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dedicated_Dad 4 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 There were actually many variations of the 2nd Amendment...the one in the Constitution and the ones sent to the States to be ratified... If I recall correctly the differences are in some commas and capitalization of the words Arms and People. Now if we were to take this to a mental extreme lets break down the words "keep and bear" arms. So keep, meaning you can own and bear meaning carry around with you. This Amendment says nothing, absolutely nothing on how those items are sold, traded..etc within the States. The above poster is correct that the provision for regulating the sale of firearms (or anything) is covered under the Commerce clause, both Interstate and Foreign. So either the State you live in or the Federal Government has the authority to regulate arms sales as they see fit. You cant cherry pick the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... Wow. Just.... Wow. There are SO many things wrong with every post you've made, I don't even know where to begin fisking. **READ** the writings of our Founders - the Federalist/Anti-federalist papers, their letters, minutes/notes/records of debates, etc. There were many who believed that our Constitution **HAD** to contain an explicit "Bill of Rights" or else some future .gov would infringe. There were others who believed that the clear listing of Fed.gov privileges detailed in Article 1/Section 8 and elsewhere were enough -- after all, when you write a contract that says "Party 1 may do A, B, C, D and E" then it's pretty obvious that "F" isn't on the list. Further, they feared that by listing a BoR that future tyrants would argue that anything *NOT* on the list was open-season. Further, you must understand what those words meant to the people who wrote them -- "regulate" for example (as in "to regulate Commerce between the several States") meant "to make REGULAR" -- in other words "to make common and streamlined" or "uniform" -- their job was NOT to pile law on law on law and complicate, but to SIMPLIFY. Further, "a well-regulated militia" meant "well-trained, disciplined" -- again -- REGULAR. Common and streamlined, uniform. Further, **ALL** Fed.gov privileges are rightly interpreted via the plain text of Article 1 Section 8, as clarified in the 10th Amendment which was *ONLY* inserted to pacify those who were prescient enough to imagine how "the commerce clause" and such could be abused. A1/s8 says "the Fed.gov is allowed to do these few, specific things" -- and the 10A came behind to say "And, just in case y'all missed it, if it ain't on that list then the Fed.gov cannot do it!" Not that any of it means a hot fart in a cold wind today - as we tolerate tyranny our Founders (PBUT) would have happily died to resist -- but it's beyond rational argument that an overwhelming majority of everything our Fed.gov does is outside the bounds of any Constitutional authority regardless of what SCOTUS may have said. While I'm at it - SCOTUS too has no authority to do what THEY have done -- and our Founders knew what would happen and tried to prevent THAT as well! In any case, SCOTUS also upheld slavery, denial of basic Constitutional rights to freedmen, segregation and numerous other things we'd (RIGHTLY) find abhorrent today. They're no more infallible than the Pope - no matter what the "College of Cardinals" or its modern .gov equivalent may declare. You'd know all of this if you'd spent the time to study the well-documented facts that surround its creation - but that would require you to let go of all the false propaganda you've ingested and absorbed. For those who think "hurr..durr...only for militia..." - or that Congress or any State has any right to mess with our G*d-given rights as protected by the BoR/2A, that the 2A was somehow not about ensuring our ability to resist and overthrow an out-of-control .gov, or that machine-guns, grenades and every other bit of military hardware was not included - I'll leave you with these quotes from Tench Cox -- Patriot, Rev.war fighter and Delegate to the Con-Con: * The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. o The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. * Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. o Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. * Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. o "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. It was common for Citizens with the means to own cannon, and the greatest Battleships of their day which had the ability to shell coastal cities and forts. If the .mil can have it, then so can we. No - FTR, this doesn't include Nuke-weapons, for the reasons that would be obvious to anyone who'd studied the aforementioned records from our Founders (PBUT). It **WOULD** however include anything and everything that might be carried or used by soldiers in our Fed.Gov's Army - through and including crew-served weapons. DD 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.