[telewinz]

It is 12 years into the future, six months ago dozens of people were murdered by crazy gunmen using legally registered smi-auto weapons. The children of a famous pro-gun leader are among the dead, and the pro-gun leader has "seen the light" and has lead a successful repeal of the 2nd amendment. The newspapers have printed a list of all known gun owners and your name is on the list. You have 90 days to turn in any self-loading firearm of any caliber. You will be paid fair market value for the firearms you turn in, failure to comply is a felony offense bringing 5-20 years prison time for EACH offense and loss of any and all property (car, home) where any illegal firearm is found. Their is also a $1500 reward for informing on violators, YOU WILL BE CAUGHT if you disobey. The Supreme Court MAY rule on an appeal in next 12-18 months. The good news is that you can keep your other guns....for now.:evil:

[Hazwaste]

How about, I don't turn them in and I don't leave the country OR let them come and take them. The alternative is to become very very difficult for them to find you. It's not that hard to do, and it's a big country with lots of very small towns.

[El Tejon]

If the 5th Amendment were repealed, does that mean the government is allowed to executed whomever they like without trial?:rolleyes:

Faced the same penalties in other American cities with my "illegal" guns. I did not comply. Will not comply now or in the future.:)

[cracked butt]

SOunds like a very logical scenario Telewinz. I can actually see it happening in the future.

I'll be at the point in my life where I'll be starting the decline in a few years. They can come and take them from me.

[Graystar]

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment is nothing more than an FYI to government, explicitly stating a restriction which exist whether it is written or not, then the repeal of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't change a single thing.

[Pumpkinheaver]

Disobey all the way!

[telewinz]

Whether you choose to hide with your guns or not you are a wanted criminal on the run. Yes its a big country with lots of small towns yet what good are your guns if you are unable to shoot or show them without risking capture. Its like having a stolen million dollar painting, you can't tell anyone you have it so why bother? In addition you ignore the "family" factor. Many (if not most) of us would not be able to discard our other responsibilities and bring ruin upon our loved ones. You would be viewed as selfish by many, not as a hero.

[Bill St. Clair]

I would gather enough people for a grand jury and a jury. We would hunt down, try for treason, and publicly hang anyone we could find who was involved in making or enforcing this newest bit of legal excrement. We would make it known that anyone seen moving in a law enforcement uniform is fair game. Their choice: quit now or die.

In such a situation, we must go on the offensive. We would lose if we let them take us out one at a time. We would lose if we give up our guns. They will have declared war by making our homeland defense rifles illegal. They will have made a fatal mistake.

Molon Labe!

This wasn't one of the choices, so I didn't vote.

[JeepDriver]

Molon Labe!

[telewinz]

You forget, this new law will be popular with the vast majority of the voters who approved it. You will be out numbered and probably outgunned (my trusty Mauser '98). You would be dead or in custody long before you could assemble a "jury". No offense but your violent reaction is just what would cause this kind of law to pass some day in the future.

[Preacherman]

If this ever happened, I predict we'd see an epidemic of civil disobedience that would make the days of the civil rights campaigners seem like a Sunday school picnic... and I daresay a large proportion of the law enforcement community would be among the disobedient!

[telewinz]

"I predict we'd see an epidemic of civil disobedience that would make the days of the civil rights campaigners seem like a Sunday school picnic"

Maybe but I think its quite possible that most people would talk about it but do little or nothing. In other words they would react same as they do for abortion ( Please, NO OFFENSE) laws and affirmative action laws. A great many people have strongly disagreed with these laws for years and thought they were illegal and against any "God given right". Why do you feel the 2nd amendment would have more "support" than these two worthy causes?

[Travis McGee]

In this case, expect to see dozens and then hundreds of pandering politicians killed by "bullets from nowhere."

You could pass a law saying all blue eyed Irishmen must report for slave duty, guess what? I won't obey that either. Instead, I'd shoot the traitors that pushed the "law."

There are 10-15 million scoped deer rifles capable of killing a traitor at from 300 to 1,000 yards already floating around. Fired one bullet at a time at traitors, that's a lot of cumulative firepower.

[Standing Wolf]

The children of a famous pro-gun leader are among the dead, and the pro-gun leader has "seen the light" and has lead a successful repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I've got to think about that part for awhile. I don't have too much difficulty imagining the leftist extremists repealing the Second Amendment, but...

[Bruce H]

I would have to say the same thing Amanda Plummer's character said to the resturant patrons in Pulp Fiction when they started the holdup.

[rick_reno]

I don't own any semi-auto firearms.

[St. Gunner]

Somethings may not be compromised, the law of physics, isn't it a force in motion tends to stay in motion unless an outside force causes resistance? If you fail to be that counter force when the time comes, cause the friction to grind it to a halt it won't ever stop. We've done a decent job of causing that friction, but on some accounts we haven't made our case forcefully enough.

I think many of those who attempt garbage like this feel they can do these things without repurcussions, because historically we have been the cream of the crop of the public, CHL studies have proven it time and again. We are non violent honest law abiding citizens who attempt to always do the right thing; the truth they fail to realize or accept is that at certain times, the law and the right thing conflict, and our morals dictate we do the right thing. That fact alone will at some point probably come to mean their physical undoing, God pray they listen to the warning rumbles and grumbles and not cross and confuse law and right. The consequences of such action will be much worse than civil rights, prohibition, or the War on Drugs, the losses accrued and the lives lost will be staggering, the civil war carnage may look like a girl scout cookie sale in comparison.

The fact is if it turns to violence we all lose, simply because this country will not be able to undergo that fracture. It will become a wound impossible to heal. As Police officers quit in protest, political leaders die for their cause, and patriots who stood their ground are buried by familes who don't understand why they felt the need. A situation of such proportions has no remedy, all that is left at the end is to try to pick up the pieces and try again. Pray that they listen and begin to understand the ramifications of those heinous actions...

[RSKING45]

Let the dirty *&^%)* come and get them,I would get a few of them first seeing how I would be going to the clink for 50--100years . I think would be a life sentance:neener:

[Sean Cloherty]

Graystar has it exactly. Why is there any question?

[aquapong]

Ditto Gray and Sean...the govt has no authority to take away rights afforded to a citizen. If they would someday decide that they can, it's time for us to decide on a new bunch of leaders through some uhh...."emergency" elections.

[Stevie-Ray]

MOLON LABE!

It's happened in California, and it's happened in (gulp) Canada. It nearly brought a tear to my eye both times, as my faith in my fellow gun enthusiast was elevated to lofty levels.

[landon74]

If and when something like this were to occur, I believe it would be time to begin 'voting from the rooftops'.....

[Al Norris]

Twelve years huh? I'll be about 65 then... What was that question?

This is rural Idaho. It ain't changed much in the last 20 years, so I don't expect it to change much more in 12! What was that question?

Everybody and his brothers dog owns semi-autos around here. What was that question?

This just ain't no bluster, telewinz. My wife stands beside me. As does most of the town. And County. And State. This is Idaho, bubba. And right next door is Wyoming; and Nevada; and Utah; and Montana.... You seriously think the feds are gonna roll over 7+ million people spread out in an area the size of Texas? Now, what was that question?

[Travis McGee]

St. Gunner:
I agree with you. Such an ill-considered policy would lead to a "dirty war" in America that would be a disaster for our entire nation. That's why I wrote my novel, to help both sides of this debate to consider what kind of ugly future that such a mistaken policy would surely lead to.

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/bookcover.jpg

[NIGHTWATCH]

You just keep pluggin away McGee dont ya? ;) Im getting your book shortly.

Breaking the law? If this happened, the only law being broken is the law of freedom written on my heart. :fire:

START WHACKING.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Come see if you can get mine. I'll be in the rifle pit under the house. First one in my yard with a LAW, a gasoline can or a Bradley buys the first round.

This is the UNITED STATES. IIRC we threw out the last b*st*rds who tried this (those who were left standing) and some of them were traitors, too- Tories, we called them. Our blood may mingle with theirs, but certain inalienable rights are exactly that.

Life, liberty, property.

Some things are worth dying for. I don't intend to die for mine, but if anyone tried to revoke my inalienable rights, especially at gunpoint, I'd make sure that those who try to opress me in such a manner would remember I resisted.

Maybe being a strict constructionist on the Constitution is out of fashion in some circles. I'd hate to see the country go down this path and I hate to play 'what-if' with a scenario such as this, but sometimes you have to just for the mental exercise. Of course, it's purely academic today, but food for thought and enough to give one pause for a few minutes.

I'd rather see Texas secede and be a soverign nation once again than to experience a civil war in the United States.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Byron Quick]

Me and a cop were having a conversation on this topic once. I mentioned that he would expected to assist the JBT's in taking my guns. I asked him if he would accompany them. He told me he certainly would...then he went on to say,"You take them from the front, I'll take them from the rear, after the last one falls we'll go for coffee."

[Travis McGee]

NIGHTWATCH: I'll stop when every gun owning household in America has a copy.

Or thereabouts.

Matt

[NIGHTWATCH]

;)

[David4516]

:fire: You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers

If they can repeal the 2nd amemendment, whats to stop them from repealing the others? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile...

[Moparmike]

12 years eh? Sounds like enough time to build up quite an arsenal and improve my rifle skills.:D


Err, umm, I mean it sounds like enough time to repent my evil gun-owning ways and convert the gun-owning heathens. Who is first?;)

I really dont see it happening. I see it becoming toilet paper like the 10th amendment. Read my new signature for more info on how I feel.

[sm]

Molon Labe

The 2A is the keystone in the archway of freedom.

[stevelyn]

LOCK AND LOAD! It will be time to spill the blood of tyrants and traitors.

[NIGHTWATCH]

What if they repeal the 2A?



Thats the"dupe"right there! :mad: THEY CANT "REPEAL" THE 2A! :banghead:
If the government ever tried to do this, IT WOULD THEN BE CRIMINAL!!! THE LAW OF FREEDOM IS CARVED ON OUR HEARTS!!!

[telewinz]

They can "repeal"/amend the second amendment as we now understand it. Their may come a time when you can only own single shot weapons but thats another thread

[Okiecruffler]

But in some parts of the country the people don't have to wait 12 years, it happened years ago. I don't recall many bullets flying in California. Sad state of affairs, "Give me liberty or give me something not quite liberty, but still pretty comfortable and I won't make too much of a fuss.":(

[Al Norris]

Okiecruffler, not every state in this union will react like those in Cali did. I think I mentioned one or two in my previous post.

Telewinz, you really don't know the history of the Constitution, do you! The document would never have been ratified had not the BoR been added. Five of the thirteen states insisted that such be placed within the document or they would not have ratified. That would have left only eight states for ratification and the Constitution would not have been Established (it required 9 of the thirteen to ratify, see Article VII).

The ratifying documents of Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York. Rhode Island demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution before they would ratify it. You want I should add to this list those States that made suggestions for a BoR in their ratification documents?

Because of this history, many od our finest scholars and legalists insist that to monkey with the BoR would void the Constitution in its entirety. Your scenario is invalid upon its face because of this.

[Tamara]

I don't recall many bullets flying in California.

Yeah, but only a minority of the guns were registered or turned in, too.

[Okiecruffler]

Perhaps they're waiting for us to come to their aid.

[Wanderer]

Hey, they can come and TRY to get them. :neener:

[Chris Rhines]

If you had asked me this question this time last year, I probably would have gone for the "leave the country option." Over the past year or so, however, some things happened that kinda changed my way of thinking.

I'd have to fight. I wouldn't particularly want to, but that's the way life goes.

One comment:

The newspapers have printed a list of all known gun owners and your name is on the list. Why in the hell did you allow your name to get on this list? Why didn't you at least attempt to bear your arms privately, instead of letting all and sundry know what you have? Now, instead of going out and fighting on your terms, your choices have been reduced to turning your guns in, dying in a futile fight with the raid team, or going on the run in the ninety days you have. A little preparation beforehand would greatly improve your chances of fighting back successfully.

Acquiring and storing a few paperless firearms should be a priority, right now. Some discreet living quarters might also come in handy, something that doesn't have your name attached.

- Chris

[BHPshooter]

I voted for: let them come and get them. Or try to get them, at least. While that'll most likely be the last thing that I'll do, at least I'll have the pleasure of knowing that I'll be quite the occupational hazard in my last minutes.

Wes

[Black Snowman]

I have good credit, so I'd take out a massive business loan and swing by the Philipenes (sp?) and get everything converted to full auto. Might live there, might move back if my brothers in arms need some help. ;)

12 years in the future I don't know what people would be like. But the majorty of law enforcement and military personel I know wouldn't enforce such a thing. There would be a signifigant chance of civil war breaking out and a splitting of the military, and we know which side would be better armed ;)

Even if they proved they're right, we'd prove we're left.

[telewinz]

Owning a gun is like drinking alone, no matter how careful you are, someone finds out. Take a minute and think, how many people already know about one or more of the guns you own and how many would keep their mouth shut? How many would inform on you (in secret) for the $1500 reward? How many would "turn" for the government to earn a break from prosecution? Most of you had better give option #1 more thought. LE personnel would be no better given a choice between losing their job (or worse) or busting you. It would be every man for himself.

[Black Snowman]

It would be every man for himself.

In that case, better make sure you have a gun :p

[Bigjake]

COME'N GET EM!

At that point we are no longer free, and the 2A is the only insurance we have, if i give that up it aint worth living here anymore, so its going to be a long standoff firefight, or i'll be leaving the good ol' former USA

[Chris Rhines]

Telewinz (I think that last may have been addressed to me...) -

It's not really a matter of other people knowing that I own guns (anybody who knows me knows that I'm a gun owner - I refuse to act like my hobby is something to be ashamed of), but of having a few guns that nobody knows about.

It's still legal in many places to buy firearms from a private seller, with cash, with no ID or paperwork. If you buy a private sale rifle rifle for cash, sight it in at a distant firing range where you're not well-known, and stash it somewhere out of the way, no one will know about it.* If your paperless gun is a close copy of a papered gun you already own, then you can keep in practice with the registered gun while saving the paperless gun for a rainy day.

If you have other guns, you can turn those in as a distraction.** It may be a good idea to start selling off the paper-trailed guns in your collection and using the proceeds to buy paperless firearms, although that's pretty hardcore, even for me. But to have all your guns wrapped up nice and tight in registration tape is simply irresponsible.

You are right that many gun owners should, and will opt for choice #1. That's okay, I'm not going to get in the face of anyone who goes this route. I will make one suggestion, though: If you think you'd turn your guns in, sell them now before it becomes an issue. Take up a different hobby. At least that way, your guns will be out in the market instead of in some government crusher.

- Chris

* - Assuming you keep your mouth shut about it. If you don't/can't, then all bets are off. If you have an unpapered gun, tell NO ONE about it, not your wife, not your priest, not your best friend.

** - Or an opportunity to do some damage. Be creative.

[dangerousdude]

I'm surprised such a large majority would let them come get them at there home.http://216.40.249.192/s/contrib/ed/RedTeamEnforcer.gif I first wouldn't want my kids in a raid and secondly to have the swat team come to your turf would be suicide with honor for your whole family.http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/edoom/ALD.gif
I would turn some in and get organized for a guerrilla war, taking out jack booted thugshttp://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/sarge/q3aHappySarge.gif when they're not expecting it, like in the Target stores parking lot.http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/ut1/rocketwhore.gif

[Andrew Wyatt]

Perhaps they're waiting for us to come to their aid.

Judging by the sentiments expressed by non californians on this boards whenever someone from california expresses an opinion or asks a question, I severely doubt any assistance will be forthcoming.

[telewinz]

I didn't address my comments to anyone in particular. But I do have an observation that I think most THR'ers ignore. They seem to trust their fellow man more than they should. When the heat is on you will find yourself surrounded by informers, not the friends you expected. Its human nature and called survival, if you are a family man your wife will insist that you do whats best for the family and take option #1. She will even let you keep the money so that you can by other guns (legal) to maintain your gun collection.

For most reasonable men being a law abiding citizen has too many perks compared to an "anarchist" dying for a forgotten cause or serving time in some far off prison. For myself, I'd contribute to a fund for an appeal to the Supreme Court and then take my cash money and find out if the bolt-action British Enfield is as good a rifle as many people say. The salmon that swims against the current dies, unknown and soon forgotten.

[makarov1]

I'm sure this thread has been hashed and re-hashed before, but let's just say I won't want to be around if a foolish proposal such as an outright ban ever made it to the house floor. Demanding that hundreds of millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans to give up their semi-auto weapons would be a disaster of mega proportions. This political move would be seen as exactly what it is, a "power move" to disarm a hard-working, tax paying, law-abiding citizenry.

I hope I'm not around if this ever happens, but I wouldn't want to be a politician walking around with a bull's eye on my head, or police officer in a city with an anti-gun police chief. Anyone in a position of authority that has any anti-gun leanings or anyone associated with anyone with anti-gun sentiments would be a potential target. Chances are that the shooters would be better trained and more motivated than the D.C. area snipers, not to mention there would be many more of them.

Again, all of this is supposition, and this would probably be the response to an outright ban. The damage to our nation as a result of a foolish gun grab might be irreversible.

[seeker_two]

telewinz: What do YOU think, Agent Schmuckatelli? :scrutiny:

[Black Snowman]

I thought I'd speak up for my Mom (who isn't even that big of a fan of firearms and is quite liberal) "They can take em when they pry them from my cold dead hands!"

So put her on the "Stand and Deliver" list.

[carp killer]

When President Hillery Clinton appoints Chuck Schumer as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then we will see SHTF! And there is a good chance it could happen in 12 years.

Tamara quote: Yeah, but only a minority of the guns were registered or turned in, too.

I think the Kali DOJ estimated that only 10% of the AW's were registered according to sales records. Quite a bit of disobediance.:evil:

[cracked butt]

There was somethings mentioned about the chilren and family. I wouldn't want to be the granfather or great grandfather who is viewed as the first generation in America to have no spine and started giving away our hard earned freedoms by some twenty year old in a gulag 100 years from now.

I have a greatgrandfather who died in prison because him and his broher got in a shootout with the feds killing one of them, who tried to break up their illegal alcohol producing business during prohibition. Mind you, my mother's family have been in the alcohol business(either producing or selling) since probably back to the stone age, their are still members of my family who own taverns and liquor stores today. I hold my great grandfather in high esteem for standing up forhimself and his family's business which was taken away by an absurd law.

[telewinz]

"telewinz: What do YOU think, Agent Schmuckatelli?"


Since you asked, I think your mother needs to exercise parental control by taking away your cap guns and rubber knife:D

[seeker_two]

Since you asked, I think your mother needs to exercise parental control by taking away your cap guns and rubber knife

Or what? You'll send in the tanks?... :neener:

[telewinz]

If you are a family man with kids how do you teach them to pick and choose which laws to obey? Based on some of the "solutions" mentioned, I suspect there are not too many parents on THR and those that are comprise a small minority or lead a secret life.

[Chris Rhines]

I would hope that every parent teaches their children to pick and choose which laws to obey. That is part and parcel of teaching them to think.

America needs to get over its perverted obsession with being law-abiding.

- Chris

[telewinz]

Maybe thats why we have the highest percentage of people in prison in the World. There is a right way to do something and a wrong way. It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way. How come these people never gain responsible leadership positions either in the private or public sectors?

[Chris Rhines]

Maybe thats why we have the highest percentage of people in prison in the World. Do we? Not that I would be surprised, of course. A government that makes many forms of behaivor criminal is going to have lots of criminals to imprison.

I'll be blunt. The lawmakers in this nation are not any smarter than you or I. Nor are they any more moral, in fact they are generally less so. The position of lawmaker has no moral authority attached to it. The lawmakers are just like you and I.

Obeying a law because it is a moral law, based on first principles, is a good and honorable thing. Obeying a law because you are afraid of the consequences of violation is perfectly understandable; I do it myself all the time. Obeying a law just because it is the law is just pathetic and stupid.

- Chris

[Orbital-Burn]

you forgot one choice.....eradicate all liberals and start over with an easier to understand for pea-brains constitution. But the most important is to eradicate all liberals, needs to be done before it's too late.

[Bill St. Clair]

Telewinz:

Picking and choosing which laws to obey is extremely simple. If it involves the initiation of force to harm another non-consenting person or to steal or damage their property, personally or via an intermediary, it is a crime, and laws forbidding it are valid. Otherwise, not.

Note that this means that the following are invalid: every gun law, every tax law, every drug law, every licensing and registration law, every law that criminalizes any behavior not described by the paragraph above.

Furthermore, every person involved in making and enforcing any such invalid law is himself a criminal. Every arrest for such a law is false arrest, kidnapping by another name, hence a capital crime, punishable by life imprisonment or death.

That's what I'm teaching my two kids (11 and 6). And my son will very soon be big enough to help shoot the bastards, should they ever attempt to take our guns away.

[telewinz]

That sounds nice but the people who own the jails, prisons, law enforcement and the public's support don't reconize your "simple" solution. You and others are ignoring the reality of the situation, using legal means to change the system is the ONLY way that has and will work. Demonstrate to the non-believers that YOU own a "black" rifle and YOU are a responsible law abiding citizen. Threats impress no-one but loses our cause support and votes. Its not the easy solution but it will work better than "prying my gun from my cold dead fingers".

[St. Gunner]

Dr. Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we
knew you'd slip sooner or later- and this is just what we wanted."

Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."

Dr.: "Don't I have a good reason to be?"

Rearden: "But after all. I did break one of your laws."

Dr.: "Well what do you think they are for?...

We want them to be broken....

...We are after power and we mean it. You fellows were Pikers, but we
know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There is no way to
rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on
criminals. Well when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One
declares so many things to be a crime that is becomes impossible for men to
live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?"

Exchange between Hank Rearden and Dr. Ferris in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.


I marked this with a highlighter the first time I read the book, just
came across it again while reading it a second time, it was just as strong
and just as true the second time, thought I would share, give us all
something to think about.




It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way.

I assume you are talking about yourself here? What you have proposed seems to be the laziest and most emotional response; far out of line with the founding principles of this nation. Does the phrase, "Give me liberty, or give me death" ring any bells?

My child is being raised the same way I was, that just because a source tells you they are to be listened to, does not mean they should be. Listening is a component of respect, if you can't respect that source, you have no business following its rules or regulations...

[pax]

Whatinhell is this thread doing in "General Discussion"?

Y'know, there's a perfectly nice forum titled "Legal and Political." It's for talking over subjects related to LAWS and POLITICS.

That'd be the right place for this 'un.

pax

[TimH]

I try very hard to buy used guns that are privately owned. I would turn the ones in that I thought the Govt would know about. hide the rest. I don't think it would bee fair to ask the wife to give up want little property we have accumulated through our life together

[Drjones]

What if the 2A was repealed?


I've always been fascinated with sniping...



It would be utterly stupid to try combat of any sort, armed protests, etc. We would be painted worse than the 9/11 terrorists by the media, and would have the Army called in on us, not to mention SWAT teams and the like. Besides, how many people do you REALLY think you'd get to actually fight, get dirty and kill people?

We wouldn't be organized nor centralized. Sure, there might be enough people in the whole country willing to fight, but it doesn't do us any good if we're all spread out across the whole CONUS.

It would be far easier to snipe those key people advocating and implementing the new laws in any way, shape, or form.

Remember the shooter back east? That's what I'm talking about... :)

I'd get a small pack of similar-minded people together and start sniping...

[telewinz]

"I assume you are talking about yourself here? What you have proposed seems to be the laziest and most emotional response; far out of line with the founding principles of this nation. Does the phrase, "Give me liberty, or give me death" ring any bells?"

You may assume what you wish, I have never heard/read an emotional arguement yet that didn't rely on some romantic assumption and battle cry. You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

You seem to prefere to live in the past rather than cope with the demands of modern day society. Historically, your method has had a very poor success rate and supports the opposition's most common complaint against the pro-gun movement "its full of right wing radicals".:barf: If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

[Baba Louie]

What if games are fun.

What if someone could actually talk 34 state's (2/3 of the states) legislatures/constitutional conventions into agreeing on language to repeal one of the original 10 Bill of Rights that were required waaaaaaay back when or no ratification of said Constitution?

What would you do? Would you fight it then in committee or sit and await the porking?

What if Superman was a NAZI?

What if, after 34 states HAD agreed to repeal one of the original 10 Bill of Rights required to activate our government's rules of conduct, 38 of the States (3/4 of them now) said OK, Good Idea, lets DO take away just one of those pesky original amendments (I mean, they probably read Orwell's Animal Farm too) and the world as we know it will be a better place for the ... children... That's right... for the children, and they all voted for it and did it.

What if John, Paul, George and Ringo got back together one more time? (Oops... too late for that one now)

Would you make darn certain that 13 states congress critters would say Hell no?

Any one of the original 10 repealed, the Constitution and thus the Republic is gone.

Null.

Void.

Grounds for Civil War. Pure and simple.

Rebels against the Empire

Another Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Washington would arise out of the ashes like the proverbial Phoenix -or- Julius Ceasar with his legions (probably be named something catchy like... Republican Guards) would declare himself (herself?) annoited and appointed by... him.

And what about all those pesky State Constitutions that would also need revamping, taking it down to the State Assembly/County level?

But, in keeping with the "Spirit" of things, Oh yeah, I'd turn my lonely, single semi-automatic Ruger 10/22 assault rifle in like the vast majority of AR-15 owners in California did, since I want to be a good boy and not upset my elected officials who are my superior in every way and I always follow my superiors orders cause I sure wouldn't want them to be forced to pry anything from my cold dead... I scare waaaaay too easily.

Or maybe I'd become an outlaw. It worked for Robert of Locksley

Adios

[rick_reno]

Carp Killer posted "I think the Kali DOJ estimated that only 10% of the AW's were registered according to sales records. Quite a bit of disobediance"

Sure, but how many of those were bought using 4473 forms? What happend to the records of those thousands of gun dealers who were put out of business under Bill Clinton? They had to send in their bound books and 4473's to the BATF - where paper records were computerized. I'm convinced here is a gun registry being built in this country - it's slow - but they've got time on their side. While they educate and train the next generation of Americans to find firearms distasteful - we're all getting older and the database of what is where continues to be built.

Didn't they recently implement the scenario presented in this thread in Austrialia? I'd look there for an example of what you might see happening here - I didn't see any reports of armed resistance. People seemed to be willing to obey the law, turn in their guns and take their money. I expect we'd see identical behavior here. 12 years in the future, they can have a lot of new voters ready to repeal certain objectionable Amendments.

[Skofnung]

telewinz:

I do not consider myself to be "Right Wing" individual. I lean more toward the Libertarian POV, you know; life, liberty, and property? Some of my views would probably offend the sensibilities of some on this board, as they do not always go along with "Right Wing" philosophy.

All that said, do what you will. Calling someone irrational for wanting to live free is silly. Human beings do irrational things all the time. If rational thought dictated all of human endeavors, we would be in sad shape.

Principles my good man, principles are very seldom rational. If your principles dictate that you should abide all laws, then by all means do so. That to me is irrational. If self preservation is your goal, then I would venture a guess that you would turn yours in. If self preservation is your goal, you can rationalize anything.

I do not know what I would do. I THINK I know, but until the day comes, all of this is just talk.

Some laws are wrong, and need to be changed. When all peaceful means have been exhausted, is it not right to resist?

[Chris Rhines]

You and others are ignoring the reality of the situation, using legal means to change the system is the ONLY way that has and will work. I hope to life that you're right. So, what happens if your way doesn't work? Do you have a backup plan?

Demonstrate to the non-believers that YOU own a "black" rifle and YOU are a responsible law abiding citizen. You're being silly. The citizenry-at-large aren't going to care about your gesture of respect for the government. In fact, a signifigant minority of them are probably going to think that the government should imprison you for merely owning an Evil Black Rifle.

Now what you have demonstrated (to the government) is that you're willing to give up one liberty, and you're probably willing to give up more. Nice job.

BTW, I'm not a law-abiding citizen, and I have no desire at all to pretend that I am. Blind obeidence to the law is not something to be proud of.

You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas. I'm not buying it. The pro-gun side has always had the intellectually superior arguments, the statistics, the numbers, and it hasn't bought us anything.

I'm not suggesting that it's time to start shooting - that's a last resort of last resorts. If it comes down to an armed conflict, then the fight is 90% lost already. But if you're serious about freedom, then you'd better be prepared to fight for it. I truly hope not, but it may come down to a fight, and it'll be too late to prepare when the raid team is kicking down your door.

So I repeat; if you decide that you're not willing to fight (and that's fine), get rid of your guns before they become a liability for you.

Historically, your method has had a very poor success rate... I cannot, at least off the top of my head, think of a single pro-liberty social or political movement that made any signifigant progress without resorting to civil disobedience at least.

...and supports the opposition's most common complaint against the pro-gun movement "its full of right wing radicals". Radical? Well, yeah. Moderation in the pursuit of justice, and all that. I doubt, however, that anyone will confuse an athiest, pro-abortion, anti-war, libertarian activist with Rush Limbaugh.

If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Who cares if you are pro-gun? If you're not pro-liberty, you're only halfway there...

Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners. You're being silly again. While you might be right that only a small minority of gun owners have the strength of their convictions, there is no doubt at all that most gun owners are politically conservative.

If you're going to debate the merits of armed revolution vs. civil disobedience vs. political action, that's well and good. But tossing around the 'right-winger' label only confuses the issue. Let's hear some good reasons why we should reject the use of force out of hand.

- Chris

[St. Gunner]

Telwinz,

If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

Funny while at one of the most liberal of the local colleges I wrote much the same things as I am writing now, actually maybe a tad more revoltist in nature. I made lots and lots of headway with what where at one point in time your normal college gun grabbing liberals. See the part of human nature you fail to comprehend, because you have already chosen your leader(government laws and rules), is most of society far and away is still searching for their sheep herder. You don't get to be that individual by spouting the proper government sponsored rhetoric as the good little citizen.

Switch the debate, Telewinz, if on Monday morning you awoke and a law had been passed allowing any government official alive to have his way with your wife, daughter, mother, or yourself(if that was his fancy), and pay you $25 for each visit they paid, would you just submit; take your money? Hide em out, or dare em to come and try? It is in essence the very same debate, deals with the same moral premise. If you would do what you say in the first and hide or fight in the second, your moral premise is flawed by some subconcious stickler that tells you guns have an evil heinous side.

There is no difference in the two debates, simply because they both infringe on basic human rights, and both are morally corrupt. If you support different premises in these situations, you are totally mixed up in your own life and truly don't believe the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right.

If you think I am a right wing whacko, you are so far to the left of all issues you can't see the libertarians from where you are standing.

You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

Interesting and I could have sworn that you where the first one who when they couldn't make their point or more to the point, nobody believed your point decided to try a different tactic and said,

It sounds to me like their are too many lazy/emotional people willing to do things the easy/wrong way.

But then it must have been a different Telewinz, cause you are the all knowing all seeing God of submission to government whims or some such thing.:rolleyes:

Sir the easy/lazy/wrong way is 99% of the time the way that is easiest on the backside as we deal with government. We aren't talking about discipline at home with mom and dad when you did what you where told because it involved getting your butt swatted, we are talking about rules and laws that if you obey them, if you simply follow rules out of fear of the power of government, you give up all future ability to resisit tyranny and oppresion. That sir is morally corrupt thinking for you and leads to devastating or lethal oppresion for any children you may have.

When your moral premise for operation means giving up all means to resist, you really have no moral premise, only your government sponsored rules. Do you really think the sheep are stupid enough to follow you all the way to their slaughter, at least from our perspective they have a chance to lead a life on something other than their knees.:neener:

[LostOneToo]

Put me on the list!!!! I am afraid they'd have to come and get them.

[BluesBear]

Turn in my guns???

What guns???

What makes you jack-booted-thugs think I own any guns???

I just collect holsters.

:neener:

[Shamaya]

I only answered "disobey" because none of the options included the phrase "lone wolf."

[Okiecruffler]

You know what's funny, I don't even own any of the rifles that they'd be coming after. But I'd be standing right by by you, bolt action at the ready. But I don't want them to come to my house, not enough cover. How's about we all meet at Tamara's house? Tam, put some tea on:D

[telewinz]

Wow what a tiger, why don't you tell me what was done against the following:

The Gun Control act of 1968
The Brady Bill
The Assault Weapons Ban

OK Tiger, where was the great outcry, when did the government drop to its knees, most of all, where were you Tiger, sitting in your bomb shelter? Please post the newspaper accounts of the "heroic actions" that would have made our founding fathers proud. The national news media must not have picked-up the story, they must have confused it with just another run of the mill crime or did it appear in the comics section?

Have you informed my government of the awful things you and others will do AGAIN (:D yea, right) the name calling and such if they don't let the assault weapons ban lapse? I hear holding your breath can be very effective. Boy are they dumb, they just keep passing these anti-2nd amendment bills despite all the "responsible" words of wisdom and acts of civil unrest inflicted (yet so quiet and depressed sitting in the jail cell afterwards). You better tell them whats at stake or you may risk them not noticing your actions AGAIN.

Like others of your mind-set the trick is just to ignore you and smile. You will just fade away beating your chest like some primate as you go. Does YOUR political candidate walk on his hind legs or just swing through the trees?

[pax]

:scrutiny:

Some of you folks have come awfullydamnclose to forgetting the forum rules, here.

Those defending the rule of law should at least follow the laws issued by the chief authority of this jurisdiction.

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Those arguing for fundamental human rights should be respecting the property rights of the guy who owns the forum, and not make the moderators have to play whack-a-mole with them.

And everyone who has ever opined, "An armed society is a polite society" should be demonstrating it with every post.

pax

[DigitalWarrior]

Now this may be OT but:

Have you seen the latest accounts in Iraq? We are losing several guys a day now to those Baath-*****. I think that they started out with random shootings, but that turned out to be ineffective, so they turned to timed (like VCR timers) and remote detonated bombs (using cell phones and CB radios). It is a good thing that explosive is next to impossible to get or make yourself. I bet that they are using (open source) PGP to encrypt communications between cells. Hell, if they had wireless communications, they might even connect through unsecured Wireless LANs in the cities. After some observation, the Baathists even figured out that our convoys tend to travel at 25 m. intervals and buried remote mines at that interval. That was particularly nasty. Lucky we jammed the cell phone signal that would have detonated them. I wonder how they jam buried wired signals.

Also OT

When I was in the Marine Corps it seemed like 1/3 of them were from Texas. It also seemed that alll of the REALLY good shots owned their own guns. On a realated note I think we all pledged to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic.

Final OT
I am not sure, but saying that you might go kill someone for enforcing a law, might be admissable in court as evidence.


:confused:

[DigitalWarrior]

Hey Tele,

Your course of action has worked very well so far, hasn't it? At what point would you want to try something different? I for one, think it more productive that the government fear an insurrection. If we give them an inch, they will take it.

Revolutions are won and lost on the turn of a phrase, not because of it's emotionalism, but because it captures the popular imagination.

You speak of the right wing as prefering to live in the past rather than cope with the demands of modern day society. If the demands of modern day society are evil, then I say we shall make ourselves a post-modern day society.

Choke on this (Dear Lord, sometimes explenetives are warranted, but they are still not used in polite company):
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

[St. Gunner]

Like others of your mind-set the trick is just to ignore you and smile. You will just fade away beating your chest like some primate as you go.

.:neener: Tell ya what we could meet halfway and see what gets beat on. :D

Are you so ignorant you can't find any other way to attempt to make your point but to start with the name calling? I assure you, I can give you a run for your money in the name calling or even cursing divisions of any arguement, but why?

The Gun Control act of 1968

I wasn't even a glimmer in Daddy's eye, He was 14 at the time.

The Brady Bill
The Assault Weapons Ban

I was 19yrs old at the time, probably more busy chasing girls than anything, but I did write a couple dozen letters at that time, even though I didn't own any of the guns they wanted to mess with. I think at the time I owned one deer rifle and a couple shotguns and .22's.

Please post the newspaper accounts of the "heroic actions" that would have made our founding fathers proud.

Could you maybe attempt to create more drama? :rolleyes: Let it carry on Telewinz, keeping backing up to the big brutal thug and see where it leads. If you want to approach government with your head tucked in a sign of submission more power to ya, just make sure you can perform your given task they assign. Frankly you make me sick to my stomach, that in a country where so many have died for the rights some of us hold dear to our hearts, men can exist that would spit on their names and memories with their actions.

Maybe patriotism, the constitution, and apparently morals and rights are dead and gone where you are, but here in Texas we still attempt to honor those things, some have trashed in the name of progress. We don't form out politics by the politically correct feelings of the day, fear, or submission to anyone. I know we aren't the last state like this in the nation, but somedays as I listen to capitulation speeches by others I begin to wonder.

It looks like we will see a Sunset of the AWB, thanks to the dedicated efforts of millions of voters, but it can't stop there. If we intend to gain ground in this issue of gun rights and all human rights, we can't ever make it seem feasible that we might capitulate. We won't, we can't, we'll die first. PC ideals be damned...

Have you informed my government of the awful things you and others will do AGAIN ( yea, right) the name calling and such if they don't let the assault weapons ban lapse?

Funny I thought name calling was your sides forte in all of this.

Yes my Senators are well aware that I feel this nation could split and civil unrest be imminent if more gun control laws are passed, or more liberties are stripped on the basis of safety from terror. Yes my Senators are aware that I think BATF is a bunch of unkempt abominations to the very ideal of patriotism and Liberty. Yes my Senators knows that I am a one issue voter, and yes they know all about the three boxes in this country.

This country, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it. Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugeral Adress, march 4, 1861

Granted I disagree with a large part of what Abe did and found some of his actions unconstitutional, but he did have the rights of the people correct, and they did take it upon themselves to use the revolutionary right.

Funny how things change and ideals not of the founders are expounded as such by men who don't like the sacrifice they involve. Could you for the rest of us here, who happen to think you are most likely an anti who happens to own guns, explain how a policy of capitulation and subservience is going to insure our gun rights for the next 20yrs. Because if you can't, your opinion is not worth much, and your talk and ideals are simply fraud to the masses.

[telewinz]

I don't know about the drama but you miss my point completely. The day after each anti-gun law went into effect was just another average day in this country. Despite all the talk NOTHING was done by the extremists, not even a million man march on Washington. People who are successful in their lives have too much to lose by being law breakers, its only the losers, under achievers and misfits that make up the political extremes in this country.

"Maybe patriotism, the constitution, and apparently morals and rights are dead and gone where you are"

Typical argument made by the right wingers, if I don't agree with your point of view I am a robot for the government or I don't understand the Constitution as well as you. I ENLISTED (draft #362) in the military (when it wasn't popular to do so) and served for over 6 years, so please don't presume to lecture me on patriotism. Since I received a college education via the GI Bill please don't presume that I don't understand the Constitution. BTW, what does your military service amount to? Watching "Patton" 4 times doesn't count.

"This country, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it."
The majority of the people who inhabit this country have spoken their minds by voting yet because you disagree with them, you ignore and then damn them for not agreeing with YOUR interpetation of the 2nd amendment. Your method hasn't worked for decades (if ever) How many fence sitters do you think you could win over with your threats and logic?

Time to close this thread. You may have the last rant!

[stephen_g22]

My son will be 12 in 12 years. I will tell him to aim small, miss small.

[telewinz]

"My son will be 12 in 12 years. I will tell him to aim small, miss small."

Saw the movie and loved it for its entertainment value. Your comment was made by Mel Gibson an ACTOR in a movie that was largely a piece of FICTION based on historic events. Just like the movie "Braveheart".

[Correia]

All I have to add is that there is a reason the federal government does not trust the Utah National Guard with nuclear weapons. :)

(or Idaho and Montana I believe).

[telewinz]

SSSHHHH.....If they know my government has "nukes" they will want to own them also. Our forefathers would have wanted it that way, the missing pages to the 2nd amendment are buried under Grant's Tomb. SSSHHHH...its a cover-up. Don't trust the government with "nukes", trust the right wingers only they are the great protectors of the Constitution and only they are the REAL patriots 'cause they told me so.:barf:

[keederdag]

I think ; this makes me very sad; I agree with tele. I cannot see a bunch of people turning out into armed revolution, if the situation tele outlined was to happen. Maybe if I didnt have people I love, and am loved by, around I would grab my rifle and start poppin all who I blamed. But the fact is, I would most likely fight when backed into a corner. However, I WILL AllWAYS HAVE GUNS. The ones they dont know about, I will keep.... and there will be hell to pay when no one is lookin. If they surround my house and try and take me away, Id give it up. Try to take away my loved ones, I'll lose my life first. If the Gov. managed to (Somehow) get all my guns, I happen to know where they keep theirs. I will have to help myself. Most Con's will tell you, It's better to be caught by the bull's with a shank, than to be caught by the con's without one. If prisoners, in MAX Sec. can manage to keep a weapon, I definitly can as well. For that matter look at the IRA, for 100 yrs they were on an island, surrounded by one of the best Navy's in the world, and they managed to get plenty of guns. I get the feeling they will allways be availible. Just like anything else.:)

[longeyes]

"People who are successful in their lives have too much to
lose by being law breakers, its only the losers, under achievers and misfits that
make up the political extremes in this country."

That's rather grandly self-serving, isn't it? A lot of the greatest
ideas in history have come from the margins.

I'll tell you where you are wrong: you assume that if our liberties
continue to be eroded--and not just the Second Amendment--that those
who are currently "successful in their lives" will continue to be
successful. They won't. The middle-class is on the way out--or
haven't you noticed that? When enough people begin to understand that
the future isn't going to be what they always thought and that much
of what they've held sacred is going or gone, you might be surprised
by what happens.

There may or may not be another War of Secession but there's sure as
hell going to be some serious pockets of unrest if the Bill of Rights
is gutted. These days "unrest" can be fairly large-scale.

[DigitalWarrior]

People who are successful in their lives have too much to
lose by being law breakers, its only the losers, under achievers and misfits that
make up the political extremes in this country


This principle was proved out by the fact that most leaders of the American Revolution were under-educated failures. IIRC not one of them even owned property or had families.

In all seriousness, each man must ask himself where his line is, and what will he do if it is crossed. Then as the line is neared, he must prepare.

[Tamara]

People who are successful in their lives have too much to
lose by being law breakers, its only the losers, under achievers and misfits that
make up the political extremes in this country

I searched the thread, but couldn't find out who said that. I'll assume it was in one of the posts that reads simply: "This person is on your Ignore List."

I have to say, though, that it was one of the most chucklesome things I've read all week. I'll get a few more laughs thinking about it as I suffer through my loser life tomorrow... :D

[Tag]

molon labe :fire:

[Don Galt]

This thread has a faulty premise.

The second ammendment was effectively repealed-- 70 years ago. (I think Miller was the name of the guy on the decision.)

The banning of semi-autos is not something we have to look forward to in 12 years, but a bill that is before congress this very minute.

It likely won't pass this year, but I'd not bet money that it wouldn't pass in one or two years. People are already well conditioned to confuse "Semi-auto" with "machinegun" and "Assault weapon" and John Lee Malvo has helped their cause.

The unconstitutional government we have is smart enough to know that repealing the second ammendment might cause the people who say they will take action in this thread to take action. Instead, they just ignore it. I note that nobody has said they are out shooting the bastards. Ignoring the constitution is a lot easier, and a lot more effective- they get away with it, and the gun culture clings to its precious (but pointless) second ammendment. And over time, people get conditioned to more and more violations of the constitution-- everything from preventing third political parties ballot access to the tax system to drivers license laws...

How many "pro-gun" people support "reasonable" gun control? How many support keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons? Even among the gun culture, people who really actually support the right to keep and bear arms, are hard to find indeed.

Hell, gun owners, in the guise of the NRA, are the largest and most effective gun banning organization in the country.

I don't know what's going to happen... but the water is quite warm now, and people regularly debate "What would happen if we were pulled out of this cool pot and dumped into boiling water?" with the response of "We'd jump!" The very debate ignores the fact that its almost boiling now.

I suspect the idea that you can just wait for the defining moment-- like the repeal of the second ammendment-- in order to take action is comforting. But it's never going to come, cause they know that if they did that, it might cause action... and they've had no trouble simply ignoring the constitution. (On many issues, and for many decades.)

Also comforting is that whenever they ban a few more guns, they first propose banning a lot more guns... so that you can be comfortable in the fact that they only banned a few guns this time, and not all of them.

Convicted felons is a pretty good litmus test-- if you think gun control is foolish because autlaws will have guns, then for felons the point is easily made-- thus you should have no problem with them having the right to defend themselves-- if they want them, they could have them anyway. But many actually oppose the RKBA for this class of person. (IF they can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be on the street.) They claim support for the second ammendment, but ignore the fact that they also support its violation. Same for machine guns. Concealed Carry (a gun owner registration scheme, and nothing more), etc.

How many of you would support a complete repeal of the 1868 and NFA? Hopefully all of you... but you're in the minority among gun owners in the US.

This isn't meant to attack anyone.... I just think things are far worse than people seem to realize.

[longeyes]

"I don't know about the drama but you miss my point completely. The day after
each anti-gun law went into effect was just another average day in this country.
Despite all the talk NOTHING was done by the extremists, not even a million man
march on Washington. People who are successful in their lives have too much to
lose by being law breakers, its only the losers, under achievers and misfits that
make up the political extremes in this country."

I was citing Telewinz.

[BluesBear]

Is it just me or does it seem that this entire thread was created just to see how many people it could get all riled up?

Isn't there a better way to discuss this than to have one person seeming all too eager to "take on all comers" and try to argue and belittle any and all opposing viewpoints?


Or am I missing something?



Anyway, I am glad that I am much better at shooting for distance than urinating for distance.

[telewinz]

"I'll tell you where you are wrong: you assume that if our liberties
continue to be eroded--and not just the Second Amendment--that those
who are currently "successful in their lives" will continue to be
successful. They won't. The middle-class is on the way out--or
haven't you noticed that? When enough people begin to understand that
the future isn't going to be what they always thought and that much
of what they've held sacred is going or gone, you might be surprised
by what happens."

I think you are correct in your observations, have you checked the price of college lately? Its a crime that the poor and middle class are being refused access to higher levels of education because of the cost. Care to think what the long term effects will be?

There seem to be two factions in this country those who want more government and those that want less, guess who has been winning? I think it will continue, many people want a safety net operated by the government and with a growing government comes more regulation. We want protection from the preying rich and only our government can match their power and influence through regulation.

Where most people are wrong IMHO is that they blame the government for all these regulations when in truth the voters asked for, and even DEMANDED these regulations. Blaming the government is a Red Herring. The process will continue, random acts of violence will only speed-up it up.

[Bill St. Clair]

Don Galt, you've reminded me of a great article by Jeff Snyder, which I read in his incredible book, Nation of Cowards (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888118083/). "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment (http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1874)" concerns a (fictional) people who had the right to keep and bear arms, but never did anything about encroachments on their liberty. Why, it was almost as if they didn't have any guns at all.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Methinks it's way past time.

[cracked butt]

I have been following this thread for several days now and it has become pointless.

THR #1: Our constitutution is worth fighting for as so many have done so in the past.
Telewinz: You are a lawbreaker and have no place in society.
THR#2 gives a dissertation on the Federalist Papers, quotes Jefferson and Washington on natural rights.
Telewinz: You are a right wing nut job, the constitution was written by dead white guys 200 years ago.
THR#3 explains that he would teach his children to stand up for themselves and disobey immoral laws by an immoral government.
Telewinz: You are a criminal and a borderline childabuser that doesn't care for your family. You are a right wing nutjob. Government must be obeyed as it becomes ever more intrusive in your lives.

Does anyone else see the same pattern here?

[seeker_two]

I don't know about the drama but you miss my point completely. The day after each anti-gun law went into effect was just another average day in this country. Despite all the talk NOTHING was done by the extremists, not even a million man march on Washington.

I think that the '94 elections--the ones that gave the Republicans control of the House & Senate after 30+ years--would count for more than nothing...:rolleyes:

What part of this discussion are you having a problem understanding? The part where we believe that our rights--including RKBA--are important enough to fight for....

...or that we don't accept the federal government as the end-all, be-all, ultimate divine authority on all things moral and correct?



Which is it.....................Agent Schmuckatelli? :p

[BluesBear]

I agree with you Cracked Butt

telewinz
Time to close this thread. You may have the last rant!

Then 3 more posts?

:rolleyes:


Reminds me of high school kids on the phone;

Good Bye
Bye,
Bye,
Yes bye,
hang up now
OK
Hang up
you hang up first
no you hang up first
no you
etc
etc

:barf:

[carp killer]

Hell, gun owners, in the guise of the NRA, are the largest and most effective gun banning organization in the country.

Good point. Nothing burns me more than some ignorant "duck hunter/cowboy shooter" who questions me on the need to own one of those "black guns".:fire: :fire: :fire:


Also comforting is that whenever they ban a few more guns, they first propose banning a lot more guns... so that you can be comfortable in the fact that they only banned a few guns this time, and not all of them.


That is a common negotiation trick. You always ask for more than you really want in the beginning. Just keep on chipping away until you reach your ultimate goal. Ask the Brits how it turned out for them.:what:


How many of you would support a complete repeal of the 1868 and NFA? Hopefully all of you... but you're in the minority among gun owners in the US.


I know.:evil:

[Bill St. Clair]

That is a common negotiation trick. You always ask for more than you really want in the beginning. Just keep on chipping away until you reach your ultimate goal. Ask the Brits how it turned out for them.
This is why I maintain L. Neil Smith's Atlanta Declaration (http://lneilsmith.com/atlanta.html) (below). It actually is what I want, and is the correct interpretation of the second amendment, but nowadays even many folks who believe in the the right to keep and bear arms won't go this far. It's good to remind them, often, that their alleged pro-gun position is already a compromise.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

[Sam Adams]

Let's look at a few facts:

There are something like 250 million guns in this country (that the gov't will admit to knowing about) owned by 80 million + people.

Modern semi-autos have been around for over 100 years. Between domestic production directly for civilians, war surplus sales and foreign imports, there have to be at least 50 million semi-auto rifles and probably another 75 million semi-auto handguns. That's half of all guns, owned by at least 25-30 million people.

Even bolt-action guns can be very effective killing tools. They generally come into their own at long range, where the use of a single-shot gun is not so much of a disadvantage, simply because the target and his/her entourage won't know where the shot came from. There are probably at least 25 million bolt action rifles in the country.

The number of people who could be used to "round up" guns is limited to the local police, federal police (FBI, BATF, DEA, Postal Inspectors, etc.), national guard and armed forces. Most of the latter are needed to defend the country, and most of the middle group are similarly tasked when mobilized. The vast majority of local police and federal police on duty and "on the streets" at any given point in time is substantially less than 50% of the total force, and most of them are also needed to do the jobs that they were ostensibly hired to do (i.e. protection against real criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, etc.). Maybe, maybe you will have 250,000-500,000 out there collecting guns.

What will be facing this force? If 25 million people own semi-autos (probably a low figure), and only 1% of 1% choose to actively resist (a figure that I believe to be absurdly low), that means that means 2,500 people nationwide. They'd likely be the best armed, best trained and most motivated people out there, each likely orders of magnitude more dangerous than the Beltway "snipers" that tied up over 10,000 police for several weeks. If 2 morons could kill 12, what could 2,500 of the best do? My own take on this is that these 2,500 could easily take out 10 times their number over a period of weeks, and that they would target the brains and heart of their opponents - which is to say the political leadership. Are there 25,000 politicians willing to literally put their lives, or those of their families, on the line to take away the property of others nakedly and with the most brutal methods (especially when they can, through corruption, become very wealthy at little risk to their physical safety)? I don't think so.

And what happens to the general willingness of people to inform on their "friends," neighbors and relatives for the princely sum of $1,500 when a few dozen or hundred such people (and their families) are found burned to death or full of bullet holes across the country? I know that such a "downside" to informing would deter me.

Further, I think that the 1% of 1% figure is dreadfully low, just as the 250,000 to 500,000 gun-grabbing cops, NG, etc. is way too high. In the Revolution, we had 1/3 of the population sympathetic to The Cause, though only about 3% actually took up arms against the "legitimate" government of the time, which also happened to be the most powerful nation on Earth. If we are only 10% as brave per capita as the Founding Generation, then 3 1/3% of the population would be sympathizers (roughly 10 million people) and 0.3% would take up arms (roughly 1 million, just a bit more than the 2,500 I postulated). Now we're in a different ballgame. Now the country will be ungovernable, the economy would collapse, food and fuel would cease to be transported to the big cities from the interior of the country , etc. Now the pols ordering such an action would have that many more bullseyes on their bodies and would have that much more pressure to end it by backing off. Many would, I am sure, take a hint and skulk away to hide under some rock, in the hopes of "coming back" some day - if they can, quite literally, survive. And isn't that really the point of the 2nd Amendment?

No, there was no revolt after the '34 NFA or the '68 GCA, or Brady or the AWB - but sometime in the future the line WILL be crossed by the pols for at least several thousand well-armed, intelligent, motivated people. I don't advocate any such actions as discussed here, but I think them inevitable. I would hope that anyone interested in banning guns would take a long, hard, realistic look at what a substantial minority of people could do to this country (and to that part of the political class motivated by the same anti-Liberty sentiments as they are).

[telewinz]

"No, there was no revolt after the '34 NFA or the '68 GCA, or Brady or the AWB - but sometime in the future the line WILL be crossed by the pols for at least several thousand well-armed, intelligent, motivated people."

History has shown that THE LINE must be invisible. People had much more freedom in '34 than now and yet they STILL chose to do nothing, history will continue to repeat itself. The very few that choose to resist the law will be jailed or killed, for the rest of us life will continue as normal. Why do you continue to assume that most gunowners support your radical ideas?

"well-armed, intelligent, motivated people." those are the same people that make and support "the system", they have too much responsibility and have earned too much material wealth to be willing to throw it all away on some romantic/idealistic and suicidal venture.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Well put Mr. Adams.


have earned too much material wealth to be willing to throw it all away
Material possessions do not the man make ! Though I'm sure many men are deluded into thinking this.

[Bill St. Clair]

telewinz:

You would do well to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the relevant part of which I have quoted below from this National Archives page (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/declaration_transcript.html). It explains quite well why we have not yet responded violently to repressive and blatantly unconstitutional, hence null and void, gun "laws". The long train of abuses in our case has not yet become insufferable.

Our government had best learn from history, however. It was an attempt to confiscate guns that caused the shot heard round the world. A similar attempt today will likely evoke a similar response.

I'm with you and likely everyone else on this board in the hope that we can retain our inalienable rights without bloodshed. I greatly prefer the soap box and the ballot box to the cartridge box. But I will not turn in my guns, and if they come to my house to take them, they will have to take the ammo first. All ammo leaves my possession at between 875 and 3240 feet per second (paraphrasing a Leslie E. Starks quote from the Armed Females of America's quotes page (http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm)).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[keederdag]

I really dont see the situation descibed happening (with respect Tele). I think we will see a gradual degredation of our 2-A rights. Kinda like we've been see'ing all along. For Instance. Gov:"Ok, you can keep the ones you have, but register them, and no new ones". Gov: "Ok let's have an amnesty". Gov.:"ok kiddies, remember that o'l nasty gun Dad left you, we'll we will pay you to turn it in, no it's ok, keep those others, just this one". Gov."Ok great grand-kiddies, We know you have these nasty, o'l dangeouse thingy's, so we wana buy em from you". Gov: " hey how's about another amnesty to turn em in Ok, no questions asked". Gov: " now see how easy that was, Dont worry we are here to take care of you"...............................:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[telewinz]

I don't think their is a plan as such but by and large the course you chart seems to be fairly reasonable IF nothing major happens like the Kennedy/King killing and Reagan/ Brady shootings which I fear will happen.
Other than that we will slowly have to "compromise" away the fairly "loose" interpetation of the Second Amendment we are now enjoying. Our civilization/culture is outgrowing the need for armed cowboys roaming our streets, that "right" is increasingly being viewed as a liability by main stream America.

[keederdag]

I agree. I think we have more to fear from the Kid's watching MTV all day/night, than we do from bad legislation. They are being mainstreamed into thinking guns are bad. With them it's just a gut reaction. I think it's a war we will loose some day, I just hope I dont see it. But I'm gonna fight like hell to do my part, while we still have it!:D

[telewinz]

Not to beat it to death but we will lose the "useful" interpetation of the Second Amendment because of a lack of interest. The past and current pro-gun comments on the Second amendment are like grand-pa talking about his service record during WWII, over and over again. After a while people hear but they just don't listen, we will fade away with a whimper not a bang.:uhoh:

[keederdag]

Sobbin here, but agree'in:( :( :( :( :(

[Don Galt]

I was checking up on that guy running for governor against Ahnald today-- Tom McClinton.

In one of his articles he delineated the political spectrum quite succinctly. On one side, you have the libertarian line of thought: Rights are god given. On the other hand, you have the telewiz/marxist line of thought: Rights are granted by government.

Support for the constitution is not "Radical" telewiz, it's fundamental to the idea of human rights. I can think of no third view of the world-- all political factions fall into the spectrum between those who endorse human rights, and those who endorse slavery.

The idea that you need the government to protect you from corporations is absurd. Corporations interaction with people are all consentual-- either they are consentually employed, consentual stockholders or consentual customers. You don't like the company, you can simply cease your relationship with them.

On the other hand, governments' interactions with its subjects are non-consentual. The government enacts the legislation the elites decide they want-- usually for their benefit-- and you have no choice. Hell, even the ballot box is a pale fraud of "choice" as the government decides which candidates get to run.

Americans laughed at Iraq when they only had Saddam Hussien to choose from in their elections, never realizing the fact that we get to choose between two essentially identical socialists is not an improvement. We have merely the illusion of freedom.

You can abdicate your responsibiltiy and say that you will let the government protect you and that you don't need guns... that's your choice telewiz. But when you say that everyone else must be a subject, and doesn't have the right to self defense, then you are standing in opposition to human rights. And to the constitution and the american way.

Yes, many americans are ignorant. Ignorance, however is a choice.

[Tag]

bullets first

[Tag]

I wouldn't worry about liberals "mainstreaming" guns out of our culture. There will alwase be those who refuse to be brainwashed.

[telewinz]

Life is not that simple and neither is the Constitution. Two lines of thought, slavery or god given rights. Now that might sound great as a speech to a bunch of third graders or if you are preaching to the choir but it won't get you squat among the voters. Yes there is a great deal of ignorance in America but our system works well at and weeding out the dreamers, fools and misfits. They are kept in positions where for the most part they can only harm themselves and not the public as a whole.

Funny, but these are the same people that most often have to depend on the government to care for them later in life.

Tag....

Do you mean brainwashed or educated?

[Gordon Fink]

Telewinz is wrong about the uselessness of resistance, if only because there won’t be much of any. As such, though, the Second Amendment will never be repealed.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=435836#post435836

St. Gunner’s words also bear repeating.

The fact is if it turns to violence we all lose, simply because this country will not be able to undergo that fracture. It will become a wound impossible to heal. As Police officers quit in protest, political leaders die for their cause, and patriots who stood their ground are buried by familes who don’t understand why they felt the need. A situation of such proportions has no remedy, all that is left at the end is to try to pick up the pieces and try again.…


~G. Fink

[telewinz]

"The fact is if it turns to violence we all lose, simply because this country will not be able to undergo that fracture. It will become a wound impossible to heal. As Police officers quit in protest, political leaders die for their cause, and patriots who stood their ground are buried by familes who don’t understand why they felt the need. A situation of such proportions has no remedy, all that is left at the end is to try to pick up the pieces and try again.…"

As I said, history repeats itself, it was called the Civil War and we healed just fine. If their is another civil war (unlikely) it won't be over the "fine print" of the 2nd amendment. The country is and will continue to do just fine, the same cannot be said for the unstable, radical right.

[Moparmike]

Originally posted by telewinz:
Yes there is a great deal of ignorance in America but our system works well at and weeding out the dreamers, fools and misfits. They are kept in positions where for the most part they can only harm themselves and not the public as a whole.Some of those dreamers, fools, and misfits built this very nation and fought for the rights you would gladly give up and freely without government interference desecrate. Desecrate while the desecrating is good. The opprotunity wont last forever.:mad:

Damned well said Sam and Don.

I dont know when people will get tired of having their rights trampled day in and day out, but when they do there will be political hell to pay. Even if 10% get tired of it and are ready to act, they will act swiftly. I pray that I can help them in their cause. I realize that war is an ugly thing, but I am damned tired of getting sh|t on by the people who recieve my cash and decide my fate in one way or the other.:fire:

[Thumper]

In my experience, it's those with their arms in the air hollering Revolution that wont even write a simple letter to their congressman.

80 million gun owners and most cant even be bothered to vote. You expect armed revolt?

Americans are mostly fat, happy and live well. That ain't a recipe for a revolution.

Tam made a good point once: I paraphrase-Those of us who've actually seen tyranny up close find teenage American kids screaming "Revolution" a little amusing.

Hastening to add, that last bit looked like it was aimed at you moparmike...it wasn't. I understand your frustration.

[St. Gunner]

As I said, history repeats itself, it was called the Civil War and we healed just fine.

It won't heal, we have to many outside forces that want to see us fail. After the civil war, the only viable option to take over America was to come by ship, land and move inland, in which case both sides would have driven them into the sea. Enter today, the numbers of folks already on American soil, the advent of airplanes, faster ships, and assorted other weapons. If the focus is at home and it would have to be, what is going to happen next. I'm sure China would love to gain some natural resources.

Your interpretation of healed just fine and mine are vastly different, for the most part the South is still upset about the loss of choice, about personal freedoms.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On another point everyone has a crossover point, slow boiled or fast boiled. You always reach a defining moment where you realize that the only option left is to fight. Even liberal pants pissers can be persueded to fight if and when they realize they have no other option. I think the shrinks call it survival instinct. You probably witnessed it on the playgrounds of your youth, some kids where bullied once and they put an end to it, some kids wet their pants and cried to the teachers for weeks on end as some smuck stole their lunch money until one day when nobody was around and they where cornered they let fly.

I'm pretty easy going, you've called me an ape, insinuated all sorts of things, i've let em slide and not said much. But if we where faced off and you encroached on me, if you waved stuff in my face, crossed a verbal or physical threshold, i'd put you on the ground and feel no remorse. If you came at me with some weapon, i'd put you in a bag and feel no remorse. That is what a human being is, a creature that has fears and defenses for those fears.

You apparently have not evolved enough to realize that relying on others to protect you from your fears does only one thing, it leaves you vulnerable to their actions and conditions. You allow them to set the rules, you allow them to dictate your moral code, that is fine for the present, but the problem with people like you is in the bargain you are willing to give up the right to resist future infringements you may not wish to endure. Do you pay for groceries a farmer has not yet delivered? Do you pay the neighbor kid to mow the grass before he does it? Do you pay interest to the bank before you ask for a loan? Then why would you give up the only option you have, the only tool at your disposal when push comes to shove, to a government that has proven time and again it can't be trusted? I'd rather pre-pay the farmer, because at least I know he'll make an honest effort to do what is right.

People like you scare me, because you are so gullible you'll fall for anything with a government seal. But even pants pissers have a threshold for tyranny, as much as they hate to admit it.

If you won't kill to protect the one means you have to defend your loved ones against oppression, then you aren't worth much to us or your loved ones, in fact you are a simple liability to those who care about you most. What do you tell your wife or daughter as some thug with a GED and a government badge is raping them, beating them, or something worse?

Our civilization/culture is outgrowing the need for armed cowboys roaming our streets, that "right" is increasingly being viewed as a liability by main stream America.


How touching, will you have it etched on their tombstone?

People like you simply amaze me and make me think Darwins survival of the fittest was hoax. Telewinz galloping across the Savanna being pursued by a mob of hungry Hyenna, he runs up to the Lion and screams, "You are King of the Jungle don't let them eat me." So the lion eats him instead. A Very touching moral to your political strategy story, maybe i'll write a childrens book along the line, hopefully your kids can pick it up and read it. :barf:

Momma always said their would be people like this to explain things to them, my daddy said to beat some sense into them, my grandpa said to tie a brick around their neck and throw em in a river they where beyond hope. Somedays I am at a loss as to which one was right.:banghead: :cuss: :banghead:

[St. Gunner]

The majority of the people who inhabit this country have spoken their minds by voting yet because you disagree with them, you ignore and then damn them for not agreeing with YOUR interpetation of the 2nd amendment.

Over 75% of the people on this board who took your survey think your POV is wrong, I would guesstimate that more than 60% think your name calling, ranting, and unruly behaviour is uncalled for. So would it then be right and feasible for Tamara or another mod to ban you since most of us agree you are pest and a menace to the voice of freedom? According to the loose interpretation of the 1st amendment you liberals adhere to, you may just have to give some up, afterall in todays society we are sick of 1st amendment cowboys peddling porn at bookstores who sell childrens books and other issues you pants pissing fascist :cuss: expect us to adhere to.

The problem with you people is you attempt to say you are liberals, which historically would mean open to all things. You are simple fascist, you want to destroy everything you are scared of, disagree with, or you see as a threat to your power. Well I am a threat to your power, live with it, just like we do your fascist drivel.

I mean after all according to you civil rights are up to a majority vote, I bet you are one of those weenies who call this place a "Democracy." It is your proverbial fascist fantasy to see it as such, so that you can muster 51% of the vote and rule it. But alias those old dead white guys you seem to hate so much, gave us right wing whacko marginally intelligent nut jobs the paper that says we have an inalienable right, to put a bullet between your eyes if things get to the point you try to rob us of our rights. It is our undeniable gift for generosity and love of our fellow man that most of the anti-liberty fascists in Washington still draw breath. So why attempt to make us deny that love and generosity?

If you want to talk about gun violence, why don't all you bleeding heart fascists take all the prisoners you turn loose into your homes and keep em off the street? Why is it you complain about crime, but instead of punishing criminals, you punish the law abiding? I'm totally convinced after 130+ hrs of liberal education that you people want to disarm us, so we can't kill the sobs that are genetically programmed to hurt people, because it isn't their fault. If you sobs had one care in the world about "Saving one Child" you'd kill every pedaphile in existance, instead of giving them a special section at the bookstore. If you gave a crap about cutting crime, you'd implement a national CCL, and watch crime drop nationwide. But instead you stand content to attempt to lead our lives for us, well I won't be controlled and regulated by anyone I don't respect, to attempt to force me will end in only one way, the same way it did for bullies who attempted to steal my lunch money, with violence. It is the fascists choice, they can live happily with what they today hold, or they can push me and others and some of you can die. The choice is at this time up to you, just remember that if you make the wrong one it may not be possible to turn back the clock to a kinder gentler time.

So thank your lucky stars that we don't view inalienable rights the same way you do, or you'd be gone from here. Maybe it is time for you to do some soul searching.

[Al Norris]

Earlier, telewinz wrote:
I ENLISTED (draft #362) in the military (when it wasn't popular to do so) and served for over 6 years, so please don't presume to lecture me on patriotism.
I enlisted at 17 for 4 years. Spent 18 months in SE Asia along with a lot of other good Marines.

So I'll presume to lecture you.

You may think you know what the Constitution says, but it's a sure bet that you don't understand the reasonings or the minds of the founders... Else you wouldn't be spewing forth the socialst crap you've been subjecting us all to.

Patriotism is not subjecting oneself to every law and whim of the government. Patriotism is standing up for what's right and decent and good about America, regardless of what others may think about you or even regardless of what they might do to you. A Patriot recognizes the difference between the government and America.

A Patriot recognizes the inherent good in the People and the inherent evil in all governments. And a Patriot will not waste their lives for something that gains nothing.

When you gave your oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, you were never told your oath was fullfilled simply because you are no longer in active service to this country. That oath is binding until you die.

[St. Gunner]

Al Norris,

Amen and thank-you for all you did and are continuing to do for this country. I say thanks everyday for the things men like you allowed me to keep and have. I'll try to do honor to the sacrifices you made for me.

[Baba Louie]

Attack the argument, not the man.

When the American Colonists revolted against the King's crown the majority did not want to risk losing all they had worked for. A few however, knew that in signing the Declaration, they were signing their lives away to a cause bigger than their mere lives.

That's the cause I champion. The cause worthy of defending. Call it anarchy, call it a belief in "pre-ordained rights" that no government can take away, even if legislated into extinction. It was born in the 1770's on this hemisphere and it's dream will live on long after I cease to breathe and walk and enjoy shooting my firearms or shooting the breeze on some internet board.

(I hope and pray)

How to stop the Oligarchy and corporate masters? For me, besides spirited debate on Internet boards and voting at the election polls when allowed, it boils down to Ownership of a device that can stop those persons who feel morally empowered (by a majority vote?) to decide and dictate every facet of my life.

Adios

[keederdag]

Maybe, I need to be schooled. I think I'm the FNG here so I could be off base, but I thought Telewitz was a Libertarian not a Marxist. I also thought he was pro-2A, just like the rest of us. I do what I can; I write letters, NRA, ILA, GOA, pettitions, sighn gun owners up, and pay for em, whatever. I like Tele have a pretty low veiw on where my fight will take me. I see myself as a minority, and catch a lot of hell from the general pop. on a regualar basis. AZ. is a reletivly conservitive state, but I find myself constantly fighting a loosing battle defending the Second Amendment. I don't see things getting any better, only gradualy worse. I, by no means aim to give up; I'll fight to the last. But I do feel that my side will loose. The otherside just has everything going for them. The Media, The Dem's, A bunch of Rep's, The Gov. All we have is a strong will. If I'm wrong tell me, but I think were all pretty much on the same side here.:confused:

[Moparmike]

St. Gunner, please clean up your post. While I agree with it in its entirety, I am afraid that posts like yours (not just yours, but future and previous ones as well) will get this thread shut down for lack of, umm, mildness.

May your attacking of the person help enlighten and not enrage.:)

[Gordon Fink]

As I said, history repeats itself, it was called the Civil War and we healed just fine.

Clearly, we have not.

~G. Fink

[telewinz]

St. Gunner

"If you won't kill to protect the one means you have to defend your loved ones against oppression, then you aren't worth much to us or your loved ones, in fact you are a simple liability to those who care about you most. What do you tell your wife or daughter as some thug with a GED and a government badge is raping them, beating them, or something worse?"

Do you lay awake nights dreaming these nightmares up? Even during Sherman's march to the sea their was only one recorded case of rape (he was shot), not bad for an army of over 100,000 men.

"Over 75% of the people on this board who took your survey think your POV is wrong, I would guesstimate that more than 60% think your name calling, ranting, and unruly behaviour is uncalled for. So would it then be right and feasible for Tamara or another mod to ban you since most of us agree you are pest and a menace to the voice of freedom? According to the loose interpretation of the 1st amendment you liberals adhere to, you may just have to give some up, afterall in todays society we are sick of 1st amendment cowboys peddling porn at bookstores who sell childrens books and other issues you pants pissing fascist expect us to adhere to."

First of all I am not and have never been a liberal, you are the first (self-serving?) to make that charge. Preaching to the choir is not a requirement on THR, I am as pro-gun as any and have always been so. I agreed to the THR rules of conduct and being the law abiding citizen I am, instead of interpeting those rules to suit myself, I will accept any decision(s) the moderators make. Just as we are a nation of laws, THR is a forum with rules.

Al Norris

"I enlisted at 17 for 4 years. Spent 18 months in SE Asia along with a lot of other good Marines. So I'll presume to lecture you."

You are correct, you do presume to lecture me. I'll put my service record against anyone and not walk away ashamed. Many people served in SE Asia, including myself.

"but it's a sure bet that you don't understand the reasonings or the minds of the founders... Else you wouldn't be spewing forth the socialst crap you've been subjecting us all to."

Many people "claim" to understand the reasoning of our founding fathers on BOTH sides of the issue. As time goes by their views will continue to have less impact because the World has change a great deal in 200 years and their views are considered by many intelligent people to be nothing more than guidelines, many (most?) couldn't care less about the "reasoning" of our founding fathers. Lincoln freed the slaves, its called progress and his decision was not overturned by the courts because it went against the "reasoning" of our founding fathers. I for one swore an oath to the Constitution, not to a bunch of men who have been dead for 200 years.

As far as taking the unpopular view, someone SHOULD regardless of their personal beliefs just to give some kind of BALANCE to THR. Use your common sense, if I were anti-gun I woundn't have been a member of the TFL and would not continue to be a member of THR. But again, I am a member of THR at the pleasure of the mods.

[Bill St. Clair]

telewinz:

As far as taking the unpopular view, someone SHOULD regardless of their personal beliefs just to give some kind of BALANCE to THR. Use your common sense, if I were anti-gun I woundn't have been a member of the TFL and would not continue to be a member of THR. But again, I am a member of THR at the pleasure of the mods.

So how much of what you've said in this forum is your actual opinion and how much was just poking holes in people's logic to help them refiine their arguments? Inquiring minds want to know...

[telewinz]

I do not wish to "come out of the cold" yet. Please burn your monitor after reading this and do not pass it on.

#1. We are a nation that encourages citizens to be responsible for their actions and be self-reliant. The police rarely prevent a crime (no offense), most often they arrive AFTER the crime and cleanup the mess and file a report. As a RESPONSIBLE gun owner and citizen I demand that I have the right to protect myself since LE cannot.

#2 Since I am a law abiding citizen I do not feel it is reasonable for a person or an organization to presume I am irresponsible and therefore forbid me from owning weapons of MINOR destruction (WMD).

#3 There are bad people in this country and the World. I cannot save the World but I can save myself and family with the use of certain tools (firearms) should the need ever arise however unlikely that possibility may be. There are also irresponsible people who should NEVER be permitted to own WMD (weapons of minor destruction). Someone needs to prevent these "people" from obtaining WMD, I would be content if the NRA did this chore but someone needs to and for now its the government.

#4 The purpose of government is to govern and we are a nation of laws. My government is legal (not perfect) and only our legal system is qualified (highly educated people) to determine in a court of law what is legal and what is not legal AFTER due process. This system is supported by main stream America.

I have no desire to overturn my government as I feel there is no such thing as a perfect government. My government is better than most and as good as any.

I feel just about any worthy cause can be won over by INTELLIGENT debate, if not than maybe your cause isn't worthy, or you have turned people off by making threats. By and large intelligent people govern this country and this is one of the rules they rightfully go by. Its fair and it works. The opinions of men who have been dead for 200 years are of little value to my modern life. Whether that opinion deals with firearms, medical treatment, or the hereafter its still a 200 year old opinion and I treat it as such. I do not assume their opinion has value, they were just men.

[Moparmike]

Its good to hear your position on some issues. I personally have been wondering for a little while now with the posts in this thread. I will make but one point about your last post:

My government is legal (not perfect) and only our legal system is qualified (highly educated people) to determine in a court of law what is legal and what is not legal AFTER due process.That is just it telewinz, MOST of the current government IS NOT legal. The one thing that dictates the legality of the fed.gov is the Constitution. Its contents enumerate that the things our .gov does and institutes are not legal in any way. Half of the .gov could be wiped out completely using that guideline of governmental legality.

The trouble with today's .gov (like you said, not perfect by any stretch) is that if SCOTUS knows that most of the .gov is illegal based on constitutionality alone, they most certainly wont hear any cases (with the exception of the current 2ndAmendment one) to get rid of it. They cant be fired, and yet they still refuse to grow the required chrome-moly spheres to do it.:scrutiny: What will it take to correct government oversight when the very .gov body that is responsible for that refuses to do so? If the government refuses to fix itself, and the people regulating the legality of said government refuse to fix it, and the .gov in its entirety staunchly refuses to listen to those whom it governs, then corrective action by the governed masses is the only recourse.

Am I the only one who believes this is the intent of the CONUS, or am I just completely mad?

[EWTHeckman]

telewinz,

Please take the following quiz:

Question 1: These charges were levelled against King George in the Declaration of Independence:
[list=1]
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[/list=1]

These actions were:

A) Legal
B) Moral
C) Both
D) Neither


Question 2: Hitler's "Final Solution" was:

A) Legal
B) Moral
C) Both
D) Neither


Question 3: Saddam Hussein's torture and murder of those who disagreed with him was:

A) Legal
B) Moral
C) Both
D) Neither


Question 4: Janet Reno's SWAT snatch of Elian Gonzolez was:

A) Legal
B) Moral
C) Both
D) Neither


Question 5: The Tienamin Square Massacre was:

A) Legal
B) Moral
C) Both
D) Neither


Question 6: In the past 200 years, we've made vast strides in our understanding of science and technology. In that time, have there been any fundamental advances in human nature? If so, what are they?


Question 7: The "Founding Fathers" based the CONUS on several basic principals, including the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the historical tendency for governments to prey on their own citizens, and the rule of law. Which of these principals (or others which I did not mention) are no longer valid?

Question 8: The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, superseding all other laws.

This statement is:

A) True
B) False

[telewinz]

The overwhelming, vast majority of the United State's population and the World strongly believe our government is legal and they act accordingly. Might you agree that its time to cope with that reality and move on. I don't think the World Court or any other court will listen to your arguements. No offense, but as a part of the defense of the 2nd amendment, that complaint is a poor arguement and will earn you nothing but a smile or blank stare.

"staunchly refuses to listen to those whom it governs, then corrective action by the governed masses is the only recourse."

IF so, then why do we email our Congressmen, why do we vote, why is there an NRA?

"Am I the only one who believes this is the intent of the CONUS, or am I just completely mad?"

From what I've read on the defense of the 2nd amendment, you are not alone in your madness (no offense):D

[EWTHeckman]

telewinz said:
IF so, then why do we email our Congressmen, why do we vote, why is there an NRA?

For the exact same reason the following was part of the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In other words, to rush to war is foolish and stupid. As long as there is hope that such a war can be avoided, it's important that we do so. But once a point is reached were the abuses become unbearable and war can no longer be avoided, it is not just our right to fight back, it becomes our duty.

[Byron Quick]

My government is better than most and as good as any.

A true statement. However, to date this means the best of a bad lot.

Good government is an oxymoron.

By the way, telewinz, would you consider Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman to be a loser, a misfit, or an underachiever? He definitely is on the extremes of the political spectrum.

[telewinz]

I am not qualified/educated enough to give you the informed answers your questions deserve. It would take days if not weeks of research for me to become informed about BOTH sides of the issue. Having said this I'll give it a shot but bear in mind, people who have been dead for 200 years have a limited impact on me. Our Constitution and government have evolved over time by the consent of the people as it was intended to do.

I will say this; The British Government of the late 18th century was one of THE most freedom loving governments of that time. I know of no other major power in the World who's people enjoyed such freedom and rights.

Looking through your list of questions, I suspect the "correct" answer to most of your questions depends on your point of view. Oppressive governments (like China) often operate legally under THERE OWN LAWS.

I do know legal is objective and moral is subjective.

question #6 Assuming you are talking about America I would answer yes, education can and does change behavior, attitudes, and our environment.

question#7 they are all valid and the correct answer is subjective in nature.

question #8 sounds like a trick question but I'll bite and say that in a court of law the answer is True.

Now why do I feel you are going to jump on me with both feet? Ok educate me and explain how this "arguement" will win over the fence sitters to the pro-gun cause?:uhoh:

Byron Quick

There are exceptions to just about everything isn't their?

[Byron Quick]

I will say this; The British Government of the late 18th century was one of THE most freedom loving governments of that time. I know of no other major power in the World who's people enjoyed such freedom and rights.

Uhmm. Agreed. In theory, they had those rights. In practice? You had those rights if you spoke the King's English with the proper accent. It required a substantial amount of wealth to exercise those rights if you did not speak correctly. Read the history.

[EWTHeckman]

I do know legal is objective and moral is subjective.

That statement perfectly exemplifies why I (and others) are jumping on you. When the difference between right and wrong is merely subjective then there is no absolute right and wrong and anyone can do anything they wish, even murder. That is why you were unable to answer the first 5 questions.

The correct answer to the first 5 questions is that those actions were all legal (or at least quasi-legal, much like today's Ohio SC ruling), though the morality of those actions ranged from questionable to completely outrageous.

To able to judge the correctness of a government's actions, there must be an absolute standard to measure those actions by.

As George Washington said in his farewell address (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm):
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

You should read the whole thing. His writing style is incredibly dense. On the other hand, he seems to have been almost prescient in his predictions of what could happen if precautions were not taken, especially in the areas of subjective morals and capitulating to foreign influence; both positions you promote.

I will say this; The British Government of the late 18th century was one of THE most freedom loving governments of that time. I know of no other major power in the World who's people enjoyed such freedom and rights.

Freedoms and rights which were denied to the American Colonies.

question #6 Assuming you are talking about America I would answer yes, education can and does change behavior, attitudes, and our environment.

Yes, training can, and always has, been able to have some influence. That hasn't changed. Neither has human nature. Without some reason to act in an appropriate manner -- whether through threat of reprisal, self-interest, conscience, social mores, religion, etc. -- every person on this planet is capable of acting in an evil manner, and we probably will. Human nature has not changed one whit in the last 2,000 years, let alone the last 200.

question#7 they are all valid and the correct answer is subjective in nature.

There's that "anything goes" answer again. Either the principles they based the CONUS and other founding documents on are true, or they're not. (Note, a single principle can be false without invalidating the others.) Human nature is what it was 200 years ago. History has continued to repeat itself over and over again in human affairs with the only change involving the technology and tactics involved. Those principles are just as true today as they were then.

question #8 sounds like a trick question but I'll bite and say that in a court of law the answer is True.

There was nothing intentionally tricky about this question. The only thing that made it at all tricky was your view that everything is subjective and open to interpretation however the heck you please. In a court of law, great efforts are made to parse common laws to the nth degree in order to ensure they're interpreted "correctly." Yet the Constitution seems to be suffering from lackadaisical elementary school style approach to interpreting it in order to twist it to mean what the group in power wants it to mean instead of what it plainly states. This is an attitude you seem to be fully in favor of.


Ok educate me and explain how this "arguement" will win over the fence sitters to the pro-gun cause?

The Buddhists (apparently) have a saying: "What is, is." The "Founding Fathers" clearly understood this principle and worked to create a system of government which would work well given human nature. Attempting to ignore this principle and change it to "What I wish, is" will only lead to you, and the rest of this country going through the meat grinder. My goal is to teach logic, facts, and sound reasoning, and to put subjective, emotional hogwash back were it belongs: in the trash heap for burning.

[St. Gunner]

Do you lay awake nights dreaming these nightmares up? Even during Sherman's march to the sea their was only one recorded case of rape (he was shot), not bad for an army of over 100,000 men.


Telewinz, absolute evil exists in each one of us, we all within us carry a segment capable of horrible action. What keeps us all in check, is our ability to choose a moral code and live by it. Laws have never kept us in check, except in the most simple of ways, through fear of what could happen if caught. Most of us here are educated, dedicated, and intelligent enough to commit murder on a large scale and get away scott free, so to those fear doesn't factor in to it. All that keeps some of us from hunting the most exciting life form on the planet is our moral code.

Now ask yourself what happens when you have no moral code? What happens when you have no fear of the Law, because you enforce it and consider yourself untouchable. I know a Federal LEO right here in this town who has been stopped for DWI in a federal vehicle several times and never been prosecuted for it, he beat three women up who lived with him over the last few years and never spent a night in jail, he ran one of them off the road and held her and gunpoint threatening to kill her or himself, the cops calmed him down and took him home. He has little to no moral code, he has come to the conclusion he is untouchable. A couple months ago he decided to attempt to kill a buddy of mine, the buddy happens to be a martial arts instructor, he should have killed him and saved a life someday, but instead he detained him and called the police. He never went to jail, he never had charges filed, he never even so much as got suspended from his job.

Such men are capable of anything, and if you think for one second he wouldn't rape, beat, or strangle your family, you are wrong. He may be the exception, and I believe he is, but if you allow folks like that to be in a position of power and they have no fear of those who surround them because those around can cause them no harm, what do you create?

No I sleep soundly at night, I can't remember the last nightmare I had, its been awhile. I wonder how many folks shared your thoughts and trust in government and what they or their agents where capable of? I would imagine Randy Weaver never imagined somebody would shoot his wife in the head over a $200 tax matter. I assume the Branch Davidians never assumed horse trailers loaded with armed Federal Agents would soon be visiting their compound with helicopters and they'd soon feel their life threatened because of a simple suspected tax matter, which they where not guilty of according to the evidence recovered. I assume lots of folks who have been beaten senseless in raids, shot for refusing to comply with what the constitution firmly says are unconstitutional laws never assumed it was coming, they operated under the other failed premise of this nation, "Innocent until proven guilty" unless it involves guns, booze, or dope.

So tell me to strap on my tinfoil hat or any of a dozen other things, I don't trust em, I won't trust em, and I dang sure won't give up the one equalizer I still have, since the SCOTUS and other courts have taken the side of government in violation of the constitution, and LEO's who value their careers are not likely to arrest public officials for treason and other infractions they perform on a more and more frequent basis.


On rules, I am of a firm belief and it will not change, that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, superceding all other laws, regulations, and executive orders. You didn't swear an oath to uphold the legislatures ideals of right and wrong, you swore to uphold the constitution; nothing more, nothing less.

This nation is not a democracy, never has been, I don't care or plan to obey the majority, frankly, if they feel content to force me to abide by their laws, they might as well kill me, because the second they attempt to use force to rule me, I will attempt to stop that force with all means available. After all this is supposed to be the "Land of the Free," to me it is vital that it stay that way.

They may have a voice in where I go and how I go and where they place the body, and how they put it in the hole, pit, or body of water; but they will not tell me my morals nor dictate the terms of my life, those things belong to me and me alone. 51% has no more right to set the standards for my life and the tools I choose to live it with, than I have to do the same for you. This is supposed to be a nation of the individual, an individual with inalienable rights, which means until the minute I begin to infringe upon you, you have no say in what I do or how I choose to live my life.

But for some reason you seem to think you do have the right to dictate my life; as long as you can muster enough back-up(majority) to do so. I'm telling you today and have been for the length of this thread, you don't, won't, and never will dictate my life; because I won't hand over my means of insuring that you can't.

What was the license plate,

Live Free or Die

Now you know the guiding principle of my life and why I don't have nightmares.:neener:

[BluesBear]

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." -- Samuel Adams.


It's terribly ironic that liberals always think they are so much smarter than everyone else and pretend to know what's the best for everyone. Maybe this explains why most of their policies (gun control, welfare, nationalized healthcare, dictator appeasement) are such brilliant successes.
:rolleyes:

[telewinz]

"I still have, since the SCOTUS and other courts have taken the side of government in violation of the constitution, and LEO's who value their careers are not likely to arrest public officials for treason and other infractions they perform on a more and more frequent basis."

How so when we have such liberal courts as th 9th Circuit Court and others. You continue to expect perfection, what government meets your unrealistic standard ?

"That statement perfectly exemplifies why I (and others) are jumping on you. When the difference between right and wrong is merely subjective then there is no absolute right and wrong and anyone can do anything they wish, even murder"

In this country murder is subjective... abortion by some is murder, legal executions by some is murder. The courts are the only even playing field we have to decide this issue. When the court rules in your favor..its a good court. When the court rules against your beliefs...it's an illegal court. What you claim is that your personal opinion should carry the same weight as law. That is not how our system works, what government operates on personal opinion instead of the rule of law. Claiming our government is illegal is an ALLEGATION or opinion not an established fact yet.

"That is just it telewinz, MOST of the current government IS NOT legal. The one thing that dictates the legality of the fed.gov is the Constitution. Its contents enumerate that the things our .gov does and institutes are not legal in any way. Half of the .gov could be wiped out completely using that guideline of governmental legality."

Again that is an allegation that has not been proven in a court of law. With all the lawyers in this country, there is something wrong if you can't pay one of them to take your VALID case to court. Does ther NRA agree with your claim that our government is illegal? Why not? are they biased against the second amendment too?

Our legal system and government is the only game in town and the majority of the people accept this "game". This being the case, we have to deal with this reality and cope. Anything else is barking at the full moon. Accept the fact that an armed revolution is not going to happen and that some other means is required to win the public over to your side. Being angry doesn't change a thing!

Study the history of our courts and you will find they have ruled against our government and officials quite often from Little Rock and Blacks entering an all white school to Gov. Davis being recalled from office.

[seeker_two]

Our legal system and government is the only game in town and the majority of the people accept this "game". This being the case, we have to deal with this reality and cope. Anything else is barking at the full moon. Accept the fact that an armed revolution is not going to happen and that some other means is required to win the public over to your side. Being angry doesn't change a thing!

And if this position was taken by our Founding Fathers, where would we be today?.....:scrutiny:

You state that the courts aren't perfect, yet you also state that they are the objective arbiter of laws. Can you accept the fact that a court's interpretation of a law or the Constitution COULD be wrong?

One last question: Do you believe that YOUR morality--your personal code of conduct--is subjective? Do you believe that you live by an absolute code of right & wrong?

[St. Gunner]

The government of self meets my tough specifications for perfection, if it screws up and violates the rights of other, I would not have a problem with it being corrected and punished for it.

Plain enough? No I am not an anarchist, just simple.
:D :D :D

[Al Norris]

telewinz replied:
You are correct, you do presume to lecture me. I'll put my service record against anyone and not walk away ashamed. Many people served in SE Asia, including myself.
It's not about your service record. It's about the criteria you yourself laid out in order to lecture you. I saw that criteria and called you on it. Ant what did you do? You fluttered in the wind like a piece of paper, then twisted away in another direction.

You then claim that great changes have occured. If we were talking about technology, I would agree. But we aren't. We are talking about people. Their drives and reasonings. And in this, nothing has changed. Have any new emotions surfaced? Have we lost any of those old emotions? Nope. Same emotions as we had 200 years ago are with us now. Have the reasonings behind what drives us changed? Nope. Greed, fear, anger, love, hope, honor... They are still driving us, as they did then.

You say you swore an oath to the Constitution, but you abide by the rulings of a corrupt judiciary; the laws of a corrupt legislature; the regulations of a corrupt executive. Exactly how does this defend that Constitution?

Where, within the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, does it say that the government may abrogate your rights or subsume powers not granted by the simple expediency of having a "compelling interest?"

[EWTHeckman]

You continue to expect perfection, what government meets your unrealistic standard ?

Expecting perfection and demanding perfection are two different things. I expect the government to mess up from time to time because humans are involved. That does not make it acceptable when they do. There is a natural tendency for every human and human institution to drift farther and farther from perfection. The only way to counteract that drift is to constant, whole-hearted effort to acheive perfection. Viewing that drift as "acceptable" only leads to disaster.

In this country murder is subjective... abortion by some is murder, legal executions by some is murder.

And that is a result of drifting standards. In Germany during World War II, murdering Jews was considered acceptable. That is why a fixed standard is absolutely necessary.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's the kind of standard I'm talking about. Unalienable literally means that it's part and parcel of who we are as human beings and there is absolutely no way to separate that right from humans by any means, even by government fiat. Murder is the willful violation of this right to life. This standard held true through most of this country's history. Only in the last 30 to 40 years or so has there been a full blown continental drift from this absolute standard. The same has been happening in all areas relating to the CONUS, with the violation of the 2nd Amendment being the most commonly mentioned here.

The standard the government is to follow is quite clear and simple: The foundational documents of this country (the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence) are written in clear, unambiguous, straightforward language. Obey them.

To quote from General Washington again:
t is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

To simplify what he said, ignoring the Constitution, even for perfectly good and valid reasons, is the most commen cause which leads to the destruction of governments.

The courts are the only even playing field we have to decide this issue.

No they are not. This statement assumes the courts are always honest and incapable of error. That theory has been disproven over and over again throughout history, not just in the United States, but all around the world.

Let's go back to the Declaration of Indepence again. Here is one of the charges against King George:
For protecting them [British soldiers], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Or how about the Dredd Scott ruling? Or the Federal LEO discussed by St. Gunner? Or O. J. Simpson? Or the case of the guy who went into Mexico with a box of ammo which had been accidentally left in his car? Or the whole Ninth Circus Court? Or the New Jersey Supreme Court blatantly ignoring the law to put Lautenberg into the Senate race? Courts are supposed to rule according to absolute standards as embodied in law. Yet there are invalid rulings produced every day on the basis of sham legalism by misreading or distorting common laws and completely ignoring the underlying foundational principles behind those laws.

The Bill of Rights was intended to specify some of those foundational principles which already existed and will continue to exist whether a Bill of Rights exists or not. Yet we have courts like the 9th ruling that such a right does not exist. Does the mere appearance of legality override fundamental principles? My answer is a resounding NO!

Again that is an allegation that has not been proven in a court of law. With all the lawyers in this country, there is something wrong if you can't pay one of them to take your VALID case to court.

Just because an action hasn't been challenged in court does not mean that the action is valid. The primary reason why government actions are often not challenged in court is pure lack of resources. For example, I was being hassled every day by a credit card company because my payment was a little late. There is a law against such harassment. I have everything I need to prove my case against them except one key resource: money to pay my lawyer with. And that's a simple, easily proven case where the opponent's size doesn't matter.

When you're going up against the government, major resources are required, and rarely available. As a result, the government feels no real restraint against abusing its citizens. Remember, the government makes the rules, and has plenty of resources to enforce those rules. They can keep almost everyone running through the maze until they run out of money. That's why the 2nd Amendment exists. Physical force is the only force citizens are capable of exerting against a government which holds all the cards.

Our legal system and government is the only game in town and the majority of the people accept this "game". This being the case, we have to deal with this reality and cope.

You mean like the American Colonies did?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Snipped the long list of charges which I've posted above

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Go back and read the charges which were listed. Amazingly enough, it seems that our own government is guilty of about a third of those charges. I was flabbergasted when I read the list.

Accept the fact that an armed revolution is not going to happen

I sincerely hope not. However, if it becomes necessary I will assist in fighting for the principles this country was founded on, even though it likely means the loss of everything I hold dear.

and that some other means is required to win the public over to your side.

That's what I'm doing here, and writing letters to the paper and representatives, etc.

Study the history of our courts and you will find they have ruled against our government

Of course they do. Most judges and juries still strive for perfection. However, if they regularly ruled in favor of the government in violation of fundamental principles, the revolution would have happened years ago.

[keederdag]

The fact is, none of us can say whether an Armed Revolution Would happen in the event of the situation Telewitz outlined. I like Telewitz doubt it. I am not saying this is a good thing however. I agree that this is the teeth of the Bill of rights, and that when it is gone, Katey bar the door! You are all VERY sharp guy's, I happen to agree with most of you on 90% of the positions you take. If your going to continue this thread, please keep it clean, as you all recently have been. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE...... So no disrepectful stuff O.K. Tele, ETW, ST Gunner,Seeker, Al. I personally, am very impressed by all of your post's, and I would be proud to stand with any of you guy's. I think that the main point of disagreement here is whether there would be an armed uprising under Tele's situation, every thing else seems like a distraction from the question. Or maybe this is just me? Keeter.:D

[telewinz]

From a current post in the General Discussion forum about CCW in Ohio


Ferrier will start at 1 p.m. on Florida Avenue with a safety meeting. He wants to make sure "no one even jaywalks," he said.

"I don't want people showing up with T-shirts that say, like: `Kill 'Em All and Let God Sort 'Em out,' '' he said. "These are responsible people.''

If you can't understand why this guy's method is the best approach, then maybe you are a LIABILITY to the pro-gun debate on the Second Amendment! He understands how the system works and hasn't given-up by saying "the government is illegal".

I fear that most of the posters on this thread would be asked to take off their t-shirts.

[EWTHeckman]

I fear that most of the posters on this thread would be asked to take off their t-shirts.

You're free to think so. But you would be wrong.

[telewinz]

"We are talking about people. Their drives and reasonings. And in this, nothing has changed. Have any new emotions surfaced? Have we lost any of those old emotions? Nope. Same emotions as we had 200 years ago are with us now."

I will continue to disagree on this point. The difference between now and 200 years ago or 20,000 years ago is that we are better educated and better able to CONTROL our emotions. The people in power resort most often to reason and logic, the masses let their emotions rule them, often with very negative results.

Your argument that our government is ILLEGAL goes against the beliefs of every city, county, and state government in this country.

In the entire World, please list those governments that agree with your argument that our government is illegal.

If I don't question your conclusions, some anti will.

delusion...

something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self

BTW: if 78% claim they will use armed violence against my government, it would be reasonable that at least half of you have already refused to pay your taxes to this ILLEGAL government. Or hasn't THAT line been crossed yet either? Certainly its a less radical response than murder and therefore should be more acceptable to at least 33% of you. I think we all know the answer to this question don't we.:rolleyes: Maybe 10%?

[EWTHeckman]

"We are talking about people. Their drives and reasonings. And in this, nothing has changed. Have any new emotions surfaced? Have we lost any of those old emotions? Nope. Same emotions as we had 200 years ago are with us now."

I will continue to disagree on this point. The difference between now and 200 years ago or 20,000 years ago is that we are better educated and better able to CONTROL our emotions. The people in power resort most often to reason and logic, the masses let their emotions rule them, often with very negative results.

Yep, that must be why crime is falling, Saddam Hussein can't exist, Britain is safer with everyone being totally defenseless, Enron couldn't happen, Serbs and Croates, Israelies and Arabs, and various tibes in Africa no longer try to kill each other because of who their great, great, great, great, great grandparents were, etc., etc., etc. That must also be why test scores are rising, children are better educated, and history is well understood by the general population. That must also be why "people in power" like Chuckie Schumer can say they support the 2nd Amendment mere seconds before they announce a new ban. That must be why divorce is going down, STD's are becoming a distant memory, children are no longer being abandoned and drivers are going out of their way to be more courteous to other drivers. :barf:

Yep, human nature must be getting better. NOT!

If anything, all these measurements of "basic humanity" are showing a decline in human nature as more and more of the general population gives free reign to their own evil desires.

We're "better able to CONTROL our emotions"? There's only one possible response to that: http://www.heckman.us/smilies/anim_bs.gif

[Al Norris]

EW, telewinz says we are better educated. Shall we see if he can pass a little eight grade test?

This is the eighth grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no Modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of lie, play and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per meter?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance whic h is 640 rods.
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.'
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication

Geography (Time, one hour)

1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth

Out of all the people on this board, I wonder if even 10 can complete this test? Better Educated? By what Criteria?

[telewinz]

"If anything, all these measurements of "basic humanity" are showing a decline in human nature as more and more of the general population gives free reign to their own evil desires."

Its called advancing civilization and most educated people feel we have made great progress in protecting man from man. We no longer eat are children's brains or each other as stone age man did. We no longer leave the sick and old in the wilderness to die. We no longer use the mentally ill as a source of entertainment as they did during the middle ages. We no longer sell our women into sexual slavery as was done up until the 19th century.

And when these acts do occur, they are viewed as evil and against basic human rights. Man's progress is much slower than the advance of technology but its there if you look. Most feel the world will be a better place 50 or 100 years from now. Education has done more for the human race than any weapon. Its up to the "weapons consumer" and how he behaves that will determine whether the second amendment will be part of that future world.

The measure of education is not the results of a test from the 19th century. It is the percentage of people that can read and write, the percentage of people who hold a high school diploma or college degree. People are much more educated today than 100 years ago despite what the popular press claims.

[Al Norris]

Your argument that our government is ILLEGAL goes against the beliefs of every city, county, and state government in this country.
I didn't say the government was illegal, I said the actions of the government were illegal. Care to name where in the Constitution the Feds have the authority or power to Federalize Education? Should we continue to name all the things the Feds have thier hands in?

But that's all really irrelevent to the question. Which is itself a red herring. It would be like asking a welfare recipient if they want their benefits to stop.

In the entire World, please list those governments that agree with your argument that our government is illegal.
Red Herring Alert!

Do I really need to say why?

[telewinz]

If your argument is that our/my government does illegal acts well I agree with that, its a matter of court record. All people, organizations and governments do illegal acts at one time or another. All people, organizations and governments are falsely accused of doing illegal acts at one time or another. Thats part of life, a gun will not change that. I think we can now bring this thread to a close.

[Al Norris]

No, my immediate arguements were that both of your statements were red herrings.

Oh, and have you finished the 8th grade grammer section?

[keederdag]

uuuuhhhhhggg!....You guy's.

[telewinz]

I believe what you refer to is certain standards that must be met to qualify for federal funds. Also "in the pursuit of happyness" and other rights, the government guards a person's right to equal treatment. A state can no longer refuse an education to a black man or women which is what happened before the federal government stepped in to safeguard their rights, which is their task to do.

Most of times the feds have had to step in and take over from the states is because the state violated peoples' rights (civil rights). That is an illegal act. It depends on your point of view and how far you go with your research that determines how much truth is discovered. That is why the professionals on Constitutional law spend most of their time on research and not assuming "facts".

Did you just look-up the meaning of the word red herring? Its not on your test you know.:D

BTW isn't your 1885 test a red herring?:D

[EWTHeckman]

We no longer eat are children's brains

We just yank the children half way out of their mother's body and suck them out with a technologically advanced suction pump for convenience instead of food or religious ceremonies.

or each other as stone age man did.

Cannibalism is still alive and well in the world.

We no longer leave the sick and old in the wilderness to die.

Nope, we just sock them away in expensive, understaffed nursing homes and try to talk them into committing suicide because "life is no longer worth living."

We no longer use the mentally ill as a source of entertainment as they did during the middle ages.

Liberals in Hollywood fill that role now. And based on their pronouncements and messed up lives, it's awfully hard to distinguish them from the mentally ill. :scrutiny:

We no longer sell our women into sexual slavery as was done up until the 19th century.

We don't have to anymore. They're more than willing to sell themselves.

Its called advancing civilization and most educated people feel we have made great progress in protecting man from man.

God, save us from such "advancing civilization!

The measure of education is not the results of a test from the 19th century. It is the percentage of people that can read and write, the percentage of people who hold a high school diploma or college degree.

Wrong. The measure of education is how many people have a grasp and understanding of fact, the analytical ability to discover facts which are unknown, and the reasoning skills to apply that knowledge. The ability to read and write is only the most basic of skills necessary to achieve higher education.

Colleges routinely have to offer incoming freshmen remedial classes on reading, writing and math because a large percentage don't have those skills at a high enough level to do college level work.

Yes, a higher percentage of the population is sitting in a class room than there was 100 years ago. But no one can seriously argue that the level of education is anywhere near what it used to be.

You've just argued that we've advanced, but not by very much. Even if I accept your argument (which I obviously don't), have we advanced enough to throw out the principles this country was founded on? Not even close!

[Moparmike]

Originally posted by TelewinzOriginally posted by Moparmike
That is just it telewinz, MOST of the current government IS NOT legal. The one thing that dictates the legality of the fed.gov is the Constitution. Its contents enumerate that the things our .gov does and institutes are not legal in any way. Half of the .gov could be wiped out completely using that guideline of governmental legality.

Again that is an allegation that has not been proven in a court of law.Just because an allegation has not been proven in court doesnt make the allegation without merit. The merit of said allegation increases when the presiding body of law refuses to rule on the allegation. As someone previously posted, it takes a great deal of resources to challenge the constitutionality of a law and get that challenge to be heard by the SCOTUS.

A question: If you are held without reguard to your guaranteed rights by some provision in the PA and you cant get your case on the constitutionality of the PA etc. to be heard by SCOTUS, does that mean that your challenge of the constitutionality of the PA is any less valid? If they refuse to hear a valid case, what does that mean to you, besides the fact that you are SOL?

[spartacus2002]

They can have my guns.... bullets first.:fire:

[St. Gunner]

You are batting 100% on your stereotyping so far... I don't own a kill em all t-shirt, ball cap, or have a "If you run you only die tired" tatoo. I'd be the guy in the starched jeans, wearing a polo pullover, and a Remington Ball Cap, and if you ripped it off, you'd see I do my own haircut, with a clipper and a 3/8" guide. Probably be wearing a pair of Justin boots, or some leather loafers. I probably wouldn't even pack in tactical black, i'm more a Leather guy, light brown. :neener:

Its called advancing civilization and most educated people feel we have made great progress in protecting man from man.

No, most educated people try to pursuede themselves we have made great progress in those regards. What most educated folks fail to realize is all they have really done is take self reliance out of a portion of the population. The stifled creativity, by trying to insist that we all believe what they do. I helped a proff grade papers my last two semesters, it got flat out boring because they all wrote the same papers, the proff would highlight a certain topic and like a group of sheep, they'd pick-up on it and write on it. They never had a thought of their own, it was the thoughts given them. What hit me hardest though was the proffs(The enlightened ones) would complain about the papers and how boring they where, yet if someone went against what they said, wrote a paper based upon personal feelings and individual moral premises, they'd tear it to shreds for being bigoted, uninformed, or they'd call them ignorant of the real world. If they took a quote from Jefferson or Paine and tried to write from that, they'd be openly chastised for associating with the racist founding fathers. Your elite educated you seem to think so highly off, are for the most part the biggest hypocrites to walk this earth, they may have a large dose of book learning, but most lack the common sense to be able to navigate a rough neighborhood after dark and survive.

They never realized that the reason they got 150 drab boring papers is because they conditioned those who would have tried something new not to, by their responses to things they said in class. You can't make folks have knowledge, it has to be something they strive to aquire, and when they strive for it and you slap them for coming to a different conclusion than you have, you simply teach them not to reach.

If that is your idea of a foreward moving society, it is no wonder we can't even find a middle ground. You have no arguement, but you do have strong emotional attachment to what you believe, but you have no back-up. When your arguements are pounced on or you think you might get your teeth kicked in, instead of deciding to listen and maybe learn, you throw another trash bit in, some stereotype you no doubt learned from some elite educated person you know. Right wing radical, Fringe element crazy, nothing ever comes from the marginal side of things, you all wear "kill em all t-shirts".........

Place yourself in your minds eyes in front of a mugger, he is trying to buffalo you, trying to get you to hand over your wallet, your keys, your watch. He doesn't appear to be armed, but does appear to be angry with your hesitation. What would you do?

I'd attempt to back away from the threat, maybe lying and claiming I had nothing, but I wouldn't give a cent.

If he followed and threatened I would counter by telling him I will defend myself.

If he continued to advance I would use whatever means where needed to stop the threat.

I don't pitch him a quarter in hopes he goes away. What is the quote about attempting to appease tigers?

Government is the same way, they are the bully, the mugger, the guy who steps out of a black alley and demands you give stuff up, they have no right to demand.

You've used the term compromise a few times, said we need to be prepared to do just that in order to keep some guns. Could you kindly look up compromise in a dictionary, that would mean both sides give up something mutually. It has never happened, it has always been one sided, with them swearing it is just this one thing they want.

Until you quit looking to government to the answers for all of your questions, fears, and wants, you and I have no common ground to embrace. I do not associate with those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, who refuse to preserve the culture and the nation that has been kind enough to allow them refuge from a world that is anything but civilized and peaceful. We can't find common ground when you call todays culture more educated than past cultures, when a man can't find another willing to work hard, do the job right, and not steal him blind. We can't find common ground when you talk about the great advances of society and all I see advanced is the size of government and the only growth of society is their reliance on such.

Every arguement you make, every statement you write, all points to some sort of socialist utopia world. That is not progress, that is not civilized, that is not elite educated. That is a society of moochers, and I want no part of it, and will take no part in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If in the morning you awoke to see that the 4th amendment had been repealed by congress, would you simply accept that until it got to the Supreme Court?

The First?

All of them?

If it was what society wanted to attempt to insure their safety?

Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?(this is the only one I want you to answer)

Step up to the plate and answer that one please. I'm sure we are all dying to hear the answer.

Please don't say I wear a Klan hood, poison children's candy, or feed ground up glass to police dogs, lets pitch all the nonsense you have been spewing and the rest of us call stereotypes aside and address the meat of the issue.

Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?

I even attached a picture of me in my Klan outfit with a lynching rope, a bottle of ground up glass, some candy with razor blades, and a burning cross that says, "Kill em all." Cause after all, us guys that articulate such things as "I won't give up my guns" are all ignorant fools, with drug addict wives, neglected kids, cars on blocks in the yard. So I thought i'd give you some fodder for your hate speech.

[EWTHeckman]

Steve asks:
Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?

Ahh, the heart of the debate! Great question Steve!

What's your answer telewinz?

BTW, Steve. I saw the robe and the rope. But where did you hide the other stuff? :D

[Tamara]

The difference between now and 200 years ago or 20,000 years ago is that we are better educated

We no longer eat are [sic] children's brains

Sometimes, folks, they just write themselves. ;)

[telewinz]

"Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?"

Thats an easy one, of course not. But you miss the point, its how that right is interpetated. At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Then some people died in a false alarm and the man who shouted the word was brought to trial. Using the 1st amendment as a defense was rejected by the courts, their interpetation was different from his, he went to jail. No one doubts the Second Amendment exists, the legal battle has ALWAYS been about the interpetation of that right. Its not clear, that why different courts have ruled different interpetations over the decades. Thats why the same old arguments get us the same old results.

"Your elite educated you seem to think so highly off, are for the most part the biggest hypocrites to walk this earth, they may have a large dose of book learning, but most lack the common sense to be able to navigate a rough neighborhood after dark and survive."

Common sense has never had anything to do with a person's education. But I would still prefer an educated MD with no common sense to perform brain surgery (no cheap shots) rather than an ignorant witch doctor with all the common sense in the World.

Tamara...Good to here (sic) from you, tanks (sic) for the spell check.
our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our. our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our, our.

Must be my 20th century education.:D

I ASSUME thats the only thing you found wrong with my comments and that we finally agree on something. Oh wise one, my mission in life is done.

[BluesBear]

From telewinz


At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

All people, organizations and governments do illegal acts at one time or another. All people, organizations and governments are falsely accused of doing illegal acts at one time or another. Thats part of life, a gun will not change that. I think we can now bring this thread to a close.


Mr Tele,

It still is legal, especially if there is a fire. Please show me where it's expressly prohibited any other time.

What illegal acts have you done?
:scrutiny:

What illegal acts have you been falsely accused of?
:rolleyes:


Are for closing the thread?
Nawwww you like to hear yourself talk too much.
Unless we let you have the last word you'll never shut up.
:p

[Bill St. Clair]

Look how much better educated we are! We no longer eat our children's brains!

-------

Technology we've got over our ancestors. Knowledge we've got, in spades. Education? Real, practical education? I don't think so.

[telewinz]

last word. Mum's the word.

[Gordon Fink]

You’re all wrong. Human beings are no better now than they were then. Other than more people, all we’ve gained is a larger knowledge base and a greater flow of information—information that can be true, false, or ambiguous.

So we have more knowledge. That doesn’t mean we have advanced intellectually. In fact, we are continuously disappointed by the “poor education” of our fellow humans. Why is this? Because we are foolishly applying the standards once set by an intellectual elite to the greater mass of humanity.

Let me be blunt. Intellectually speaking, the vast majority of humans is little better than a herd of mewling beasts—however domesticated they may appear. Yes, these are the “sheeple” we all decry, and they dominate our species. Though dangerous when backed into a corner, they are too easily manipulated, whether in democratic or in oligarchic political systems.

You see, our civilization will fail, not in spite of itself but because of itself. As a species, we are simply not ready for prime time. Oh, the “enlightened” among us will continue to struggle for something better, but for the most part, it will be a losing battle.

~G. Fink

[keederdag]

Where can a fella get one of these "enlightened" thingy's, how much are they, can I use paypal?:D

[Gordon Fink]

I don’t know, Keeterdag. You probably have to be born with the capacity.

~G. Fink

[keederdag]

Well. if you won't sell me your's I guess I'm just S.O.L.
P.S. I'll give you $200 for it?:)

[Gordon Fink]

Never said I was enlightened.

Of course, I’m sure I’m more enlightened than most, or maybe I’m just dead wrong, proving my lack of enlightenment. Then again, maybe realizing that I am not all-knowing and being sad about that fact is evidence of my enlightenment.…

TRANSLATION: Not even the “enlightened” are immune to my contempt.

~G. Fink

[RangerHAAF]

I believe that in about 20-30 years from now the technology will exist to allow "big government" to enslave the majority of the US population without directly having to go head to head with the rebellious types who will die resisting.

Think about it, within the next 7-10 years military fighter pilots will probably be replaced by pilotless drone airplanes. Those in charge of the military will be able to rain down bombs on their enemies anywhere in the world from space. I figure walking "terminators" won't be too far behind and the only thing separating the use of these machines against the US population at large will be the oath that their programmers take to protect this country and never turn it's guns against it's citizens. In other words, their integrity.

When the human equation behind military action is removed, look out because that's when the real fight is going to begin. We will either fight to get back what we had or meekly submit and become physical slaves.

Of course this scenario may be far fetched but I think that we all will agree that the technology to bring this potential nightmare to fruition is rapidly approaching. Just imagine what Hitler could have accomplished with mid 21st century technology at his disposal.

[keederdag]

Tinfoil is becoming Soooo unafforable these day's:D

[telewinz]

Maybe something closer to Depleted Uranium. :D

[keederdag]

Too tuff to form into a hat, besides I think you need a special licence that you can only get from Skynet.:D

[telewinz]

You Got me there, but how are you going to stop the voices?:D

[Don Galt]

Roger--

That's a really excellent point. I guess people like tele assume its paranoia, but they aren't apparenltly paying much attention to technology.

Currently we have bomber drones that can fly accross oceans unmanned and deliver bombs. Computer technology is such that these will become very cheap (in military terms) in about 10 years, not 20-30.

This isn't about skynet taking over, this is about the grunts being eliminated, meaning that those with political power over the military, or those in the lead of the military, have a lot of power they wouldn't otherwise have.

The reason coups fail when they do is often that the rest of the military opposes the bit of the military that tries the coup.

You eliminate humans from the equation and a coup could be performed by a much smaller number of people.

Furthermore, as technolgoy replaces paper based voting, we loose the paper trail. This means that there's no way to validate an election... all one needs to do is to hack or compromise the company that makes the software for the election, and you can do a really easy bloodless coup.

This is the technology thats being put in place NOW... with no safeguards. No manual recount possibilities.

That's not paranoia, its fact.

[telewinz]

I guess most of what you say is possible but the I don't believe the new technology increases our risk. When we started putting our ballots in a box and then relied on total strangers to safeguard, protect and count them, well thats the height of risk.

A remote controled anything will still be under human supervision to some extent. The risk will be no greater now or in the future than when Billy Mitchell first loaded a 1000 pound bomb in his bomber and flew over the US mainland. One man sure had alot of power, how about the small group in a B52 or B58 from the 50's and 60's? How about the small group of men who controlled our missle silos and sub-launched missiles? What about the Secret Service agent outside the President's bedroom door at night?

As far as a smaller number of people being able to conduct a coup, thats always been a risk any government must face. IIRC, George Washington's officers (small group) were quite prepared to march the army on Congress to "correct" what the officer's felt was unfair treatment. GW's "effort" was the only thing that stopped the coup, you can't get any smaller than a 1 person group.

[RangerHAAF]

The only reason that I stated 20-30 years from now is that by that time a new generation of people will populate the military and police forces, per se. By then there will be very little reverence or reference to the Bill of Rights. The generation X(my generation) crowd will be in charge and most of them could care less about the Constitution.

So, in the end it won't be the technology that does us in but the less than honorable intentions of those who are in charge of the technology that causes this country to meltdown.

[telewinz]

If the rest of the World is any indication, people tend to WANT government to step-in and take charge of their lives and provide a safety net. It appeals to our survival insticts, how many of us do not have voluntary insurance? Just about any serious debate on the future assumes more government not less. We (the majority) are asking/demanding it, its not being forced upon us.

[keederdag]

Ranger, I was jokeing, I'm sincerely sorry if I offended. I do think were a long way away from skynet though. Remote Drones are far from A.I. I think we all agree that the Nations majority seems to want more Gov. to solve it's collective problems. I do agree with Ranger about the GenX'ers, I'm one too, and if anyone can acellerate the swirl down the bowl to hell, it will probably be us. We seem to have been raised by MTV.


P.S. Tele: I used to have a friend that talked to his shotgun, It made the rest of us all a little nevrvouse, with one exception. This guy never seemed to think it was a big deal. He finally told me " the problem with bimbo is'nt that he talk's to his shotgun, the problem will arise when his shotgun starts to talk back".:D

[St. Gunner]

We (the majority) are asking/demanding it, its not being forced upon us.

Yes, Telewinz, but 51% does not have the right to strip you of your civil liberties, but you assume, that is sufficient to do it to the rest of us. We DO NOT live in a democracy, the safety net you crave, the government control you lust for, it is not a part of citizenship in this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How some things never seem to change over time...

"Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some more recent stuff since you seem to think the folks from 200+ years ago where idiots.

"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - United States Senate, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Telewinz, you have a right to believe what you care to believe and attempt to chase your own happiness, but the minute those ideals of yours and others like you, come in conflict with my civil rights, you have moved from a vocal opponent to a physical one, it is the one thing people like you never think of, or contemplate. I am one of the most peaceful people you will ever meet, I didn't try to have you banned, didn't ask for you to jump off a cliff, didn't tell you to shut-up though you insulted and attacked not only me but the ideals of the men who founded this country. I feel most of us here have a firm grasp of what freedom is, what it means to live in a constitutional republic, that it means at times we don't have a safety net, we have to handle our own problems, and we take responsibility when things go sour. If you honestly believe that the purpose of government is to provide for your safety, around this world are plenty of countries that practice that very ideal, please don't attempt to pollute our country; with that ideal.

I've given you 200yrs of evidence that what we have said is true, if you think 20yrs since is enough to change the total political structure of this country, somebody sent you lead instead of tinfoil for a hat. :D

If we existed in a democracy, you are correct you could ask for government protections, your safety net, but we don't, so you have two choices, live with it, or move.

[telewinz]

What civil right do you have (interpeted by a court) might I be taking away from you.

[BluesBear]

I just love the way Telewinz keeps asking questions, all the while dodging, ducking, picking and choosing which questions, asked of him, to answer.

[telewinz]

Their is no reason to dodge and duck questions. I believe that all the questions have been answered at one time or another on this thread. I live in Ohio, our Supreme court just ruled that banning CCW is reasonable. How come the arguments/beliefs of people who have been dead 200 years didn't prevent that interpetation? You continue to live in the past using the same old argument and then being angry when we get the same old result. The World has changed greatly in the past 200 years, but the verbal defense of the 2nd amendment stays the same, you are preaching to the choir, no one else is listening.

Again, its the interpetation of our rights that matter. As far as the courts are concerned none of your rights have been violated, you just have a different viewpoint that no longer seems to have any legal impact. The fact is if the people of Ohio desire CCW the state legislature can pass it anytime they wish. I don't like the court's decision but being a law abiding citizen, I'll cope and direct my efforts towards the legislature. Thats how our system works and I won't whine and cry because I can't change the rules to suit my wishes.

Also the vast majority of the people do not share your self-serving love affair with the dead, like I answered before, I don't really care what Madison or Jefferson thought about ANYTHING. I and others will live our lives as we wish regardless of what our dead forefathers believed. Now isn't that really what freedom is all about? What question do you need answered now?

[Al Norris]

Actually telewinz, it is your Supreme Court that is taking the 200 year old view. In the days of the founders, only scallawags and scoundrels wore concealed weapons. The honorable man bore his weapons in plain view.

It is precisely because the world has changed that we need to modify this right so that we can bear our arms concealed.

Back then, most every free man carried his arms openly and without giving it much thought. Now however, most do not carry arms, openly or concealed. Open carry invites you to be a target, precisely because most everyone else does not carry. Concealed Carry laws give the BG a pause, as they don't know who is armed and who is not.

It is now, exactly the opposite of what it was 200 years ago.

Yet again, you use the "vast majority" arguement to deny a right. The majority cannot take our rights away. The democratic arguement fails on so many levels, why do you constantly bring it up?

[Bigjake]

one thing is for sure, some of you have the makings of a true politician :barf: .

I Agree with Al, even if we are in the minority, they still can't deny a right.

[EWTHeckman]

On Sept 26th, telewinz answered this question, "Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?" with:
Thats an easy one, of course not.

What liberties are there? Who defines what those liberties are?

According to telewinz:
I don't really care what Madison or Jefferson thought about ANYTHING. I and others will live our lives as we wish regardless of what our dead forefathers believed.

OK, I'll ask the questions again: What liberties are there? Who defines what those liberties are?

telewinz's answer boils down to: "No one defines those liberties because I refuse to accept the definition created by the founding fathers."

telewinz, unless your rights and liberties are secured by a fixed an immovable standard, they will be taken away by the 51% who disagrees with you.

Our problem today is that telewinz's opinion is shared by the vast majority of the population for two reasons:

They don't know what the founding fathers said.
They confuse technological advances with advances in human nature. Because of this confusion, they assume that old reasoning is invalid for no other reason other than it is old.

There are three basic reasons why someone adopts a given position:

They assume the position they've heard the most is the correct one with no thought given to whether or not that position is valid.
They take the time to search out the facts and use reason and logic to reach a conclusion.
They have a vested interest in outwardly adopting a position.

Those who adopt a position for the first reason make up the vast majority of the population in this country. I would guess that 95% of the population falls into this category. These people are swayed extensively by what they see on TV, in newspapers and in movies. Some of them are also pro Constitution and conservatives. But they don't know why and they can't defend their position. Their adopted position is borrowed from someone else in category 2 or 3. By his statements, I would put telewinz squarely in this category.

Those in category two will always start out being a category 1 person. They will adopt a position based on someone else's beliefs. What takes them out of category 1 and into category 2 is that they start asking questions about what they believe. Then they take the time to find the actual answer to those questions. Old logic and reasoning is not discarded out of hand simply because it's old. If it is discarded, it's because newer information or conditions have logically shown the old reasoning to be invalid or inapplicable.

For example, Al Norris pointed out that concealed carry used to be a sign of criminal intent because open carry was widely accepted. However, open carry is no longer widely accepted, thus concealed carry is the only type of carry possible. That's an example of examining the assumptions the old reasoning is based on, applying the best known approriate facts and reaching an appropriate conclusion. In this case, the only reason the conclusion varies from the old conclusion is that the facts about the social condition have changed. A category 2 person who holds a position is not borrowing his position, it is his own. Because he understands the position he owns, he is now able to teach that position to category 1 people until they become category 2 people.

The third category is the cynics category. These are people who may or may not understand the facts involving a particular position. They choose to actively suppress or subvert the facts for some particular gain. For example, tyrants typically disarm their population so they can continue to be tyrants. They have no interest in adopting a position "because it's right." They're only concern is their own selfish interest.

There are only two ways to move a category 1 person to a particular position.

The first is to control the majority of what they hear. This means controlling the media and the schools. Currently, the looney left has a virtual stranglehold on these two areas. Unless these two strangleholds are broken, this country will continue to move towards the left.

The second method to move a category 1 person's position is to turn them into a category 2 person. Only education can perform this function. The best most of us can do is one-on-one education. Schools are the mass education institutions in this country, and for the most part, they seem to be avoiding giving a category 2 education.

The common theme between these two approaches seems to be the schools. If those of us who are in category 2 could kick out or take over the NEA and start getting the schools to give a category 2 education, this country might be able to avoid severe trouble.

telewinz, I went back over your postings in this thread to make sure I understood what you're saying. You've focused a lot on strength of numbers. I should point out that during the Revolutionary War, about 1/3 of the population was loyal to the Crown, 1/3 didn't care, and only about 1/3 opposed the Crown. Of those 1/3 that opposed, I sincerely doubt that a significant percentage acted on that conviction. Today, the don't care percentage is probably closer to 75%.

The majority of the population does not need to agree with a particular point in order for it to prevail. What is important is that the winning side base their position on sound principles. And sound principles are a much better motivation for a fight than asking someone to fight on behalf of a "leader's" greed.

telewinz, make no mistake about it. We are in a fight right now. We're just at the stage where the fight involves only words and ideals. Unless the fight is won at this stage, it will eventually devolve into a fight involving actual bloodshed. That is an eventuality I sincerely hope never occurs. But to ignore the possibility and neglect to prepare is foolish. That is why the 2nd Amendment was created, and that is why it must be defended.

[Sam Adams]

You claim that people who are well-heeled will not revolt. I'd advise you to take a closer look at those who signed the Declaration of Independence. They risked everything by signing, and most of them were very wealthy and comfortable under the then-existing system. You over-estimate the importance of material wealth for moral people - some of them will simply not tolerate government actions beyond a certain point. What that point is varies for each person and by circumstances, but each person has it - each person with character, that is, those that refuse to be slaves of the government.

You also made a big deal about not depending upon the words of men dead for over 200 years, and that the Constitution itself is the most important thing. You're right on the 2nd, but wrong on the first. How can we properly determine what the Constitution actually means without reference to the lives and times of those men? If each generation is simply going to interepret the document as it wishes, without any reference to a rock-solid foundational set of standards, why bother having a document at all, except as a fig leaf to deceive the people? Why not just say "the law is whatever the ruling class says it is at any point in time?" And if this situation sadly represents where we are today, is it morally right? And if it is not morally right (IMHO it is a betrayal of any oath to the "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, as well as a betrayal of all of those who died to preserve our liberties), someone will resist - even if people like you may be satisfied by the modern day version of bread & circuses, but some of us (and many more outside of THR) see through that nonsense.

If it were up to people like you, we'd all be taking our tea at 4 PM if, that is, we weren't speaking German thanks to Mr. Chamberlain.

[Sam Adams]

"Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?"

Thats an easy one, of course not. But you miss the point, its how that right is interpetated. At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Then some people died in a false alarm and the man who shouted the word was brought to trial. Using the 1st amendment as a defense was rejected by the courts, their interpetation was different from his, he went to jail.

No, YOU miss the point. FYI, I'm a lawyer (try not to hold that against me, esp. since I do estate and business planning, not the ambulance-chasing thing or the criminal defense thing). Because of that, I know that you STILL have the right to shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or not. However, your right to do so will be balanced against the rights of others there. If there was, in fact, no fire, and people are hurt as a natural result of your actions, you will have to pay a penalty. However, you will not lose your right to Freedom of Speech, nor will your mouth be sown shut because you could shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor will your tongue be cut out for the same reason. Nor will you have to get a license to speak, or be imprisoned for speaking without a permit. You see, most people (even judges) understand what Freedom of Speech means. As such, laws that impose "prior restraint" on the exercise of a basic right have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

That, however, is far from the case with firearms. Because someone or some several dozen people might commit crimes with guns, various ignorant and anti-liberty legislators and executive branch officials on all levels of government have decided - for our own good, as if we are a bunch of children - that your basic right to be armed in defense of yourself, your family and your liberty is subject to licenses, taxes, security checks, fingerprinting, etc., etc. Various judges on all levels have backed up that outrageously unconstitutional premise, so much so that people like you think that it is the law. In short, our precious right to keep and bear arms has become a mere privilege, to be revoked at the whim of our supposed masters. People like you seem to think that it is just fine for us to have less rights in practice than did our parents or grandparents (never mind those 200+ year old ignorant white codgers), just so long as some slick-talking, power-hungry pol comes up with a catchy reason like "its for the children." Tell you what: most of us here disagree with that premise and, therefore, you. While you are perfectly free to disagree with any or all of us - thoughts are not yet controlled by the government - you might want to re-examine your views on this issue.

[Bill St. Clair]

Sam Adams,

Very well said. Bravo!

[Baba Louie]

You know, FWIW, I am so very proud of you guys in your patient methodical unerring responses to the topic at hand.

Heck, even take my hat off (if I had one on) to telewinz for his perserverance to either his defense of his belief or his role of playing devils advocate and thus fostering 8 pages of intelligent thoughtful response.

This thread would have to go up there with the earlier thread from the anti-gunner James Castilla in that regards.

Just my opinion mind you.

It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do.

Keep up the good work and thanks for taking the high road a little higher.

Adios

[BluesBear]

Their is no reason to dodge and duck questions. I believe that all the questions have been answered at one time or another on this thread.

No I don't believe you have. For example let me repeat myself from page 7;
------------------------------------------


From telewinz

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

All people, organizations and governments do illegal acts at one time or another. All people, organizations and governments are falsely accused of doing illegal acts at one time or another. Thats part of life, a gun will not change that. I think we can now bring this thread to a close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Mr Tele,

It still is legal, especially if there is a fire. Please show me where it's expressly prohibited any other time.


What illegal acts have you done?


What illegal acts have you been falsely accused of?


--------------------------------------

Doesn't "all people" include you?

You ignored the above three questions and focused only on my closing comment regarding the fact that you'd never shut up unless you had the final word. Which you are still proving to be true. :D




And since you seemed slightly upset when Tamara questioned your grammatical abilities in your famous "eat are childrens brains" quote you're probably really going to be really upset over this...

THERE is a noun or adjective that refers to a place or position.
THEIR is a posessive pronoun, acting as an adjective relating to them or themselves especially as possessors, agents, or objects of an action or thing.


I wish you'd get this right. :rolleyes:






P.S. Baba Louie.. May I use your quote "It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do." (with due credit of course)?

[telewinz]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[BluesBear]

Hmmm... I see 7 smiling faces but still no answers to my questions.

Perhaps my bulldung filter DOES work after all.

[Bill St. Clair]

BluesBear,

Please don't come down on people too hard about misspellings. I could spell once, but as I get older, I find that homonyms often fly unintentionally off my fingers. Their and there. Its and it's. Your and you're. I know the difference, well, but often find the wrong one in stuff I just typed. Sometimes I don't notice in time to fix it. I doubt I'm alone in this.

[twoblink]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.. and I'd be one of those..

[keederdag]

Hey... I habbin to hab a Colege degrie and It realy maces me mad whin yoo tulk aboot Grammer.

P.S. I can't do Algebra either:D

[telewinz]

In all honestly those seven smiling faces are my way of cutting you slack, I get the impression you believe you have posed a very profound series of questions, I believe quite the opposite. I'll leave it go at that :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 7 smiley faces .

BTW: I have a REAL college degree, writing is like decision making, the more decisions you make the more mistakes you make. If you ever make it to a position where someone pays for your decision making ability, you will understand but you have to get there (not their) first (not furst):D

[Moparmike]

Telewinz, your "cutting slack" looks like a "shuck and jive" away from the excellent questions at hand. Your dodging of the questions and arguements shot at you instead of facing up to them and attempting to answer them does not bode well for your reputation on this particuar thread.

I once thought you were serious about these questions, but I can no longer hold that position. I know think that you are just getting your jollies in.

My advice to the rest of you:
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?postid=450049 :D

[telewinz]

What excellent questions? by BluesBear? Not hardly. List the serious questions but not the the self-serving interpetations that are not currently upheld by the courts (they ARE the ones in power) in discussions on the 2nd amendment. Case in point in the Ohio Supreme Court ruling against CCW, the same old defense was used with the same old result, we lost or didn't gain more ground. They have heard it all before, they quit listening.

The results of the past several decades speak for themselves. Their (not there) IS NOT going to be a great revolt over the second amendment or any other amendment. If it didn't happen after the '68 gun control law, IT's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Its funny listening to some of these posters (chest beaters, no offense) and their threats...."if you push me one more time" problem is they have been pushed several times (with or without justification) already by their (not there) own standards and yet they keep saying "if they push me one more time". I will cite your own argument " human nature hasn't changed", talk continues to be substituted for action. List your serious questions but I'll ignore the idiotic ones regardless of what the "choir" thinks.

51% of the vote cannot change a right, but that right is interpeted by the courts not by each and every private citizen.

Free speech is regulated, yelling fire in a theater has and will be punished.

All people (repeat) All people (adults) have committed a crime sometime. If they say otherwise they are lying, it may be a minor law like speeding or shoplifting a candybar as a kid but its still a broken law.

Some long lost evidence concerning the rights of the Second Amendment, If its that important what effect has this "lost" evidence had on the courts or Congress? From my side of the fence it must have had a negative impact because the powers that be don't seem to be impressed (here we go again..."if they push me one more time"). :barf:

Results are what matters, your arguments are not working in this country anymore. Society will move on with or without you, and with or without the ancient approval of our (not are) long dead founding fathers. Either cope with it or move. Despite all the talk even the posters on this thread are (not our) in fact coping "if you push me one more time" :rolleyes: The fact is, if they push one more time and renew the AWB, you will back-up and wait to be pushed again. History does repeat itself.:neener: I asked a question too thats gone unanswered, how many of you "Tigers" refuse to pay your taxes in protest over the "illegal acts" our (not are) government has committed? If you don't have the courage to do this little thing now, how do you plan to have the courage to revolt (sometime in the distant future)? "If they push me one more time....":banghead:

BTW; We now know in hindsight that when Charleston Heston raised the Kentucky rifle over his head and spoke these words at the NRA convention "from these cold dead fingers" he may have been suffering from a form of mental illness.

BooBear or Tamara please do your spellcheck for me. thanks:D

[BluesBear]

Just more shuck & jive from telelooz.

Free speech is regulated, yelling fire in a theater has and will be punished.

Show us! PLEASE! Find just one case where this has been successfully prosecuted.


Also it's put up or shut up time for you. You stated...

All people, organizations and governments are falsely accused of doing illegal acts at one time or another.

Pray tell, oh self-exalted one, tell us less enlightened ones, exactly what is the illegal act of which YOU have been falsely accused.

How can you expect us to believe anything you have said if you can't back any of it up.

Teletroll.. you are beginning to bore me. :barf:
Since you, obviously have neither the stones to put up nor the ability to shut up.

[EWTHeckman]

telewinz said:Their (not there) IS NOT going to be a great revolt
The correct word is "there." "Their" means belonging to a group of people.

For those who have attacked telewinz for his typos, please get over it. There are bigger fish to fry, such as destructive ideas. Typos are something we can expect given the informal nature of boards on the internet. They are going to happen, even with our best efforts to the contrary. Expecting perfection in this informal medium is expecting the impossible.

On the other hand, certain repeated errors do show a lack of education when they are repeated frequently, especially if the correct word is never used. Messages which contain significant and obvious errors reflect poorly on the poster, showing at the very least laziness and at the worst, incompetence and ignorance. In other words, frequent errors make the poster look like an uneducated redneck who can safely be ignored.

Here are some of my pet peeves in sentences to help remember their usage (if I have one):

- To bear means to carry. If I want to bare arms, I'll wear a T shirt.

- If you're going to someplace, two o's are too many.

- Lose is the opposite of win. Loose is the opposite of tight. If you're too loose with your o's you will type too many.

- Their car is over there.

Spell checkers are a wonderful tool. But they can not catch errors like these. Avoiding such errors requires intelligence on the part of the writer.

Language is a tool for communications. Improperly used, it can hurt the user much like an improperly used gun can. When used properly, the ideas communicated by language can change the world.

Thus endeth my rant on language and grammar. Now back to the topic at hand.

What excellent questions?
telewinz, I notice you never responded to my previous post. Especially the part about rejecting reasoning for not other reason than the fact that it's old. Care to comment on that?

Their (not there) IS NOT going to be a great revolt over the second amendment or any other amendment. If it didn't happen after the '68 gun control law, IT's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
It's obvious that that illegal law was not enough to create a revolt. That does not mean that it cannot happen.

Look at it this way. What would you change if gas prices went up to $2.00/gallon? $3.00? $10.00? $20.00?

What would you change if bread went up to $5.00 a loaf? $8.00? $15.00? $50.00?

Small price increases are only going to produce small changes in behavior. You might hear some grumbling, but almost everyone will accept the increase, especially if there is another source for the same item which is less expensive. However, extreme price increases will produce much more active responses ranging from major belt tightening to boycotts and even riots.

The same can be said of tyranny. Requiring a little extra paperwork once a month is going to produce some grumbling, but no one is going to get seriously bent out of shape over it. However, when the government starts taking 90% of pay in taxes, throwing people in jail wholesale for petty reasons, and/or a significant portion of the population feels directly threatened by the government, that's when you can expect much more active resistance.

To quote (again) from the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
Do you understand that quote? As much as I believe the GCA of '68 is an illegal law; an armed revolt because of that law would have been a "light and transient cause."

It won't be out in the open either. I believe you had said you were in the military. Did you see active combat? If you did, did you want the enemy to see you? I doubt it. One of the primary rules of combat is, "Don't draw fire!"

That's why no one has answered this question:
how many of you "Tigers" refuse to pay your taxes in protest over the "illegal acts" our (not are) government has committed?
Who in their right mind would affirmatively answer such a question in an open, public forum? Even if someone here is withholding taxes in protest, if they were stupid enough to post it here, they might as well post a neon sign on their front lawn that says, "I'm a tax dodger. Come arrest me."

You may think a revolt can never happen. History has already proven you wrong. Let me quote from Arnold Toynbee:
The release of initiative and enterprise made possible by self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again, after freedom brings opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury loving and complacent; the incompetent and unfortunate grow envious and covetous; and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the golden calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.
This is a normal cycle for civilations which is widely recognized by historians. I can easily say that the majority of the population in this country falls between selfishness and dependency in this cycle. Such government actions as the AWB, taxes, "environmental regulations," etc., are all forms of bondage. But apparently, they're not enough bondage to start the cycle back to liberty.

I'm taking the time to speak out here to try and short circuit the cycle, or at least shorten the bondage cycle. When you're encouraging selfishness, apathy and bondage, you're not part of the solution; you're part of the problem.

[telewinz]

First of all thanks for the spell check and the free lesson. Maybe I'll spend more time proofing what I type, but then again maybe not. But what is really needed here is a reality check not spell check.

"It's obvious that that illegal law was not enough to create a revolt. That does not mean that it cannot happen."

I don't recall ever saying it couldn't happen, I contend that it won't.

"The same can be said of tyranny. Requiring a little extra paperwork once a month is going to produce some grumbling, but no one is going to get seriously bent out of shape over it. However, when the government starts taking 90% of pay in taxes, throwing people in jail wholesale for petty reasons, and/or a significant portion of the population feels directly threatened by the government, that's when you can expect much more active resistance."

I don't understand your point, we were talking about the second amendment and now you are creating situations that have never existed in this country. People (the majority) would revolt if these conditions existed. BUT NOT OVER THE SECOND AMENDMENT and your personal interpetations. If your personal interpetations are correct then be at rest, the courts will agree with your research. If they disagree with you then it's because your interpetation is at fault. Don't blame your poor logic on some imagined plot against gun owners.

"The same can be said of tyranny."

Only a very few people (most are radicals) consider our government to be a tyrant.

Can we confine this "debate" on the present (thats where we live you know) We can only guess at the future, "why put off till tomorrow what you can do today"? If the "Great Rebellion" is coming why not now? You aren't really waiting for the 90% income tax rate for the masses or the $5 loaf of bread are you? That doesn't sound like much of a commitment to me.

com·mit·ment

a : an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution
2 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future


"how many of you "Tigers" refuse to pay your taxes in protest over the "illegal acts" our (not are) government has committed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Who in their right mind would affirmatively answer such a question in an open, public forum? Even if someone here is withholding taxes in protest, if they were stupid enough to post it here, they might as well post a neon sign on their front lawn that says, "I'm a tax dodger. Come arrest me."

You just made my point, just as they don't refuse to pay their income tax now, for the same reasons they won't take pot shots at the authorities at some time in the distant future. We finally agree.

When will you research how our legal system works? You are barking at the moon with your self-serving interpetations of the Second Amendment. Only our Court System is enpowered to interpetate the Constitution. Last time I checked a court ruling carries alot more weight than a personal opinion. And they can enforce their "opinions" in the open, they don't need to hide.

The other poster (BooBear?) needs to do his own research. Hint; it happened near the turn of the 20th Century and it occured in an occupied theater and several people were killed in the rush for the doors because of the false alarm.

I did a partial proof ( 10 seconds worth) of this post and it is within THR standards.

[BluesBear]

The other poster (BooBear?) needs to do his own research. Hint; it happened near the turn of the 20th Century and it occured in an occupied theater and several people were killed in the rush for the doors because of the false alarm.

Actually this has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and you are well aware of that. Trying to use it as an example of such is a blantantly transparent attempt at smoke and mirrors logic.

TeleTroll, according to your past posts, since this happened over 100 years ago, it shouldn't matter. After all, as you so wisely posted, we live in the present. Unless there is some sort of statue of limitations of what constitutes your oppinion of relevence? Or do you just get to pick and choose which historical events remain valid? You sound more and more like a politician each day.

[Moparmike]

The point is that a repeal of the 2nd amendment would be a BIG NEON SIGN that the fecal matter has hit the oscilating blades. So being SHTF, naturally things would get pretty hairy PDQ.

I would be part of that, because like I said before, I am tired of elected officials legislating away my inalienable rights and draining away my money for things that the fed.gov has no business doing.

[Don Galt]

The error that tele is making is one that I suspect some of you who disagree with him might be making as well... please hear me out.

He's saying that the 2nd is irrelevant because the courts rule against it and the people majority vote for people who enact laws that violate it.

Many of you are saying "but its in the constitution".

I think we all need to recognize that the fact that its part of the constitution is irrelevant -- practically as tele is pointing out-- but also philisophically.

The constitution recognizes pre-existing rights. It does not create them. It explicitly calls them "god given".

They exist because it is the nature of reality that they must exist-- in order to have civilization, human rights must be respected. Humans must have the right to own property, defend themselves from theft and defend themselves from enslavement.

Thus, tele's position should be accurately framed as one that takes the argument that if the courts or voters decide to, they can enslave the people.

Even if the second ammendment is repealed, the posession of firearms will be morally just, and legal as well-- as our legal foundation, the constitution, merely recognized that right... it didn't create it. (And thus removing the second ammendment from the document doesn't take the right away.)

I'm not making an argument from the basis of christianity- I'm not a christian. I'm making the arguement from the basis of universal morality-- one that christians usually recognize, and everyone else can as well-- without regard to religion.

Murder, for instance, is wrong because it violates human rights. IF you rest your argument for human rights on the constitution creating them, then tele is correct in pointing out that the courts have violated the constitution regularly, and the constitution wasn't able to withstand the attack.

Not meant as a flame- I'm a fan of the constitution, generally. But especially because it recognizes these rights as per-existing itself.

[EWTHeckman]

The constitution recognizes pre-existing rights. It does not create them. It explicitly calls them "god given".

They exist because it is the nature of reality that they must exist-- in order to have civilization, human rights must be respected. Humans must have the right to own property, defend themselves from theft and defend themselves from enslavement.
Exactly! That is the point I have been trying to make.

Thus, tele's position should be accurately framed as one that takes the argument that if the courts or voters decide to, they can enslave the people.
Exactly, again!

tele's "logic" works like this:

-- I assume that "old" reasoning is invalid simply because it is old. (Note: Whether or not the reasoning is factual or logical has nothing to do with this conclusion.)

-- Therefore, any argument upholding the clear statements of the Consitution are also invalid because they are based on "old" reasoning. (Remember, "old" reasoning is automatically invalid.)

-- Therefore, the government is free to do whatever they wish as long as 5 judges (who are human, fallible, and sometimes prone to putting ideology before reality) say it's OK for the government to ignore the consitution.

telewinz wrote:
I don't recall ever saying it couldn't happen, I contend that it won't.
100% certainty that it won't happen is the same thing as saying it can't happen.

I don't understand your point, we were talking about the second amendment and now you are creating situations that have never existed in this country. People (the majority) would revolt if these conditions existed. BUT NOT OVER THE SECOND AMENDMENT and your personal interpetations.

The 2nd Amendment is the enforcement arm of the rest of the BOR. They are all interrelated. If the 2A is revoked, then we will quickly see rampant infringements on the rest of the BOR. Heck, in the last 2 years we've seen a "Campaign Finance Reform" law passed which limits political speech right before elections. (Political speech is the most important kind of speech which needs protection if the ideas about the proper way to run the government are to be properly debated.) We've seen the passing of the PATRIOT act which cuts into the 4th Amendment regarding freedom from search and seizure, the 5th Amendment right against being held without charges, and the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Infringements against the 2nd Amendment do not happen in a vacuum. I regularly read about other infringments all the time, especially against the 5th Amendments prohibition against seizures without just compensation. The most flagrant violations usually involve landowners who see their life savings and property values destroyed by EPA excesses.

We don't know what combination of events could lead to an upheaval. Maybe it could be a terrorist attack that does a certain kind of damage (such as a nuke in DC), or maybe a natural disaster which sparks confrontations, or maybe the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment really means the armed forces are allowed to eat meat. (Hey don't laugh, the words are very, very clear, unambiguous and direct. Reading any other meaning into them requires that level of deliberate obtuseness.)

Anyone capable of logical thought can understand that a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment means that the government would have a monopoly on the tools of force. Once that situation exists, there is nothing which can prevent the government from tyrannizing the population. Our government has already shown a tendency to do so through increasing taxes and spending with no regard for its effects, grinding people down through mindless bureaucracy and the occasional strong arm tactics such as no-knock warrents, etc. History has also shown that every government ever created by man eventually comes under the control of those who abuse their position, becoming tyrants. Given those facts, there probably would be some sort of revolution, first of words, then of bloodshed. Whether such a revolt would succeed is questionable. One thing you can be sure of is that all resistors would be painted as criminals or terrorists.

"Who in their right mind would affirmatively answer such a question in an open, public forum? Even if someone here is withholding taxes in protest, if they were stupid enough to post it here, they might as well post a neon sign on their front lawn that says, "I'm a tax dodger. Come arrest me."

You just made my point, just as they don't refuse to pay their income tax now, for the same reasons they won't take pot shots at the authorities at some time in the distant future. We finally agree.

No. We do not agree. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?

I did not say that no one is refusing to pay their taxes. What I said is that if someone is refusing to pay their taxes, they aren't going to advertise that fact. Doing so would be like you standing out in the open on a battlefield waving a red flag around. Do I really need to spell out what would happen if you did that?

Maybe someone in the future will find it necessary to take pot shots at those in a position of authority who are abusing that position. If they do that, would you honestly expect them to come to this board and tell the world about it? If they communicate at all, it will either be a carefully anonymous message stating the reason for the shooting and encouraging others to stop their abuse, OR that person wants to be caught.

When will you research how our legal system works?
The research has already been done. I am not ignorant on the issues. What you seem to be ignoring is that how the court system was designed to work and how it actually does work are not always the same thing.

Tell me, telewinz, why is the 2nd Amendment there? In fact, why is the entire Bill of Rights there?

Oh, right. I forgot. There is no reason. The founding fathers thought there were reasons, but those reasons are invalid simply because they're old.

You know what else is old? Prohibitions against murder. Maybe I should just take your view and throw out all "old" reasoning as invalid. Would you like me to come visit you with that mindset?

Nah. I can't do that. I've done extensive reading about history, current events, politics and so forth. One of the primary constants throughout history is that reasoning and ideals which stand the test of time are the most profound, powerful, accurate and worthy of respect and implementation. "New" ideas are often recycled versions of old failures. The idea that murder is acceptable is one of those old failures. There are outside standards which can not be changed by the mere whims of mankind. Our lives will be measured against that standard.

[telewinz]

No offense but your interpretation (and accuracy)of my meanings is just as lame as your pro-gun Second amendment arguments. Now I know why the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled against CCW in the State of Ohio. You two were on the pro-CCW legal team, Right?

I guess the court doesn't care how Madison, Adams, Jefferson and others interpretated the Second Amendment. Go Figure! It's ALWAYS WORKED BEFORE.:rolleyes:

Please do me a favor, email the court your evidence/argument, the court must not have been aware of this "new" evidence. I'd do it myself but I still have a problem with their, there, our, are, lose, loose and a few other words. I don't like my limitations but I'll cope. I'll be watching Fox News all day long waiting to hear (not here) how the Ohio Supreme Court overturned their (not there) decision and ruled in favor of CCW in Ohio. I will shout (not shoot) from rooftops and sing your praises.

This post has been scanned for improper grammar/spelling by Comuniscan.:D

[EWTHeckman]

No offense but your interpretation (and accuracy)of my meanings is just as lame as your pro-gun Second amendment arguments.

Lessee, you have written statements like this:
Society will move on with or without you, and with or without the ancient approval of our (not are) long dead founding fathers.
and
people who have been dead for 200 years have a limited impact on me.
and
I don't really care what Madison or Jefferson thought about ANYTHING.
So, how am I supposed to interpret these statements? Do words not have any real meaning? Or are you using a different version of English where the words mean something other than what you find in a dictionary?

Every time you state that the founding fathers' statements don't matter, you've included words like "ancient" and "long dead". Yet you have never -- not even once -- given a good reason for disregarding their reasoning other than simply stating that they're old. I don't see how that can be "misinterpreting" your statements when I do not see any other possible interpretation. Yes, we did get into a discussion where I challenged you to show what has changed about human nature that would invalidate the founding fathers' reasoning. You claimed education has improved, but you dropped that discussion like a hot potato as soon as it became apparent you were losing.

So this is what your arguments come to? "I didn't mean what I wrote? I must have meant something else?" How are we supposed to interpret what you write? Mind reading?

If you have good reasons why the founding fathers' reasoning is no longer valid, then give them! Answer these questions and explain the fallacies in their reasoning:

Why is the 2nd Amendment part of the Constitution? In fact, why is the entire Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

And while you are at it, maybe you can explain why the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It seems darn hard to remove that right from "the people" when "the people" is right smack in the middle of the phrase!

[EWTHeckman]

Last night I happened to stumble across a reference that answers this statement by telewinz:

When will you research how our legal system works? ... Only our Court System is enpowered to interpetate the Constitution.

Amazingly enough, what I stumbled across was a section quoted from the Supreme Court decision which established this authority: Marbury v. Madison (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/marbury.html)

Here is the portion of that decision which is relevant to our discussion:
The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Any questions?

[Al Norris]

Ed, expecting telewinz to acknowledge a 200 year old decision is ludicrous on its face.

But you knew this, yes?

[EWTHeckman]

Yes, I know that. :banghead:

On the other hand, that's the decision that established the court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws. He cannot disregard it without undermining his own position. :D

[Al Norris]

But like so many other problem posts, he can simply ignore it... As he/she/it has done so often in the past. :evil:

[Don Galt]

By jove, I do believe you've trapped him!

[BluesBear]

Trapped? Nawwww... he'll just chew off his own leg and crawl away. :neener:

[telewinz]

"You claimed education has improved, but you dropped that discussion like a hot potato as soon as it became apparent you were losing."

You are assuming again, my respond was quite clear. I disagreed with you. Man's emotions may not have changed that is true BUT education teaches us to control our passions and act on reason.

"On the other hand, that's the decision that established the court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws. He cannot disregard it without undermining his own position."

"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?"

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

I have read your post 4 times and as far as I am concerned, you are doing research to support my views. WHICH ARE: Only the Court System is inpowered to interpretate the Constitution. It is not for personal interpretation, just because you disagree with a law doesn't make it ILLEGAL.

The Second Amendment is not being treated any differently than any other amendment, it is subjec t to the interpretation of the Courts.

Let me make this clear. The voters cannot take away rights BUT they can and do influence how those rights are interpretated. How So? By electing officials who appoint the judges who interpret the meaning of the various amendments. Win the hearts and minds of the people with your arguments so that pro-gun judges are appointed.

Trapped! Are you kidding? Your lame arguments couldn't trap a blind rabbit. Last time I checked, there were no teeth marks on my leg.

Are you sure you guys weren't on the Ohio pro-CCW legal team?

BTW: Please stop patting yourselves on the back, my monitor shakes everytime you do it. You ought to be getting black and blue by now.:D

This post has been scanned for improper grammar/spelling by communiscan.

[telewinz]

You guys need some help with your pro-gun arguments. Here are some pro-gun arguments from MEMBERS OF THE US SUPREME COURT! It should not be that difficult for intelligent people to give an intelligent pro-gun argument. The CURRENT Supreme Court seems to be clearly saying to the pro-gun crowd "please bring this argument before us and we will RULE IN YOUR FAVOR!" It took me less than 5 minutes to come up with this powerful(?) and accurate progun argument and it works WITHIN our system and no threats of violence against our government are required.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
"The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: `[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.' This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to `keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections."

"Note 2:Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the `right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. "

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
"`the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by `the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to `the people'... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that `the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments ... refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the country to be considered part of that community."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
"It would... be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated Militia. Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that.

Supreme Court Justice Douglas:
"As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois in a case involving this same sect and an ordinance similar to the present one, a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'

Supreme Court Justice Whittaker:
"It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official - is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms."

Supreme Court Justice William B. Woods:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this perogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision [the 2nd Amendment] in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds:
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Unanimous opinion in U.S. v. Miller

Supreme Court:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona [384 US 436 p. 491 (1966)]

And from lesser Federal Courts;

United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit:
"Although an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-179 (1939), the possession of a gun, especially by anyone that has been convicted of a violent crime, is nevertheless a highly regulated activity, and everyone knows it."

United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit:
"The right to defend oneself against deadly attack is fundamental." U.S. v. Panter [Federal Reporter, 2nd series, pp. 268-271 (1982)]

United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit:
"There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v. DeVito [Federal Reporter, Second Series v.686F.2d p.618 (7th Circuit, 1982)]

United States District Court, 5th Circuit:
"Congress may regulate an individual's activity if such activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," regardless of whether that effect is direct or indirect. Wickard v. Filburt, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 63 S.Ct. 82, 89, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). As broad as that language seems, the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause is not without limits. This Court is concerned over the increasing federalization of crime by Congress, when such federalization occurs in apparent disregard of the Tenth Amendment mandate that rights not delegated to the federal government be reserved to the States. Early in its Lopez opinion the Fifth Circuit wrote, "[T]he Tenth Amendment, though it does not purport to define the limits of the commerce power, obviously proceeds on the assumption that the reach of that power is not unlimited, else there would be nothing on which the Tenth Amendment could operate." Lopez at 1347. While this Court expresses no opinion as to the power of Congress to regulate possession of machine guns at a national level, it simply finds that Congress made no findings, explicit or implied, to support its authority to ban the mere possession of machine guns. The Tenth Amendment is still a part of the Constitution. It is not difficult for Congress to find an interstate nexus as a part of its legislative history process or for Congress to require an interstate nexus as an element of the crime itself. [footnote 6] In light of the Fifth Circuit's recent holding in Lopez, this Court finds 18 U.S.C. section 922(o) unconstitutional and orders the indictment against Defendant Charles Bownds dismissed." U.S. v. Bownds, 860 F. Supp. 336 (S.D Miss. 1994)

Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an 'individual rights' interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the federal Constitution and Bill of rights, similarly provided for a right of the people to keep an bear arms. If in fact this language creates a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily protect only against action by the state, and by definition a state cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belonging to a state by inserting it in a limitation of the state's own powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporaries of the framers did insert these words into several state constitutions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be infringed either by state or federal government and which must be protected from infringement by both." 97th Congress, Second Session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

This is a very long post but I wanted to show with direct quotes that their is no need to rely on "personal opinion/interpretation" of the Second Amendment which is a weak argument to convince others. The Courts have and still do support our right to private ownership of firearms. How could a logical person argue against this case? This thread should have died several days ago. I could cite much more, but I have to go to work. Peace and Friendship.:)

[carp killer]

Maybe the Supreme Court is leaning toward an individual right to own firearms and limiting the governments ability to impose gun restrictions, but what can they do about the gun bans in Kali? Kali's government has basically said to the rest of the United States that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Kali as far as gun laws are concerned. Possession of an unregistered, pistol gripped, semiauto rifle is a felony. But right across the border in either Nevada, Oregon or Arizona, it is perfectly legal. The situation is simular to when the Southern states had laws forbidding black people the right to use certian drinking fountians or where to sit on a bus. The question is, does the Constitution of the United States apply to gun owners in Kali or does the "politically correct" socialist government of Kali make the rules about gun ownership.:scrutiny:

[EWTHeckman]

"You claimed education has improved, but you dropped that discussion like a hot potato as soon as it became apparent you were losing."

You are assuming again, my respond was quite clear. I disagreed with you. Man's emotions may not have changed that is true BUT education teaches us to control our passions and act on reason.
You claimed education has improved. Yet, when Al Norris offered solid evidence that public education is nowhere near as good as it used to be, you called it a "red herring" and quickly dropped the topic. That is not proving your point, that's a full-blown ignominious retreat with your hands covering your exposed privates.

This is a very long post but I wanted to show with direct quotes that their is no need to rely on "personal opinion/interpretation" of the Second Amendment which is a weak argument to convince others. The Courts have and still do support our right to private ownership of firearms. How could a logical person argue against this case?
Yep, you've just posted a whole lot of excellent quotes (mostly) proving that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that that interpretation is the correct one. Yet you post something like this:
I guess the court doesn't care how Madison, Adams, Jefferson and others interpretated the Second Amendment.
So which is it? Are the courts following the scholarly interpretation which is based on the intent of the authors of the 2nd Amendment (an intent you claim to not care about), or are they free to follow whatever the latest whim is?

And here's another crucial point you seem to be missing over and over and over again. I am not arguing that "my" interpretation is the correct one. My primary point is simply this: The government, including the courts, must follow the intent and clear meaning of the entire Constitution or they are acting illegally. "My" interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. If my interpretation is out of line with the intent of the authors, my interpretation must change. If the courts' interpretation is out of line with the intent of the authors, the courts' interpretation must change. If this is not the case, then there is no point to having a constitution.

To repeat a key quote from Marbury v. Madison:
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
And from George Washington:
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.
Changing or twisting the meaning and intent of the Constitution is just as destructive as ignoring it outright.

Or are you just ignoring this point?

Al Norris wrote:
But like so many other problem posts, he can simply ignore it... As he/she/it has done so often in the past.
Yep, true to form.

Have you read these quotes?
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

...

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
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.
[Emphasis in original]
The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.

and

The panel opinion holds that the Second Amendment “imposes no limitation on California’s [or any other state’s] ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms” and “does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.” The panel opinion erases the Second Amendment from our Constitution as effectively as it can, by holding that no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use. This means that an individual cannot even get a case into court to raise the question. The panel’s theory is that “the Second Amendment affords only a collective right,” an odd deviation from the individualist philosophy of our Founders. The panel strikes a novel blow in favor of states’ rights, opining that “the amendment was not adopted to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession,” but was instead “adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people’s right to bear arms.” It is not clear from the opinion whom the states would sue or what such a suit would claim were they to try to enforce this right. The panel’s protection of what it calls the “people’s right to bear arms” protects that “right” in the same fictional sense as the “people’s” rights are protected in a “people’s democratic republic.”

Our circuit law regarding the Second Amendment squarely conflicts with that of the Fifth Circuit. It is inconsistent with decisions of the Supreme Court that have construed the Second Amendment and phrases within it. Our circuit has effectively repealed the Second Amendment without the democratic protection of the amendment process, which Article V requires.

...

The Constitution with its amendments is the supreme law of this land, not historical artifact, so we must read it, determine what it means, and follow it, regardless of our policy preferences. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides: “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.” To figure out what the Second Amendment means, we should apply standard and commonly accepted rules of statutory and constitutional construction, such as the rule that all the words must ordinarily be given force. The forceful language in the operative language in the Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” is quite clear, as will be set out below. The statement of the purpose preceding these operative words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” makes the conclusion unavoidable, once “militia” is read seriously, that the operative words guarantee an individual right.

The panel’s strongest argument (but not strong enough) is that the word “bear” in the phrase “bear Arms” “customarily relates to a military function,” so that when not acting in a military capacity, “the people” have no right to bear Arms. The military meaning is certainly among the meanings of “bear,” as is “large, heavily built, furry, four-legged mammal,” and “investor pessimistic about the stock market.” But the primary meaning of “bear” is “to carry,” as when we arrive at our host’s home “bearing gifts” and arrive at the airport “bearing burdens.” The only way to limit “bear” to its military meaning is to misread “militia” in the preamble as though it meant regulars in a standing military service, which, as shall be shown below, it emphatically does not.

Of course one can cherry-pick dictionary definitions, just as one can carefully select from legislative and other history.

...

The word “keep” poses a much more difficult problem for those who, like the panel, favor judicial repeal of the Second Amendment. While “bear” often has a military meaning, “keep” does not. For centuries, the primary meaning of “keep” has been “to retain possession of.” There is only one straightforward interpretation of “keep” in the Second Amendment, and that is that “the people” have the right to retain possession of arms, subject to reasonable regulation and restrictions.

The panel claims that “[t]he reason why that term was included in the amendment is not clear.” Of course it is not clear to those who have chosen in advance to evade the ordinary meaning of the word. Professing mystification by the meaning of “keep,” the panel does a very creative dance around the Founders’ language, arguing that because “bear” means only to bear in military service, and “keep” is used in the same “unitary” phrase, “keep” must also be limited to military service. Thus, “keep” means no more than “bear,” that is to possess in the course of rendering service in a state militia. The dancers eventually trip up, though, because it is “a cardinal principle of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.” The word “keep” must refer to something different from the word “bear.” We, the people, are entitled by its separate meaning and the word “and” to have it construed as giving us a right separate from and additional to the right attached to the word “bear.” Calling the phrase “unitary” is just a fancy way of depriving the word “keep” of any force. One might as well say that if someone has a right to keep and drive a car, and dies, his estate loses the right to keep the car because he can no longer drive it.

In case you didn't guess, these quotes are from the dissents when the 9th Circuit Court refused to rehear Silveira v. Lockyer. The first, more colorful quote is from Judge Kozinski; and the second more scholarly one is from Judge Kleinfeld. The full dissent is available in this pdf file (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/blog_data/silveira.pdf). The scholarship and detail of Judge Kleinfeld's dissent is truly excellent.

Yet, in spite of all this and other scholarly work, the quotes you posted, the clear Occam's Razor reading of the 2nd Amendment, clear, unequivocal statements from the founding fathers, and the obvious lessons from history, we still have courts like the 9th Circuit Court upholding clearly unconstitutional laws. We still have the Ohio Supreme Court claiming that arresting someone for exercising a clear right is acceptable because they will prevail in court. These are examples of government organizations clearly ignoring the plain meaning of the constitution in order to replace it with their own meaning.

When all else fails -- discussions, reason, protests, appeals, etc. -- all that will remain is force. And if the tools of force are no longer available, then slavery can not be avoided.

Here is an idea I stumbled across last night. Maybe it's time to put it back into practice.

Prior to Marbury v. Madison, the question of who had the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws was an open question. It's clear that judges must give priority to the U.S. Constitution. However, that does not mean they are the only ones with authority to judge the consitutionality of a federal law. Consider this quote from the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm):
RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states:

That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution:

That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence:

That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:

That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy:

That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal:

That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:
And this quote from the Virginia Resolution of 1798 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm):
That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here is this idea in it's simple form: The state legislatures have the authority and the duty to declare actions by the federal government as unconstitutional and to nullify those actions within their own borders. In case you didn't know, federal law enforcement has less authority within any particular county than the sheriff of that county. They cannot act without his approval. The state legislature does have the authority to declare federal laws as unconstitutional and direct the sheriffs to prevent enforcement of the unconstitutional law.

Maybe if this old, forgotten concept were put back into practice, we would see true freedom reappear in some states, like maybe Vermont, Texas and Alaska and spreading to others. And by doing so, "voting from the rooftops" can be avoided.

[keederdag]

Just Curiouse Heckman, Why would you place Texas in with two positivly historically pro-gun states? Do you think Texas has a history of being a pro gun state. I beleive if you do, you are very wrong. Until fairly recently, Texan's could not legally carry a handgun, period. They had obscure Draconian gun laws on the books that were, and are regualarly enforced. Maybe you were just picking out of the barrel, if so I'm off base here. Let me know will Ya?:)

[EWTHeckman]

I was just picking states out of the air that I thought might be among the first to have the strength of character to tell the feds to buzz off when they're wrong. The choice was based mostly on my perception that Texans take great pride in their independence and self reliance. Maybe Texas would take a lead in such a revolution, maybe not. I really don't know.

I would have included Pennsylvania in that list, but since we somehow managed to elect a far left wacko as governor, I'm really starting to wonder if my state is starting to be pulled under by all the socialist states around us.

[Trempel]

So far, most people voted for this option:

"I disobey the law, let them come and get my guns."

G-d forbid that anything like that will happen in our lifetime, but you guys got to get real.
The Man decides to outlaw all guns, and with POPULAR support starts going door to door. The ones that will refuse, barricade themselves and try to start a mini revolution will all end up the same - dead. Deader than a freakin' door nail, and you will take your families down with you.
The feds went to serve a warrant on that nazi prick, whatever his name was, Weaver something at Ruby Ridge. Popular support or not, they didn't hesitate to cap both his wife and his son. Then we had Waco. How many people burned there? Timmy McVeigh decided to avenge both of those incidents and he thought that he was a revolutionary. After murdering nearly 200 people he was executed, like a pig. By now, he's largely forgoten. All of this is not my point, really. I just wanted to demonstrate the futility of one man's actions.
After reading some of the posts here, I get a feeling that people believe that confiscation of their weapons will make them unable to stand up to aggression. On the other hand, if you scream "MOLON LABE" at the top of your lungs, squeeze your out of shape, overweight rear into your cammo and grab your AK, that will make you ready to resist oppression and tyrrany. Puhleeez :rolleyes:
Revolutions don't get started with individual people with guns. Revolutions start and succeed with good leaders and organizaton. Guns are nice to have around, but they alone mean nothing. I cannot possibly mention all the instances in history when people who were barred from owning weapons, armed themselves to fight in revolts and civil wars. When Jews fought Arabs and the Brits, they were not allowed to own weapons, but somehow they managed. When the Cold War came to an end and the Soviet Union along with many the rest of the Warsaw Pact coutries came unglued. Places like Yugoslavia, Chechnia, Moldavia, Georgia all had laws barring the populace from owning guns, yet there was no problem for the rebels, etc. in obtaining them.
Your personal firearms will protect you and your family against criminals, acts of civil unrest, riots and such. But don't think that you alone, without leadership and organizational structure, will be able to stand up to a proffessional army.
Martyrdom means nothing. When you're dead or sitting behind bars, you're no good to anyone. Better to escape to exile and live to fight another day.

[Bill St. Clair]

It may be a tactical error to fight back should the goons come to my house, but I will anyway. They will not take my guns.

This is why if the time ever comes when they go house to house, it will be time to organize if we haven't already and take them out before they come. We won't have to take out many of them before they give up.

One thing about fighting, even alone, is that as soon as the word gets out about people fighting back, and dying, when the ferals arrive at their houses, the survivors will realize that the time is now, and they will organize and fight, some of them successfully.

If there really aren't enough Americans with the spine to fight when that time comes, then I don't want to be on the planet any more. I will do my best to take out as many as I can before they get me, and I'll be glad for the opportunity to leave.

[telewinz]

Why are there so few in this thread? The saying "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" applies. The assumption is "I'm not a coward, I'm a hero". Hmmmm....Thats the same feeling raw recruits have BEFORE they experience battle.:uhoh:

Human emotions have not changed, thats why God made NIKE running shoes.:D

BTW: The 9th Circuit Court has had their decisions overturned more than any other Federal Court.:barf:

EWTHeckman: ease-off, your lame arguments come a little late. Or are you really this confused. :scrutiny:

[keederdag]

The ninth Circus court of Appeals?:)

[telewinz]

Did you notice how fast (warp speed) that the 9th Circuit Court overturned its own ruling on the Kalifornia recall election AFTER the public outcry? Hmmm...maybe winning the hearts and minds of the common man is worth the extra effort. Maybe the Courts do listen, I think they do. Even the most liberal court in the land.:evil:

Trempel:

At least for me your post showed great observation skills. At Ruby Ridge the "Heroic" Right Wingers came from hundreds of miles away and what did they do....shout insults at the Feds. Wow, with support like this how did he lose? Koresh's fate should serve as the poster child for our "verbal minute men". History continues to repeat itself yet many fail to take heed.

[Bill St. Clair]

Winning the hearts and minds of the majority is certainly preferable to shooting people. But the premise of this thread is a case where the hearts and minds of the marjority have already been lost, big time, leaving extreme prejudice as the only alternative.

If you won't make friends with the sheep dog, and you ignore his growling, he will bite you and you will learn.

[telewinz]

Yes, but few of the arguments rendered would have created any converts to our cause. In America once you offer violence as a solution to your real or imagined slights, you had better have alot more than grandpa's old '03 to back you up. Otherwise you will find the "moral support" from the right wingers to be a very intangible asset and "how did I get myself into this" just might cross your mind.:uhoh:

[keederdag]

Telewitz, Naw I did'nt notice, Frankley as an ex Law student, I don't pay any attention to The 9th. But I agree, Court's seem to be political enity's, just as Politicians are. Interesting HUh?:fire:

[Tag]

Gentelmen,

I feel that there are forces at work which have already done away with the Second Ammendment and all that it was ment to protect.

It seems that much of this argument is moot.

Hold your rifles friends, you may soon need them.

[telewinz]

Sorry I missed your post. How can Kalifornia be helped? The pro-gunners are waiting for that "perfect test case" to put before the Supreme Court. When they (the Supreme Court) agree to hear arguments on that "test case" needless to say it will be one of the most important cases the Supreme Court has ever heard. My beliefs, your beliefs will be at stake and I for one will be holding my breath. They (the NRA?) had better choose that "perfect test case" wisely.:uhoh:

Tag

Naw, I'll take a court of law and a good lawyer anytime. Our side is due for a BIG win.

[Intune]

The world according to Tele, all quotes:

"Its called advancing civilization and most educated people feel we have made great progress in protecting man from man.

Education has done more for the human race than any weapon. Its up to the "weapons consumer" and how he behaves that will determine whether the second amendment will be part of that future world.

Society will move on with or without you, and with or without the ancient approval of our (not are) long dead founding fathers. Either cope with it or move. Despite all the talk even the posters on this thread are (not our) in fact coping "if you push me one more time" The fact is, if they push one more time and renew the AWB, you will back-up and wait to be pushed again. History does repeat itself.

Man's emotions may not have changed that is true BUT education teaches us to control our passions and act on reason.

I feel just about any worthy cause can be won over by INTELLIGENT debate, if not than maybe your cause isn't worthy, or you have turned people off by making threats.

The overwhelming, vast majority of the United State's population and the World strongly believe our government is legal and they act accordingly. Might you agree that its time to cope with that reality and move on. I don't think the World Court or any other court will listen to your arguments.

I will continue to disagree on this point. The difference between now and 200 years ago or 20,000 years ago is that we are better educated and better able to CONTROL our emotions.

Our civilization/culture is outgrowing the need for armed cowboys roaming our streets, that "right" is increasingly being viewed as a liability by mainstream America.

Does YOUR political candidate walk on his hind legs or just swing through the trees?

That sounds nice but the people who own the jails, prisons, law enforcement and the public's support don't reconize your "simple" solution. You and others are ignoring the reality of the situation, using legal means to change the system is the ONLY way that has and will work.

You may assume what you wish, I have never heard/read an emotional arguement yet that didn't rely on some romantic assumption and battle cry. You sir are not willing or are unable to win support for your cause by the use of intelligent thought and the exchange of ideas.

You seem to prefere to live in the past rather than cope with the demands of modern day society. Historically, your method has had a very poor success rate and supports the opposition's most common complaint against the pro-gun movement "its full of right wing radicals". If I weren't progun already your comments would have sent me into the anti-gunners camp. Hopefully visitors to this site will understand that you only speak for yourself and a minority (right-wingers) of gun owners.

Its human nature and called survival, if you are a family man your wife will insist that you do whats best for the family and take option #1. She will even let you keep the money so that you can by other guns (legal) to maintain your gun collection.

Many (if not most) of us would not be able to discard our other responsibilities and bring ruin upon our loved ones. You would be viewed as selfish by many, not as a hero."



:what:


Intune- I don’t know what to say to you. You remind me of the pacifists who cry, “what did fighting ever solve?” As they pick up their wallet minus their lunch money. You claim to have served in Vietnam. In what capacity? Your responses lead me to two different conclusions. Either you fought in horrific, bloody battles with long lasting after effects or you performed a necessary and admirable service in the rear. Which was it? I believe you would rather talk than fight. I believe there are not many situations in which you would willfully and with great malicious aforethought kill a fellow human being. I believe the New World Order and Can’t We All Just Get Along provide great solace to you. Am I wrong? How?

P.S. My battle in your scenario would not be conducted from my home & loved ones. Like you, I value life. Unlike you, I don’t think any progress has been made in 3 million years when something threatens my very existence. I will destroy it with tooth & claw. That very fact gives you the willies. I still like you. Perhaps loading magazines & divvying out uniforms will be more your style when the “time” comes. No ill will is intended. You, Sir, are dogged & determined! An asset to our cause. The above was written with great chagrin. My apologies if it causes distress. However, I’m calling this one like I see it. But I DO wear glasses! ;)

[EWTHeckman]

Trempel wrote:
Martyrdom means nothing. When you're dead or sitting behind bars, you're no good to anyone. Better to escape to exile and live to fight another day.
You're exactly right. Waiting for the assault squad to arrive at your door and planning to fight them on their timetable is the worst tactical mistake you can make. It would be like trying to win a sprint against a racer who is in the ready position at the starting line while you're casually standing 5 feet behind the line with your back to the course. By the time you get yourself turned around and up to the line, the race will already be over.

The key to surviving is to be prepared in advance. Maybe that means socking away some "off paper" rifles and ammo somewhere. Maybe that means selling everything and going into hiding. Maybe that means having pre-arranged plans with other local gun owners. Maybe it means "voting from the rooftops." Or maybe it simply means choosing to be a victim.

I've never taken a woman's self-defense class. (Duh, I'm a guy! ;) ) I have been told that one of the points they are taught is never allow an attacker or potential attacker to get you in a position where you are defenseless. If someone tries, that is the time to fight back with everything you have. If the attacker can make you defenseless, you wind up completely at their mercy. The attacker could just let you go (unlikely), or they could torture you for days, or they could simply kill you. The point is, when you are defenseless, there is nothing you can do to stop the attack. Fighting back with everything winds up being the best option because that's when you're most likely to survive.

The same can be said about being defenseless in relation to the government. If you just give up your guns when they come for them, then they will most likely leave you alone; for now. But once they've done that, there is nothing to stop them from coming for you later, whether for something you've said, or because you've owned a gun in the past, or because you're part of some unpopular group (like Jews or Christians), or because your kids said "the wrong thing" in school, or just because they want your land, or ... well, anything.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
The point is that we must fight back while we are able. Right now, the best approach is by educating those around us, working through legal and political channels, and doing everything possible to avoid bloodshed.

Only if all other means fail is bloodshed necessary. If that eventuality comes to pass (God Forbid!) then we must be proactive. Those who wait for SWAT to bust through their door will have have already lost.

Rule number one is to survive. Rule number two is that we must be able to defend ourselves if we are to survive.

Yes, those defending themselves against disarmament will be portrayed as criminals, terrorists and "a ticking time bomb." Even once troubles start, it will take most people years to wake up to their situation. Even then, there will be many (and it seems like telewinz will be among them) who will just roll over and be victims, or even join in the tyranny. That is how it will be. This pattern has been repeated over and over throughout history. The only questions will be how we survive until enough people realize the danger, and how will we be able to prevail. The only way to survive will be to plan ahead.


telewinz wrote:
The pro-gunners are waiting for that "perfect test case" to put before the Supreme Court. When they (the Supreme Court) agree to hear arguments on that "test case" needless to say it will be one of the most important cases the Supreme Court has ever heard.
It appears that the Supreme Court is most likely going to hear Silviera v. Lockyer. A win is quite possible, but any good strategist will tell you to plan for the worst possible thing to go wrong.

ease-off, your lame arguments come a little late. Or are you really this confused.
Yep. Typical response of those whose arguments don't hold up. When you're losing, resort to ad hominem attacks. Trying to keep you on point has been like trying to nail jello to a wall. I'm really, really tired of it.

Then again, maybe I am confused. So I'll put the question to lurkers. Is there something in telewinz's messages that I've been misunderstanding, and responding incorrectly to? Or have telewinz's messages really been as evasive and shifting as they seem?

[hammer4nc]

Intune, you missed this most revealing post.

Telewinz boasted:
For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so) and donate part of my pay to the NRA to help overturn the law by peaceful means.

Why do I have the feeling that telewinz would enthusiastically obey such orders, if he felt it would rid the world of a few radical right-wingers?

[Intune]

Hammer on Hammer! 'Tis true. Yet, we need to remember that Tele is part of our cause. Perhaps a bit misguided but by no means an anti. Whether a pacifist, a warrior, a thinker, a lawyer, a factory worker, a scholar, a dunce, affluent or pauper we need all to rally to our cause. Dissention sows the seeds of failure. We need to stay united if we hope to retain this Union so painfully and bloodily provided to us.

[EWTHeckman]

Yet, we need to remember that Tele is part of our cause.
Is he really on "our side" if he's willing to put mob rule above fundamental principles of human rights, even if he "agrees" with those principles? Those are the kind of people that betray their colleagues to save their own skin. Friends like that we don't need.

[Intune]

No! That is not what he is advocating. I find myself in the somewhat tenuous situation of putting words in his mouth. He is vehemently against mob rule. That is his entire point. Rule of law is his banner, and a most noble one indeed. He is no Quisling or traitor. My point is that when sufficient numbers feel that the “powers that be” are taking our last means of God given ability to resist away, then force is necessary to retain our power as citizens, to avoid being subjects. Our diametrically opposed view points are only separated by semantics. Violence being my option, discussion being his. Tele is willing to put his faith in those selfsame courts that will/could be the instrument of our neutering. I don’t. I believe the majority was against armed revolution 200+/- years ago. It was a portion of the population who recognized the injustices and who had had enough of same and rose up & took arms against the king. I refuse to tar him with the brush of an anti. I believe his heart, if not mind, are on our side.

[Intune]

I don’t care in what compass point of politics your proclivities may lie. Repub, Dem, Indy or whatnot. Clamor for that which turns your crank. More power to ye. However, do not, DO NOT trifle with the Constitution or Bill of Rights in your efforts to further your cause or agenda. I, for one, will not stand for it. Political Correctness be damned. I may be an island with such thoughts but my travels and discussions with other like-minded individuals gives me both hope and heart.

[Al Norris]

Earlier, telewinz wrote:
For me, I would obey my orders (and pry your gun from your cold dead fingers, if legally ordered to do so) and donate part of my pay to the NRA to help overturn the law by peaceful means.

Once again we see the Nuremburg defense. Not all laws are legal. Not all orders are legal. If either run contrary to the Constitution, such are null and void. How do I know this? Some long dead Justice and Commentator on the Constitution wrote about this subject. But tele will reject Justice Joseph Story, I'm sure.

As I'm sure he rejects the idea that the final arbiter of law and it's interpretation is the Jury itself. I know this, as he has made it one of his biggest points, that it is the Court (ie: Judges) who are the supreme authorities.

Balderdash! Marbury v. Madison was a politically expedient decision and is thus flawed. The interpretors of the compact are in fact the parties to the compact. Since the federal government is not a party but a creation, it cannot interpret the compact itself.

Intune opined:
'Tis true. Yet, we need to remember that Tele is part of our cause. Perhaps a bit misguided but by no means an anti. Whether a pacifist, a warrior, a thinker, a lawyer, a factory worker, a scholar, a dunce, affluent or pauper we need all to rally to our cause. Dissention sows the seeds of failure. We need to stay united if we hope to retain this Union so painfully and bloodily provided to us.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

If this is an example of some of our allies Intune, I would as soon be shed of them. In another thread, I placed a label upon telewinz. I have yet to see anything that would change my thinking.

[Intune]

I hear you Al. At this point I must respectfully refrain from enjoining in comdemnation until Tele addresses that which is before him.

Edited to add:
I cast arrows at the heart of this man, I did not do so lightly. However, he has taken it upon himself, for whatever reason, to strike upon that, on this board, we regard as sacrosanct. He must defend that stance, not I. In the same vein, I believe, my son still draws pictures of tanks and airplanes wrecking havoc upon each other, like we all did in elementary school. Nothing has been said. If, and when it ever is, woe be unto the Sumner County school board when my say is done. The effemination of our nation must stop or all is lost. When the warrior class is done away with in the name of political correctness we are but sheep awaiting the slaughter. Call me a barbarian, I still have the will AND the means to fight for what I feel is right. (My daughter is a warrior also. Just in case.) See, I too can be p.c. in my own fashion. She actually shoots circles around her brother at the range! Thanks to my brethren of the TN Mafia for that Marlin ;)

[EWTHeckman]

Intune wrote:
My point is that when sufficient numbers feel that the “powers that be” are taking our last means of God given ability to resist away, then force is necessary to retain our power as citizens, to avoid being subjects. Our diametrically opposed view points are only separated by semantics. Violence being my option, discussion being his. Tele is willing to put his faith in those selfsame courts that will/could be the instrument of our neutering.

telewinz is not just in favor of discussion. He seems to prefer full blown capitulation to the government, even if (when) the government breaks its own laws. Consider this quote from another thread:
Don't underestimate the joy of being a law abiding citizen, it is quite possible you will enjoy that feeling much more than that hidden stash of illegal weapons. The fear of being a prisoner may seem much more relevant than the fear of being a "slave". Once you decide to violate the law be aware of the price, both hidden and otherwise. During the 60's and 70's the LEO's went after thousands of draft dodgers, I don't recall them backing off just because of a few riots and civil distrubances. Be careful that you are not underestimating their resolve. That knock on the door could come next week or years later, at home or at work. Seems to me that you are trading an intangible fear for a tangible one.
Such people do not resist tyrants. They usually wind up working with them as collaborators. The Vichy French were like that in World War II. So were many Jews who acted as ghetto police in Warsaw, Poland and those who ran the poison gas "showers" and ovens of Auschwitz. I consider such people to be more dangerous than the tyrants themselves. They tend to position themselves as insiders within the resistance, only to betray them at a crucial moment.

[Intune]

Oh, how dissapointing. The price of freedom should never allow such thoughts. Does the tongue not grow weary of the boot? Are there some for whom leather polishing is a quest? Sad. Perchance my leniency was misplaced.

[telewinz]

"Intune- I don’t know what to say to you. You remind me of the pacifists who cry, “what did fighting ever solve?” As they pick up their wallet minus their lunch money. You claim to have served in Vietnam. In what capacity? Your responses lead me to two different conclusions. Either you fought in horrific, bloody battles with long lasting after effects or you performed a necessary and admirable service in the rear. Which was it? I believe you would rather talk than fight. I believe there are not many situations in which you would willfully and with great malicious aforethought kill a fellow human being. I believe the New World Order and Can’t We All Just Get Along provide great solace to you. Am I wrong? How?"

The difference in our methods of resolving disagreements may simply be a matter of age and experience. I can assure you I am not "limp wristed" and that 30 years ago my "solutions" were not much different than many posters on this thread or my 21 year old son. For some if threats and violence aren't required then it's not a worthwhile solution. These people are looking for a fight but once they have it most will turn tail and leave it to someone else to clean-up the mess. The more radical the person the less stable they are. It is this type of person that I have so little respect for, they are the modern day version of the Sun-Shine Patriot. They do much damage to the cause by their talk and scare the fence sitters over to the anti's cause. Most buy their camo's at the surplus store because they were NEVER ISSUED ANY but they read the book or saw the movie.

In my country (America) most good causes win out in the end and we have a good cause. MY method works much more often than theirs and without the bloodshed or further overcrowding of our prisons.
My view is simple, we have the Second Amendment on our side and I believe we WILL win in the end. America's system of justice works but is imperfect like every other system of justice in the World both now and in the past. The (serious) gun debate is only about 30 years old after all, and the fact that more machine guns are owned by civilians than the military and police combined doesn't support the gloom and doom "chicken little's" of the right wing. I don't hate my government, its that simple. I am not a slave nor do I lick boots I pretty much do what I want to do with no ones permission. Maybe I'm the exception but I doubt it, but then again I'm not an unstable radical.

[Bill St. Clair]

The thought occurred to me last night that teliwinz started this discussion by asking what we would do if they banned our weapons outright, but that he has actually been discussing how to turn the antis to our side before that happens. That is actually a more important question at this time. We must all prepare for the former, but work at the latter.

Personally, I think that Jeff Snyder's Nation of Cowards (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888118075/) is the best book I've read anywhere about why our right to keep and bear arms is important. It uses no statistics, no outcome-based arguments whatsoever. Pure ethics spoken here. I've read it twice, but still don't have its arguments embedded in my brain stem. Time to read it again, methinks.

One thing bothers me, though. A number of things must happen for a shooting to occur. 1) A bad guy decides to shoot. 2) The bad guy has a gun. 3) A victim is within range of the bad guy. 4) The victim doesn't notice the need to defend or flee before the bad guy shoots, or the victim cannot flee and does not have proper self-defense tools, trainining, and mind-set.

For some reason the antis focus on number 2 and decide that if we can just keep guns out of everybody's hands, we'll have no shootings. We focus on number 4 and decide that we need to be armed and trained. Number 4 makes a lot more sense since it's something that the victim can control. It's really really hard to control whether the perp can obtain a gun, but it's pretty easy to have one yourself and learn how to use it. Why do the antis focus on the nearly impossible solution to the problem?

Personally, I think L. Neil Smith hit the nail on the head when he said that they are
stupid, insane, or evil (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe68-20000331-07.html). Stupid we might be able to solve with training. Insane and evil are unreachable, except by force.

[telewinz]

Maybe, but I think the anti's think that GUN=Bad Guy. The fencesitters (indifferent to the gun debate) fear the unknown, why permit a perfect stranger or my neighbor to have any power over me by letting him own a weapon? It's International Arms control on a personal level. Maybe the gunowner is good maybe he's not, why take a chance? For now I (the anti) have fairly good control over the police, I'll reduce (and control ?) my risk and just allow the police to freely carry and posess handguns. It's basic human emotion all over again, the desire for security with minimal effort. After all, the odds are on their side according to FBI stats. The overwhelming number of citizens in this country have NEVER experienced violent crime, "its the other guy, it will never happen to me". Case in point, only 25% of Americans carry life insurance, I guess they think that because they have never died before, they will live forever.

The solution; EDUCATION. Don't continue to reinforce their fears by making threats. GUN=Responsible good guy.

[EWTHeckman]

Bill,

That was a GREAT post. Well said! http://www.heckman.us/smilies/anim_hail2.gif

telewinz wrote:
I think the anti's think that GUN=Bad Guy. The fencesitters (indifferent to the gun debate) fear the unknown, why permit a perfect stranger or my neighbor to have any power over me by letting him own a weapon? It's International Arms control on a personal level. Maybe the gunowner is good maybe he's not, why take a chance? For now I (the anti) have fairly good control over the police, I'll reduce (and control ?) my risk and just allow the police to freely carry and posess handguns. It's basic human emotion all over again, the desire for security with minimal effort. After all, the odds are on their side according to FBI stats. The overwhelming number of citizens in this country have NEVER experienced violent crime, "its the other guy, it will never happen to me". Case in point, only 25% of Americans carry life insurance, I guess they think that because they have never died before, they will live forever.
FINALLY! Something we agree on!
The solution; EDUCATION.
Yes, but that's not the whole solution. Political activism is also a must.
GUN=Responsible good guy.
Not always. Sometimes the person with a gun really does have criminal intentions.

GUN=Tool

A gun is an inanimate object with no moral inclinations one way or the other. A hammer is also a tool. A hammer used to murder someone is a murder weapon. A hammer used to build a house is a tool used for an excellent purpose. A gun used to protect your family from a home invader is a tool used for a noble purpose.

That final point is what escapes most people in this country. They can only see the potential risks, not the noble purposes. Remember, electricity, fire, water and automobiles are used daily by almost everyone for noble purposes. So much so, in fact, that most people easily forget the risks associated with their use. Carelessness with these items can, and usually is, at least as fatal as carelessness with a gun.

Don't continue to reinforce their fears by making threats.
and
For some if threats and violence aren't required then it's not a worthwhile solution.
This is where we part ways once again.

First of all, I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that the use of force (violence) is a last resort to be used only after everything else fails.

telewinz, you have plainly stated that if gun ownership is outlawed, you would willingly give up your guns and "help" others to give up theirs. This is the point I most strongly disagree with.

People who care about the truth can be reasoned with. They can be educated. When presented with the facts, they will change their opinion. Education and reason work with such people.

However, some people will never change their minds, even if a fact rolls up on a Greyhound Bus and kisses them square on the lips. For example, you can be certain that Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Daschle, The Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Violence Policy Center all know that guns can and are used for self defense. They are most definitely aware of the facts supporting gun ownership, yet they continue to act as if those facts do not exist. (Let's face it, the VPC is certainly aware of the facts well enough to twist and distort them to the point were its almost impossible to recognize them.) There are only two possible reasons why they continue to act as they do. Either they consider the facts to be something other than facts, and thus irrelevant, or the facts are getting in the way of their objectives and must be buried, hidden or otherwise done away with.

Such people cannot be stopped by reason or diverted by discussion. They can only be resisted with force. If you give up your ability to use force to resist such people, they will destroy you.

Have I made my point clear yet? I'll say it again one more time to just to make it clear:

The use of violence to resolve a dispute is an option of desperation to be used only after all other options have been exhausted, and even then, only with great reluctance. To be an option, the ability to use force must not be given up!

Can I be any more clear than that?

Now I feel I must make a few clarifying statements. It is critical to be certain that the position being defended is honorable, just, and based on solid facts and sound reasoning. The United States Constitution is based on such principles, and as such, is worth defending.

Those who take public office, join the military, or are aliens who become U. S. Citizens all have to take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Natural born citizens are not required to take this oath, yet it is still worthwhile to live by this oath. The key word in this section is "Constitution". It is not "Government of the United States" because the possibility always exists that the government can become an enemy of the constitution. If that occurs, the Constution -- not the government -- must prevail.

[telewinz]

"telewinz, you have plainly stated that if gun ownership is outlawed, you would willingly give up your guns and "help" others to give up theirs. This is the point I most strongly disagree with."

I am only human like everyone else on this board. It isn't a question of courage its a question of common sense and values. I have always been fairly content with my government, but maybe thats because I read a great deal of history and don't have unrealistic expectations.

How the Second Amendment is interpretated is important to me but it has never been one of the most important issues in my life, ever. Not to insult anyone on this board but I'm being honest about my viewpoint and I feel most of those claiming they would act differently (violence, rebellion) have other issues in their lives that makes losing their lives, family, liberty and personal property less of a concern to them. With a high degree of confidence, I feel most would never deliever on their promised acts of violent rebellion. They would settle on trying to talk others into doing the dirty work for them, its human nature and where I work it happens day in and day out. Also I think they would LOSE, pick your battles and win the ones you pick. Everyone seems to think that losing their "rebellion" just can't happen, do they have a deathwish?

The very few that would react with violence are fanatics, I do not and will never trust a fanatic, those are the ones that would need hunted down and "supressed" with great prejudice but legally. Are their causes worth fighting for, Yes but a few restrictions on someone's personal interpretation of his rights is not one of them. The truth be known, the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment has not restricted my access or enjoyment with firearms one bit. Its a minor pain, thats all. But I will continue to vote and support a more liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, I just won't quit my job and go picket Congress.