I think some people need to calm down


PDA






Wheelguner05
December 1, 2010, 09:24 PM
Hi guys. I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control. All you have to do is: be NRA or other org. member, vote, protest anti-gun bills. Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hairs.

Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

a) we have it in our constitution and supreme court 4/5 people agreeded to it.
b) EVERY ONE owns a gun
c) this country was built on guns, guts, god and glory
NO one can take that away.


Have a nice day, god bless the land of the free AND ALWAYS FREE
Thank you,
-Josh

If you enjoyed reading about "I think some people need to calm down" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zoogster
December 1, 2010, 09:41 PM
Easy to say when you live in one of the few nations that actually still allows regular people to easily obtain firearms.


Virtually everything you stated could have been said for England just over 100 years ago.
They have even been declared to have a right to keep and bear arms a couple different times, and it has been trampled sometime later each time.
The ideas and resulting freedoms of John Locke went from being widely held in England to virtually unheard of.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
Less than 100 years before our own Bill of Rights was created.


Mexico has a right to arms in their Constitution made after the revolution, but the reality of that right has since been trampled so that they have no such right.



Many nations, people, and cultures have lost their ability to readily acquire arms in the last century.
The nations we share a similar legal system to have stripped most firearm freedoms from their people in relatively recent times.
Australia, the UK, Canada to a good extent.



Most of the world has never actually "banned" firearms. They just restrict their acquisition, storage, use, type, etc etc to such an extent that only a small minority of the population both can and are willing to jump through every hoop necessary to keep and maintain the privilege. Concepts of self defense become so lacking, and its practice so rare that many who do on rare occasion defend themselves, even in their own homes, like is legally done in the USA, often go to prison.
Never mind concepts of deterring or resisting tyranny.

Imon
December 1, 2010, 09:46 PM
I actually agree with you OP. I believe in all states, with the exception of California and Massachusetts, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive over the past few decades.

I think people here are just trying to stay vigilant... I dunno.
I do know you probably won't make many friends here with that attitude. :p

wrs840
December 1, 2010, 09:51 PM
The last two SCOTUS appointees are certain that the COTUS does not protect an individual's RKBA. One more like them and it's gone.

Les

PT1911
December 1, 2010, 09:51 PM
Have a nice day, god bless the land of the free AND ALWAYS FREE

the problem is that this mentality has been lost... There are a lot of people (voting people) who blindly follow what the government has to say and are unable to think for themselves. Obama (THE PRESIDENT) says that the recession is over, it must be, he certainly couldnt/wouldnt say it if it wasnt true right? Obama (THE PRESIDENT) says that the an unemployment rate of 10 percent is a good thing because it isnt 11 percent.. you know, he's right!!.... things must be getting better.

I am not saying that feds are going to come in the darkness of night to break in and steal your guns, but the current admin, if given their way, would LOVE to make it more difficult to purchase, own, and most definitely carry a gun. As long as people can protect themselves, they dont have to look to the goverment for protection. This is why all of the strongest supporters for greater gun control will say to "just call the cops." Those mentalities go hand in hand.

HGUNHNTR
December 1, 2010, 09:51 PM
The fact that you, a second amendment supporter, is using a term coined by the gun ban movment "gun control" proves you are incorrect on many points.

Not everyone owns a gun, the supreme court justice can change over time, and no god gives a hoot about firearms.

I don't want to be cliche' but have you ever heard of alcohol control, cigarrete control, fist control...no, neither have I.

These terms and phrases like gun control, assault rifle, street sweeper, junk gun, cop killer bullets, etc seep into the public psyche and sooner or later a vote will determine whether or not you have any rights left.

And good grief can we leave the president out of this discussion?!

PT1911
December 1, 2010, 09:55 PM
And good grief can we leave the president out of this discussion?!

That has nothing to do with Obama.. he is the current president and that is all that has to do with it... If "W" was still in the whitehouse I would have subbed his name in that spot.. dont look for an argument where there isnt one. In short, an unfortunately large amount of people, who happen to make up a large portion of voters, will listen to and believe anything and everything that the president (who happens to be Obama, last i checked) says.

HGUNHNTR
December 1, 2010, 09:59 PM
Sorry, I just don't see how this adds anything useful to the discussion. There is an argument btw, politics are off topic at THR.

PT1911
December 1, 2010, 10:04 PM
Sorry, I just don't see how this adds anything useful to the discussion. There is an argument btw, politics are off topic at THR, you should know that by now.

I have no doubt these will be deleted as NOW the thread is off topic, but I do not see the argument.. I have said nothing to his or anyone else's political standing. I said, in different terms, that people are sheep... I fail to see how politics being off topic has anything to do with mentioning someones name...

I didnt realize i had fallen into a world where Obama's name had risen to the level of Voldemort... "he who shall not be named."

Deanimator
December 1, 2010, 10:24 PM
Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.
You mean like Chicago was never going to ban handguns?

How long was THAT in effect?

S.W.G.
December 1, 2010, 10:34 PM
I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control.

I think your wording there is going to be off-putting to quite few people.

No offense, but calling a portion your fellow members paranoid isn't going to make you a lot of freinds. I'm new here too, so I'm going to tread carefully and try not to anger anybody. Just sayin'.

ants
December 1, 2010, 10:58 PM
I suspect that a day will come in a couple hundred years that there will be no guns anywhere, except in a corner of the Smithsonian.

Until then, I gotta fight like a son-of-a-bisket just to make sure my children (and theirs) will enjoy what my Dad (and Grandpa) passed on to me.

So you're happy that the Supreme Court 5-4 affirmed your rights? That only occured after 20 years of us fighting like biskets to make it so.


When our rights are finally gone, it won't be because someone took them away. It will be because we stopped fighting and gave them away.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 1, 2010, 11:05 PM
I'm neither worried nor paranoid. I'm simply prepared and determined. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt.

Woody

sappyg
December 1, 2010, 11:16 PM
i think i'll calm down when i'm done. at that point i will leave it to others. goes without sayin'

kludge
December 1, 2010, 11:23 PM
I actually agree with you OP. I believe in all states, with the exception of California and Massachusetts, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive over the past few decades.


How do you figure?

922o (1986 machine gun ban), Brady, NICS, Brady and NICS applied to long guns, 922r

I can't friggin change the stock on my SKS puchased pre-Clinton without being a criminal. I can't buy cheap chinese steel core ammo.

The only thing that has gotten better in Indiana is lifetime LTCH. Now I don't have to beg the .gov every four years for permission to exercise a fundamental constitutional right.

hso
December 1, 2010, 11:39 PM
Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

That's a short sighted view that many share, but the facts are that without a lot of people organizing and pressuring their elected officials that statement just wouldn't be utterable.

Before the AWB came along I would have agreed with you. Since there was no logical reason to ban any firearms available at the time I couldn't see how an informed electorate would allow it. Then like many of us, I was astounded by the folks in Congress that voted in such an absurd and obviously wrong headed piece of legislation. I became active in RKBA at that point because if I didn't think it could happen and I hadn't done anything to prevent it then I had to accept that my personal failure to recognize the potential threat to reason and my liberty was partly my fault. The only rational explanation was that there were people out there and in power that saw denying my and everyone else's right to own firearms as a means to an end or an end in and of itself. That truth made me aware of the need to work to retain this right for all of us is I was to keep it for myself and my family.

Now years have passed since the federal AWB has sunset without enough support to reinstate it (and there were many passionately interested in doing just that) and we have folks forgetting about the decade in which character assassination of gunowners to further the interest of antis was common and that very powerful politicians claimed they would get every gun in Mr. and Mrs. America's home.

Do we have that short a memory? Are we that shortsighted? Do we think those forces have just given up or are they biding their time until the realpolitik shifts a little in their favor?

brandon_mcg
December 2, 2010, 12:26 AM
I'm glad that there are people in the world that are "a little paranoid" about this topic. They are the ones who are working to allow me to enjoy the right to bear arms.

It would be very easy to become lazy and assume that we will always have the right to have guns; however, I can see the trend sliding in the other direction very quickly if we lose vigilance.

Zombiphobia
December 2, 2010, 01:29 AM
I think that the mere fact that this was ever brought to the supreme court by that Heller nut just goes to show that it CAN happen.
Fewer ppl educate their children about firearms and take an active interest in passing along American traditions. Do you think the new generation of sitting on my butt playing video games has much interest in firearms?
Most people I see at public ranges recently are either
A: Older people 40's+ and handle weapons responsibly
B: 30- and act like idiots with firearms.

I mean, that's just what I* see going on, but with that, I don't see a very bright future for the shooting sports. There's already far too many people who have this whole "what's the point of that.. why do you need that, it's useless and it makes no sense for civilians to have that" kind of attitude.

Then there's the "hunting is cruel and sadistic" kind of attitude, not paying attention to areas with animal population issues due to LACK of hunting.

I just think there's not enough community support of shooting sports and these types of ignorant, negative attitudes are only going to spread and become more oppressive.

9mmforMe
December 2, 2010, 01:51 AM
I have had moments of complacency and thought that disarmament would never happen here, but those are just transient thoughts...I remind myself to be vigilant, not pathologically consumed by worry, but vigilant.

sig220mw
December 2, 2010, 01:55 AM
5 out of 9 people believing in the RKBA is not an overwhelming majority and as a previous post said the last 2 appointments were definitely anti's. One more and we are screwed.

Utah1
December 2, 2010, 02:05 AM
Maybe you should tell that guy in NJ that just got seven years in prison to calm down. After all he was only doing what is totally legal in most other states.

If people calm down we'll just more rediculous laws like the one that he suffering under.

Davek1977
December 2, 2010, 02:17 AM
I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control

And your entitled to your opinion, no matter how strongly I disagree with it. I find most gun owners to not be vigilent ENOUGH, rather than too vigalent. I don't obsess about my gun rights, but nor do I dismiss them as a given that will always be there. AS far as the USSC goes, Heller was decided by a 5to4 majority....NOT 4/5 judges "agreeded" that gun ownership was a Constitutional right. Doesn't it bother you that it was even a question to begin with, or that 4 memebers of our USSC thought the 2nd DID NOT apply to individuals? Isn't it alarming that 4 out of the 9 of very people tasked with being the final interpretation of our laws believe that individual gun ownership IS NOT a constitutionaly protected right?

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 02:30 AM
I think the RKBA gets swamped in some extreme rhetoric that does it a dis-service. I love guns because I think they're fun. There is an off chance that I could use one to defend myself, but I would consider it highly unlikely, and that's not why I have them.

Second amendment discussions often slide into a 'ability to revolt against a government' tone. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/nv-sen_angle_talks_possibility_of_armed_rebellion_against_tyrannical_government.html)

That kind of garbage helps nobody, least of all the pro RKBA. People who say they have guns in case they have to fight the government are a great example of people who shouldn't be allowed to speak for the RKBA movement, or even own guns themselves.

Like a previous poster, I agree that given sufficient time few people will have guns. I think it's a shame, but I don't think it means doom.

FROGO207
December 2, 2010, 02:38 AM
As the urban population tends to sprawl out into the countryside they bring the idea that guns are for the cowboys and not for the city folk. Somehow they feel safer with a police cruiser patrolling the burb on occasion than trying to protect themselves. When the time comes that the PD is needed and shows up to investigate rather than stop the crime that usually changes a persons mind, if they happen to survive. Case in point-- there is a police station in the next town that is less than a 5 min drive from my house at 25 MPH--they are not allowed to cross the town line to help the local Sheriff or State Police until our protection gets here first---a 30 minute or more drive with light and siren at 50+ MPH. Unless we get lucky and they are already here by accident that is. I am a firefighter in the town and am called to all the fires and auto accidents. That is the typical response time if they are not busy already.:banghead: IMHO they should make people that move outside the DOT Urban Compact line own and maintain firearms or pay higher taxes or something like that. I believe that the mere thought that someone owns a firearm and would be willing to use it will send a BG to greener pastures most times.

Rant off:D

IMHO those that think we do not need firearms should just move away and go to somewhere that does not allow them.:D Also when they want to come back here for protection when they realize what is the truth to be denied reentry.

lloveless
December 2, 2010, 03:35 AM
Only intelligent people are paranoid. The others are too dumb to look at all facets of an issue, and plan accordingly.
ll

chaplain tom
December 2, 2010, 05:02 AM
When all it takes is for a single member swing in the Supreme Court to CHANGE HOW THE COURT INTERPRETS THE 2nd AMENDMENT, we should all be a "little paranoid". We are only one vote away from losing it all.

mljdeckard
December 2, 2010, 06:20 AM
I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns (or at least any time soon,) BECAUSE we are paranoid, suspicious, active, vocal, and resolute. If WE WEREN'T ALL OF THINGS, they would ban them tomorrow. And I am not exaggerating or speaking figuratively. The reason politicians aren't talking about guns (right now) is because paranoid people like us never quit breathing down their necks. It's because congressmen like Matheson (D, UT) know that the only thing they need to do to get dumped from office without ceremony is vote anti-gun ONE time, and the following day, they will know they are finished. They won't be able to do any of the OTHER things they want to do.

I am stricken with fear when four of the five justices sitting on the Supreme Court wouldn't even acknowledge the text and intent of the United States Constitution.

Yes, we have had a good roll for the last several years. Yes, we have made a lot of progress. Yes, the momentum is on our side. Heller and MacDonald will stand for a long time, because even if the court shifted tomorrow, it still might take decades for challenge cases to get there. But to say; "Hey, relax, it's all good now.", is like scoring 20 points in the first quarter and assuming that the other team can't rally and knock you over. The only thing that will ensure our right to keep and bear arms being upheld is that I never stop fighting for it as long as I am alive, and that I teach my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren how important it is.

Davek1977
December 2, 2010, 06:46 AM
I am stricken with fear when four of the five justices sitting on the Supreme Court wouldn't even acknowledge the text and intent of the United States Constitution.

No offense, but where do people keep coming up with this "4 out of 5 judges sitting on the Supreme Court" nonsense? Heller was decided by the standard panel of 9 judges, 5 of which ruled in favor of Heller. The USSC IS NOT comprised of 5 judges, but rather 9. The case was decided by a margin of 5 to 4, not "four out of five"

Colonel
December 2, 2010, 08:15 AM
No offense, but where do people keep coming up with this "4 out of 5 judges sitting on the Supreme Court" nonsense? Heller was decided by the standard panel of 9 judges, 5 of which ruled in favor of Heller. The USSC IS NOT comprised of 5 judges, but rather 9. The case was decided by a margin of 5 to 4, not "four out of five"

Right.

Which means that if JUST ONE JUSTICE of the nine had voted the other way, both Heller and McDonald would have been losses, not wins.

mljdeckard
December 2, 2010, 08:32 AM
You are absolutely correct, I was typing entirely too quickly. :)

22-rimfire
December 2, 2010, 08:32 AM
I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

I doubt it too anytime soon. As mentioned, the same could be said about England and Australia. But "control guns" is another matter. Stay vigilant. Now they are going to start "controlling the internet" via the FCC. That means once they figure out how, they are going to tax it. Communist China trys to control the information flow via the internet to their citizens.

JohnBT
December 2, 2010, 08:45 AM
"gun laws have become a lot less restrictive over the past few decades."

We're still not back to where the laws were prior to the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968.

Your timeline of "the past few decades" is not long enough. You need to look at all of history and not just 30 years or so.

John

smallbore
December 2, 2010, 08:50 AM
"Plus, I highly doubt they will ever ban guns."

Hmmm! So the whole Brady thing wasn't about banning guns?

jimjc
December 2, 2010, 08:50 AM
I`m of the opinion that the Constitution is a piece of paper that we all hold dearly but to the government and its minions it`s a piece of paper that is no longer relevant.... Laws have been in place for the government to do anything they want, whenever they want. At this point the government doesn`t see gun control legislation as being of interest for a variety of reasons but make no mistake at some point, in the future it will and presto the Supreme court will vote "for serious gun control", the Supreme Court does what it`s told. For every law you think will protect you, there are a hundred that make those laws null and void.... Many feel this country stands for freedom and it once did, we now are moving into a one world government that has the goal of dominating world population and making individual rights history.

Short term, we see bullets getting more expensive, I believe they will get far more expensive, so expensive many will not be able to afford them, many now say they shoot 22 lr`s because it`s getting to expensive to shoot anything else. I believe they will start levying unrealistic taxes and fees for gun ownership, hunting and everything related. There are large numbers of fools that think they will be safe if guns are banned.... Being Paranoid about gun control is simply viewing what the future will bring, we all know it`s coming, everything now is about how far we can push it back so we can keep our guns. The only thing that will really change everything is a revolution and I don`t see that happening because everyone hasn`t suffered enough and most are still praying that things will get better. HUH!

danprkr
December 2, 2010, 09:02 AM
The last two SCOTUS appointees are certain that the COTUS does not protect an individual's RKBA. One more like them and it's gone.

Exactly!

preachnhunt
December 2, 2010, 09:24 AM
Count me among those who think that defense against a tyrannical government has everything to do with RKBA. 100,000,000 others would probably agree,but they were killed by their OWN governments in the last century.

dogsoldier0513
December 2, 2010, 09:27 AM
I think some people need to calm down

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

Hi guys. I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control. All you have to do is: be NRA or other org. member, vote, protest anti-gun bills. Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hairs.

Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

a) we have it in our constitution and supreme court 4/5 people agreeded to it.
b) EVERY ONE owns a gun
c) this country was built on guns, guts, god and glory
NO one can take that away.


Have a nice day, god bless the land of the free AND ALWAYS FREE
Thank you,
-Josh

Tell that to the folks in Australia.

pith43
December 2, 2010, 09:32 AM
I dont mistake calmness for complacency, or vigilance for paranoia.

Fact is, everyday there are some in power that would erode all of our constitutional rights for the "greater good".

WNTFW
December 2, 2010, 09:42 AM
Whether or not the Anti-Gun folk, Gun Grabbers etc. can or cannot ban guns is speculative. The FACT they want to should not be taken lightly. They will usa any means to that end.

The number of overreacting gun owners, "zealots" if you will, is nothing compared to the indifferent, unknowing and apathetic gun owners who will not lift a finger to fight for their rights. They don't even come up with good excuses in my mind.

For those of us who have maintained a balance throughout their life it is not a problem to be Pro-Gun and lead a normal life. Letting an issue consume you may not be for most people, but there seems to be that niche to fill on this earth in that aspect.

Creature
December 2, 2010, 09:43 AM
My father, now well in to his seventies, remembers a time when there was a funded and organized rifle team at his high school in Pennsylvania. They competed against other schools in the state. The team shot bolt action 22's and these rifles were kept in the school's armory.

A quick search of the internet yeilded a high school yearbook picture of the La Sierra High School (CALIFORNIA) Rifle Team ... from 1969!

http://www.calcadetcorps.org/la_sierra.htm



Imagine a gun on school campus now.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 2, 2010, 11:21 AM
When all it takes is for a single member swing in the Supreme Court to CHANGE HOW THE COURT INTERPRETS THE 2nd AMENDMENT, we should all be a "little paranoid". We are only one vote away from losing it all.

Correction: We are only one vote away from them SAYING it's over.

Woody

JohnBT
December 2, 2010, 11:30 AM
"My father, now well in to his seventies, remembers a time when there was a funded and organized rifle team at his high school in Pennsylvania."

The tradition lives on in PA.

The linked page includes pics of the range they built with non-school funds for the district's high school rifle teams. The thread is a sticky in the Open Rimfire forum.

www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69761&page=9

This is one of the most inspirational things I can recall, gunwise. They started with nothing but a goal.

From an 11/06 post - "We're having pretty good turn-outs for our public shoots and both high school programs are having very healthy participation."

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a15/shtrdave/RangeBackstop.jpg

From the 11/09 update:

"Back in 2003 when we broke ground for our range and started our program, I think there were only 5 teams competing. This year we'll have 14 schools!"

Sky
December 2, 2010, 11:35 AM
Post # 16 HSO + 10,000
They can outlaw guns and they will turn many otherwise law abiding citizens into felons.

Creature
December 2, 2010, 11:41 AM
JohnBT: thanks for that!

2ndAmFan
December 2, 2010, 11:43 AM
There are real people in the US who want to ban private ownership of guns. Some of them are politically powerful/connected, some are very wealthy, and they will not rest until they succeed. Not that I'm paranoid or anything like that...I'll lighten up when they lighten up.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 01:33 PM
Count me among those who think that defense against a tyrannical government has everything to do with RKBA. 100,000,000 others would probably agree,but they were killed by their OWN governments in the last century.
They didn't help the Japanese Americans during WW2, they didn't help the blacks in the pre-bellum south (or post-bellum, for that matter), they barely helped the labor movement and they weren't enough for the Indians. If you want to secure social justice and liberty, you have to do it at the polls. The point at which an armed insurgency can overthrow a modern industrial nation is many hundreds of years past.

Now, if it was the RKBPSN*, then maybe you'd have a chance.

*Right to Keep and bear predator drones, spy satellites, nuclear warheads.

Mr.Davis
December 2, 2010, 01:44 PM
They didn't help the Japanese Americans during WW2, they didn't help the blacks in the pre-bellum south (or post-bellum, for that matter), they barely helped the labor movement and they weren't enough for the Indians. If you want to secure social justice and liberty, you have to do it at the polls. The point at which an armed insurgency can overthrow a modern industrial nation is many hundreds of years past.

Now, if it was the RKBPSN*, then maybe you'd have a chance.

*Right to Keep and bear predator drones, spy satellites, nuclear warheads.

The armed forces in this country pledge allegiance to the Constitution, not the President. If it came to rebellion, we'd have plenty of soldiers fighting alongside us. Google "oathkeepers".

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 01:59 PM
Mr.Davis
The armed forces in this country pledge allegiance to the Constitution, not the President. If it came to rebellion, we'd have plenty of soldiers fighting alongside us. Google "oathkeepers".

Who's us? I'm not signing up to obliterate the infrastructure and population of this country in armed rebellion, now or later. If in a fantastical imaginary future the united states turned into 1950s soviet Russia, I would have long since emigrated. :scrutiny:

There's no basis to think that any modern, industrialized nation is going to slide into totalitarianism. Even states / nations that have obscene levels of gun control (Western Europe, Canada, MA) that I would be unhappy to live beneath couldn't be improved by violent and protracted civil war.

merlinfire
December 2, 2010, 02:00 PM
Two things I'd like to add to this discussion.

1. I believe that our rights are preserved by consistent and powerful political advocacy.

2. I believe that the common layman can easily become paranoid when he lacks facts.

Things are not as bad as some believe, but advocacy like the NRA is absolutely vital to keep it that way.

benEzra
December 2, 2010, 02:09 PM
Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

a) we have it in our constitution and supreme court 4/5 people agreeded to it.
b) EVERY ONE owns a gun
c) this country was built on guns, guts, god and glory
NO one can take that away.
A ban on *all* ownership of *all* styles of guns is very unlikely, yes. But we came closer than I'd like to a ban on over-10-round guns, modern-looking rifles, etc., and those proposals are still on the table, even if they're not going anywhere right now.

American gun owners already tried being complacent and politically docile in the early 1990's, and we almost went down the same road as Australia. We can't make that mistake again, IMO.

I do agree that paranoia and defeatism are uncalled for, but I agree with others that the single biggest risk we face is probably pre-1994-style complacency.

Spencer R.
December 2, 2010, 02:10 PM
I actually agree with you OP. I believe in all states, with the exception of California and Massachusetts, gun laws have become a lot less restrictive over the past few decades.

I think people here are just trying to stay vigilant... I dunno.
I do know you probably won't make many friends here with that attitude. :p
I don't think history would agree with you. I think in the last few decades gun laws have gotten worse. Correct me if I am wrong but I think there are like 22,000 gun laws right now in the US. My father used to be able to walk into walgreens and buy an M1 Garand. My granadfather as a kid could ahve gone to the sore and bought a bb gun or even a real gun. You used to be able to talk about guns at schools. the largest shooting ranges in the US exist below schools where they used to have high school shooting teams. Hos anyones kids here been on a team that shoot in the basement of a school?

burley
December 2, 2010, 02:31 PM
specer, you didn't read the replies.

I just wish ya'all were as feverent to all our rights a A2. Warrentless wiretaps? Unjust accusations? Innocent untill proven guilty? Life, liberty and persut of happyness? You know, inalieneble rights endowed by the creator for EVERYBODY, not just you and your drinkin' buds.

CoRoMo
December 2, 2010, 02:35 PM
My state has been adding gun control tidbits every year to our laws. We just elected an openly anti-gun governor. Maybe this is thanks to the droves of Californians who keep moving here. I don't know.

Gun control is alive and well, and it is on the move. They want my guns, but they just have to figure out socially acceptable and incremental ways of getting them, before they succeed.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 02:39 PM
burley:
I just wish ya'all were as feverent to all our rights a A2. Warrentless wiretaps? Unjust accusations? Innocent untill proven guilty? Life, liberty and persut of happyness? You know, inalieneble rights endowed by the creator for EVERYBODY, not just you and your drinkin' buds.

This bears examination. A2 rights aren't the only important ones. The 4th amendment was eviscerated beneath Bush Jr, and those policies have been sustained beneath Obama. The 4th is what is supposed to keep them from grabbing your guns and holding them without legal cause, or on a flimsy pretense.

S. Hill
December 2, 2010, 02:58 PM
Oh, bother. I should really keep my mouth shut..... but I won't! :(

First, not everyone owns guns. A lot of people own them, but probably not a majority. You would have to check with statistics people... and the NRA probably has a percentage number somewhere in their archives. The majority does not guaranty our firearms possession.

Second, while the Bill of Rights does address firearms ownership, AND the current court agrees that it guarantees an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, courts in the future can disagree with this ruling, and overturn it. As you stated, the 4/5 split. It COULD have been 5/4!

Third, while we have a rich firearms heritage, we are under an organized campaign from people who want to disarm us. You can see the Brady and other antigun organizations, but there are others behind the scenes who want us to "throw down our firearms and come peacefully". (the UN Council on Small Arms" comes to mind) They see individual firearms ownership as a big hurdle in their race to a "one world government". If they get their way, all the years that you watched "Gunsmoke" isn't going to keep them from knocking on your door.

Fourth, some people are paranoid. What is that saying…. “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean that there aren’t little green men chasing you…” But….. We DO need to join the NRA and other RKBA organizations. We DO need to vote. We DO need to be vigilant and watch what is happening in the world. We also need to plan ahead for attacks against our firearms ownership. We have to believe that they will come. But are you paranoid when the very thing you are afraid of has happened before? This leads me to my final point.

Finally, someone above me mentioned Hitler. We gotta learn from the past!!! While our Constitution may guarantee the right, it doesn’t guarantee the application. The application can erode over time, leaving you with an empty shell that will put you in bondage.

Stay awake, stay vigilant! And may God (with a capital “G”) bless the land of the free.

Warhawk83
December 2, 2010, 03:21 PM
Finally, someone above me mentioned Hitler. We gotta learn from the past!!! While our Constitution may guarantee the right, it doesn’t guarantee the application. The application can erode over time, leaving you with an empty shell that will put you in bondage.

Stay awake, stay vigilant! And may God (with a capital “G”) bless the land of the free.
S. Hill is online now Report Post Quick reply to this message

Amen Brother!

roadchoad
December 2, 2010, 04:45 PM
we have it in our constitution and supreme court 4/5 people agreeded to it.


You misheard. It was 5-4, as in it was 5 out of 9. Not such good odds now, eh?

wheelgunslinger
December 2, 2010, 04:51 PM
They hypervigilant among us offset, somewhat, the lazy, ill informed, or lukewarm who do either nothing or almost nothing.

We need to have people that you see as worry warts as much as we need the even keeled folk in our ranks.

Carl N. Brown
December 2, 2010, 06:03 PM
Second amendment discussions often slide into a 'ability to revolt against a government' tone.

The 'ability to revolt against tyranny' argument often comes not from sports shooter or self-defense advocates, gun folks, but from academics who bother to read the writings of the revolutionaries who founded the United States with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, when the Second Amendment was being debated and hammered out.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 06:21 PM
The 'ability to revolt against tyranny' argument often comes not from sports shooter or self-defense advocates, gun folks, but from academics who bother to read the writings of the revolutionaries who founded the United States with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, when the Second Amendment was being debated and hammered out.
Maybe, but I've heard it spoken by some alarmingly insane sounding politicians in this last election cycle.

Tilos
December 2, 2010, 06:23 PM
Yup, only one supreme away from loosing the vote.

And what does this mean??What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 06:29 PM
Yup, only one supreme away from loosing the vote.

And what does this mean??What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
He's talking about the Peace Core and the USA Freedom Core. Here's the whole speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Corps


Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.

We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

S.W.G.
December 2, 2010, 06:52 PM
People who say they have guns in case they have to fight the government are a great example of people who shouldn't be allowed to speak for the RKBA movement, or even own guns themselves.


The Second Ammendment was put in place specifically to give the people the means to overthrow the government.

Are you saying we should 'tone things down' for the sake of political correctness?

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 06:58 PM
The Second Ammendment was put in place specifically to give the people the means to overthrow the government.

Are you saying we should 'tone things down' for the sake of political correctness?
So what? That's not what it's good for now. It's used now for sports, self defense and pleasure. I'm not the OP, so I'm not saying tone down. I'm saying you're loosing grip with reality if you're considering armed revolution with rifles.

In 1776, a militia and a nation state would use the same weapons while conducting warfare. In 2010, nation states have armor, an air force and satellite imaging. If you're hinging the continued legitimacy of the second amendment on revolution, you had better find another reason real quick.

General Geoff
December 2, 2010, 07:02 PM
In 1776, a militia and a nation state would use the same weapons while conducting warfare. In 2010, nation states have armor, an air force and satellite imaging. If you're hinging the continued legitimacy of the second amendment on revolution, you had better find another reason real quick.

Revolution has not been made obsolete by mere hardware.

S.W.G.
December 2, 2010, 07:07 PM
So what? That's not what it's good for now. It's used now for sports, self defense and pleasure.

Oh, okay, I guess we can forget about that whole 'freedom to peaceably assemble' thing, from now on the first ammendment will only concern porn and cursing on T.V.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 07:10 PM
Oh, okay, I guess we can forget about that whole 'freedom to peaceably assemble' thing, from now on the first ammendment will only concern porn and cursing on T.V.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 07:15 PM
Revolution has not been made obsolete by mere hardware.
No, just the success of one.

S.W.G.
December 2, 2010, 07:19 PM
I don't understand what you're trying to say.


I'm saying that you shouldn't just ignore the intent of the constitution.

You pretty much said that a revolution was impossible, so we should just forget about the real reason the Second Ammendment was drafted. Instead, we should focus on hunting and self defense, which have absolutely nothing to do with the 2'nd ammendment.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 07:25 PM
I'm saying that you shouldn't just ignore the intent of the constitution.

You pretty much said that a revolution was impossible, so we should just forget about the real reason the Second Ammendment was drafted. Instead, we should focus on hunting and self defense, which have absolutely nothing to do with the 2'nd ammendment.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just saying that assuming the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow violent overthrow, said intent is obsolete.

I think that if the intent is to discourage foreign invasion by making said invasion more costly it's not obsolete. Gun owning Americans alone could no more resist invasion than Iraqi or Afghani insurgents could resist the United States invading. They can inflict losses and cause disruption.. make an invasion more protracted and difficult.. but it's hard to resist a force that carpet bombs you or launches cruise missiles from 250 miles off shore.

General Geoff
December 2, 2010, 07:27 PM
No, just the success of one.

Thanks for the laugh!

S.W.G.
December 2, 2010, 07:31 PM
I'm just saying that assuming the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow violent overthrow, said intent is obsolete.


Obsolete or not, you should still support the spirit of the ammendment. That the people have a right to throw off an unjust government.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 07:40 PM
Obsolete or not, you should still support the spirit of the ammendment. That the people have a right to throw off an unjust government.
I agree that they do; the most successful revolt against a well organized, well armed and modern unjust government was orchestrated in India by Gandhi. That's not going to work in Burma, but concentrated political action should precede a failed state by a good margin.

buck460XVR
December 2, 2010, 08:04 PM
First, not everyone owns guns. A lot of people own them, but probably not a majority. You would have to check with statistics people... and the NRA probably has a percentage number somewhere in their archives. The majority does not guaranty our firearms possession.






Exact numbers are vague, but most estimates are that between 25% to 35% of Americans legally own a firearm. This puts us gun owners as a minority. Thankfully......the anti-gunners are a minority also. The majority of Americans are neutral to gun ownership, which means in our Democratic society, they need to be either kept neutral or be swayed to our side for us to keep our right to legally own a gun. This can only be accomplished by a positive and ethical image. All the tough talk of "from my dead hands" is worthless, if our image as gun owners is negative enough to sway the majority to the other side. Laws and Amendments are passed by the majority....that's how our system works. Altho we need not be paranoid, we do need to be vigilant. We need to continue to educate and introduce new folks to the sport of shooting/hunting and show to others that, we as legal gun owners are responsible and law abiding. That we are just like them, but we own a gun. Protesting and belonging to the NRA won't help at all if we act like bullies and doofusses.


Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

....I bet there were folks that never thought they'd remove the "In God we trust" from our currency either. A democratic society does what the majority wants.......like it or not. The thing that makes America so great is the biggest threat we have.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 08:13 PM
...I bet there were folks that never thought they'd remove the "In God we trust" from our currency either.

When was that removed? I hope you're not talking about this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp

Actually, I think it would be a phenomenal idea, though that's a completely different discussion.

Hani Pasha
December 2, 2010, 08:24 PM
There is no magical wall at our coasts and borders that keeps tyranny out. The only thing that keeps gun rights in the US relatively respected is the people in the US, and that is all.

Old krow
December 2, 2010, 09:16 PM
I think that Buck460xvr pretty well summed it up in that post.

The fact that we can or cannot overthrow a tyrannical government/dictator is pretty much beside the point. Those arguments are speculative for the most part anyway. The simple fact of the matter is, the more gun owners that there are, the more people there are that are voting on these issues.

If you take a look at the hard numbers, gun owners typically have one of the highest turn outs in voting. NRA members have one of the highest (if not THE highest) of any group/organization in the US. The more voters that we have the better off that we are.

The bottom line is, the anits do not rest in their attack. They garner support from the mainstream media and bias statistics. They prey on people who are uniformed or ill-informed. Voting on misinformation unfortunately does not cause a vote to be invalid. It counts just the same.

One of their main focuses of attack is to attack the NRA. It's an attempt to separate the "hard-liners" from the rest of the shooters by making the NRA look like fanatics. A reduction in the size of the NRA is a reduction in support as well as a reduction in funds. Our countermeasures should include increasing the number of shooters in the US. Paranoid? Vigilant? Strategic? Pick one, doesn't matter, but playing isolationist will ensure that our rights will slowly erode away.

Tilos
December 2, 2010, 09:37 PM
"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
And what does the Peace Corpse have to do with national security, again...tell me.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 10:11 PM
"We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
And what does the Peace Core have to do with national security, again...tell me.
Well, what precedes it is a reference to Foreign Services (http://careers.state.gov/), and what proceeds it is a reference to the US Freedom Corps (http://www.serve.gov/). So take your pick. It sounds like he's talking about either national security through increased diplomacy or civilians being active in their community through volunteer service. I'll ask Obama next time I see him.

What are you suggesting? A Blackwater-esque private police force? Like the strike-breaking Pinkertons? Sounds like a market solution a right wing politician would suggest, rather than the left wing Obama.

Tilos
December 2, 2010, 10:38 PM
I'm not suggesting anything, just looking for a meaning to that perticular phrase about national security.
I never expected any response from the pre-screened head bobbers in the audience or the media, so yes ask him when you get a chance.

I do understand it was a campaign speech and we both know they rarely make sense anyway.
Kind of like the social security "lock box" buzz phrase from a few elections ago, that's been morphed into "means testing" of late.
But I digress, sorry for the drift to a non-gun related topic.

Forgive me moderators for what I just said.

nipprdog
December 2, 2010, 10:43 PM
I think some people need to calm down

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

Hi guys. I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control. All you have to do is: be NRA or other org. member, vote, protest anti-gun bills. Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hairs.

Plus, I highly doubt that they will ever ban guns.

a) we have it in our constitution and supreme court 4/5 people agreeded to it.
b) EVERY ONE owns a gun


This must be your first thread to make it to 4 pages.

Tilos
December 2, 2010, 11:38 PM
ShaiVong:
Wait, wait, I think I got it, don't ask him just yet.
I'm thinking by national security volunteers he may have meant like those border guys, what was it they called themselves, oh ya, minute men.
Yea, that's gotta be it.
You know, geezers lined up at the border sitting in retro, aluminum framed, lawn chairs.
Ask him...I think that's it, national security volunteers at the borders.

ShaiVong
December 2, 2010, 11:54 PM
ShaiVong:
Wait, wait, I think I got it, don't ask him just yet.
I'm thinking by national security volunteers he may have meant like those border guys, what was it they called themselves, oh ya, minute men.
Yea, that's gotta be it.
You know, geezers lined up at the border sitting in retro, aluminum framed, lawn chairs.
Ask him...I think that's it, national security volunteers at the borders.
I think he was talking about housewives in over active homeowners associations. Overgrown shrubs are a looming threat to our nation's borders.

9mmforMe
December 3, 2010, 06:01 AM
Gun owners with 5 shot j-frame S&W revolvers, Glock perfection or even
AR-15s would definitely be no match against our military and its weaponry, thats quite obvious.

What's important is the intention of the right to keep and bear arms was/is to secure individual determination and be a final resort we could turn to if all other ways of securing all our other rights were stripped by a strong singularly minded govenrning force (or an invading foreign entity). I think being mindful of the intent behind the 2A will always hold inordinate respect for anyone who values the liberty we enjoy in this country...even if scenarios of "us vs. them" would have a catastrophic ending for the modern day revolutionary soldier armed with only his trusted snub-nosed revolver. :)

Mr.Davis
December 3, 2010, 09:06 AM
So what? That's not what it's good for now. It's used now for sports, self defense and pleasure. I'm not the OP, so I'm not saying tone down. I'm saying you're loosing grip with reality if you're considering armed revolution with rifles.

In 1776, a militia and a nation state would use the same weapons while conducting warfare. In 2010, nation states have armor, an air force and satellite imaging. If you're hinging the continued legitimacy of the second amendment on revolution, you had better find another reason real quick.

While you're right to some degree, I wonder how you'd explain the success of Afghanistan's cave-dwelling insurgents in resisting the USA right now, and previously ejecting the USSR from their country using pitifully basic weapons?

Remember that the Revolutionary War's first shots were fired because the British were attempting to disarm the colonists.

Where reason fails, force does not. Where politicians dare to violate inalienable rights, firearms may become the last and only means of resistance. I agree that armed rebellion is a notion that some take far too lightly, and that the reasoning process must be used as long as the political structures still operate.

It's one thing for politicians to ignore their constituents on a health care mandate. It's something else entirely for them to refuse to leave office after their term is up, for example.

mljdeckard
December 3, 2010, 10:17 AM
Absolutely. Just because the armed populace has kept the government from usurping rights (to a degree) over the last 200 years doesn't mean at all that we would be where we are today were it not for the armed populace. Do not take for granted the protection provided from the Second Amendment just because you have never personally had to actively use it. Its presence is its own protection.

SaxonPig
December 3, 2010, 10:25 AM
Anyone who says that rights and freedoms cannot be lost has not studied history and has zero understanding of how government works.

Not sure what the OP's intent was with his comments but he has zero credibility if he is seriously suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is secure.

He says "they" can't/won't ban guns. Ask people in Chicago, DC, California, NYC if "they" can't/won't ban guns.

OP is either an anti-gun plant or delusional.

Over and... out.

RochPersDef
December 3, 2010, 10:32 AM
Our society has been moving towards the anti gun mindset for a long time. Our schools teach our kids that guns are evil things. Our doctors pry into our private lives to see who has guns or not. Even the Vets Admin asks now. Too many people asking questions that don't mean anything except to find out who has the guns and to find a way to make us bad. My kid brought home a survey (that he did not answer) asking if there were guns in our home and WHY.....WHY? Why the heck do they need to know? I know why..none of their business, that's why. One student did respond and the school sent a letter to the police dept claiming this kid was in danger because of his MOTHERS gun being in the home. They went, investigated, and found that she was a very responsible gun owner. She kept is safe and locked when she was supposed to. She is now suing the school district. Let's see how that goes. That's what we are facing as gun owners.

The small, incremental steps that have been taken over the past number of years has definitely set the stage for a tougher run for us firearms owners. The current leadership has gone on record many times in favor of removing all gun ownership - eventually.

No. It won't be a sudden change, it will be a small creeping step that will surprise us all. Once there, a lot of us will say "I never thought it would happen. How did this happen. Who let this happen?"

Well, I can tell you the answers now. It will happen. It happened because we were not diligent and we took the easy way out or just ignored it like good sheeple. And the answer to the last one? WE will have let it happen.

Don't let it happen. Take a stand now, not when it is too late and all you want to do is run around yelling at everyone for letting this happen. Fix the problem when it's small and controllable. If every gun owner in the US made a decision right now, things would get better and the Anti-gun BS would stop.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 3, 2010, 11:31 AM
What are you suggesting? A Blackwater-esque private police force?

"Brown Shirts", reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That's my understanding.

Woody

Tilos
December 3, 2010, 11:39 AM
ShaiVong:

You need to calm down, lighten up a little:D.
And I went back and checked, those aluminum web chairs were NOT retro, they are the originals:o.

Whew, this is intense, I'm all stressed out.

PinoyInFL
December 3, 2010, 12:08 PM
I just don't see how a 5 to 4 edge in the supreme court gives you a whole lot of confidence. In the start of the fourth quarter of a basketball game, do you ease up and send your starters to the locker room because you're 2 points ahead?

General Geoff
December 3, 2010, 12:21 PM
Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hairs.

People don't worry about their guns. They worry about their freedom. Their guns just happen to be the first thing a tyrannical government tends to confiscate.

The Red Hot Rider
December 3, 2010, 12:30 PM
RTKBA is not something I'm not willing to give even an inch on. I don't worry about it all the time, but it is definitely an issue I will support with my vote and my wallet and my freedom of speech.

sig220mw
December 3, 2010, 12:32 PM
Well said RochPersDef. It's the old frog in the pot of water story. Kinda like creeping socialism. They keep chipping away at the constitution and using the media to indoctrinate as many as possible. 35 years ago the newsies just implied that guns "might" be bad. Now they just come right out and say it.

The original poster obviously thought that 4 out of 5 justices were on the side of the constitution. He evidently didn't know there are actually 9 justices and only 5 are pro constitution.

NEVER trust the political elite to protect any rights for individuals.

Join any pro gun organization or join them all. The point is join at least one and send them $10.00 a month or more or less. Whatever you can afford to send. Then call your representative and senators and I mean at the national and state levels. If they don't hear from you they think you don't care.

Finally, sign up your spouse, kids and friends as members also. Make it a Christmas or birthday gift or convince them to join on their own.

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 12:33 PM
People don't worry about their guns. They worry about their freedom. Their guns just happen to be the first thing a tyrannical government tends to confiscate.

I disagree. Guns are the last thing to go.

We've begun to surrender some of our basic liberties already in this country, though I wouldn't go so far as to say we're on a trajectory to totalitarianism.

The Patriot Act was one of the most vile pieces of legislation passed in my lifetime, and it didn't grab guns from us all. Once we no longer have the rights to privacy and freedom from unlawful search and sciesure, guns (or anything else) would be easy to take.

Hell, why bother taking your guns? You could be declared an enemy combatant and be held forever without being charged with a crime. That you should find worrying.

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 12:40 PM
Absolutely. Just because the armed populace has kept the government from usurping rights (to a degree) over the last 200 years doesn't mean at all that we would be where we are today were it not for the armed populace. Do not take for granted the protection provided from the Second Amendment just because you have never personally had to actively use it. Its presence is its own protection.
I would argue that post-1776, there were very few rights in this country. You had to be a white land owner able to pay a poll tax to vote. You had almost no rights if you were:
1) Female
2) Poor
3) A Renter
4) Indian
5) Black
6) A Slave

This country was not a cool place to be before or after the revolution. If you were a minority, it was even worse after the civil war. For Native Americans, things started going down the toilet around 1492.

Many of these wrongs have been redressed, but overwhelmingly through political action. Certainly not by armed conflict with the government, except maybe in isolated cases of organized labor clashing with police and the national guard during the rise of the robber barons in the mid to late 1800s.

mljdeckard
December 3, 2010, 12:54 PM
And none of that means that we would be better off without the Second Amendment.

Sounds like your water is already getting hot. (And you don't seem to mind at all.)

General Geoff
December 3, 2010, 01:04 PM
I disagree. Guns are the last thing to go.

Not from a historical standpoint. The only reason it's any different with this country is the 2nd amendment. It's taken them much longer than most regimes to try and pry arms from the hands of the common man.

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 01:05 PM
Not from a historical standpoint. The only reason it's any different with this country is the 2nd amendment. It's taken them much longer than most regimes to try and pry guns from the hands of the common man.
Uh oh, let's not start talking about 'them'.

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 01:13 PM
And none of that means that we would be better off without the Second Amendment.

Sounds like your water is already getting hot. (And you don't seem to mind at all.)
I agree that having an armed populace surely can help; I certainly am not volunteering to give up my guns anymore than I'd volunteer to give up my swords (and chain mail!).

But there are two things that are happening at the same time in this country, and the direction worries me. On one hand, rights are still expanding. There are still some people who are shut out from equal rights by law, and they are slowly gaining ground. So in that sense this country is still making it's slow journey that it started 230 years ago.

On the other hand, the terrorism scare has allowed some segments of our government to bloat beyond reason (DoD) and given some politicians the excuse they need to erode our liberties in the name of 'national security'. We're now in a country where you can be picked up and tortured for information, a policy approved by the (ex)president himself. All of this is heating up my water, and making me very upset.

Regardless, I don't see how these problems relate to armed revolt. That would only make things much, much worse.

Tinman357
December 3, 2010, 01:19 PM
That some people don't know their history. A "revolution" is a foregone conclusion. It will happen. I'm sure that it will be a politically oriented movement but it will happen none the less.

The 2nd is just as fragile as the 4th. OP... Been through an airport lately? :barf:

Nushif
December 3, 2010, 01:28 PM
And what does the Peace Corpse have to do with national security, again...tell me

The Peace Corps (not the dead guy) helps with National Security by providing the US a sanctioned force of trained personnel to engage the civilian populace of any given level via "grass roots" presence and goodwill.
The difference being that the military goes armed and ready to do its job when it deploys to even a disaster zone. the PC however, is unarmed and much less of a threat to a foreign countries powers that be, while providing *again* SANCTIONED presence by a state agency.
In essence it allows us to put boots on the ground without stepping on some overgrown dictator's <expletive>.


As an example of "Lawn Security:"
Situation: Neighbor's dog is digging holes in my lovely flowers.
Mission: Stop said Dog from digging holes in my lovely flowers.

Execution 1: Buy shotgun, shoot dog when next spotted.
Execution 2: Go to neighbor and tell him "dude, your dog has been diggin holes in my yard, could you kindly not let him do that."


Where the Military is the continuation of politics via non-diplomatic means, the PC is still well within diplomatic means.

I have some mad respect for the Peace Corps. And this is coming from a military guy. I frankly don't know where this brown shirt crap came from, but well ... I don't know where half the fabrication on TV networks and radio shows comes from.

That being said there is an ongoing fight to erode the right to be armed in this country.
While no one single law, or no one single circumstance will ever "take away" our guns, a continuing barrage of minor infringements does continue to erode the right for people to carry a firearm. (Notice the distinction, a *firearm* because I can oddly go armed with a Baton wherever I please.)
The devil of disarming the US is in the details, not the broad strokes.

KosmicKrunch
December 3, 2010, 01:34 PM
<---- CALM - My time clock at work, when I punch in.... despenses a Xanax, like a Pez despenser :D

Sky
December 3, 2010, 01:59 PM
This has been a good discussion on many topics and concerns. There are those who refuse any thought that take them out of their comfort zone and their are those who think and live spring loaded to vigilance. Neither is wrong for the individual who has to live their life or walk in their "own" shoes.

The problem seems to come from those who walk in their shoes but want you to follow in their foot steps (and take your shoes) for they think they know best.

S. Hill
December 3, 2010, 02:19 PM
Ummmm... who is "shut out from equal rights by law"? The only groups that I can think of are felons and illegal immigrants. Their rights should be!

Everybody else sits in some protected minority group defined by race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin..... Each of those groups whines and complains until they get some sort of priority. They don’t get EQUAL rights, they get a preference.

Oh, I just thought of one!!! Cigarette smokers! They have had their rights taken away! In Wisconsin you can’t smoke inside a public building or private place of business. If I own a bar or tavern, my patrons are not allowed to smoke while indoors. They have to stand or sit outside or I’m breaking the law. It will soon be considered “child abuse” to subject your children to “second-hand smoke”. You won’t be able to smoke in your house or car if there is anyone within sniffing distance.

So, who are you talking about?

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 02:21 PM
I think the discussion has wandered a bit far afield, so let me reset some of the individual threads and explain why I've been such a contrarian.

I think we all agree that the RKBA is never safe to the point of 'let's move on to something else'. Because we're visiting this site, it's fair to assume that we all want to see the RKBA stay intact.

To me, the quality of an argument is very important, regardless if the ultimate end is correct or not. I don't think anyone here want's to be right for the wrong reason.

To say, privately or publicly, "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because responsible adults can and should be trusted with firearms and should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to own them. It strengthens the individual and in certain situations can strengthen a society as a whole." is a good argument (when properly developed).

Good arguments are important if you're out to convince those who may not agree with you a priori.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

S. Hill
December 3, 2010, 02:22 PM
Rich people! They have to pay taxes that are completely out of line with the rest of the population. To say that they are getting "equal rights" is a hoot! Their property is being confiscated every April 15. And if they die.... :eek:

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 02:23 PM
Ummmm... who is "shut out from equal rights by law"? The only groups that I can think of are felons and illegal immigrants. Their rights should be!
...

So, who are you talking about?


That's really too off topic to get in to, which is why I didn't specify it in my post. I can send you a private message if you'd like.

Toaster
December 3, 2010, 03:19 PM
Telling people on an internet gun forum to stop worrying about RBKA is rather like telling the preacher at the pulpit to stop delivering his sermon with passion.

Yeah, folks on the 'net tend to overstate things, regardless of the subject, as did the person on the soapbox back in the day.

Overstatement is not a bad thing. It creates debate, ( hopefully a well thought out healthy debate). And when people debate a given subject, eyes are opened, ideas begin to form.
With ideas, complacency and non-chalance are replaced with activism. People become activists when they join organisations, when they vote, when they write letters to elected officials.
I know that the army isn't going to suddenly show up at my front door and take all my guns away. But the thought of such an occurance can inspire many people to become involved. With out the occasional "paranoid rant" folks may be more inclined to allow their rights to be trampled.
So, in regards to the OP, a liile paranoia can be a gpood thing , so long as it helps people to THINK for themselves

wideym
December 3, 2010, 03:47 PM
Are all those who rushed out to buy ARs, AKs, ect...after the presidential election paranoid? Or did they recall what happened in 94' after the last democrat was elected and who's wife was appointted Secretary of State?

Most people forget and children nowadays aren't taught that the first shots fired in the American Revolution wasn't because the British were oppressing the Colonists, it was when the British sent troops to confiscate the Colonist guns. The Colonists were mostly content to peacefull negotiations with the Crown, even as their rights as British citizens were being trampled, until troops arrived in Lexington.

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 04:06 PM
Are all those who rushed out to buy ARs, AKs, ect...after the presidential election paranoid? Or did they recall what happened in 94' after the last democrat was elected and who's wife was appointted Secretary of State?

Most people forget and children nowadays aren't taught that the first shots fired in the American Revolution wasn't because the British were oppressing the Colonists, it was when the British sent troops to confiscate the Colonist guns. The Colonists were mostly content to peacefull negotiations with the Crown, even as their rights as British citizens were being trampled, until troops arrived in Lexington.
Though the British didn't go door to door taking rifles from citizens, they heard that there was a stockpile of arms and gunpowder in Lexington, and moved to seize it. It's kind of a different milieu.

9mmforMe
December 3, 2010, 06:30 PM
The OP said:

"All you have to do is: be NRA or other org. member, vote, protest anti-gun bills. Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hair"

It seems that most people in this thread agree with the OP that joining a pro-gun group is a wise thing to do. It seems that most people agree with the OP that voting (political involvement) is a wise thing to do. Lastly it seems that most people also agree that protest is wise as well re: anti-gun bills (also political involvement). As far as worrying is concerned, you will or you won't...that's a personal decision that only affects YOU emotionally, do as you will. Grey hair isn't all that bad anyway...shows wisdom. :)

We have gotten off topic, but it has been good reading, and stimulating to rehash significant historical occurrences, individual rights and potential scenarios of revolution germain to the theme of this thread.

For me...money has been very tight with the wife in law school, tending to my young daughter and planning to try for another child in the next few months.

Though I don't move with all of their political perspectives, I am going to rejoin the NRA ASAP. In the end its for my wife, daughter and any other little ones that might come our way; they are just too dear to me not to re-up.

jdowney
December 3, 2010, 06:51 PM
To say, privately or publicly, "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because responsible adults can and should be trusted with firearms and should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to own them. It strengthens the individual and in certain situations can strengthen a society as a whole." is a good argument (when properly developed).

Good arguments are important if you're out to convince those who may not agree with you a priori.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

There's an awful lot of room between your good and bad arguments, and also many better ways of phrasing each. Frankly, I find your "good" argument to be so vague and general to be worthy of one of our fine friends in Washington DC.

Back to the "bad" argument though. You've phrased a reasonable point in the worst possible way in order to make your point. I will give you credit that it is sometimes phrased similarly by its proponents.

I say it is a reasonable position because I think the 2nd Amendment was included by the founders as a check or balance against undesired political change, either from within (as has been seen numerous times since with other fledgling democracies around the world), or from the outside - I believe France was only marginally trusted as an ally after the Revolution.

The mere threat of the real ability to resist political change by revolution is typically enough to prevent its need, rather like an arms race. It has been speculated that the 2nd Amendment prevented the serious consideration of a mainland invasion by the Japanese in 1941, and the equivalent state of affairs prevented an invasion of Switzerland by the Nazi's.

Likewise, the mere existence of an armed populace should provide a check against the wanton or trumped up declaration of martial law. We have been very fortunate in this country to never have seen this put to the test.

Back to your "good" argument. It's boring. You lost me somewhere around "responsible adults", and I am interested enough to go back a second time and force myself to get your drift. Any who didn't already agree wouldn't bother.

There are of course many opinions about how to defend the RKBA. I think the best way is to try to force the anti's to confront the root of their desire to regulate weaponry. It is almost invariably based on fear. In any debate, you can never win defending a position held based on something as irrational as fear.

So my idea of a "good" argument is more along the lines of: "How can you justify limiting my civil liberties out of fear of a person you don't even know, some malicious individual who really exists only in the depths of your mind?"

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 07:55 PM
There are of course many opinions about how to defend the RKBA. I think the best way is to try to force the anti's to confront the root of their desire to regulate weaponry. It is almost invariably based on fear. In any debate, you can never win defending a position held based on something as irrational as fear.

One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

jdowney
December 3, 2010, 08:05 PM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

One could say that, but I've no intention of defending rhetoric. I will defend my own arguments, not someone else's - unless I find them rational enough to be defensible, as many are.

RochPersDef
December 3, 2010, 08:11 PM
Look at history, even starting with the feudal times. Lords and kings would ensure that only their personal armies would have the free will to arm themselves.

Back up to the early turn of the millennium. Roman times. Tactics were to subdue the protectors of the villages and areas of interest and then march right in and take over.

Pre war Germany. Hitler. First thing to do was to confiscate and outlaw all of the sporting, target, and other firearms in Germany so he could take over. In Every country he took over, he started by confiscating arms.

Look at Korea, China, Viet-nam, etc. Same basic tactics and 'control the populace' ideas.

I have actually talked with people that came to the US from some of the communist bloc countries. They describe life before the bad times. They could hunt, shoot for sport and possess arms all they wanted (like here) and then, one day, they woke up and discovered that they couldn't. Their rights were eroded bit by bit. No one really cared as they were thinking the same thing we do: "They don't want our guns. They're just trying to help us be safer"

We are dealing with one of the most anti gun administrations ever. We all need to stop thinking that each little step is OK because it does not really mean anything. Look at us now with imports. "Oh, let's just buy a small amount" then a few years later, "Oh just a bit more" and so on and so on. Now where are we? They make practically everything we have and we are getting so indebted to them it's ridiculous.......

iibao
December 3, 2010, 08:44 PM
I don't know how you feel comfortable with that, but 55.55% scares the **** out of me. :eek:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

BaltimoreBoy
December 3, 2010, 08:49 PM
"we have it in our constitution"

So. The Constitution also says that it is Congress that has the power to declare war. I was born when the Korean War was bubbling away, and my recollection is that the government has been involved in wars around the globe for most of my life. And you know something: the last time Congress declared war was in December 1941.

jdowney
December 3, 2010, 08:59 PM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

Come to think of it, looking at your sig line, I can give you another one to think about.

Not being a church-goer myself, people telling me about their religion makes me vaguely un-comfortable. But I recognize that this is an irrational reaction of my own, and I do my best to ignore it rather than project some kind of distrust or fear onto those who are overtly religious.

Why is it so hard for anti-gun people to think through the reasons that they hold their beliefs?

ShaiVong
December 3, 2010, 09:23 PM
Come to think of it, looking at your sig line, I can give you another one to think about.

Not being a church-goer myself, people telling me about their religion makes me vaguely un-comfortable. But I recognize that this is an irrational reaction of my own, and I do my best to ignore it rather than project some kind of distrust or fear onto those who are overtly religious.

Why is it so hard for anti-gun people to think through the reasons that they hold their beliefs?
Well, I'm sure some don't. There are some beliefs that I have or have rejected that I think through quite a bit... some I'm sure I haven't even realized that I haven't thought through (unknown unknowns? Oh boy..). But you're doing your opponents a dis-service to assume they haven't thought through their beliefs; maybe their reasons are simply different than yours?

For example; there are still people kicking around who oppose inter-racial marriage. The reason for this is they find racial 'purity' important. I don't oppose it because I think racial 'purity' is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't mean they don't have a reason, it just means that I think their reasons are wrong.

Those who point to gun deaths as reasons why gun ownership (specifically handgun) should be severely restricted are (generally) reasoning that less guns total in circulation will reduce gun crime/accidents. They're probably correct about accidents, and I think they're probably slightly correct about gun crime. To me, the incremental reduction in gun crime is not worth disarming the law-abiding and stripping them of some valuable rights while simultaneously making them defenseless. I agree they have reasons, but I think their reasons are wrong.

jdowney
December 3, 2010, 09:52 PM
But you're doing your opponents a dis-service to assume they haven't thought through their beliefs; maybe their reasons are simply different than yours?
Those cases do occur, and I then get a good opportunity to refine my own arguments by seeing how they hold up with someone who can think clearly, yet simply holds different beliefs. The two times I remember that happening, I convinced them that gun control was not a practical way of approaching the various problems. Whether that conviction was firmly held or not is beyond me, I expect not though.

For example; there are still people kicking around who oppose inter-racial marriage. The reason for this is they find racial 'purity' important. I don't oppose it because I think racial 'purity' is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't mean they don't have a reason, it just means that I think their reasons are wrong.
I would answer that they are wrong, based on a very naive idea of racial "purity". The most basic understanding of evolution is enough to see the practical disadvantages of such "purity". Such beliefs are not logically defensible.

Those who point to gun deaths as reasons why gun ownership (specifically handgun) should be severely restricted are (generally) reasoning that less guns total in circulation will reduce gun crime/accidents. They're probably correct about accidents, and I think they're probably slightly correct about gun crime. To me, the incremental reduction in gun crime is not worth disarming the law-abiding and stripping them of some valuable rights while simultaneously making them defenseless. I agree they have reasons, but I think their reasons are wrong.
Here again the problem is naivety. In a world of ideal situations, such restrictions might be effective. The reality is that the criminal elements do not follow the rules and will obtain weapons if they need them. Severe restrictions will simply decrease the supply and increase the price. One need only look to Prohibition, the war on drugs, prostitution, and the gun situation in Mexico to find ample evidence to support this point. I do not agree that these reasons are really any more valid than fear, since they do not reflect the practical realities visible in the world.

hardworker
December 3, 2010, 11:28 PM
Actually, Hitler made owning guns for the average german easier. Jews were another story though.

RochPersDef
December 3, 2010, 11:46 PM
There is that........

wvshooter
December 3, 2010, 11:55 PM
Hi guys. I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control.


Easy to say if you don't live in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, or California.

Our US Supreme Court situation is very scary. One vote away from some VERY bad decisions. Most people in this country have no idea how important gun rights are. Everybody who hunts and most who own firearms should belong to the NRA. We've got along way to go to secure gun rights in America.

Try telling that to the poor guy who just got a seven year prison sentence in New Jersey for having two handguns in the trunk of his car. He was moving to Hoboken from Colorado.

Old krow
December 4, 2010, 12:41 AM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

This is probably true, however, why is this a factor? It isn't a factor anymore than trying to convince a true "anti" that they're wrong. This is far more exaggerated on these ends of the spectrum. The arguments that should occur wouldn't be taking place against someone that is fervently opposed to owning firearms. It's an exercise in futility.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

How is this a bad argument? I suppose that it could be worded differently, however, it isn't that far from the truth. The intent of the 2nd, if one reads back through history, was for security. The debate on whether or not a revolution could occur can go on until the end of time or until it is decisively answered. However, the truest enemy that the RBKA faces isn't necessarily the "antis", it's the voters that are desensitized to what it means to have and keep freedom. It's the people who do not believe that losing "a" freedom is okay provided that it isn't the one that they exercise. We have (as a nation) lost sight of what it takes to keep it or what it could cost us to not have it. To tell the truth, "antis" don't really bother me. We'll always have them. A nation of voters who do not prize the freedom that was granted to us scares me. So why exactly would the truest intent of the 2nd be a bad idea to make an argument upon? The whole of the argument over gun boils down to individual liberties, that's where it all starts. If everyone prized their individual freedoms as much as I do, or you, would guns even be an issue? Can you make the case that we were intended to have control of this from the start without referencing the COTUS or its intent?

On the other hand, the terrorism scare has allowed some segments of our government to bloat beyond reason (DoD) and given some politicians the excuse they need to erode our liberties in the name of 'national security'.

I agree with 100%. The mere fact that we allowed this to happen scares me. What it shows me is that as long as we can be kept in a state of fear we can be controlled or even provoked into removing our own rights. The fact that it is and has been often overlooked is worthy of paranoia.

ShaiVong
December 4, 2010, 01:56 AM
I would answer that they are wrong, based on a very naive idea of racial "purity". The most basic understanding of evolution is enough to see the practical disadvantages of such "purity". Such beliefs are not logically defensible.

In their defense, modern racists are hardly intelligent enough to understand evolution.

Sauer Grapes
December 4, 2010, 08:37 AM
I'm not paraniod!!!! Oh, yes I am. I'm not saying it can't happen but I doubt it wound happen in the time I have left on this earth.

pith43
December 4, 2010, 09:44 AM
Those who point to gun deaths as reasons why gun ownership (specifically handgun) should be severely restricted are (generally) reasoning that less guns total in circulation will reduce gun crime/accidents. They're probably correct about accidents, and I think they're probably slightly correct about gun crime. To me, the incremental reduction in gun crime is not worth disarming the law-abiding and stripping them of some valuable rights while simultaneously making them defenseless. I agree they have reasons, but I think their reasons are wrong.


To me, this is a faulty premise. The statistics have always shown that the more restrictions imposed on states/communities, the higher the crime rate. Although I have not seen the statistics, I seriously doubt gun laws reduce the rate of accidental gun deaths, any more than they reduce gun related crime.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 4, 2010, 11:58 AM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

Don't be deluded. The "fear" you speak of is misplaced. A good study of history is all one needs to understand that despots, tyrants, and other ambitious aggressors exist. I, for one, do not fear them. They should fear me because I am armed and determined to stay free.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

hso
December 4, 2010, 12:12 PM
There's a significant difference between "fear", "concern" and "awareness".

I think most of our members are aware of the potential for threats to their safety or security and liberty. A few may be concerned about their safety or security with good reason because of the greater risk they're exposed to due to where they live or their careers. I expect that only a very few of our members and gun owners in general are actually fearful, even though that term gets thrown around a lot.

More precisely, most of us are aware of or concerned about our safety/security and liberty based on a clear understanding of the history of 2A erosion in this country and the clear trend in other countries.

goon
December 4, 2010, 03:10 PM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.


Agreed.
I own guns because I know there are bigger, meaner people out there who would be fully capable of and willing to harm me and my loved ones if they got the chance. A firearm is a great equalizer.

jdowney
December 4, 2010, 04:40 PM
One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

Thinking about this one more, are you actually telling me that some guy who believes he should own a rifle and say 1000 rounds of ammunition on the off chance he'll need it someday is to be equated with the most extreme of gun control advocates?

Both beliefs could be motivated by fear, but one seeks to limit the civil liberties of other people and the other does not. I have yet to hear any practical justification for limiting civil liberties of any kind.

788Ham
December 4, 2010, 04:48 PM
Wheelguner05,

You must be pretty weak in the history dept., making such statements as you did/have, either that, or "they" have you already! Don't think for a moment the other-side isn't contemplating removing the firearms we have, they tried it with the "powder markers", the shortages on powder, primers, brass cases, this isn't new to us. When I was 17, still a senior in HS, I joined the naval reserve, graduated and went to basic, then by the following Jan, was aboard ship in Viet Nam. I did this on my own accord, because I could, I came back a disabled veteran, but would do it again too, if I was 40 years younger! I love this country and would/will die for it to keep her free, if guns are a part of it, which you already know this, then you'll know why you've stirred up this hornet's nest by asking such stupid statements like you have. If you feel the way you do, its quite apparent, then possibly you need to go find yourself a good history book and start reading it, possibly your feelings and comments will change, then maybe not, since it looks as though "they" have you.
Semper Fi

HD_Ride
December 4, 2010, 09:41 PM
Only intelligent people are paranoid. The others are too dumb to look at all facts of an issue, and plan accordingly.Well said lloveless!

ShaiVong
December 5, 2010, 01:49 AM
Don't be deluded. The "fear" you speak of is misplaced. A good study of history is all one needs to understand that despots, tyrants, and other ambitious aggressors exist. I, for one, do not fear them. They should fear me because I am armed and determined to stay free.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
They don't fear you; they have thousands of minions and hundreds of airplanes. This isn't an action movie.

ShaiVong
December 5, 2010, 01:50 AM
Thinking about this one more, are you actually telling me that some guy who believes he should own a rifle and say 1000 rounds of ammunition on the off chance he'll need it someday is to be equated with the most extreme of gun control advocates?

No.

ShaiVong
December 5, 2010, 01:52 AM
Agreed.
I own guns because I know there are bigger, meaner people out there who would be fully capable of and willing to harm me and my loved ones if they got the chance. A firearm is a great equalizer.
That's also one of the many reasons I own them to; I'm of average height and build, and I don't work out. It's much easier just to have a few loaded pistols around (which I do). Though, I can say that I fully expect to never have to use firearm to defend myself.

hso
December 5, 2010, 01:56 AM
I can say that I fully expect to never have to use firearm to defend myself.

And the vast majority of us won't either, but simply being able to recognize the risk and taking measures to mitigate the hazard because of the catastrophic nature of the hazard (however low the potential for exposure may be) seems quite reasonable.

Creature
December 5, 2010, 08:35 AM
They don't fear you; they have thousands of minions and hundreds of airplanes. This isn't an action movie.

Dont forget that those who fly those airplanes and crew those tanks are citizens as well.

KosmicKrunch
December 5, 2010, 09:10 AM
In good times or bad, total oppression or in a truly free society, I believe the heart of the matter will be those people that hold the truths and freedoms bestowed upon them by some very smart men and women will obviously be that firearms are a basic structure piece of OUR society. I know for myself, they can come and jackboot my guns away, I will still always have a gun handy.

RKBA is imprinted into my soul, no government or police state can take that away from me, laws or no laws. They may pry my gun from my cold dead hand but they will never find the others I have buried and put away for my surviving brothers, sisters and close friends. I can find two (2) pipes, a nail and a shotgun shell in just about any house in the USA. From that, I can gain a better weapon and progress up. The Gov't can place any and all restrictions they want; there will always be guns of some sort available.

To keep the RKBA, you need to VOTE in the people that will counter act judicial activists and rogue half cocked politicians. To keep your SELF imposed RKBA, you need to plan ahead like you would for any other insurance/survival matter.

jdowney
December 5, 2010, 09:22 AM
Nearly every one of them would deny the right to bear arms to SOME class of people. Dope dealers, say, or abortionists, or any convicted felon, or some race, or whatever.

I've seen that often enough, but still don't understand how so many people can go through life without a basic sense of fairplay to guide them.

Creature
December 5, 2010, 09:25 AM
It's innate in anyone who's not a confirmed, died in the wool libertarian.

...I once heard that liberals become conservatives when their front garden is invaded.

johnny v
December 5, 2010, 09:54 AM
Before slick willy BILL CLINTON came in office.We were all allowed to own auto weapons
converted into semi auto. Now we can have rifles made in other countries.Brought here and manipulated with american parts.Therefore rendering them semi auto forever.Chill out!!! This is how the above has passed through our goverment.CHILLING OUT. YOU CAN PRY MY GUNS FROM MY DEAD COLD HANDS. UNTIL THEN YOU BETTER BE READY FOR ONE HELL OF A FIGHT.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 5, 2010, 11:40 AM
They don't fear you; they have thousands of minions and hundreds of airplanes. This isn't an action movie.

Then what's stopping them? Every tyrant who has ever subjugated and held a people has done so by force. There has never been a subjugated people who haven't been disarmed or were not armed to begin with, or conquered my a superior force. Every tyrant or tyranny who/that has fallen has succumbed to force of one kind or another, usually the force of arms, and occasionally disobedience, money, and the best of all - Divine intervention. (if you don't believe in God, that last one will mean nothing to you.)

Woody

jeepguy
December 5, 2010, 12:39 PM
i didn't read all the post here but as to the op, the un wants to ban small arms they put as much pressure as they can to push their agenda. their are bureaucrats here who want the same thing and have done it in different cities and states in the us. notice that we arn't allowing the import of low capacity 8rd. clip m1 garands. also if it weren't for the current make up of the scotus their would be even more gun control right now, and that court can change at any moment. one more vote the other way and these decisions go the other way. its not fear or paranoia but recognizing the current liberal political agenda and what freedoms they have already transgressed.

Al LaVodka
December 5, 2010, 12:53 PM
Constant vigilence is required and this 2nd Amendment, of all freedoms, may be the most critical and feared by the hopeful dictators of the Left where "gun-control" is a plank in their platform strategy and incrementalism is their tactic. Lawless Hate and Blame America First folk. That the Constitution was held to actually mean "the people" by only one SCOTUS vote, against the statist party line, is damning evidence YOU brought up.

If you don't see it you are deluding yourself. If people seem paranoid sometimes it means someone is really after them. Wake up and smell the left-wing tyranny -- it really isn't hard despite that they're boiling-up lies every day.

Al

Sky
December 5, 2010, 01:05 PM
It is hard to discuss such things without going political...Probably impossible for it is the political system and laws that determine whether we are allowed to keep our freedoms for the few verses the paranoia of the many. Did that make sense?

Rail Driver
December 5, 2010, 01:14 PM
It really looks like this thread is not much more than a political rant, by scanning the last several posts. I'm not going to bring up politics, but in keeping with the title of the thread, I agree that some people need to calm down... I've been seeing a lot of very "snotty", "smart-alec" comments here reently, and I really think that some people (especially a few of the much newer crowd) need to re-read the rules (all of them), and before they hit that "submit reply" button, they should re-read their post and decide if it really fits THR standards.

Some people think the mods here are heavy handed, I disagree. I've also noticed that they seem to be stepping back and letting things go a bit longer lately... Maybe they're busy, maybe they're "giving us enough rope to hang ourselves" as an example... I don't know, but I do know that I've been spending less time here and more time on other forums lately due to the declining atmosphere and rude behavior on the rise here.

Al LaVodka
December 5, 2010, 01:46 PM
Rail;
It is fine to think outside the box and The Mods keep people reasonably within the lines, but please note that the very basis of the OP is political in nature. Just the concept that a RIGHT can be supressed is a political manifestation. But you already knew that. In that regard you might, what, have people never discuss threats against the 2nd Amendment?

Nope, I don't think that would be acceptable even if where open dialog on it overwhelmingly leads is not comfortable from your personal political perspective. That's just too darn bad and trying to shut-down discussion is a tactic that the silent majority no longer tolerates. This is actual democracy at work and what The Highroad fosters...

Al

Rail Driver
December 5, 2010, 02:31 PM
Rail;
It is fine to think outside the box and The Mods keep people reasonably within the lines, but please note that the very basis of the OP is political in nature. Just the concept that a RIGHT can be supressed is a political manifestation. But you already knew that. In that regard you might, what, have people never discuss threats against the 2nd Amendment?


I don't disagree that the Mods do a great job here overall. That's not my issue. The very basis of the OP violates the rules of THR as I read them... Have you read them? The relevant section is quoted below. In regards to your assumption that I would have the discussion of threats against our rights (all of them, not just the 2nd Amendment) is both wrong, and slightly off target. I'm not intending to suppress discussion. I feel that, for a vehemently non-political board, this post is extremely politically oriented. We can discuss laws, infringements and threats to RKBA and the 2nd Amendment without delving into politics. The problem with political discussion is that many people automatically assume that everyone here is a conservative republican. That can be seen in the way some people in this thread have offhandedly discussed other political affiliations where RKBA and other issues are concerned. That's simply not true. There are many different political leanings and beliefs here, and it can get heated. I've seen a local forum (my area) be literally destroyed by the addition of a political talk subforum, and it didn't take long... 2 or 3 threads into the life of the subforum, the entire community of ~3500-4500 active members dissolved due to the extreme disagreements.

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of politics, abortion, religion, and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".


Nope, I don't think that would be acceptable even if where open dialog on it overwhelmingly leads is not comfortable from your personal political perspective. That's just too darn bad and trying to shut-down discussion is a tactic that the silent majority no longer tolerates. This is actual democracy at work and what The Highroad fosters...

Al

My issue with the thread and where it is going has nothing to do with my personal political perspective, and my personal political perspective hasn't been evidenced or shared, and frankly is nobody's business but my own, thank you. I'm not intending to shut down discussion, I'm commenting on the blatant disregard for the rules of the forum we are so graciously allowed to use. If you would like to discuss politics I'm certain that there are many, many other forums where you can engage in that sort of discussion. If you would like to see democracy at work, visit the polls and sit in on congress... Email, write and call your senators and congressmen... Run for office. Forum discussions, while fantastic for spreading information and promoting activism, do little to further the cause of democracy in this country, because we simply aren't a pure democracy or a pure republic for that matter, but more a mixture of both (at least that's how it's intended... I won't get into what I feel about our government and how they've set themselves up). For more information, please see the following quoted and linked article:

By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words — democracy and republic — stems from the fact that many people consider them to be synonyms, which they aren’t. They are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy.htm

Just my 2 cents.

awgrizzly
December 5, 2010, 03:59 PM
Most interesting, but perhaps some are spinning their tires here.

We have to begin by fixing in our minds that the second amendment does not grant us any rights. Rather, it forbids the government from removing that right. The right is natural and pre-existing. It can't be granted, only removed. The reason we would choose to own a gun is immaterial. Whether it may be paranoia or a simple hobby, it's nobody's business why a person owns a gun, not neighbor nor government.

The fact is the Constitution charges us, the people, with the responsibility for the ultimate security of the nation. To this end we are instructed to distrust the government, and we are guaranteed access to arms as a tool for this purpose. But that is not our only duty and means to keep the nation secure. It is only the ultimate should all else fail. The fact that it's unlikely that we would ever need to take arms against the government doesn't change things, nor does the extreme odds we would have to fight against. This cannot be arbitrated nor reasoned away... it is firmly set in the law of the land and can only be altered by the overwhelming will of the people.

On the political aspect of all this, without opining in deference to our mods, the politics of it is a broad spectrum ranging from tyranny on the left to anarchy on the right. It's a matter of how much regulation and control are required or desired. An animal in a zoo is fed, housed and medically cared for. But every zoo has a high fence for a reason, and it isn't to keep animals out. That is the radical extreme of the left. By the same token a total absence of restrictions and absolute unlimited rights would create a world of chaos in which a secure and vital society could not exist. That is the radical extreme of the right. Fair minded people of all ilks can rightly fall anywhere in between... it's not political, just personal preference and it need not cause any ill will or agitation here. The real political stuff is the realm of a bunch of idiots in DC who we somehow manage to elect.

Rail Driver
December 5, 2010, 04:39 PM
Well said, awgrizzly

hso
December 5, 2010, 05:20 PM
We've exceeded the 5 pages for functional discussion rule of thumb and it appears to have once again been demonstrated.

We can reasonably put this one to rest and suggest anyone interested continue with PMs.

If you enjoyed reading about "I think some people need to calm down" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!