Hani Pasha
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 57
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.
I think some people need to calm down
- Thread starter Wheelguner05
- Start date
- Status
Old krow
Member
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.
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.
ShaiVong
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
I think he was talking about housewives in over active homeowners associations. Overgrown shrubs are a looming threat to our nation's borders.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
member
"Brown Shirts", reminiscent of Nazi Germany. That's my understanding.
Woody
PinoyInFL
Member
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 119
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.)
Sounds like your water is already getting hot. (And you don't seem to mind at all.)
General Geoff
Member
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
Member
Uh oh, let's not start talking about 'them'.
ShaiVong
Member
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
