| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bill R |
Posted - September 19 2003 : 8:03:40 PM
Right off, I am betting many ask what is the linkage in that title.
Well, I'll get there, but first I have to tell a little story.
This week I received an email from a guy in Australia. He had seen our discussion on Killdeer and wanted to know if I could send him a tracing of the stock profile. He wanted to make a "wall hanger" (non-functioning) replica of Killdeer. I told him I'd be happy to send him a tracing. During the discussion, he relayed that it has to be non-working, as the gun laws in Australia now disallow him to have a WORKING gun....even flintlock. And, he cannot import a flintlock lock - has to use one he has parts for already, that is not correct but what the heck. Right? He plans to use a steel tube and grind it down to octagon. Use other bits and pieces of stuff he has lying around realizing it won't be totally correct but feels it isnt worth the risk trying to import "gun parts" under the new laws.
Pretty sad huh? Especially for you reenactors, eh? How would any of you wonderful people engaging in living history and keep out heritage alive feel if we could not even possess a FLINTLOCK rifle?
Don't know when the last time was anybody used 18th century firearms technology to rob a bank, invade a home, carjack somebody, mug somebody, do a drive by (Hey Juan, go REAL slow past this guys house.......I only got one shot man, and I need time for the flash to set off the main charge, ya know?)
And yet, and anti-2nd Ammendment and civilian disarmament folks (such as Violence Policy Center, Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc) hold up Australia as the model and the goal for firearms legislation in THIS country. They have publicly, and many times, talked about how enlightened and wonderful is Australia's gun laws, and how reasonable, and how great it would be if WE rabid gun nuts would just get outta the way and let them institute those kinda laws HERE.
Why? Will it stop all those nasty drive bys and carjackings? Hell, let Juan have his flintlock, just make the flint vendor register all the flints, and disallow anybody with a history of felonies, misdeamenors, mental health or drug use from buying or possessing the flints. We can institute a Flint Tracing Archive, and force all the flint manufacturers to strike each flint against a frizzen, then turn in that frizzen to the Government database so that if that flint is dropped during a crime we can trace it back to the flint knapper, search his records and find out to which vendor it was sold, then go search the vendor's records and find out to whom the individual flint was sold........and NAIL the guy! YAY! Crime stoppers look out! We got a plan! Oh but wait.........hmmmmm......each time the flint strikes, it is worn somewhat so the imprint changes........hmmmmm....well hell, who cares about the cost or the validity.....it'll make folks FEEL good and FEEL safe, and FEEL like we are doing something to protect them.
So what does any of this have to do with the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution? Nothing and everything. Nothing because the 2nd Ammendment is NOT about protecting our right to own flintlocks for reenactments, or rifles for deer hunting, or shotguns for duck hunting, or a handgun for home/personal protection (though that makes a lot of sense). The 2nd Ammendment is NOT about any of that.
The anti-gun socialists want you to believe the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded and unnecessary and stands in the way of eradicating violent crime. That's bull. The 2nd Ammendment stands in the way of disarming the citizenry. Period. Why?
Well, I'll tell you. And it's simple.
More citizens have been killed by their constituted GOVERNMENTS in the last 100 years than have been murdered by criminals in the 500 or 600 years gunpowder has been used to drive a projectile.
Oh! You say, but that can't ever happen HERE!!! Oh no? Ask the next Native American you see. They were in the way of a constituted government, OUR constituted |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:07:24 AM
Yes, well we wouldn't want those gangs running amok with flintlock pistols, would we? |
| Kurt |
Posted - October 04 2003 : 07:36:48 AM
I will check with my Welshman friend at work but from our conversations, I guess you find the UK Olympic Pistol Team in one of the colonies. Maybe you must be on active duty in the armed forces. It didn't sound like airguns were allowed. I do know that to own a gun in the UK, first you must become a member of a shooting club. Then you are allowed to buy one single shot long gun in .22 that you must keep locked up at the club. Pistols that work with gunpowder are out of the question.
Makes New York gun control look good by comparison. In NY, to buy a long gun, the store calls the FBI and if they don't mind, you can buy it. (In New Jersey, to buy the same long gun, you must wait 30 days. If you come to NY, they see that your residence is NJ and you still must wait the 30 days.)
Getting a pistol in NY is theoretically better than in the UK. From speaking with Hunter Safety Instructor, it is illegal to touch a pistol in NY unless 1) a NYS licenced instructor hands it to you or 2) you have a NYS pistol permit.
I have considered getting a flintlock pistol, but it seems like too much work. If you never have any black powder, shot, or flints in the house, you're OK. Otherwise, you must go before the county official (which is different depending on which county you live in. Usually a Sheriff or a Judge.) and explain your need for such a thing. Should the official deem you worthy, you are allowed to buy a NYS Pistol Permit. (You must go get a separate permit for every pistol.) Now you can go buy that flintock pistol. Of course, if you forget and leave it locked in a box locked in the trunk of your car and drive to New York City, you can be arrested since NYC does not accept NYS permits. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:52:40 PM
So where was I?
Oh yes, cultural differences.
Anyone know where one might view the UK Olympic Pistol Team practicing their skills? |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 3:21:42 PM
Now, on the types of arms, somebody is going to say "surely you don't think everybody should have an M-16??????
I don't think everybody SHOULD have one, I think everybody of age and responsibility (no felonies, violent misdemeanors, history of drugs or mental illness) should be ALLOWED to have one if they wish.
Switzerland is a prime example. EVERY man and boy between the ages of 16 and 45 are considered part of their home army, and EVERY one of them has in their closet a fully auto/semi auto state of the art main battle rifle. They have the lowest crime rate, and murder rate in the world. How can that be?
Well, for one thing, they are mighty particular who they allow to immigrate into their country. One reason. Commit a crime there, and they don't give a crap if you were disadvantaged, abused as a child, or your ancestors had been slaves 200 years ago - THEY HAMMER YOU. And everybody knows it. Moreover, it's lunacy to go to a country that is well armed, knowing what's in every closet, and try to break in for drug money. Or try a cowardly drive-by and the entire populace can return fire on full auto. Their government trusts their people with responsibility. Why doesnt ours?
Bottom line is, everybody has a main battle rifle, yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Why don't you explain that one to folks? Obviously, it isnt the gun, or possession of guns, or the availability of guns that is the problem.
A government does not trust its people, is a government which itself is not to be trusted. |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:47:06 PM
I DO attack those like Brady and the billionaire who funds her and other gun grab orgs. They have an agenda. And it is NOT about protecting the public or reducing crime. I am not attacking those who fall for their feel good bullcrap and can't see the agenda. At least, I am not, until they call for a confiscation of all guns...then they are the enemy. Those people I try to enlighten and reason with, until it becomes clear there is NO reasoning with them.
As to the Sikh thing, and whether it is disingenious...sure it is. Same as the nuke question. You point out how one of YOUR laws intrudes on the freedoms of one of your society, and I am supposed to come up with an answer? Why? Your problem, not mine.
Asking all those questions about what is an arm, what does carry mean, what does infringe mean, what does well regulated mean, etc reminds me of the logic of a great socialist dissembler and enemy of the US Constitution.......the one who stated "it depends on what the definition of is, is." The same man married to another freedom hater, who talks about our Constitution being outmoded and written by old dead white men who owned slaves. Why does everybody avoid the obvious in answering these inane questions.......why do they avoid the written statements of those who WROTE the damn thing as to what those words meant and the intent? Answer: because it goes against the agenda of first belittling the men, then belittling the document, and finally abolishing portions of it to further an agenda of oppression. This is beginning to appear to be the grand old strategy.....wear proponents down by asking sophomoric, badgering questions of the same genre over and over again until we are worn down and give in, disregarding any rational answers we give. I have spoken to the definitions of that text in the document. Why ask again, other than to wear down by repeatedly asking them over and over again. If you don't like the answers the men who wrote the thing give for posterity so we are clear on the WHY, asking over and over again is not going to change it. This is why folks get frustrated and angry. Facts don't dissuade you, reason doesnt dissuade you, statistics dont dissuade you, historical precedence and evidence don't dissuade you from your agenda to find any means by which to shred a document designed to keep people free.
I don't know what more I can do in this matter, except be ready to fight when those who fall for this crap come to disarm us all.
To answer your one question though, on types of arms. IF the document is designed to provide the last resort for a people to be free from oppression of their government....and it IS......then it follows that the "arms" talked about are always the same kinds as would be used against the citizenry. Musket for musket, Sharps rifle for Sharps rifle, Tommy gun for Tommy gun, M-16 for M-16, and main battle rifle (whatever that turns out to be) for main battle rifle. The antis and those with the agenda of gradual oppression will settle for leaving us with 18th century technology while they use the latest arms against is, if that's the best they can achieve. AFTER killing all those who would rebel against the oppression, they know they can write whatever laws, and impose them, as they wish.
Oh, you are gloom and dooming, you say. Right. I have already pointed out three times in the history of THIS country when oppression was enabled by gun control. I have NEVER seen ANY evidence of a reduction in ANY kind of crime resulting FROM gun control. The WORST murder rate, and gun violence rate, and violent crime rate is to be found in EVERY city that prohibits guns entirely. Why is that I wonder? How can that be? Washington DC, New York City, Chicago Illinois, Los Angeles are the murder captitols of this country. Explain that one. You can't without making vacuous excuses. And please don't quote Sarah Brady. That will guarantee I go ballistic.
|
| Adele |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:10:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Well, I am not attacking anybody, I am just throwing the burden of argument onto the anti's shoulders. I and others have gone on at length with points and facts about our position. So far, all we have gotten back are such things like "I don't like guns" and "but what about nuclear bombs, can everybody have them" type responses for the most part. I'd like somebody to tell ME how the 2nd Ammendment infringes on their rights in any way.
Ok, just to clarify here (you know me and my need to clarify!  Are you referring to posters on the board? Or just people in general? quote:
Saying some religions require the wearing of a dagger, and your laws forbid carrying of any weapons, in context of religious freedoms, is the "what about nuclear bombs" kind of response.
I don't see that at ALL Bill!
quote:
Firstly, it's not for me to say what the solution should be. It's your country.
You have every right to express your opinion here Bill! I am expressing mine!
quote:
Usually, when two laws are at odds with each other, legislation should ammend one law so that they AREN'T at odds with each other. IF one of those laws is a basic law such as our 2nd Ammendment, it's the other law that is at odds, and must be ammended.
A reasonable response. It's a pity laws aren't so cut and dried...might be a few less lawyers in the world!
quote:
"The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not."
Now THAT right there is about as disingenious a comment as ever been.
Self-contradictory. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple statement. It means not infringed in any way. There was no qualification there. I don't see an "except" in there anywhere.
That there are people and politicians and folks with hidden agendas chipping away at it constantly........does NOT change the meaning.
It ignores the meaning, but doesnt change it.
I am not so convinced! If you are right Bill, there would be no argument from anyone! The right to bear arms is fact - non-arguable. However, the definition of 'well-regulated', 'militia', and especially 'arms' can be, and has been, debated. Arms, generally interpreted as weapons that could be carried, have changed a great deal in the last two hundred years. In another two hundred years, who knows what type of weapon will fall into the category of 'arms'? Would a law that helps protect the user and others, for example, a trigger lock, or a storage regulation, but does not affect your right to keep and bear arms, be considered an in |
| Bill R |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 11:29:27 AM
Well, I am not attacking anybody, I am just throwing the burden of argument onto the anti's shoulders. I and others have gone on at length with points and facts about our position. So far, all we have gotten back are such things like "I don't like guns" and "but what about nuclear bombs, can everybody have them" type responses for the most part. I'd like somebody to tell ME how the 2nd Ammendment infringes on their rights in any way. Saying some religions require the wearing of a dagger, and your laws forbid carrying of any weapons, in context of religious freedoms, is the "what about nuclear bombs" kind of response. Firstly, it's not for me to say what the solution should be. It's your country. Usually, when two laws are at odds with each other, legislation should ammend one law so that they AREN'T at odds with each other.
IF one of those laws is a basic law such as our 2nd Ammendment, it's the other law that is at odds, and must be ammended.
We have only really had debates about "what the 2nd Ammendment really means" since FDR and the first gun control act. Up until then, citizens could own pretty much any kind of firearm they wanted.
Sarah expressed distress that our unwillingness to compromise further on the 2nd, and give up more of OUR firearms, will jeapordize her ability to own her musket. That logic right there is enough to be disturbing. I am asking HER, in return, how the 2nd Ammendment being in place violates ANY of her rights in any way.
"The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not."
Now THAT right there is about as disingenious a comment as ever been.
Self-contradictory. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple statement. It means not infringed in any way. There was no qualification there. I don't see an "except" in there anywhere.
That there are people and politicians and folks with hidden agendas chipping away at it constantly........does NOT change the meaning.
It ignores the meaning, but doesnt change it.
By the way, I could be wrong, but the wearing of the Saudi dagger isn't a religious aspect, it's a manhood aspect. They aren't given it after traveling to Mecca or some such, they are given it when reaching the age of manhood - 13 I believe.
|
| Adele |
Posted - October 01 2003 : 02:34:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Well, in ending my part in the "pro" Ammendment reasons, I'd like to throw the burden on the back of the antis. Sarah, and those who think any part of the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded, tell me this:
we've explained how removal of the 2nd would/could/does infringe on the rights of us all. Now why dont YOU tell us how the 2nd remaining IN PLACE infringes on YOUR rights, please? Think about your answer please, because you aren't going to get away with generalizations such as "I don't like guns" or such reasoning.
Your approach is a lot like somebody saying "I don't believe in God, it's utter nonsense, and you have no right to make me attend church".
Correct. But you extend it to "and if I DON'T believe in God, it's an infringement on my rights if anybody ELSE does, or talks about it, or I see a picture of God in a magazine, or anybody teaches their kids about God, or want to send them to religious schools instead of public school, or in any way dispute MY right to impose MY beliefs on YOU.
The existence of the 2nd harms none. Removal of it harms us all.
Your logic is as flawed as saying we don't need the constitutional protections of freedom of religion because nobody is oppressed in this country for religious reasons anymore. Or.......perhaps even more to your logic.....there is religious oppression in the world, so having an ammendment even SPEAKING to religious oppression encourages that very oppression. Let's not mention religion at all and perhaps religious oppression will go away.
Just in the interests of being fair here, unless I am much mistaken I don't believe anyone on this board has actually stood up in favour of abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Sarah asked an extremely valid question which was 'why is it carved in stone?' and you have given an excellent answer Bill. I think the area in question is what historians, lawyers, the Supreme Court and citizens have been debating for years...what exactly was the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and how exactly does it apply to the 21st century citizen.
There are always grey areas. Take your example of religious freedom. What if one persons religion infringes on the rights of another person or is contrary to an existing law of the land? Who determines which person's right is more important? I can give you an example from the UK. It is illegal to carry weapons in this country, including knives etcetera, but there are certain religions where ceremonial dress includes a knife or sword to be worn. Should the people who carry the knives or swords be above the law and be allowed to carry them? Or should they have their religious right infringed?
The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not.
HM |
| Bill R |
Posted - September 30 2003 : 4:38:18 PM
Well, in ending my part in the "pro" Ammendment reasons, I'd like to throw the burden on the back of the antis. Sarah, and those who think any part of the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded, tell me this:
we've explained how removal of the 2nd would/could/does infringe on the rights of us all. Now why dont YOU tell us how the 2nd remaining IN PLACE infringes on YOUR rights, please? Think about your answer please, because you aren't going to get away with generalizations such as "I don't like guns" or such reasoning.
Your approach is a lot like somebody saying "I don't believe in God, it's utter nonsense, and you have no right to make me attend church".
Correct. But you extend it to "and if I DON'T believe in God, it's an infringement on my rights if anybody ELSE does, or talks about it, or I see a picture of God in a magazine, or anybody teaches their kids about God, or want to send them to religious schools instead of public school, or in any way dispute MY right to impose MY beliefs on YOU.
The existence of the 2nd harms none. Removal of it harms us all.
Your logic is as flawed as saying we don't need the constitutional protections of freedom of religion because nobody is oppressed in this country for religious reasons anymore. Or.......perhaps even more to your logic.....there is religious oppression in the world, so having an ammendment even SPEAKING to religious oppression encourages that very oppression. Let's not mention religion at all and perhaps religious oppression will go away.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 30 2003 : 1:36:34 PM
Right on target, Bill, you continue to hit the 10X while our oposition can only fly 'Maggies Drawers' (An old military/DCM rifle range phrase, meaning the white flag passed over the target, from the scoring pit, to show a complete miss). Unless the other side comes to the table with something besides, 'taking half away instead of all', then we must dig-in, and 'fix bayonets'. Because, as you so correctly stated, what they want us to give up is not ours to give. It was entrusted to us from previous generations(going all the way back to the Founding Fathers), to bequeath to future ones. Bravo, Bill!!!!
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - September 30 2003 : 11:38:51 AM
Let's talk about compromise, and those we are asked to compromise with........
As Sarge said, you can't compromise when the other side has nothing to give you, and you have everything to lose. They give up nothing, and we give up something every time. That's not compromise. Any more than it was compromise when Chamberlain gave up Austria, gave up Sudetenland, gave up Chekoslovakia and got nothing but empty promises in return. Hitler gave up nothing. The world gave up things which were not theirs to give. In the end, war was the only way to stop the trend and reverse it....at a much larger cost than if no compromise had been done in the first place. Same in this case. Giving up guns piece by piece, type by type over time is NOT ours to give up.
2nd Ammendment doesnt just exist for those of us living now. It exists for future generations to ensure their freedom from oppression by their own government.
Now let's talk about the kinds of people we are expected to compromise WITH.
How many times has a sly, confiscation been attempted by tacking it onto a totally unrelated bill? You think a ballistics database is about tracking a bullet used in a crime? It's about a back door method of registration. A registered database of all gun owners is illegal. Paperwork approved for purchases must be destroyed. It isn't but the FEDS can't maintain one. Local gunshops can and must.
A ballistics database gives Feds the means to establish a database.
It's worse than that. Just in Wisconsin, it was discovered that in an agricultural bill, the antis had sneaked in language at the very last minute in the dark of night just prior to Assembly vote a clause that would outlaw ammunition of all types. It was discovered fortunately, and killed.
An anti-terrorist bill was submitted right after 9-11. It was pretty similar to the Patriot Act. But went further. Just before it was due to come up for a vote, the antis sneaked into the bill language which specifically stated that State Gov could, in the event of a national emergency, or a State declared emergency or natural disaster, CONFISCATE ALL GUNS. Meaning, at the time of greatest chaos and danger to the citizens, the State would have the power to go after all the guns BEFORE they even responded to the real emergency. That was the language. And, might I add, there was NO provision for returning those firearms after the "emergency" was over. And it was up to the State to decide what an "emergency" was. That Bill was killed also.
These people will try any subterfuge, ANY sneaky and unlawful way, ANY means including sleazy back door legislation on insignificant bills in the hopes nobody will notice, to achieve total disarmament.
Why on earth, how on earth, can there be compromise with such people? WHY would anybody want to compromise with such people? If they have to resort to such underhanded, such secretive and drastic means to achieve their ends in the darkness of the political cloakrooms, and are willing to do so.....WHY AND HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM? Are we supposed to believe they have our best interests at heart, and BELIEVE THEM when they tell us they will not abuse powers given to them? Anybody who thinks that would probably think Hitler was a nice guy, and it was just his henchmen who were evil...that Hitler just wanted what was best for his people, but his cronies wanted absolute power.
End of discussion on this topic for me. If one is not yet convinced, they don't want to be convinced and don't want to see the dangers in adulterating the BOR. They are firmly in the anti-Constitutional camp either by decision or through complete acceptance of the socialist propaganda designed to make this a much different form of government than was ever intended.
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - September 29 2003 : 8:19:58 PM
Found this painting over at John Buxton's website.
It is titled "American Heritage"
Image Insert:
15.48 KB
"This poignant painting relates that moment when it is time to teach your son the proper use of a fire arm. The boy is proud and excited to finally be old enough and will soon know the deadly serious responsibility bestowed upon him."
Check out the rest of Buxton's excellent historical paintings at http://www.buxtonart.com/index.html
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 29 2003 : 4:57:54 PM
NEED is a tough word, Kurt. You really make some excellent points in all of your posts (Oh no!, Will I be accused of patting you on the back next?). One thing we do not need is to give in any more. Our side has made concessions, with no 'quid-pro-quo', since the 1934 National Firearms Act, followed by the 1968 Gun Control Act and more recently with the 1994 Crime Bill. The other side has nothing to offer us, so why should we continue to conceed?
I liked your last post, concerning a brief look at your experience with firearms. Mine was very similar, my father taught me how to shoot and handle weapons safely starting at age eight. When I was thirteen, I was given my first weapon, a Mossberg bolt-action .22WMR (Remember the old '580' line of Mossberg rimfire rifles?).
At age eighteen, I entered the military, where my government introduced me to the M-16A1 Rifle. The taught me how to use and handle said weapon system safely and effectively. They then later sent me to places where they entrusted me to handle that and other weapons within the boundries of my orders/directives. I liked the M-16 so much, that I purchased the civilian copy (yes, a real M-16, not the semi-auto AR-15, which did take a while thanks to ATF paperwork), while I was still on active duty. I still own that rifle to this day, and I enjoy shooting it as much today as I did the first time in boot camp. Now I do not 'need' this rifle, but I like it and I think I have earned right to own it. Not just because of the inalienable rights guarenteed to me in the Bill of Rights, but I also feel that I have demonstrated that I can use said weapon both safely and legally in the service of my nation and it is the least of which can be done in return for what I had given. Well, now I'm off on a tangent again, forgive me.
In closing, good post Kurt. Both you and Bill are saying the same things I'm thinking. Keep it up...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Kurt |
Posted - September 29 2003 : 06:41:56 AM
NEED is a tough word to define.
Every fall for 3 1/2 decades (more or less) I get the urge to get a flintlock. Maybe I miss Fess Parker. Maybe I shouldn't read Mr. Cooper so much. Maybe I should be happy observing at Ft. Ticonderoga when it's French and Indian Encampment Day. Do I NEED a Kentucky longrifle?
My grandfather and I would go squirrel hunting. He wore a hearing aid so he would watch me and when I would turn to locate a noise, he would shoot the squirrel I "pointed" for him before I could raise my .22. When he died, my grandmother gave me his Winchester Model 12. Do I NEED a Model 12?
When I was little, my father taught me safe gun handling and responsible behavior. When I had proven myself reliable and trustworthy, he gave me my .22. Do I NEED a .22? |
| Bill R |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 6:05:29 PM
Another humorous sign i have seen along the road along the lines of Kurt's attempt......with truth in it.
"If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson"
There is NO benevolent interpretation of "gun control" that I am aware of beyond "breathing, trigger squeeze, good sight picture".
We have laws prohibiting those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, drug use or history, and mental illness from possessing firearms. What more is needed?
We are back to the agenda of those seeking more "gun control". It isnt about reducing crime at all. They know that themselves. You think Sarah Brady gives a crap about reducing crime? She rakes in a BUNDLE in donations. Don't see her going into the ghetto spreading any of it around in the form of jobs. Nor do I see the billionaire funding all the gun control groups creating jobs where they are needed. Spends his money funding all the groups working against the 2nd ammendment instead. Hmmmm. Tell anybody anything? |
| Adele |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 4:00:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kurt
What's wrong with taking away guns?
I was trying to come up with a satire about papercuts and defective manufacturing processes and how outlawing paper would save gallons of blood every day but humor (especially when deeply-held beliefs are in question) seldom sparks productive thought.
I believe gun control can not work because removing a tool does not change any minds.
Nothing wrong with humour Kurt! Especially in the form of a good analogy! Sometimes it is a much needed tension breaker!
I think your point about 'removing a tool' is accurate too, which brings me back to my first response about a change in culture and improvements in all the areas which lead to the belief of the people that they NEED a gun. (And Bill, don't START!! I am not referring to a change to the 2nd Amendment, I am talking choice!! hehehehe)
The other issue to bear in mind, is that (depending on who you are speaking to, of course) gun control, does not necessarily mean the removal of guns, or the removal of the right to bear arms.
HM |
| Bill R |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 10:19:42 AM
Good point Kurt! The man (Adams) who quoted that qualification about the militia was the same man who tried to enact and employ the Sedition Act. Nearly started another Revolution.
Also note, he is not implying that only government can HAVE the guns, he is saying that the calling OUT of the militia should be at the behest of government at some level - and he does not dispute the necessity for the unorganized militia. He just wanted control over it. I guess one might say he was the first to attempt adulterating the 2nd Ammendment from it's purpose. The debate about that would give good reading for anybody wanting to KNOW what the 2nd is all about....and see that there will always be those who wish it wasnt there.......those who want far more power than they should have, and we are willing to give. |
| Kurt |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 08:26:16 AM
What's wrong with taking away guns?
I was trying to come up with a satire about papercuts and defective manufacturing processes and how outlawing paper would save gallons of blood every day but humor (especially when deeply-held beliefs are in question) seldom sparks productive thought.
I believe gun control can not work because removing a tool does not change any minds.
|
| Kurt |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 08:08:19 AM
Yes, there was spirited debate back when the Bill of Rights was being written. The Federalists believed in central government and were not as concerned about the people being in control. (Note that when John Adams as president felt slighted by the French government, he had no compunctions about starting an undeclared war.) Mr. Adams, in the quote supplied, admits the need for what Bill is saying when he inserts "..., except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, ...". Mr. Adams was outvoted by the states that ratified the Bill of Rights and as president, with the Aliens and Sedition Act, attempted to chip away at it. |
| Adele |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 06:56:30 AM
I think you are arguing your case extremely well Bill, and I am in agreement with you on a basic level, it is just the detail I am having trouble with (same as most people I think!)....
I have ploughed through some of the history of the Bill of Rights as you suggested, and came across this quote which I thought particularly interesting...
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
In other words....John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.
Your thoughts?
HM |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 28 2003 : 03:08:56 AM
P.S. - Good points again, Bill, especially the 'Hate Crime'(under redundant, see redundant) Bill and 'Campaign Finance Reform' Act both being breeches of our First Amendment Rights.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 11:51:03 PM
quote:
Your comment about MYT flintlock is exactly what I am talking about, and believe it or not, I'm sort of supporting YOUR side. Because NEITHER side will yield an inch, MY weapon (yes, people still die from muskets) might become illegal. But neither side will LISTEN to each other. And if "pulling the D ring" means you're backing out, you've proven my point.
YHOS,
English Trader
My point was proven, and you have failed to disprove it, long before you stepped into this debate. Unless you can produce facts and figures, you have no point. That is why, until concrete and logical facts are presented, I will not debate this issue with you, because it will be an excercise in futility on my part.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Bill R |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 9:22:28 PM
It's carved in stone by the founding fathers. Read the history of the Bill of Rights and the papers the founding fathers have written as to the need for them, their intent, and the basis upon which they were written. In a nutshell, after the Constitution itself was written, may of the key founding father's feared it (The Constitution) had not gone far enough in protecting the people from their own government. Certain rights were not explicitly spelled out as forever protected. Hence, the Bill of Rights was written, voted on, and adopted as our first 10 Ammendments. These Ammendments, including the 2nd, are what is necessary to ensure we are never oppressed by our own government, nor that our own government can take upon itself too much power. As many have said, the 2nd is the linchpin for all the rest. It's the reset button. It's the tripwire. It's the last recourse to protect the rest of the Ammendments and by doing so, protect the people from their government. Which is why so many who HAVE read the basis, reasoning, and intent for the document are so incensed when talk is made of compromise, or disingenious rationales are given for altering or outright abolishing portions of it are bandyed about.
It is intractible. I didn't make it so. The founding fathers did.
For the reasons specified above. What is horrifying to me is that not only are the left wing socialist of the Democratic party championing changing it or altering it or as in Hillary's words -they are outmoded written by dead white people 200 years ago and times have changed- .......but the neo-cons in the Republican party are in play in dismantling it now also. We are in a period of dangers to our basic liberties and we are buying the lies of those who threaten them.
Remember the "Campaign Finance Reform Bill" which was SUPPOSED to be about restructuring campaign finances to keep corruption out of the system? Tacked onto that was the 1st Ammendment Gag Order keeping free speech from occuring about candidates 90 days prior to a federal election. The ACLU and others took it to the Supreme Court, right? Because the gag order was against freedom of speech. Did you note the outcome? The restrictions on certain of the way campaign finances are obtained was removed....BUT THE GAG ORDER STANDS.
Now, you may feel guns are evil and the root of the problems in violence in our society.....or at least if we had no guns we'd have less violence. Many have tried to tell you that the statistics just don't support that contention, but it IS the cry the antis make in trying to abolish all guns. I am not talking about "cooked" statistic like Brady lies to us about....I am talking about cold hard unbiased stats any police officer - or WE - can find by going to the FBI stats for crimes. They know those statistics are out there and they ignore them. They know the politically appointed chief of police are going along with their lies, but never bother to tell you the municipal cops and beat cops are strongly in favor of the 2nd Ammendment and right to carry.
Let's take ONE leader in this anti cause. Sarah Brady. A Liberal from the get-go married to a Republican and they often had disagreements. Mr Brady suffers an unfortunate line-of-fire injury.
An attempt was made to assassinate a president. He took one of the bullets. He is now a drooling, unresponsive, lobotomized sad case.
Sarah Brady rolls him out cynically implying everything HE stood for is forgotten and he is now strongly in HER liberal camp. The guy doesnt have a CLUE what is going on anymore. He's like the retard who cheers and laughs when every body else does, but really has no understanding why. She takes a horrible incident and cynically uses her injured husband in that cause of hers. And she has stated publicly and MANY times that she wants ALL guns GONE. Yet, she peforms a "straw purchase" illegally to buy her SON a rifle. It is law that you must be buying the firearm for yoursel |
| English Trader |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 8:07:44 PM
Bill,
Why is 2nd Amendment carved in stone?
Also, quote:
But you can't have what you want.
What does that mean? That certainly sounds intractable.
Sarah
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
ET, we understand your side of it. But you can't have what you want.
There is no changing the 2nd Ammendment. So there is no compromise possible with the likes of Brady Bunch, Handgun Control, etc. They want all guns - ALL guns of any kind - abolished. It's not a question of "if we let them have our AK-47's and handguns" that will be and end of it. Even if compromise was willing on our part (1) it's not on their part and (2) it's not possible to compromise on this. The Bill of Rights is written in stone and cannot be changed.
Period. We will NOT give it up for "compromise" or understanding.
Your musket is at risk NOT because WE pros are intractible....it is at risk because THEY don't want you to have it.....but are forced to try to take it one step at a time due to the Bill of Rights.....and have bigger fish to fry right now than your musket...otherwise they'd have them all right now.
Moreover, compromise at times is just a very slow way to commit suicide. Chamberlain compromised and we had WWII. The Jews compromised - along with genuine disbelief as to portended outcomes similar to your own self - and we know what happened there. How many times have we tried to compromise with the Palestinians and Arafat? Has it worked?
Some folks, and some issues, do NOT warrant compromise, and compromising is dangerous to your health.
I will say it again. Compromise with the antis means adulterating or abolishing the 2nd Ammendment and the Bill of Rights. Before we as citizens do THAT, I would hope we would rise up in anger and shout with one voice HELL NO. OVER MY DEAD BODY.
|
| Bill R |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 10:34:25 AM
Regulated by themselves. Meaning, each man and boy of age was supposed to unite and form some sort of body of people able to muster in case of need - indian attack etc. They regulated themselves. Generally, each town formed their own militia and trained them themselves. It was the informal militia as opposed to that which was formed during the Revolution wherein the States raised levies of militia companies......which usually were again raised around a central figure in a town or district but with the authority of the State who was supposed to pay them and who gave them the authority to raise. It wasnt like today. It was essentially every man and boy of age was required to be available in time of emergency and it was up to them to decide if an emergency required their raising. The well regulated part pertains to the purpose - as opposed to a mob which is an unregulated rising.
The antis and other cynical politicians try to use that one phrase as a loophole, when the founding fathers have written exhaustively about exactly what they meant and the intent and purposes of the 2nd Ammendment. In short - they were terribly AFRAID of a standing army. They wanted instead to rely upon citizens being formed in time of need and then dismissed. They didnt want standing armies beholden to the State or Government in their midst. That later we have decided we need standing armies and national guards does NOT nullify the original intent of the 2nd Ammendment. It was never about how you raised armies. It was about maintaining freedom from the government you established. The founding fathers have stated so very clearly in their writings. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
