The ugly and dangerous truth

txcoastal1

shawn474 wrote: »

Tony, for the sake of argument lets say i agree (and i do with much of it). But, hiw does owning assault rifles and a mini armory in my home do anything to prevent that? Or are you saying itd really just the principle of it?

Both...Principle and my rights
and the old cliche "I'd rather be SAFE than sorry"

tonyb

Shawn, I'm not saying it will prevent anything, because it won't. But it may preserve life, yours and your families should crap ever hit the fan and lets hope it shall never come to pass. Kinda an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure thing.

brgman

God forbid it hits the fan but if it does guess who will be the first ones showing up at our door.
That's right,all the gun haters looking for protection.

Systems

brgman wrote: »

God forbid it hits the fan but if it does guess who will be the first ones showing up at our door.
That's right,all the gun haters looking for protection.

They will be right behind me Mike!
Please answer the first knock!:cheesygrin:

Polkersince85

brgman wrote: »

God forbid it hits the fan but if it does guess who will be the first ones showing up at our door.
That's right,all the gun haters looking for protection.

This is a good first person account of a believer. http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

brgman

Polkersince85 wrote: »

This is a good first person account of a believer. http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

Now your just letting FACTS get in the way!
Nice article.Many should read it and learn.

mrbigbluelight

As someone mentioned, back when the Constitution was framed, powder rifles were the order of the day.
Government forces had them.
Citizens had them.
Generally speaking, a pretty even draw.

The Constitution has held up pretty well over the years in this regard, IMO.
Government has the advantage, to be sure. Full auto for them.
Citizens are holding their own to a degree. Semi-auto for them

The Framers, IMO, put this right in the Constitution for a reason. Protect the people against the government, if need be.

As far as trusting the government and "our" elected officials ?
I have a bit of a problem when the President (TOTALLY doesn't matter which party) can, at the very least, declare an American citizen held without trial. Habeas corpus gone bye-bye.
Send him/her overseas for 'rendition'.
One might reasonably say, "Oh, 'maybe' he could do that, but that would never happen !".
So, then, we might agree: if that were done, that would not be a good thing ?

The power to execute American citizens ? Has that been done ?
"Well ... yeah, but those 2 guys were bad guys !"
Won't argue against that, but .... they were American citizens. Executed.
Again, won't argue that they weren't bad guys, but ... who's to make these decisions ?

Definitely not Constitutional. Definitely not moral, IMO.

That "right" to make these decisions has been given to the POTUS via Executive Orders. There's been 1100 Executive Orders issued in the last several years (number might be slightly off), many of them bypassing and circumventing the Constitution.
George Washington was 'given' the power to issue Executive Orders to enable him to furnish the White House with supplies (linens, napkins, dishes, etc.).
Now ?
Well, look it up. Don't take my word for it.
And it is not a "THEM" party issue; previous parties have gutted the Constitution via Executive Orders.

"The Constitution is just a piece of paper". Remember that quote ?

There are groups out there that might be generally be considered "crackpots". CNH, you mentioned the one about "President's going to declare martial law and declare himself King" group. Whenever that sort of media blitz occurs, I like to look for the magician's trick: diversion. While that was being 'debated', any Executive Orders being issued behind the scenes ? Any laws being passed ?
Just a thought.
And, IMO, there are quite a number of "crackpots" in Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle.

WilliamM2

shawn474 wrote: »

I still would not agree with the ownership of an assault weapon but that is a personal issue.

Is it just the word "assault" that scares you? Or is it that they have a military look? Assault rifles aren't anymore deadly than a hunting rifle. In fact they are less accurate than a quality hunting rifle with a scope in most cases.

txcoastal1

sucks2beme wrote: »

.223 rifles aren't for hunting.........what do you need it for?

We have an epidemic of hogs down here in the south and the .223 is great to take out 2 or 3 in a group, also great prairie dog loads eating out of veggie fields

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

Silly John, you know the Death Penalty is poo-pooed in most states. Injuring someone John ? Even on accident ? I'm all for stiffer penalties for gun crimes, better background checks even for used guns. Problem is, the pundits come out of the woodwork calling you racist for locking up minorities. You know how that goes. California just releases them back into the population when they can't afford them anymore. Want to make positive change ? There's a few suggestions that would go a longer way than gun bans.

Well Tony, if we call the death penalty something like "retroactive-abortion" I am certain that those in opposition (usually lefties that support abortion anyway) will come around. By making all gun crime a federal issue rather than a state issue, you would have far greater control over the penalty being meted out and with federal labs doing the forensics, greater certainty over the guilt of the perpetrators. Accidents happen, but should also be dealt with harshly, perhaps treated like drunk driving convictions and left to the states to decide. I speak only about the felonious use of a firearm.

As far as the social issues go(race/socioeconomics/upbringing) I just don't care. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The codling of criminal, the the acceptance of an increasingly deviant set of values and an utter lack of respect for life is why we are here now. Jesse's op was spot on. Gun violence is nothing but a symptom of a growing cancer eating the soul of our country. We need to treat the disease and stop treating the symptoms. I for one am tired of giving up my rights to placate beaurocrats in a tizzy over a single nutcase. The constitution is there to protect my rights, not empower politicians to screw us over whenever they get a bug up their ****. Pass a freaking budget for the first time in 5 years for gods sake and stop meddling in the liberty of o free people, that's what they should be doing... End of rant!

txcoastal1

There are an average of 2000 (reported) gang related homicides annually in the US, when you figure out how to disarm those turds, I might (doubtful) consider dropping mine.

shawn474

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Is it just the word "assault" that scares you? Or is it that they have a military look? Assault rifles aren't anymore deadly than a hunting rifle. In fact they are less accurate than a quality hunting rifle with a scope in most cases.

Neither actually. I am not that naive or uneducated. The fact that they CAN have the ability to cause mass casualty in a very short period of time concerns me. The fact that there is absolutely NO other use for them (not for hunting, not for range practice, etc) concerns me. There SEEMS to be a contingent of society that makes gun ownership a swinging genitalia contest while parading their "rights". Thats fine; i respect their right to do so. I just dont agree with it. Before i purchased my pistol i took 4 classes ranging from gun ownership to defensive shooting. I enjoy gun ownership and the rights bestowed on us and also accept the responsibility and accountability. I see a use for pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc. Conversely i see no use for the machine guns, uzi's, assault rifles, etc in the hands of citizens.

tonyb

The link to the story in post#218 is a good reason Shawn. Given a mob situation such as the L.A. riots, a pistol may not do it. I like that story because nothing changes your mind faster than being in that situation and helpless. Now, those who remember that, those riots were around the Rodney King thing, a court decision. But we had then, those who incite.....as we have now, but we have more of them now and even more conditions ready to burst at any given moment. Mr. BBL was pretty good at explaining what concerns himself as a citizen, and many others hold the same concerns. To say this could never happen in your neck of the woods is pretty much negated by our own past experiences.

shawn474

tonyb wrote: »

The link to the story in post#218 is a good reason Shawn. Given a mob situation such as the L.A. riots, a pistol may not do it. I like that story because nothing changes your mind faster than being in that situation and helpless. Now, those who remember that, those riots were around the Rodney King thing, a court decision. But we had then, those who incite.....as we have now, but we have more of them now and even more conditions ready to burst at any given moment. Mr. BBL was pretty good at explaining what concerns himself as a citizen, and many others hold the same concerns. To say this could never happen in your neck of the woods is pretty much negated by our own past experiences.

Tony,
Then why did the author of the story only buy a pistol? Just asking........

I remember those days; i am old enough. It was scary for sure and something that opens our eyes. But, what i took out of it and what others did are very different. I think its a sad indictment on society that that reaction to that would be to go out and arm yourself to the teeth "just in case". Again i dont disparage those who do; i just dont understand it. That said, Your points and others are valid as to why you do or would.

tonyb

Why Shawn ? Only he can answer that. But looking at a mob situation, how long would a pistol last when given multiple offenders looking to do you harm ? Short term defense, yeah, against a few intruders, yeah, but that helpless feeling comes roaring back when your out of bullets and are facing multiples of people looking to do you harm. Is that not a fair assesment ?

Look, I'm not one to portray gloom and doom as right around the corner but I'm also not blind enough to see that it can't happen. The level of hate is on the rise so the level of fear will be too. Just look at the hate being tossed around for Jews, Muslims, conservatives, wealthy people, corporations and so forth. Look at the hate and violence unions toss into anyone who goes against them. Racial tensions too are high. Many too fan those flames of hatred, even elected officials, school teachers, and local leaders. One doesn't have to play connect the dots to figure out where this all is heading. Could come to a boil next week, year, or decade, who knows. When it does though, it will be fast. So some like to be more prepared than others, I can see that as reasonable thinking even though it may never happen, because the red flags are popping up like Jiffy Pop.

Some of this stuff is social issues, which for me is a non starter. Our current debt and monetary policy is the single most threat to us as a nation. Benjamin Franklin put it so straight forward, even a 3rd grader could understand. Those who would trade liberty for an ounce of security deserve neither. Which as Mr. BBL pointed out, is already being done under the cloak of security. Once again, lawmakers are asking of us to give up some liberty for a perceived notion of security. No study that I am aware of has said gun bans reduce crime. So why keep harping on that as a solution when clearly other solutions exist ? Because the end game is an unarmed citizenry and any small steps to that end is a welcome thought among governments.

tonyb

I know these and others are hot button issues among many. Some are more dear or closer to the heart than others. IMHO, we have to have discourse based around common sense, logic, while still being supportive of our constitution and individual rights. If we can do that, while drowning out the deafening tones of political partisanship and agendas, we can find solutions.

Trampling on ones rights because they may not pertain to you does nothing when someone else tramples on yours that you may hold dear. It is the pursuit of all rights we wish to be upheld, regardless if they pertain to you personally or not. Would that also not be a fair statement ? Just sayin' is all. Once liberties are lost, you'll never get them back.

Polkersince85

"Why?" From the comments section of the linked story: Many good comments if you go back and read through them.


Log in to reply.
Robert J. Avrech
Posted December 24, 2012 at 4:54 am | Permalink
ghostlight:

Thanks so much for your articulate comment.

Karen and I have stores of water for emergency. But I will admit that we do not have enough emergency food. I?ve got plenty of bullets and more than one gun. I do not have precious metals, and you are right, I should have some glitter for bad times. You offer good advice, which we take quite seriously.

Syndil

shawn474 wrote: »

Conversely i see no use for the machine guns, uzi's, assault rifles, etc in the hands of citizens.

You're in the wrong country then, my friend. When the Constitution was drafted, there was no such thing as a standing, peace-time military. Such an idea would have been abhorrent to the founding fathers. This is also why there is so much debate and confusion around the 2nd amendment, but taken in context, it begins to make perfect sense.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate has always been around whether this protects only the rights of members of the military to keep and bear arms, or the citizens (people) to keep and bear arms. It seems to say one thing at the beginning and then another at the end.

However what we must keep in mind is that when this was written, "the people" and "a militia" were (and are) THE SAME THING. The wording makes perfect sense when that one detail is taken into consideration. When the nation was under threat, the people were expected to arm themselves and form a militia in order to protect the nation. Any law that would restrict the rights of the people to arm themselves would therefore inhibit the country's ability to defend itself.

Some may argue that this does not apply any more since we now have a full-time military force. Arguably the thought of such a force would have been abhorrent to the founding fathers. Nonetheless, the oath one takes when joining the military illustrates why it is still necessary for the citizens to be armed. When joining the military, one must swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States [not the U.S. itself] against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The intention here is that the US gov't itself could become an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, for which we would need defending from, in which case the citizens may be at war with parts or all of the U.S. military.

These are the reasons why the citizenry needs to be armed, and why they need weapons of war. You may consider these reasons to be outdated, but unless/until the Constitution is changed, that is the law. And once you understand the full intention of the 2nd amendment, the ironically-named Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (the one that bans citizens from owning fully-automatic weapons) also seems unconstitutional.

We, the People, were and are intended to be the Militia. If you want to see an example of a country that follows the U.S. Constitution in this regard more closely than the U.S. itself, look at Switzerland. They are as we were intended to be by the founding fathers. Jefferson, Franklin and the rest are probably turning in their graves, seeing what our military and our foreign policy has become.

shawn474

Syndil wrote: »

You're in the wrong country then, my friend. When the Constitution was drafted, there was no such thing as a standing, peace-time military. Such an idea would have been abhorrent to the founding fathers. This is also why there is so much debate and confusion around the 2nd amendment, but taken in context, it begins to make perfect sense.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate has always been around whether this protects only the rights of members of the military to keep and bear arms, or the citizens (people) to keep and bear arms. It seems to say one thing at the beginning and then another at the end.

However what we must keep in mind is that when this was written, "the people" and "a militia" were (and are) THE SAME THING. The wording makes perfect sense when that one detail is taken into consideration. When the nation was under threat, the people were expected to arm themselves and form a militia in order to protect the nation. Any law that would restrict the rights of the people to arm themselves would therefore inhibit the country's ability to defend itself.

Some may argue that this does not apply any more since we now have a full-time military force. Arguably the thought of such a force would have been abhorrent to the founding fathers. Nonetheless, the oath one takes when joining the military illustrates why it is still necessary for the citizens to be armed. When joining the military, one must swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States [not the U.S. itself] against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The intention here is that the US gov't itself could become an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, for which we would need defending from, in which case the citizens may be at war with parts or all of the U.S. military.

These are the reasons why the citizenry needs to be armed, and why they need weapons of war. You may consider these reasons to be outdated, but unless/until the Constitution is changed, that is the law. And once you understand the full intention of the 2nd amendment, the ironically-named Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (the one that bans citizens from owning fully-automatic weapons) also seems unconstitutional.

We, the People, were and are intended to be the Militia. If you want to see an example of a country that follows the U.S. Constitution in this regard more closely than the U.S. itself, look at Switzerland. They are as we were intended to be by the founding fathers. Jefferson, Franklin and the rest are probably turning in their graves, seeing what our military and our foreign policy has become.

I am aware of the Constitution thanks. And i am in the minority i guess thinking that militia and "the people" are not "intertwined". I get what youre saying but respectfully dont agree.
I am well aware that you may believe that my disagreement with your belief contrasts with what your thoughts of patriotic and being american are. Thats BS though. Because i dont think citizens should be armed to the teeth with automatic weapons does not mean i am in the wrong country, friend. I know firsthand the atrocities governments can do. My father is an immigrant from Iran who came here when he was 24 years old. I have heard and been privy to proof of what a crazy government can do. It hasnt changed my opinion on this topic. That doesnt make me any less patriotic than you and doesnt mean i am any less inclined to be here than you. That, my friend, is BS and the inflammatory type of remarks that make these conversations and discussions unproductive. Neither one of us is right or wrong, but respecting the other point if view is imperative if we are to get anywhere.

WilliamM2

Because i dont think citizens should be armed to the teeth with automatic weapons does not mean i am in the wrong country, friend.

Shawn, why do you keep bringing up automatic weapons? They are already so highly regulated that hardly anyone owns one, and they are only manufactured for the military/police now. None of these mass shootings have involved an automatic weapon, only semi-auto, just like a hunting rifle. Assault rifle does not mean automatic.

stubby

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Shawn, why do you keep bringing up automatic weapons? They are already so highly regulated that hardly anyone owns one, and they are only manufactured for the military/police now. None of these mass shootings have involved an automatic weapon, only semi-auto, just like a hunting rifle. Assault rifle does not mean automatic.

Why are they so highly regulated? Doesn't that infringe on us, the militia?

Frankly, I doubt if any of these loonies cared if they use semi or full automatics. They just use whatever does the most damage that is readily available.

specd_out

stubby wrote: »

Why are they so highly regulated? Doesn't that infringe on us, the militia?

Frankly, I doubt if any of these loonies cared if they use semi or full automatics. They just use whatever does the most damage that is readily available.

Bingo. Thats why I dont understand all the hate on the ar-15. If a person wants to do something crazy they will find away. The same kinda damage could have been done with a semi-auto pistol that was done with the AR. The the close range of the shootings, either would have been just a devastating.

In all honesty I feel it is somewhat disrespectful for politicians to use this event to pull on the heart strings of the people so that they get their agendas passed. There should be a cool down period.

wz2p7j

We often hear that gun rights could help us overthrow a "tyrannical" government, should that occur in the US. Can anyone show me just ONE convincing instance where a democratic government of elected officials has taken away citizens rights to own guns and then oppressed the populace in the last 500 years? And don't say Hitler. I know the history well and you'll lose that argument. And don't say Cambodia. That was Pol Pot, a despotic dictator. Give me one example, just one. Bring it on.

Chris

wz2p7j

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Assault rifle does not mean automatic.

I'm sure the father of that kid who took 11 rounds is feelin' better already that it wasn't an "automatic" weapon.

Chris

read-alot

My rifle has never "assaulted" anyone.
Telling me I can't own one because the rest of the world has gone crazy will have to be explained in more detail.

txcoastal1

Respectfully to those who disagree: when those who have a tainted agenda, they will carry out their evil agenda with or without tactical weapons.

It's the mentality of the individuals committing the crimes is the source not the weapons they use. Charlie Whitman, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, and the examples in my post#96

If they have an evil agenda they will carry them out and I refuse by the law to disarm because of these examples, and the will if need be to protect my family and friends if necessary.

dkg999

wz2p7j wrote: »

We often hear that gun rights could help us overthrow a "tyrannical" government, should that occur in the US. Can anyone show me just ONE convincing instance where a democratic government of elected officials has taken away citizens rights to own guns and then oppressed the populace in the last 500 years? And don't say Hitler. I know the history well and you'll lose that argument. And don't say Cambodia. That was Pol Pot, a despotic dictator. Give me one example, just one. Bring it on.

Chris

The reason for citizens to have the right to private ownership of firearms is so we don't have to answer your question, ever. A free society is one that does not ever need to fear their government and has the ability to keep their elected or appointed representatives in check, by force if necessary. And if you need an example in the making you just need to take a look at how victims of crime are being treated in the UK. Oppression of the citizens can be done as much from the barrister's bench as from the work of the elected representatives. And if you trust the government that much, then please end your statements with "baa".

avelanchefan

Just remember folks....and most of you may not know, but some crazy in china decided to stab 22 school children the day of the shootings. China is looking for tighter knife control....enough said. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

tonyb

I also want to point out that dated document as some like to call it, is the reason soo many came here to begin with. People from all types of other governments wanted a more free society than the one they were currently living in. America, with it's dated documents, was the only place to go. A place where your destiny was in your own hands, not someone elses. Your parents, great grandparents didn't come here because of our Marxist ways, or communist thoughts, if so they would have just stayed where they were at. The dated document we call our constitution is probably the single most responsible piece of paper that has brought personal freedom not only to our country but has inspired others as well to become more free. One can surely view that as a document for the good of mankind, no ?

Nobody is decrying to go back to an 1800's lifestyle or even a 1950's one. Societies evolve, change, but must also keep rooted in what made them great to begin with. Otherwise you leave the door open to keep repeating past mistakes and erase all progress made to date. Some claim that dated document holds us back. I would argue that it is man himself who holds the keys to progress. Maybe a better concentration on building better men is the ticket for a prosperous future. If we continue to tear down institutions that help in that, how can we expect anything different than what we see today ? Wouldn't at least some of you agree to that ?

dkg999

We might want to research why the 1st and 2nd Admendmants are in those respective spots. Our founding fathers were a smart bunch and had experienced the worst that governments had to offer.

They also left a means for changing the constitution. It's a long and complex process, and rightfully so.