For almost a week, Americans have been told by liberal bloggers, Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, and David Shuster that conservative talkers are lying about the Obama administration's plans to enact stricter gun laws, and
that this is what caused Richard Poplawski to kill three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, last Saturday.You know who's been telling the American people Obama wants to take away guns? Members of his own administration, that's who.
Such was reported Wednesday evening by CNN's Bill Schneider in a piece addressing a new poll that found only 39 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws compared to 46 percent who want no change to current legislation .
It may have to do with President Obama and the new administration.
Read more........
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/11/cnns-schneider-obama-administration-wants-stricter-gun-laws
Here is the video .
Quote from: Kjell H. on April 13, 2009, 11:15:21 PM
that this is what caused Richard Poplawski to kill three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, last Saturday.
(AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/pullhair.gif)
This concept never ceases to make my blood boil!
When in this country did we stop blaming the "suspect" and why did we start blaming the gun, or rock music, or talk radio??!!??
It's no wonder there is no accountability in government! There's not accountability for anyone anymore!
Guns only kill people if they are close enough to be pistol whipped.
Ammo is a different story.
Registered ammo can't hurt you. The bar code won't fit in to the chamber.
QuoteWhen in this country did we stop blaming the "suspect" and why did we start blaming the gun, or rock music, or talk radio??!!??
Oh.............bout 50 years ago :P Does anybody remember that stupid stuff about playin rock records backwards at certain speeds? LMAO that still cracks me up.
eek! Has it been that long? :o
Quote from: pepelect on April 14, 2009, 12:39:03 AM
Guns only kill people if they are close enough to be pistol whipped.
Ammo is a different story.
Registered ammo can't hurt you. The bar code won't fit in to the chamber.
Why would i register my ammo or my guns? What insane reason could anyone possibly come up with to get me to tell the government who can't even manage itself what weapons i might have. What business is it of theirs anyway?? THey have no right to tell me i have to tell them everything about me.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 14, 2009, 08:22:07 AM
eek! Has it been that long? :o
LOL, no not for the record thing anyway :) it's only been about 30 years for that one :P LOL
Smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.
PRINCETON, NJ -- In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx
Kjell, Teresa, and other thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on Second Amendment Issues. Since I live near the home base of Diane Feinstein you all save me a lot of time building my arguments for discussing it with my fellow California.
David
Quote from: dnalexander on April 14, 2009, 12:14:13 PM
Smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.
PRINCETON, NJ -- In Gallup polling conducted prior to last week's gun massacre at an immigrant center in Binghamton, N.Y., only 29% of Americans said the possession of handguns by private citizens should be banned in the United States. While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx
Kjell, Teresa, and other thanks for doing all the heavy lifting on Second Amendment Issues. Since I live near the home base of Diane Feinstein you all save me a lot of time building my arguments for discussing it with my fellow California.
David
When you have a day and age when our security and well being is being under attack by not only enemies from beyond but also within our own government, people wake up and say Hey, we need something to defend ourselves.
I still can't believe that 29% of the public could possibly think banning guns. Amazing that they are so blinded to it. Safety and security is not the responsibility of government, their primary responsibility is to defend us from attackers, not by themselves but alongside with us defending ourselves. You see we cannot abdicate that responsibility to the military only because they cannot do it all themselves. It would take their hardshell abilities along with our behind the line swift attacks to defeat a large invading force.
The threat isn't from outside our borders though, the enemy works within, quietly inside our government and utilizing these agencies that try to get gun ban legislation in place. Once they have succeeded in banning weapons or even registering them, then they can make their move and most likely won't fire a shot for the most part.
Please excuse my east coast ignorance, but who is the ''they" of whom you speak. "They can make their move"... Who are they and what do you have that they want? Do you mean your guns? Who is this large invading force that's parked on our door step ready to spring into action?
"They" are the come here's trying to get the been here's to give up what they don't realize they have so good here.
Aha! Now I get it. ;D
Nobody else does.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 14, 2009, 01:36:12 PM
Please excuse my east coast ignorance, but who is the ''they" of whom you speak. "They can make their move"... Who are they and what do you have that they want? Do you mean your guns? Who is this large invading force that's parked on our door step ready to spring into action?
who? lets start with 12,000,000 illegals of which a large chunk are extremely violent.
Shrug
Government is the other threat.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 14, 2009, 01:36:12 PM
Please excuse my east coast ignorance, but who is the ''they" of whom you speak. "They can make their move"... Who are they and what do you have that they want? Do you mean your guns? Who is this large invading force that's parked on our door step ready to spring into action?
But the bottom line in this is, not if we need our guns and the ability to overthrow a totalitarian govt, but when we need it. And if we abdicate our responsibility to stop the assault on our 1st and second amendment rights, then we may not have the means to which we can toss them out of power if they decide to try.
You're right. Stay right in there.
Thanks srkruzich :)
Quote from: Teresa on April 14, 2009, 11:38:20 PM
Thanks srkruzich :)
Sarah posted this on another site and it is a excellent reason why we should be prepared. The government is looking at anyone who dislikes it.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2009/04/12/homeland-security-document-targets-most-conservatives-and-libertarians-in-the-country/
When I have a bit more time this evening, I will look and read on all of that..
I spent some time last week working on some gas wells in NW Arkansas and I can tell you the subject of guns and ammunition came up every where I went and not one single person was for any kind of gun control. All of the people I worked with made it very clear that they felt the Federal Government should not dictate gun laws and/or restrictions to the States. Many of the people I talked to were hunters and many of them had concealed carry permits and all of them said they were not giving up their guns. I think the threat of any gun Restrictions/Confistications by the current Democrat Controlled White House, Senate or House of Representatives could help the Republicans pick up a lot of Senate and House seats in the 2010 election.
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
.It is registered
.You are fingerprinted
.You supply a current Driver's License
.You supply your Social Security #
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
.Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
- Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
The Government would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this..
www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
Maybe its time we started "chipping" back???
I don't wear a seat belt either.
I don't think there is enough prison cells for this plan to work so maybe they could use some stimulus money to first build first then second amendment prisons with the gun registration fees.
Wouldn't it be easier to just get the NRA membership list and jail them, confiscate their firepower, sell their weapons to Muslim countries militias, and use the profits to plant flowers so all the deer and turkeys could graze in peace and harmony with the mountain lions. Wait didn't we already do that in the '80s?
I think I have to agree with the mental evaluation though........I am nuts and with more a full clip or two I could be lethal.
Teresa, you never fail to brighten my day, I just now read that lovely little bill and I must say...HAVE THEY LOST THEIR FREAKIN' MINDS??? JUST WHO THE HELL DO THESE LEFT WING LIBERAL PANTYWAISTED LIMP WRISTED UNAMERICAN SUCMBAG S.O.B'S THINK THEY ARE??
Wether or not this passes is irrelevent..it clearly illustrates that anyone associated with or that supports this bill is in COMPLETE violation of the Constitution and should be thrown out of office not at the next election, NOW.
But remember, these are the kinds of people we should "get behind and trust they know what they are doing"
So start a letter writing campaign, first to your local politicians and work up from there. Explain your position and ( be sure to call them mean names, everybody takes that as the opinion of a well meaning, knowledgeable, emotionally stable, mature person....not!) Suggest a reasonable ,doable solution to the perceived problem. Maybe you'll get some action.
Diane, the letter writing has been done, it was addressed to the entire nation, and even signed by the politicans who supported it. It's called the Constitution. Included in it is the 2nd Admendment, which clearly states that the American people have a right to own a firearm without the infringement of gov't policy. Anything they do to try a limit that right is a violation. That position has been stated and explained many times in the past by various people organizations and people such as...the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. They presented a reasonable, doable solution, they told the gov't to leave the peoples rights alone. So far, the gov't hasn't listened. So why should I expect them to listen now if the only tactic I employ are the same ones that have failed in the past?
As far as name calling...why is it only a problem when it comes from the "right" side of the argument???
Why do you think it's only a problem when it come from the right?
My daughter, who was just reading over my shoulder, said something that I hadn't thought of. At the time the constitution was written, the weapon of the day was a muzzle loading, single shot, that took longer to load than it did to fight hand to hand. Today we have weapons of such mass destruction that some regulations are necessary. However, regulation of the mass destruction weapon is the only one that is needed. I include in mass destruction weapons the ones that fire lots and lots of times without reloading in a lightening fast fashion that can take out as many humans as swinging it back and forth can reach. No possibility of missing the target. The weapons that should not be included are the ones that ordinary people possess for hunting, target practice, collecting, etc., non-violent pastimes. These weapons will provide as much defense as is required to protect the home from intruders. No weapon of mass destruction is going to provide any more protection unless you are faced with a multitude of intruders.
Maybe I am old and foolish, but I trust my law enforcement officers to protect me in situations that I can't handle myself. I trust my country's armed forces to keep foreign intruders away from me. I also don't place myself in situations where I might have to defend myself.
I have heard that side of it before. The Founders were intelligent men, they knew that new weapons would be created. The 2nd admendment is not about hunting, collecting, or target practice. It is about providing the people a means of defense against a tyrannical gov't.
I hear people complain about Auto and Semi Auto weapons, yet most firearms used during the commission of a crime of the common hunting, sporting, and defense variety.
If a person does not want an "assualt" weapon in their home, fine, don't buy one. But don't violate my right by telling me I can't own one. Also, don't tell me how much defense I need in my own home, its my home, I'll make that desicion.
I know on the east coast we have a problem (according to some of my police officer friends ) that the guys who have all the big time assault stuff are braggarts who can't keep their mouths shut about what they have. Eventually they become the target of thieves and the weapons then hit the streets. I know that's not your intent.
Yeah, those braggarts really tick me off. How dare they talk about what they have, they should have known better!
But then again, maybe they were just trusting law enforcement officers to keep them and their property safe.
Hey heres an idea, lets focus less on taking those evil guns off the streets and more on keeping CRIMINALS off the streets.
I didn't say that I agreed. I wish the police could do more, but when people clam up it's really hard to do a proper investigation. Unfortunately, what is one man's criminal is another man's Robin Hood.
The Founders couldn't have possibly known how destructive weapons could become. They were trusting in the common sense of man to not use them against each other unless necessary. Unfortunately, most men have lost their common sense.
How about this? Instead of collecting all the weapons, make it illegal to make any more. Then when all the bad stuff has been smuggled overseas for huge profits, there won't be any here at home to kill us with.
Wilma, do you really believe the founders were that naive...that they couldn't figure out how a rock became a sword became a musket became a cannon? What they were trusting in was the backbone of the american people to stand up to gov't, what they provided with the 2nd admendment was a means to do it with.
How about This? Instead of more draconian gun laws that do no good, why not leave our rights alone and go after those people who commit crimes??? Then when they are all locked up or whatever there won't be any more crime.
Lawyers would love you. ;D
my momma always said I should have been a politican, preacher, or lawyer ;)
She was right! :-*
oh yeah, Prove it!!! ;)
I'd have to ask her . :laugh:
"AMENDMENT 2
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."
My source's explanation.
"This Article calls attention to a striking difference between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, many words were used in explaining why the colonies were separating from Great Britain. But, in the Constitution, Amendment 2 is the only Article that contains any explanation of why it was passed.
The right to keep and bear arms was exceedingly precious to men who faced dangers of many kinds in their daily lives. Colonial farmers with their muskets had helped to win the Revolutionary War. On the frontier, a gun was usually the pioneer family's only protection against wild animals and prowling Indians."
In the Amendment it states that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, so it was necessary that people have the right to own guns. Guns were a necessary part of staying alive in the 18th century. Not only for protection, but to put food on the table. So the Amendment was passed that no one could be prevented from owning and carrying a gun. This was done not only for the individual person's personal use, but also so that in case of an attack, the guns would be at hand and not locked up some place waiting for someone to come unlock them.
Today we are not called on to bring our personal firearms to fight the enemy. Today it is a matter of choice whether or not we own a firearm. With the ownership of a firearm comes the responsibility of being a responsible citizen, keeping that firearm out of the hands of the irresponsible ones.
I have nothing against owning firearms. Personally I got rid of my arsenal after my husband died. But I didn't turn it in to authorities. I gave my mother's rifle to my sister and my husband's old sawed off shotgun to his oldest nephew. The gun had been handed down in the family for several generations, always owned by a Weyrauch. The rest of them I sold.
I have another nephew that hunts to put meat in his freezer. Actually, I have 3 nephews that hunt for meat. But none of them need an assault weapon to do it.
Wilma, your source doesn't do their research apparantly. Here is a list of men who at the time were founders of our country and their beliefs about arms.
PLEASE look closely at Thomas Jefferson, the author of the constitution, and what he has to say on arms and his intent on securing our rights to have them with the 2nd amendment.
IT is clear that the intent is to throw out a government in the event that that government usurps authority from the people. As for assault weapons, define assault weapons. The obama group defines it as anything that can shoot repeatedly x number of times without reloading. That will include any gun that isn't a bolt action or a single barrel shotgun or a black powder rifle.
There are already laws on the books that limit the ability to own automatic weapons and that was passed back in the 30's i believe during the mob heyday. All automatic weapons used in the comission of a crime these days are smuggled across our borders from other countries where they have no such ban. SO what good would it do to ban such weapons here. Their already illegal to own by most of the general public.
Semi-autos are one pull one shot. Their not automatic. besides one of the worst disasters in history happened down in texas in a tower where a single guy killed a bunch of people up to 1 mile in distance from the tower and he only had a single shot rifle. It isn't the guns that are the problem its the judicial system that allows these folks to stay on the streets and the last time i checked criminals didn't give a darn about legal or illegal. I sure would hate to be disarmed by a goverment and have to rely on a totally inadequate police department to secure me from the criminals. Look at australia since they banned their guns. Murders rapes robberies skyrocketed.
I have lived in big cities as well as here where theres more cattle than people. I can tell you that were not affected by crime near as bad as the cities but its coming. When you have methheads, your life is in danger.
GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President) (NOTE FROM FASTMETAL: It appears there is some question on the authenticity of this particular quote. I am leaving it so the reader has a point of reference from the comments at the bottom.)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
THOMAS JEFFERSON (Author of Declaration of Independence, member Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, 3rd President )
• "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)
• "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Jefferson Papers, p. 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)
• "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
• "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
• "The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil...I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government..." (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)
• "I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." (letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, Jefferson Papers, 12:477)
• "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." (letter to Isaac Tifany, 1819)
GEORGE MASON (Virginia House of Burgesses, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, wrote Virginia Declaration of Rights, wrote "Objections to the Constitution", urged creation of a Bill of Rights)
• "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
• "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
• "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by disarming them." (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)
• "I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:381)
JOHN ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress delegate, 1st Vice President, 2nd President)
• "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." 1788(A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471)
JAMES MONROE (Served in Revolutionary Army, member Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, U.S. Secretary of State, Secretary of War, 5th President)
• "But it ought always be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people must depend in an eminent degree on the militia." (his first Inaugural Address, 1817)
SAM ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, organized the Sons of Liberty, participated in Boston Tea Party, Member of Continental Congress, Governor of Massachusetts)
• "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)
JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named "Father of the Constitution", author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President)
• "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (Federalist Papers #46)
• "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
• "They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, 12:193, 204)
• "To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." (Federalist Papers #46)
RICHARD HENRY LEE (Signed Declaration of Independence, introduced resolution in Continental Congress to become independent, proposed Bill of Rights from beginning, author of Anti-Fed Papers, Congressman and Senator from Virginia)
• "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." 1788 (Federal Farmer, p.169)
• "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." 1788 (Federal Farmer)
• "No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
PATRICK HENRY ('Liberty or Death' Speech, member of Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, member Virginia convention to ratify U.S. Constitution, urged creation of Bill of Rights for Constitution )
• "The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun." (Elliot p.3:386)
• "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." During Virginia Ratification Convention 1788 (Elliot p.3:45)
• "I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny." (Elliot P.3:74)
• "My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging wars against tyrants." (Elliot, 3:47-48; in Virginia Ratifying Convention, before Bill of Rights)
• "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone..." (Elliot p.3:50-52, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms.)
BEN FRANKLIN (member, Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence, attended Constitutional Convention, 1st Postmaster General)
• "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993)
NOAH WEBSTER (Served in Revolutionary Army, Printed dictionary; a federalist)
• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...." (An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Webster1787)
• "A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." (Webster, p.42-43)
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (Member of Continental Congress, Aid-de-camp to General Washington, commanded forces at Yorktown, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote Federalist Papers, 1st Secretary of Treasury for George Washington, wanted 'President for life')
• "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Federalist Papers #29)
• TENCH COXE (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)
• "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb 1778)
• "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2
• "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, ...will form a powerful check upon the regular troops..." (Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of America p.20-21)
• REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON (member of the first Congress of the United States)
• "The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons;" in Congress, 22 Dec 1790 (Elliot, p423)
WILLIAM GRAYSON (Senator from Virginia in first Congress under the United States Constitution)
• "Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." (in letter to Patrick Henry)
ZACHARIA JOHNSON (delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention)
• "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Elliot, 3:645-6)
My source is the 1969 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia to which I go for unbiased information.
What does the X in X number of shots stand for?
Quote from: Wilma on April 17, 2009, 08:10:13 PM
My source is the 1969 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia to which I go for unbiased information.
What does the X in X number of shots stand for?
I am all for unbiased information thats why i went and found the forefathers statements on this issue. You can't get more unbiased and accurate than that :)
X means any number. 1 - infinity. its a variable.
Sorry wilma, that just doesn't hold water. Weather I use an Ak47, an SKS, an M4, a M14, or a 30-30 to hunt a deer really doesn't matter. It is not about hunting. It is about the gov't trying to limit the freedom and rights of law abiding citizens.
Passing new laws and weapons bans doesn't do a thing to stop crime. Criminals don't care about laws, thats why they are criminals.
Look at history, one of the first things that people like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, did is to disarm the gerneral public.
The purpose of a militia is to protect the people form the gov't, how can they do that if they are not well armed?
If you don't want to own firearms then don't, but stay away from mine.
And what do you think you need to own that the government is trying to take away from you? Note: I didn't ask what you own, nobody needs to know that.
weapons (of my choice), ammo (as much as I want), gold (they haven't started that one yet but its coming)...
I have heard the argument about "oh, so you think everyday folks should be able to own tanks, and rocket launchers..." to that I answer that if everyday folks are law abiding people, then what difference does it make what they own?
Maybe I should have said, why do you think you need to own them?
I believe that a Milita needs to be just as well armed as its oppent. And no, the National Guard is NOT a militia, it can't be if it falls under the command of the gov't.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 18, 2009, 07:31:33 AM
I believe that a Milita needs to be just as well armed as its oppent. And no, the National Guard is NOT a militia, it can't be if it falls under the command of the gov't.
That is true! Even after the first continental army was formed, we still had the militia.
Yeah, it just too bad that the Militia has come to be seen as a racist, nutcase organization. but then again most people these days just don't care so long as their fridge is full and theres a game on the tv. they would rather just stand in line with the rest of the sheeple and wait for the gov't handout.
Could it be like benefitting from the next gov't program or
going to the mailbox for the gov't check?
It seems that's why we had the Revolution against the
British monarchy so that we could be free and independent,
own property, and have indiviual rights. Nowdays, we seem
to be saying that we can't and "should not" make it as independents
of the the fed's.
Nowdays, we seem
to be saying that we can't and "should not" make it as independents
of the the fed's.-redcliffsw
True, but you should have used "they" instead of "we".
Doesn't the militia need a command or does each individual act on his own?
Billy-
My mistake, thanks for the correction.
Wilma, of course they need a command. What I was getting at is that the anti-gun folks have used teh argument that the National Guard is the militia as defined by the 2nd admendment. The problem is that the Federal gov't can call upon the national guard, when it does the guard takes its orders from the gov't. Hence, the guard cannot take up arms against the gov't and so cannot be the militia as defined by the 2nd admendment.
The Kansas State Militia existed until 1885 when it became the Kansas National Guard.
Some states still have official militia units.
These are not the National Guard but a separate state entity.
These units go by names such as Defense Force, State Guard, and Military Reserve Force.
But in some states, such as Connecticut, these units are called the state militia.
California, Illinois and a few others have a Naval militia.
These units, whether called militia or not, cannot be called into federal service.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 18, 2009, 07:49:11 AM
but then again most people these days just don't care so long as their fridge is full and theres a game on the tv. they would rather just stand in line with the rest of the sheeple and wait for the gov't handout.
You hit the nail on the head there Billy!!!
Congress has backed down.. but don't breath a sigh of relief yet.. It's only temporary.. hoping..since their man Obama and his cronies was picked to be the gun salesmans of the year.. They just want people to get a false sense of comfort. Don't do it!
They are only gearing up in other directions..
and ..they will be saying, as Arnold said..."(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/20.gif)
Well guess what...................... So will We! ;)The arguments by LaPierre are calm, level headed, and textbook NRA.
The Nice way to have a gun debate. Sometimes whenever spots like this are aired, the NRA sounds like a pro 2nd Amendment bureaucrat. I know Wayne personally and I realize in these short episodes, he is constrained by time and venue, but we need to see more of the "in your face" stuff from the NRA. Now is not the time to be nice to these people.....It's time to get serious and kick some ass in these debates. When you hear him talk at the convention.or over dinner... he gets down to the nitty gritty and flat can put some passion into what he says.. .. I wish he would show that side of him more in the public eye with these buffoons.
What about the 60 Dems. that signed "the letter" to BHO. Rendell, Feinstien, Schumer, Pelosi, and others, need to know that the time they choose to bring this back up, AWB, microstamping, imported ammo, ( new on the list is outlawing reloading) whatever................................;
That THIS TIME, a "sleeping giant" will awaken, and it will be a political fight to the finish. When it comes, we need to smack the anti's back big time. So they don't try this crap again.
My question to Rendell is what other guarantees under the Bill of Rights is he willing to give up? I would suggest the first amendment for him. Wonder how he would like that?