Jump to content

FREEDOM RALLY Saturday, April 18th 2009!


Disastro

Recommended Posts

Freedom rally? No thanks. I was born free.

So was I, but as a hand gun liscense holder, I'm scared to death what the current administration might do to my second ammendment rights. Maybe I'm jumping the gun (no pun intended), but I'm really concerned.

Note: please ignore my post if you feel the need to get in a heated debate. I'd like to discuss the second ammendment, not have sarcastic, and snide responses. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So was I, but as a hand gun liscense holder, I'm scared to death what the current administration might do to my second amendment rights. Maybe I'm jumping the gun (no pun intended), but I'm really concerned.

Oh lord, freaking drama queen! (and that's coming from a homo!)

I am all for having guns for self defense to protect yourself and your family and whatnot, but to have this called a "Freedom Rally" just makes these people look stupid. They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

"Oh No... big bad Obama is going to take away my rights!!!" ..... Try not having equal rights in the first place, then come talk to me. Stop being such a bunch of cry babies. -_-

Is the Second Amendment the one about false idols, or taking god
Edited by HtownWxBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

Below is from the Iowa supreme court decision on marriage. This explains how ridiculous that argument is better than I ever could.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Co...403/07-1499.pdf

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and

lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,

it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of

marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex

is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person

of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian

person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a

person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

Sorry about being off topic but I couldn't let that old argument be trotted out w/o answer.

Edited by west20th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...friend=usatoday

follow the link and read the decision, then tell me why you still need to have a rally

**Disclaimer: Like I said earlier, I don't like the folks that will attend the rally, but I do support the cause.**

This case prevents the outright ban on an entire class of firearms. But an example of a contentious political issues not affected by this decision would be 1) reinstating a ban on specified "assault weapons", 2) registration of the owners of firearms by law enforcement agencies at all levels of government, 3) restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms that are so onerous as to effectively ban the possession of certain classes of firearms except in a very narrow set of circumstances.

I think that the assault weapons issue is probably the most prominent one right now, and there is good reason for people to be pissed off. If anyone here is at all familiar with the functionality of the assault weapons ban that had formerly been in effect, it named some magazine-fed models of semiautomatic firearms specifically (which were functionally identical to other models which were unnamed) and banned the sale of them if they met two or more of the criteria below:

For rifles:

* Folding or telescoping stock

* Pistol grip

* Bayonet mount

* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

For pistols:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor

* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

For shotguns:

* Folding or telescoping stock

* Pistol grip

* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds

* Detachable magazine

Most of the folks that I've ever argued this with seemed to believe that this was a ban on the possession of scary fully-automatic weapons. Actually, that already exists, more or less. It was a ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons that looked like fully automatic weapons.

Will someone tell me when was the last time that they heard of a crime being committed with a firearm with a mounted bayonet using the bayonet as the weapon? I can think of at least one case where someone I know was out hunting feral hogs with his semi-automatic AK-47, where he ran out of ammo, the wounded hog charged him, and he had to stick it with the bayonet.

How about a grenade launcher? Grenades are illegal already, and the only things that an M203 37mm grenade launcher mounted to the bottom of an AR-15 would be good for would be signaling that someone is in distress by launching flares or a smoke grenade. That's a legitimate purpose.

And what the bill actually did was it created two classes of the same kinds of firearms. Based upon whether a particular weapon's lower receiver (a single part of the gun, which by itself is not dangerous) was a pre-ban or post-ban, the owner was allowed or not allowed under federal law to accessorize the firearm with such things as pistol grips and grenade launchers. But those components still fit on the gun whether they were supposed to be there or not, and unless a federal agent queried a database using a receiver's stamped serial number, there was no indication of whether the owner was breaking the law or not. The bill was impossible to enforce effectively beyond the point of sale and resulted in extremely few prosecutions. It only made life more complicated for people who actually have respect for the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is from the Iowa supreme court decision on marriage. This explains how ridiculous that argument is better than I ever could.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Co...403/07-1499.pdf

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and

lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,

it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of

marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex

is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person

of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian

person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a

person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

Sorry about being off topic but I couldn't let that old argument be trotted out w/o answer.

But htownwxboy was arguing that gays and lesbians had unequal rights, and he is wrong. By the letter of the law and in the way that it is enforced, there is not inequality. The question is not whether or not a law or institution should be valued equally by all constituencies of the citizenry. It is a question over the very existence of a right such as would justify the establishment of a new law, upheld just the same as the preexisting one.

Clearly there are many kinds of legislation that are unequally valued by different populations of the citizenry but that are created by the whole body of the United States legislature according to rules that are applied uniformly, and clearly these sorts of legislation are being enforced equally, to the letter of the law. A resident of Manhattan doesn't get much use from government spending in rural Idaho, or vice versa. That doesn't mean that there's an injustice if and when rural Idaho receives a disproportionate amount of federal spending per capita.

For the record, though, I am not in favor of the government-sanctioned union of gays or lesbians. I am also not in favor of the government-sanctioned union of straight men and women. So you see, I don't like the way that marriage is handled, either. But I'm not complaining that it represents unequal treatment of people who don't like the government-sanctioned institution of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...you've reduced this to an issue over people rather than ideas...and you are comparing very different issues of defining which rights are rights with issues of defining which populations receive or do not receive rights...even though I would point out that gays and lesbians are obviously just as equally free to marry people of the opposite sex as are straights. Also...why did you capitalize the words "Gay" and "Nation"? Those aren't pronouns.

And here I thought people married because they are in love. A gay person can fall in love with a member of the opposite sex as easily as a straight person can fall in love with a member of their same sex. If the tables were turned (hypothetically) and they outlawed straight marriage and only gay couples could marry and get the rights that come with marriage... would you (a straight person) want straight marriage made legal again or would you just marry someone of the same sex? :unsure:

Keep in mind (in my hypothetical situation) straight people would still be allowed to live together, have children, raise families... etc... nothing would change except they couldn't LEGALLY marry which means they couldn't get the rights that come with LEGAL marriage... only gay couples could do that. Something tells me the "straight" community would fight for equal rights to marry... as they should.

Edited by HtownWxBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I thought people married because they are in love. A gay person can fall in love with a member of the opposite sex as easily as a straight person can fall in love with a member of their same sex. If the tables were turned (hypothetically) and they outlawed straight marriage and only gay couples could marry and get the rights that come with marriage... would you (a straight person) want straight marriage made legal again or would you just marry someone of the same sex? :unsure:

Keep in mind (in my hypothetical situation) straight people would still be allowed to live together, have children, raise families... etc... nothing would change except they couldn't LEGALLY marry which means they couldn't get the rights that come with LEGAL marriage... only gay couples could do that. Something tells me the "straight" community would fight for equal rights to marry... as they should.

The tide is turning!

This is a freedom I would rally for. Love, not guns, baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tide is turning!

This is a freedom I would rally for. Love, not guns, baby.

It's turning fast... all of a sudden Iowa and Vermont... other states are considering following... you can't stop freedom baby!

And as for guns since that's what this topic was about... like I said I am for the second amendment when it comes to people being able to defend themselves and their families and their property and whatnot... it just seems like something has to be done... how can we allow people the right to defend themselves and at the same time do something about these gun rampages. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it just seems like something has to be done... how can we allow people the right to defend themselves and at the same time do something about these gun rampages. :unsure:

We could take away their guns, and give em night sticks.

Oh lord, freaking drama queen! (and that's coming from a homo!)

I am all for having guns for self defense to protect yourself and your family and whatnot, but to have this called a "Freedom Rally" just makes these people look stupid. They get all up in arms when they think the government might take away their rights... when at the same time most of them probably have no problem with Gay people in this Nation not even having equal rights to begin with.

"Oh No... big bad Obama is going to take away my rights!!!" ..... Try not having equal rights in the first place, then come talk to me. Stop being such a bunch of cry babies. -_-

:lol:

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could take away their guns, and give em night sticks.

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

I sowwy :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really neccessary? If you will re-read my post, you'll notice that I said "maybe I'm jumping the gun, but am still scared". I also asked for a civil response, but that's to much to ask on this forum.

Here, let me try...

I believe that your irrational fear is symptomatic of a paranoid mental disorder.

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, let me try...

I believe that your irrational fear is symptomatic of a paranoid mental disorder.

Better?

:lol: .... ok ok ok... I just think it's ridiculous to get all scared thinking someone is coming after you to take your guns away. I mean, seriously. It's like a 6 year old crying b/c someone wants to take their teddy bear away that they think protects them from the monster in the closet. Good lord I am a homo who doesn't own a gun and I am not afraid one bit.

I am not trying to be mean... just think being scared that much is kind of overreacting just a bit. Everything is going to be OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point was simply this:

after 8 years of conservative Republican majority rule and this is what you have

abortion is still legal

the boarders are as porous as ever

the economy is in tatters

the deficit is at record highs

and we have two ugly wars

but you finally got an affirmative ruling from the US Supreme Court stating that the 2nd Amendment does mean individuals have the right to own guns...

the rally should be a celebration

you know, kegs and shooting guns in the air...a real wing ding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my point was simply this:

after 8 years of conservative Republican majority rule and this is what you have

abortion is still legal

the boarders are as porous as ever

the economy is in tatters

the deficit is at record highs

and we have two ugly wars

but you finally got an affirmative ruling from the US Supreme Court stating that the 2nd Amendment does mean individuals have the right to own guns...

the rally should be a celebration

you know, kegs and shooting guns in the air...a real wing ding

The Supreme Court also ruled that abortions are legal... you know, Roe vs. Wade... so of course "abortions are still legal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, so they're not taking away my one little gun right now, a .22 rifle, but if they ever did, can I at least get them to buy it from me? Is there any history on a government banning previously ok stuff where they buy it back, or is it just confiscate and suck up the losses? I would not freak out if I was told I couldn't have a gun, but I'd be pissed at the loss of asset value. Then I'd get a sword. Maybe a spear...is a flamethrower technically a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: .... ok ok ok... I just think it's ridiculous to get all scared thinking someone is coming after you to take your guns away. I mean, seriously. It's like a 6 year old crying b/c someone wants to take their teddy bear away that they think protects them from the monster in the closet. Good lord I am a homo who doesn't own a gun and I am not afraid one bit.

I am not trying to be mean... just think being scared that much is kind of overreacting just a bit. Everything is going to be OK.

You know, HWB, I can't help but notice how you have taken a very He-man, patriotic Texan and American thread like this and gayed it up something fierce. No self respecting gun toter would dare post here now, what with all the gayness and whatnot. I mean, even 20thStDad is talking about flamethrowers now! :blink:

I think you should apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all those who wish to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of the 2nd Amendment and to protect themselves from the evil communist, Obama administration: You will never win!

No amount of fire power you and your buddies can amass can take down the United States Government. When this shows up on your doorstep:

usmcm1a1tank_sm.jpg

It's over. So as to protect the rest of our freedom, from the lunatics and the groups they form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all those who wish to arm themselves to the teeth, in the name of the 2nd Amendment and to protect themselves from the evil communist, Obama administration: You will never win!

No amount of fire power you and your buddies can amass can take down the United States Government. When this shows up on your doorstep:

usmcm1a1tank_sm.jpg

It's over. So as to protect the rest of our freedom, from the lunatics and the groups they form.

You must not have seen Red Dawn...the people always have a chance. WOLVERINES!!!!

That movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the cause but I also do not like these people. I will not be in attendance.

Agreed. This along with the crazy lady who wants Asians to change their names is making the "Republicans" look like idiots atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must not have seen Red Dawn...the people always have a chance. WOLVERINES!!!!

That movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid by the way.

Didn't they pretty much kill all the wolverines? I thought only one guy and a chick escaped.

Hardly an encouraging movie.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they pretty much kill all the wolverines? I thought only one guy and a chick escaped.

Hardly an encouraging movie.

You could be right. I think it was 22 years ago when I watched it. I thought it ended sort of cliff-hanger with a few still planning to make trouble for the soviets. I may have made that part up in my mind over the years.

Maybe a better example - Tremors. That one worm who busted up in the armory that guy (and Reba McIntyre) had was toast. I mean, it took the elephant gun to kill it, but still. Kevin Bacon is weird.

Edited by 20thStDad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I thought people married because they are in love. A gay person can fall in love with a member of the opposite sex as easily as a straight person can fall in love with a member of their same sex. If the tables were turned (hypothetically) and they outlawed straight marriage and only gay couples could marry and get the rights that come with marriage... would you (a straight person) want straight marriage made legal again or would you just marry someone of the same sex? :unsure:

Keep in mind (in my hypothetical situation) straight people would still be allowed to live together, have children, raise families... etc... nothing would change except they couldn't LEGALLY marry which means they couldn't get the rights that come with LEGAL marriage... only gay couples could do that. Something tells me the "straight" community would fight for equal rights to marry... as they should.

I thought that I made that perfectly clear. I do not like government-sanctioned marriage under any circumstances, whether straight-straight, straight-gay/lesbian, or gay/lesbian, gay/lesbian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is a flamethrower technically a gun?

You can own and use a flamethrower, although I'm not sure whether it can be commercially transacted.

They're really neat to be able to play around with, although if you've ever used one, you'd probably find it to be rather impractical for defensive purposes. If you're good with electronics, you can probably rig up a rural or exurban compound with effective remote-controlled defensive flamethrowers. Don't count on them being an effective weapon in the Heights, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that I made that perfectly clear. I do not like government-sanctioned marriage under any circumstances, whether straight-straight, straight-gay/lesbian, or gay/lesbian, gay/lesbian.

exactly the direction this issue should go.

so, niche, are you saying that legal documents, tax rules, insurance regulations, etc should not consider marriage as a requirement for any benefit or limitation? would there be no assumed shared benefits without a primary contract holder, head of household, etc decreeing it so? would a marriage license be nothing more than an agreement/commitment between two persons?

please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly the direction this issue should go.

so, niche, are you saying that legal documents, tax rules, insurance regulations, etc should not consider marriage as a requirement for any benefit or limitation? would there be no assumed shared benefits without a primary contract holder, head of household, etc decreeing it so? would a marriage license be nothing more than an agreement/commitment between two persons?

please explain.

Household size and type should be considerations for tax rules and insurance policies, etc., however, these are aspects that can be objectively determined through means other than government-sanctioned marriage. Marriage should be strictly the realm of religious institutions, completely separate from government in any form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, for those not so keen on connecting the dots:

this would allow for equal benefits for everyone regardless of marriage status, straight or gay. therefore, gay marriage would no longer be a necessity to have equal benefits. the issue would dissolve into merely a social issue rather than a legal/constitutional issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, for those not so keen on connecting the dots:

this would allow for equal benefits for everyone regardless of marriage status, straight or gay. therefore, gay marriage would no longer be a necessity to have equal benefits. the issue would dissolve into merely a social issue rather than a legal/constitutional issue.

Precisely. I have always wondered why gays would want the right to marriage for any practical reason. Personally, I envy their exemption from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, let me try...

I believe that your irrational fear is symptomatic of a paranoid mental disorder.

Better?

ahhh Red, safely behind your computer again? Your incapable of not being a prick, and I'm hoping to meet you in person some day.

I find it sad that you don't live up to your signature in any form or fashion.

Edit: Didn't want to be a Red Scare so I deleted a comment.

Edited by Gary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhh Red, safely behind your computer again? Your incapable of not being a prick, and I'm hoping to meet you in person some day.

I find it sad that you don't live up to your signature in any form or fashion.

Edit: Didn't want to be a Red Scare so I deleted a comment.

E-thug2.jpg

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: .... ok ok ok... I just think it's ridiculous to get all scared thinking someone is coming after you to take your guns away. I mean, seriously. It's like a 6 year old crying b/c someone wants to take their teddy bear away that they think protects them from the monster in the closet. Good lord I am a homo who doesn't own a gun and I am not afraid one bit.

I am not trying to be mean... just think being scared that much is kind of overreacting just a bit. Everything is going to be OK.

That's kind of what I was thinking. What the heck is everyone so afraid of? The NRA and the firearms industry own these people with this faulty idea that they need to be afraid and need to keep funding the gun industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of what I was thinking. What the heck is everyone so afraid of? The NRA and the firearms industry own these people with this faulty idea that they need to be afraid and need to keep funding the gun industry.

One of the magnificent things that the founders of our federal government did was recognize that they themselves, as its leaders, could not be trusted. If you aren't afraid of our government, then you are not deserving it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KPRC Radio MOJO Host Chris Baker will be a speaker! For more information, visit:

http://community2.myfoxhouston.com/_CONSTI...1537/82250.html

or

http://www.meetup.com/riders-of-texas/calendar/10103901/

A quick glance at the guest list and comment section reveals a grand total of 5 people who said 'YES', and 2 'MAYBE's. I did not look to see if anyone had voted twice, since Betty Brown's Voter ID law does not apply to gun rallies. Sounds like a big shindig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the magnificent things that the founders of our federal government did was recognize that they themselves, as its leaders, could not be trusted. If you aren't afraid of our government, then you are not deserving it.

I admittedly was afraid of the Bush administration and their overreaching of executive powers and disregard for the law. But I don't see how personal firearms would have helped in that situation. The democratic system and term limits have worked quite well in allowing us to change who's in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to call something a freedom rally, use it to celebrate the first amendment, not the 2nd. Celebrate the 2nd at the shooting range.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, Barack Obama, nor any single liberal will be able to remove it, nor do they actually want to.

Afterall, that's the real issue isn't it. The fear that the Democrat controlled government will take it away because Conservatives spin it as that for political gain.

You think the President has the power to remove a whole amendment without the consequence of extreme unpopularity, violations of the law in doing so, civilian violence and extreme backlash from his own party even?? God No.

I see this primarily as simply an issue for Conservatives who want to spin it as liberals trying to take something away from them. Just another political argument. On non political levels, and more understandable, is the threat of losing your last line of self defense, not to mention something that makes you feel good. I've shot numerous guns. The power of it is almost euphoric. Knowing that from a distance you can take a life, knowing that no one would dare mess with you, knowing that you have protection without waiting on anyone else to assist. It's a feeling like a warm blanket. It security and power at the same time. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a Democrat my view of the 2nd amendment is this: It was the number 2 thing our founding fathers put down, after freedom of speech, meaning it was pretty high up there on importance, and it still is, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically, I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't support the part that says it's every citizen's right. It's every RESPONSIBLE citizen's right, only. Afterall do any of us want to die from being shot because of bickering or because someone wants our shoes when such a thing could so easily have been avoided?

It's all about gun control. But conservatives generally don't like to be controlled. Even if the control allows law abiding citizens to have their arms, and keeps the arms out of those that would use it to rob a bank, get revenge on an enemy, massacre their class because they are not socially accepted.... In times of the Revolutionary War every American citizen needed this form of self defense, and our founding fathers put that necessity down as a right. In writing. The 2nd amendment is undergoing what all present-day applicable amendments are, and that's evolution for the times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admittedly was afraid of the Bush administration and their overreaching of executive powers and disregard for the law. But I don't see how personal firearms would have helped in that situation. The democratic system and term limits have worked quite well in allowing us to change who's in power.

You're right; that's not an applicable situation. The conditions which would justify a viable popular revolt would more likely be decades or even centuries in the making, the aggregate effect of the slow erosion of civil liberties (which very well could overlap the most recent administrations) coupled with a tyrannical executive. Bush gets lampooned sometimes as a tyrant, but I would submit to you that his compliance with term limits is a clear indication otherwise; by my estimation, he did some foolish things which expanded executive powers and would make a true tyrant's job easier. Think about a character more like Aaron Burr, someone who has designs on power for its own sake, close alliances within the military, and an unwillingness to step down.

Anything that could be done which might act to stall the erosion of civil liberties or that might act as a deterrent to tyrants is in the long-term interests of the country. And even in the short-term, we reap the economic benefits of a government that is perceived as having long-term stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to call something a freedom rally, use it to celebrate the first amendment, not the 2nd. Celebrate the 2nd at the shooting range.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, Barack Obama, nor any single liberal will be able to remove it, nor do they actually want to.

Afterall, that's the real issue isn't it. The fear that the Democrat controlled government will take it away because Conservatives spin it as that for political gain.

You think the President has the power to remove a whole amendment without the consequence of extreme unpopularity, violations of the law in doing so, civilian violence and extreme backlash from his own party even?? God No.

I see this primarily as simply an issue for Conservatives who want to spin it as liberals trying to take something away from them. Just another political argument. On non political levels, and more understandable, is the threat of losing your last line of self defense, not to mention something that makes you feel good. I've shot numerous guns. The power of it is almost euphoric. Knowing that from a distance you can take a life, knowing that no one would dare mess with you, knowing that you have protection without waiting on anyone else to assist. It's a feeling like a warm blanket. It security and power at the same time. There's nothing wrong with that.

As a Democrat my view of the 2nd amendment is this: It was the number 2 thing our founding fathers put down, after freedom of speech, meaning it was pretty high up there on importance, and it still is, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue. Basically, I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't support the part that says it's every citizen's right. It's every RESPONSIBLE citizen's right, only. Afterall do any of us want to die from being shot because of bickering or because someone wants our shoes when such a thing could so easily have been avoided?

It's all about gun control. But conservatives generally don't like to be controlled. Even if the control allows law abiding citizens to have their arms, and keeps the arms out of those that would use it to rob a bank, get revenge on an enemy, massacre their class because they are not socially accepted.... In times of the Revolutionary War every American citizen needed this form of self defense, and our founding fathers put that necessity down as a right. In writing. The 2nd amendment is undergoing what all present-day applicable amendments are, and that's evolution for the times.

You frame this as being about self-defense, and so does the NRA--they throw sport into the mix, too. These have nothing to do with why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. It's just one more check on the powers of government. These guys had just finished fighting a revolutionary war not very long ago, and the possibility of another one to thwart a failed state was very much at the top of mind. It is unfortunate that this isn't PC to talk about and that all of the interest groups have to dance around it to avoid being labeled extremist.

I do agree with you that the Republicans are spinning this to their own advantage, as well they should; the Executive Branch wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which--whether someone likes it in principle or not--is just poorly-written law which is extremely difficult to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right; that's not an applicable situation. The conditions which would justify a viable popular revolt would more likely be decades or even centuries in the making, the aggregate effect of the slow erosion of civil liberties (which very well could overlap the most recent administrations) coupled with a tyrannical executive. Bush gets lampooned sometimes as a tyrant, but I would submit to you that his compliance with term limits is a clear indication otherwise; by my estimation, he did some foolish things which expanded executive powers and would make a true tyrant's job easier. Think about a character more like Aaron Burr, someone who has designs on power for its own sake, close alliances within the military, and an unwillingness to step down.

Anything that could be done which might act to stall the erosion of civil liberties or that might act as a deterrent to tyrants is in the long-term interests of the country. And even in the short-term, we reap the economic benefits of a government that is perceived as having long-term stability.

Good Lord, why would anyone want that job longer than necessary. I've always seen that as the toughest/worst job in the world, however being ex-President is probably the sweetest gig one could have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You frame this as being about self-defense, and so does the NRA--they throw sport into the mix, too. These have nothing to do with why the Second Amendment is in the constitution. It's just one more check on the powers of government. These guys had just finished fighting a revolutionary war not very long ago, and the possibility of another one to thwart a failed state was very much at the top of mind. It is unfortunate that this isn't PC to talk about and that all of the interest groups have to dance around it to avoid being labeled extremist.

I do agree with you that the Republicans are spinning this to their own advantage, as well they should; the Executive Branch wants to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which--whether someone likes it in principle or not--is just poorly-written law which is extremely difficult to enforce.

Your description that it is not PC to talk about is probably less about PC and more about the folly of citizens in armed revolt against the US government, and even more about the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens would prefer not to see that happen. The realities of what you hint at are that the US government could crush an internal revolt, if it consisted of only small arms fire. The weapons needed to even have a chance against the government are already illegal. Framing the 2nd Amendment in 'revolt against the government' terms is merely fantasy for the gun nuts. This is not to suggest that guns should be outlawed. It is merely to say that having them in case we need to revolt is not talked about because it would be ineffective. Besides, if we needed weapons, the insurgents would simply bootleg them in the way we do every other product that we want which the government says no. People do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt.

Every successful internal change of government is largely accomplished by means other than gunfire. As we have a system in place for the peaceful replacement of government officials with whom we disagree, gunfire is not necessary. People often forget that the current makeup of the government came about because the majority of the population disapproved of the former regime. They did not take over. We voted them in. The fact that rabid gun owners do not approve of these current officials is more indicative of the gun owners' status as a minority viewpoint than of some overtaking of the government by their opponents. When the views of the gun owners more closely allign with the majority of the voting population, officials of whom they approve will begin getting elected again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description that it is not PC to talk about is probably less about PC and more about the folly of citizens in armed revolt against the US government, and even more about the fact that an overwhelming number of citizens would prefer not to see that happen.

But that feeds back into what I was talking about. It's never politically correct to even discuss the possibility of armed revolt until it actually becomes necessary...and even then, there is typically quite a bit of resistance from the extreme doves. Throughout the history of civilizations, peoples have indicated a very short attention span when it comes to political history. They look at their current and recent leaders and worry about issues in the context of who is in charge, not who could be many years into the future. In fact, that's the problem with tyranny. Most tyrants are actually quite benevolent and in fact fairly intelligent. It is their successors who are the wild cards, apt to throw society on end.

The realities of what you hint at are that the US government could crush an internal revolt, if it consisted of only small arms fire. The weapons needed to even have a chance against the government are already illegal. Framing the 2nd Amendment in 'revolt against the government' terms is merely fantasy for the gun nuts. This is not to suggest that guns should be outlawed. It is merely to say that having them in case we need to revolt is not talked about because it would be ineffective. Besides, if we needed weapons, the insurgents would simply bootleg them in the way we do every other product that we want which the government says no. People do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt.

It depends on the scale of the revolt. Look at how much difficulty we've had in Iraq, a country approximately the size of Texas and with only a slightly larger population. The sophisticated heavy weaponry and command infrastructure was easy to dismantle; it was the house-to-house fighting with small arms and IEDs that dragged on and wore us down. And as for fully-automatic weapons, well, it's not that difficult to convert a semi-automatic firearm into full auto. And as you pointed out, people do not generally follow the government's rules during a revolt. ...but you can't make effective weapons out of mediocre weapons if you don't even have access even to those. The more that the 2nd Amendment is eroded, however, the more that your criticism has a basis in reality.

Every successful internal change of government is largely accomplished by means other than gunfire. As we have a system in place for the peaceful replacement of government officials with whom we disagree, gunfire is not necessary. People often forget that the current makeup of the government came about because the majority of the population disapproved of the former regime. They did not take over. We voted them in. The fact that rabid gun owners do not approve of these current officials is more indicative of the gun owners' status as a minority viewpoint than of some overtaking of the government by their opponents. When the views of the gun owners more closely allign with the majority of the voting population, officials of whom they approve will begin getting elected again.

The American Revolution would seem to have indicated otherwise. Clearly, there is more to a successful internal change of government than gunfire or the threat of gunfire; the Constitution is itself a nearly-miraculous system of checks and balances to deter the need for armed revolt, the framers of which condoned and participated in it and in fact recommended it under certain circumstances.

And as I've already stated, I'm not suggesting armed revolt against the current administration, merely the need to stand vigilant against a potential tyrant. By the time that such an individual is recognized as being worthy of such action, the system that you cherish will already have been so wounded as to make the action truly impossible.

The Second Amendment is not only a last-resort check on government, but it is a deterrent to anyone who would dare to instigate tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more that the 2nd Amendment is eroded, however, the more that your criticism has a basis in reality.

Except that the 2nd Amendment is far from being eroded. It is being expanded. There are an estimated 215 million guns in the US, more than at any time in our history. Daily, laws are proposed that make it easier to carry weapons on the street, in vehicles and elsewhere, and to use them with impunity. The fear that our guns are being taken away is pure fiction, as we obtaining more by the day. The argument that gun rights are being eroded, whether in context of current events, or in historical context, is pure fiction.

Some common sense would appear to be in order, but that does not appear to be the hallmark of gun proponents or their political action committees. Rallies to 'protect' a right that is being expanded as opposed to eroded, are what garner the 'nutjob' tags for gun supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...