Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dksuddeth · 04-01-2006, 11:01 AM

To sum up and answer most of your points/arguments, all too often in any society do the loudest groups make the case that in order to stop the smallest minority that caused the most damage, everyone has to pay. In some of these cases, where they (those in power/read that as lawmakers) create such legislation so that, say with guns/crime, because a handful of people over a period of time have caused so much havoc that we feel compelled to make carrying a gun illegal......with the noted exceptions of military, law enforcement, and public servants such as us. All this does is create an elite class that now has priviledges while the rest of society does not. chicago is a classic example of this. gun ownership in the city of chicago is effectively illegal. In order to get around constitutional legalites, they grandfathered weapons that were registered before 1982, BUT, city alderman/council members and state representatives are either allowed to carry concealed weapons for their own protection OR they get assigned chicago policemen for their bodyguards....all at taxpayer expense.

To answer the second part of your argument, the right shall not be infringed does not mean that all people SHALL own a firearm, but those that wish to should not be restricted in any way, shape, or form. The 'militia' issue has been degraded to the point of uselessness because the government/media have been able to 1) present the issue that people don't need militias anymore, they have the police and the military/national guard for their protection. They conveniently avoid ANY founding father statements about the concern for standing armies and government corruption/oppression. 2) That any 'militia' that IS formed is soundly and immediately cast in to suspicion as being 'anti-government' with allegations of intent to take down and destroy the federal government. It also doesn't hurt their cause any to be able to sprinkle untruths about other predatious criminal activity like child molestation, religious fanatacism, and occultism whether they are true or not. It becomes a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario.

Arms were defined as personal weapons. It didn't matter a whit if they were bows/arrows, knives/swords, or rifles/pistols. My george washington quote says it all. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

What he is saying is that we should ALWAYS remember the lesson that the british army taught us, that the first step in to establishing their rule/authority over us is to disarm us and that in order for us to always be prepared to show anyone, including our own government, that if they choose to abuse the powers that we've given them, that we can and will fight back. The 1934 national firearms act was the most important step in disarming the people and having it upheld by the media argument that it was necessary to fight moonshine running criminals who were using automatic weapons to skirt the law, thereby making automatic weapons imaged as 'criminalistic weapons'. Once they got that foot in the door, it was baby steps to make all guns look evil and that 'civilized, law abiding people didn't need them, we had the police and military to protect us.

'Arms', as would be defined then and now, would be that any personal firearms that the individual can carry and use, same as our government. That means all pistols and all rifles (including automatics or 'machine guns'). Rockets, Tanks, Planes, and Ships are not arms. They are instruments used in warfare, but not individual arms. Now, some people don't want to get past that strawman argument because it helps make their case when they argue that the second amendment is a 'states' right, not an individual right but they have been consistently proven wrong on that point, although, some circuit courts are still loaded with judicial activists who want to see the populace disarmed.

There will be no way to stop 'nuts' from getting a gun. It's impossible as long as the 'nut' still has freedom. The ONLY way to stop the nut from being able to commit the murder and mayhem that some have, is to stop infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. Once 'nuts' (the milder ones at least) see that there are other people out there ready to kill them if they try to commit violent crimes, they will not be as 'nutty'. There will always be the psychos, but fewer of them and after time, it will be handled. They will eventually die out from attrition.

04-01-2006, 11:01 AM	#87 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	To sum up and answer most of your points/arguments, all too often in any society do the loudest groups make the case that in order to stop the smallest minority that caused the most damage, everyone has to pay. In some of these cases, where they (those in power/read that as lawmakers) create such legislation so that, say with guns/crime, because a handful of people over a period of time have caused so much havoc that we feel compelled to make carrying a gun illegal......with the noted exceptions of military, law enforcement, and public servants such as us. All this does is create an elite class that now has priviledges while the rest of society does not. chicago is a classic example of this. gun ownership in the city of chicago is effectively illegal. In order to get around constitutional legalites, they grandfathered weapons that were registered before 1982, BUT, city alderman/council members and state representatives are either allowed to carry concealed weapons for their own protection OR they get assigned chicago policemen for their bodyguards....all at taxpayer expense. To answer the second part of your argument, the right shall not be infringed does not mean that all people SHALL own a firearm, but those that wish to should not be restricted in any way, shape, or form. The 'militia' issue has been degraded to the point of uselessness because the government/media have been able to 1) present the issue that people don't need militias anymore, they have the police and the military/national guard for their protection. They conveniently avoid ANY founding father statements about the concern for standing armies and government corruption/oppression. 2) That any 'militia' that IS formed is soundly and immediately cast in to suspicion as being 'anti-government' with allegations of intent to take down and destroy the federal government. It also doesn't hurt their cause any to be able to sprinkle untruths about other predatious criminal activity like child molestation, religious fanatacism, and occultism whether they are true or not. It becomes a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. Arms were defined as personal weapons. It didn't matter a whit if they were bows/arrows, knives/swords, or rifles/pistols. My george washington quote says it all. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." What he is saying is that we should ALWAYS remember the lesson that the british army taught us, that the first step in to establishing their rule/authority over us is to disarm us and that in order for us to always be prepared to show anyone, including our own government, that if they choose to abuse the powers that we've given them, that we can and will fight back. The 1934 national firearms act was the most important step in disarming the people and having it upheld by the media argument that it was necessary to fight moonshine running criminals who were using automatic weapons to skirt the law, thereby making automatic weapons imaged as 'criminalistic weapons'. Once they got that foot in the door, it was baby steps to make all guns look evil and that 'civilized, law abiding people didn't need them, we had the police and military to protect us. 'Arms', as would be defined then and now, would be that any personal firearms that the individual can carry and use, same as our government. That means all pistols and all rifles (including automatics or 'machine guns'). Rockets, Tanks, Planes, and Ships are not arms. They are instruments used in warfare, but not individual arms. Now, some people don't want to get past that strawman argument because it helps make their case when they argue that the second amendment is a 'states' right, not an individual right but they have been consistently proven wrong on that point, although, some circuit courts are still loaded with judicial activists who want to see the populace disarmed. There will be no way to stop 'nuts' from getting a gun. It's impossible as long as the 'nut' still has freedom. The ONLY way to stop the nut from being able to commit the murder and mayhem that some have, is to stop infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. Once 'nuts' (the milder ones at least) see that there are other people out there ready to kill them if they try to commit violent crimes, they will not be as 'nutty'. There will always be the psychos, but fewer of them and after time, it will be handled. They will eventually die out from attrition. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."