Media Greasing the Wheels for Gun Ban
POSTED BY: Kirkules
UPDATED: Thursday, April 21, 2016 20:54
VIEWED: 9542
PAGE 2 of 6
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa26.htm
"The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.
Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.
If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery.
It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in tim
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So if you wanna blame someone for the situation, lay it at the feet of Hamilton and Madison and not properly setting protections because...
"No one would dare!"
and
"That would never happen!"
And if you look up the Anti-Federalists counter arguments, you'll see they were indeed right.
But it was the INTENT of all of our Founders, that we citizens were as well or better armed than our military, and fully capable of whooping their ass.
Is THAT clear enough ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That right MEANS Assault Rifles, and RPGs, and TANKS, if we want em.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ain't gettin across here?"
-------------------------------------------------
Well I hardly think that back in 1788 they could have possibly imagined the type of weapons we have today. They had their flintlocks and muskets...fired one bullet at a time, and took a spell to reload. No one can offer one sane reason why any American today needs to own an AK47 or something similar. Even the sacred Freedom of Speech has limits...ie...yelling Fire in a movie theater, making threats against the President, saying Hi Jack at the airport, commiting slander against another, and many other examples where certain speech is prohibited....Just like certain weapons need to be evaluated in relationship to the second amendment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I stongly believe in the right to own guns, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Automatic weapons and super-sized clips are the causes of a lot of law enforcement officers' deaths. Often times, the police with their 9mm's are no match for the raw firepower these weapons can unleash. There is absolutely no reason that a "sportsman" or even a "home defender" needs these things. A handgun or a shot gun is great for home defense, but these military-style weapons should all be destroyed before they're used to rob another bank, or terrorize another fast food joint.
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners. They say they want to protect police officers, but what they really want is to ban semi-automatic rifles now because they know fewer Americans own them, making it easier to get a ban past the American people. After they ban rifles they'll say what I said previously, that rifles only account for a minute portion of gun violence, so handguns should be next. I draw the line at semi-automatic rifles because I believe in the slippery slope argument.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?Not as easily concealed as a handgun for personal defence and not as usefull as a shotgun for home defence.
This in a nutshell is the weakness of the NRA position. They feel the need to defend all guns even the types which have few legal uses.
Oh give me a frackin' break! What is an assault weapon? Do you even know?
The big difference between a Remmington automatic hunting rifle and a civilian AR-15 is the "furniture"! The Remminton has "pretty" wood stocks, and the AR has "scary" black plastic stocks. Civilian AR-15s and AK-47s DON'T shoot full auto, and neither comes in calibers as powerful as those in most hunting rifles! They are also NOT easily converted to full auto, despite the myths to the contrary. The media tries to spin this crap to fools who don't know better.
Personally, I'd rather have the non-assault looking Remminton Auto. You can find high capacity mags for them too, and with that fancy wood stock, it looks so innocent in a gun cabinet!
Disarming the public, is the first act of a tyrant! Banning types of guns, and registering others, is always the first step towards a full scale ban. One year they ban those Assault "looking" weapons that scare you so much, and then they go for the handguns you say you want to protect your house. Then they go for that Shotgun you also like.
Funny how the extreme left liberals paint the Second Amendment as a state militia issue. While all the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are considered "Individual Rights". Strange how that second one is the only one that isn't! 9 out of 10? Who are they trying to fool?
Thomas Jefferson might be able to tell you why there's a need for military type weapons like this, and if our politicians keep crapping on the Constitution the way they've been doing, you'll see why some of us will never hand over our Second Amendment rights! The ideas and ideals this country was founded on, aren't going down without a fight. Jefferson believed the people should always have the right and ability to overthrow a tyrant. Some say we have one in the oval office right now, but frankly, GW has never tried to take way our guns. A real tyrant would have!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ban cops I'll go with that. Just look at England how safe is it there. Just go into a public restroom. How many times do you get robbed. A lady recently called 911 they killed her while she was on the phone.
"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We don't HAVE to "have a reason" - that never, ever comes into this.
Do you need a "reason" to speak your mind ?
Do you need a "reason" to practice your religion ?
No one has to JUSTIFY a Natural Right to anyone else, ever.
And if you actually read the stuff I posted, firstly, we're not supposed to have a standing army at all, unless we're at war with someone, this is part of why politicos always wanna justify one, and another, and another, and a police action here, and intervention there, etc..
Anyhow, a codified, standing army of a permanent nature is anethma to the Constitution and it's ideals, seen as probably THE greatest threat to liberty possible by our founders, and if you doubt that detail go watch what happened to Waco or some videos of Katrina Gun Confiscations again.
THAT was why our founding fathers wanted us to outgun the military, in their opinion, the citizens should have gunned those bastards down and lynched the survivors from the nearest lightpole, curse your eyes...
But when the chips came down, the disparity of firepower lead to, what ?
Come on, say it with me now T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y.
Because most folks throw in the towel when completely outgunned instead of enforcing their rights with violence when needs be.
We are supposed to outgun any raised or standing army for EXACTLY THAT REASON - so that they cannot strip us of our rights, which they did, quite successfully, during Katrina, didn't they ?
The essence of tyranny is pointing a gun at someone and making demands - the essence of freedom is being able to stand on equal terms and refuse to comply.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.h
tml
Upset that balance, and you're just asking for it, and frankly, you DESERVE it, cause you just sold your fellow citizens out for a pat on the head from the smiling man in a dirty trenchcoat handing out candy...
The whole POINT of it is, that if someone else is equally or better armed than the State, then the State can not, can never, FORCE them to do it's bidding, it must be voluntary and at the consent of the governed.
And it was damned well intended to BE exactly that way.
Till idiot milquetoasts and collaborators started selling us down the river over imagined boogeymen less scary, and less LIKELY, than drowning in your own bathtub by accident.
*hisssss*
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and if you want it put maybe more politely...
Cause I got NO intention of being so...
You could try HERE.
http://www.a-human-right.com/
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whenever I hear the anti-gun loonies I feel like I'm talking to brainless pod people.
Drink the Kool-Aid! Vote Obama! We can do it!
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh you'd looooove what an associate of mine pulled, although it got him bounced from the class.
One of his college teachers was rather rabidly anti, which struck us as odd cause she's pretty smart as a general rule, right ?
So she brings a box of gun locks in, to make a point, but it goes missing, much to her annoyance, before she got to discussing it.
So she has the students look for it, only to find in short order that someone took them out and put them on the fire extinguishers.
And she blows a gasket...
"Who did this!, it's dangerous, irresponsible, what if there was a fire and you needed...."
And she just kind of tapered off, right there, and total silence reigned for a couple seconds as the truth began to sink into minds unaccustomed to it...
And then she called the administrator and had the guy pitched from her class on the spot.
Guess that wasn't the point she was intending to make, was it, eh ?
I'm buying THAT dude a case of beer this weekend.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME