Real World Event Discussions

Countdown to Freedom

POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Sunday, November 20, 2022 22:41
VIEWED: 8868
PAGE 1 of 2

JCKNIFE

Monday, June 28, 2004 3:24 AM

78 Days now until the sunset of the Clinton gun ban. On September 13th, that particular piece of legislation will end unless renewed by congress, which only has a few working days left between now and then because of their sizeable summer recess. Surely Feinstein will try some last-ditch effort, but all signs are pointing to a sunset.

This means the end of another piece of the Clinton legacy but also a nice step forward for the Second Amendment. Ultimately, it's really not that big a deal because mostly the net effect of the ban was to remove certain cosmetic features that were "too scary" for civilian guns. Anyone remember the last bayonetting? Me neither.

The end of the Clinton gun ban does NOT put AK-47's and Uzi's back on the streets as Feinstein and her kind would have you believe. Machine guns have been regulated since the 1930's and that is not changing. Any deer rifle is as powerful or more powerful as any gun affected by this dying ban.

Anyway, I'm just excited about the countdown and saving up for the "evil features" that I'll now be allowed to add to my collection.

"It's my very favorite gun."

CALIGARI

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:17 AM

Amendment II

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.

If one is part of a standing militia (which is unnessary, given the role of the National Guard), then the aforementioned would have relevence. But given that one _does_ have the right to keep and bear arms, I completely agree. One has the right to buy a firearm, and keep it in their residence, and _hopefully_ get training with it, and _hopefully_ keep it in a place that it will not be available to violent indivduals (over half of all domestic firearm incidents occur between individuals who know each other), and given all this, one must recognize that firearm technology has far exceeded the dreams of the Founding Fathers, wherein someone can empty a clip of 9mm into a body faster than a minuteman can plug the same body with a round with a muzzleloader. Hence, to take a life is a hell of a lot easier to do than it was back in the day. To this end, one, I feel, is privilaged to own one or more handguns of a suitable level of domestic power, a suitable of "sporting" rifles and shotguns for one's proposed intentions, this is, to my mind, in the "spirit" of the Second Amendment, but to have on hand something that can chew through a human body in half in less than a couple of seconds, I have only one thing to say about that; If you need such a thing in your home to feel safe, you need to move....

VISIONARY

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:20 AM

I fear for the United States.

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you finish criticizing him, you are a mile away....and you have his shoes."

VISIONARY

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:23 AM

Hey, I just noticed that the little blue vomit guy sends some spray out his nose too.

That's funny !

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you finish criticizing him, you are a mile away....and you have his shoes."

JCKNIFE

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Caligari:
If one is part of a standing militia [...blah blah blah U.N. Press Release crap...]

These couple of quotes should help you understand the "Spirit" of the Second Amendment:

"The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
--Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty's Teeth." -- George Washington

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

Finally, the fact that firearms are more advanced today has no bearing on the argument. Their efficiency is more than offset by the efficiency of their opposition.

JCKNIFE

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:44 PM

Just noticed--the "Sponsored links" over on the side are all "pricing guns" and "caulking guns." Too funny!

SOUTHERNMERC

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:47 PM

Noticed that as well. BTW, didn't Ben Franklin say something like "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." ?

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

MACBAKER

Thursday, July 1, 2004 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Caligari:
If one is part of a standing militia [...blah blah blah U.N. Press Release crap...]

That "milita is the national guard" argument that the gun grabbers use is so tired! The second amendment is a part of the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights lists individual rights! Why would the second ammendment be included in the that section, if it wasn't referring to an individual right? The gun grabbers can never answer that question!! :)

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

DRAKON

Thursday, July 1, 2004 8:24 AM

The Bill of Rights is not an innumeration of the rights of the citizens. It is a limitation on the powers of the government. While the second amendment is framed with regard toward a militia, it is generally been regarded as a limitation on the government's power to take such weapons away from individuals. (Yes there is disagreement here, but frankly, the opposition really does not have much of a precident to stand on.)

Now think about this for a moment. Do you really want a government so powerful it can determine whether you are allowed to defend yourself or not?

I am familiar with all the scare stories about nut jobs with guns. But I am also familiar with even more stories of guns being used to prevent death, robbery, rape and other crimes. Usually without being fired.

Without the right to self defense, the right to life, as recognized by the Declaration of Independence is meaningless. By granting power to a government to determine the means of self defense, you are placing a limitation on the individual's right to life. And worse, rendering those rights a mere whim of the governing party.

As long as the citizens are armed, that gives the government reason to stay within it's proper limitations. Without that element, the government has the power to do whatever it wants, to the detriment of its citizens. You don't like it, tough, they can and will just shoot you.

And considering the fact that continued and constant police protection is neither doable nor really desirable in a free society, an unarmed citizenry is simply aiding and abetting thieves, murderers and rapists. Not a good idea at all.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

JCKNIFE

Thursday, July 1, 2004 4:54 PM

Down to 75 days now...

http://home.att.net/~jcknife/joe/Waxman.bmp

*How do you make it parse the URL and just show the picture?