The 2nd Amendment
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 05:05
VIEWED: 5360
PAGE 1 of 1
Hey folks,
A few things have been bothering me for quite a while about gun control. If we here can all agree that the 2nd Amendment exists to give citizens the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, is mere gun ownership a sufficient safeguard anymore? Unless I have the absolute "state of the art bang-bang," how can my gun be anything but a symbol of my resistance when the Government comes knocking down my door nowadays? Y'know, when they can watch me from space weeding in my backyard, my gun is kinda beside the point, in'it?
And then there's the fact that the whole gun control discussion never comes close to the real issue. People think the pro-gun folks want to hunt and murder petty criminals, and the pro-gun folks never contradict them. I just went upstairs and asked my very left-wing, very politically active neighbors what the 2nd Amendment was and they thought it was 1.) so citizens could "kill black people," and 2.) so our "militias" could hold off an "Indian attack" back in the day. The 2nd Amendment is some kinda joke to these folks and it's part of our Bill of Rights! After 5 minutes of prompting them for more, one of 'em finally said, "I think it was also intended to protect people from their own government, right?" And these folks are not low-information voters, by a long shot!
No one argues in public that citizens need assault rifles 'cause those are the only kind that would have a prayer against government troops. We have an entire population that is completely mis/uninformed about this issue. And this isn't some obscure legalistic nuance, it's the freakin' 2nd Amendment to our Constitution!
What gives?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Unless I have the absolute "state of the art bang-bang," how can my gun be anything but a symbol of my resistance when the Government comes knocking down my door nowadays? Y'know, when they can watch me from space weeding in my backyard, my gun is kinda beside the point, in'it?
That point is made often, and seems valid. But then again, tell that to the Iraqis, cause I don't think they got the memo. The US military, along with its JBT Blackwater mercs, seemingly can't pacify a third world country the size of California that was under sanctions for over a decade. How could they keep down a country of over 300,000,000 without massive nukes (which would prompt equally massive international involvement, to put it mildly)? Of course that's assuming a nationwide martial takeover attempt, which may not be the situation you're envisioning.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
A couple of points to make in regards to your queries:
1) My handgun, rifle, etc. is not even close to the technological equivelant of anything the military has. Because by guns are based on designs which are typically 50 or more years old, even a modern military sidearm outstrips the sophistication of my guns. However, it is still possible for me to kill someone. With planning, I could probably kill several someones. This is because at the end of the day, all firearms perform a similar function, which is to throw a projectile downrange. Having superior firepower doesn't act as a cloak of invulnerability. A soldier may have access to Combat Drones, Squad Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Tanks, Apache Helicopters, and Stealth Bombers. None of that will save him from being ambushed and sniped by a 1950's era bolt action deer rifle at 400 yards. Especially when trying to pacify a resistant urban populace, it is possible to be killed by technologically inferior opponents.
2) Once (if) resistance becomes widespread, you are going to have military personnel firing at and killing their fellow citizens, and watching their fellow citizens firing at and trying to kill them. A certain percentage of the officers are going to dislike that prospect. Some of them will go AWOL and support the resistance, some of them may bring entire platoons, companies, or brigades with them. Remember that in our last Civil War, a large amount of military officers defected from the official government and supported the rebellion.
3) Having a population in rebellion AND the support of defecting military assets gives the resistance a fighting chance. By no means are they certain to win. A gun, turncoat military support, and the will to fight are not magic success buttons. All of it together, and you still only have a chance at victory.
But without them, you've got no chance at all.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very soon they will be able to cook you from space, rendering the grenade launching M16 useless. I agree with you.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Y'know, when they can watch me from space weeding in my backyard, my gun is kinda beside the point, in'it?
Quote:I sense the characterization I'm to absoarb here and work into the question is that even the high information Liberals you spoke with don't understand whats behind the 2nd amendment. I am a whacked out far left loon that could be tipped with a feather over the edge into revolution land, and I understand fully the 2nd. As do almost all of the Liberals I know. I apologize HKC if that's not what you meant because I don't understand what a conversation with two Liberals you know has with the 2nd amendment question you asked.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:one of 'em finally said, "I think it was also intended to protect people from their own government, right?" And these folks are not low-information voters, by a long shot!
Quote:I've never really bought the idea that a gun that you own will slay the tyrants of Government as they come after your property and your right to speak out like the goons sent by a railroad Baron in 1850, at least not these days. Now if you want to protect your home, 93% of civilian gun owners fail to discharge thier weapons when thier homes are invaded. So they're on thier own, you play with the bigs boys and you learn. In California our gangs get thier weapons from Mexico with thier drugs. So they're off the radar and always gonna have heavy weaponry.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:No one argues in public that citizens need assault rifles 'cause those are the only kind that would have a prayer against government troops. We have an entire population that is completely mis/uninformed about this issue. And this isn't some obscure legalistic nuance, it's the freakin' 2nd Amendment to our Constitution! What gives?
I see this issue as very black and white. The 2nd amendment is there so Americans can defend themselves on thier property from whatever they percieve as a mortal threat. Specificity about what is an appropriate threat, and specificity about the appropriate weapon serves only to complicate. The occasional Tennesse bitter gun clinger nut job after Liberals using an RPG will have to be punished and unfortunatly written off as a cost of doing business for the 2nd!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Duplicate Post - Look Away!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No one argues in public that citizens need assault rifles
I do, it's one of my primary points of argument that the second specifically and intentionally includes military grade weaponry - an assertion which is backed up solidly by commentary from Madison in The Federalist Papers.
The battle of Kings Mountain undeniably proved that if comparably armed, ordinary citizens can kick the shit out of army regulars, and our founding fathers did NOT let that point escape them, as Madison explains in detail.
-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
Hello,
As long as we're on the topic of assault rifles, I'd like someone to define what that is.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An assault rifle is a selective automatic or semi-automatic firing rifle with stopping power between that of a pistol and a high powered rifle, firing shortened rifle rounds.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I generally concur with this definition. Assault rifles are selective fire, switchable from semi-auto to fully auto.
Anyone dispute this?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Tactical vs Strategic.
Sure, an assault rifle isn't gonna help you against an F117, but what it DOES do, is give as much parity as possible between you and the grunt on the ground, and there's a reason to have that.
I submit to you that the "Standing Army" the founders feared as the primary threat to liberty is not embodied in the US Army, but rather our Federalised, Militarised Police forces that see anyone not a cop as an enemy in their "War on (citizens) Crime".
If every Cop had to face a very real risk of getting shot when entering someones home and arresting them, do you really think they would bother enforcing so much of the nanny-nitpick shit that they do now ?
If every Cop was subject ON AND OFF duty, to the same restrictions on weapons we are, do you think they would accept this, or favor those restrictions ?
There's a check and balance here that long years of abuse have subverted.
There comes a time when "Officer Safety" is just an excuse for making sure they can "safely" enforce their will on us, whether it is legal or not - just ask the FLDS, right ?
I mean shit like this...
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128482.html
Give me one, just ONE valid law enforcement use of a .50 Caliber Machinegun ?
I hope to hell they got a guy who knows how to set headspace on that properly, or they're in for a damn rude and potentially lethal surprise.
There's a REASON us mere peons are supposed to be able to outgun the "authorities" and that is so that this country is run by consent of the governed, not by who outguns who.
And like it or not, that is where this is going, cause folk don't understand the reason behind the second amendment.
As for officers/units defecting...
I doubt it, in my own service time I was handed a questionarre asking that if the Govt banned guns, some US Citizens refused to hand them over and I was ordered to fire on them, would I do it ?
I went further than just no, I cited that I would remove the commander who ordered such, restrain them and hand them over at first opportunity to the civil authorites for trial.
(And cited the relevant UCMJ codes for that occurance, in fact)
And that was prettymuch the END of my chances for promotion - do you understand ?
They make sure those guys will do ANYTHING they are told, lip service to illegal orders to the contrary, they WILL do it, constant tests and reinforcement of that imperative overrides any mere lip service.
Tell me, during Katrina, did you see even one member of the 82nd Airborne ground arms and refuse to help confiscate weapons from citizens ?
Did even one desert, or try to stop it ?
And regardless of the bullshit shell game that THEY were not doing it, just escorting the guys who did, do you really think they would not return fire if engaged ?
Think of that as a test case - that is what WILL happen, and damn the law, damn the constitution itself, if the Gov ever gets the idea they can get away with it.
Unless you stand up for the second, they're gonna start to get that idea, and then things will really get nasty.
-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
Full size rifle rounds, Cit.
M16/M4 fires .223 Remington (5.56NATO)
M14/FN-FAL fires .308 Winchester (7.62NATO)
The only real cut-down round is the soviet 7.62x39mm (as opposed to 7.62x51mm NATO aka .308 Winchester) which is used in the Ak-47/SKS series.
Assault rifle to me, is an automatic rifle with single and burst/full auto capability firing rifle class rounds capable of battlefield levels of penetration (i.e. III+ class armor), a minimum effective lethal range of 300 yards, and a magazine meeting or exceeding twenty rounds in capacity.
Does that suit for a definition, then ?
-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
Frem said it.
I agree with it.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only Militias Need Apply, Part I
As a student of history, I always believed the Second Amendment pertained only to militias but only after the Va. Tech tragedy did I decide to investigate for myself based on primary sources; here’s what I’ve found after weeks of research. The Second Amendment means what it says: “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.” Or in other words, the federal government cannot dismantle states’ militias by confiscating their weapons or over-regulating them into dissolution. The Second Amendment does not guarantee private individuals the right to obtain, carry or own firearms, and history and the law demonstrates this point. Almost never, in all the important documents, petitions and debates of the revolutionary era, was a right “to keep and bear arms” for private individuals discussed, nor did it appear to be one of the grievances the Patriots had against Parliament and the crown throughout the Revolution.
A modern romanticized myth holds that Revolutionary War militiamen were ad hoc bands of tavern-dwelling colonists, with their muskets at hand waiting for an emergency. State militias were in fact designated, codified fighting forces created, armed and operated by state legislatures and/or Committees of Safety with commissioned officers selected by legislators or elected by their own troops. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his state’s militia in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” in 1781:
“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
The federal Militia Act of 1792 defined who could enroll in the militia, supply demands, organization, officer quotas, who was exempt from militia service and the powers the president had over the militia as commander-in-chief.
Private, individual arms regulation is nothing new, not even in English common law. The 1328 Statute of Northampton proclaimed, with brackets:
“Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king’s servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king’s precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King’s pleasure. And that the King’s justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act. And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.”
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So that means we all should have M-16's.
Originally posted by rue:
"The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.
Bottom lineisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I sense the characterization I'm to absoarb here and work into the question is that even the high information Liberals you spoke with don't understand whats behind the 2nd amendment. I am a whacked out far left loon that could be tipped with a feather over the edge into revolution land, and I understand fully the 2nd. As do almost all of the Liberals I know. I apologize HKC if that's not what you meant because I don't understand what a conversation with two Liberals you know has with the 2nd amendment question you asked.
Sorry, Mal, for not giving more context. I like my neighbors--I was just using them as an example of generally well-informed people who haven't a clue really what the 2nd Amendment is about (and disdain it). They seem pretty typical in their ignorance, not as lefties, but as folk in general on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.
Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment gets at the heart of the founders' attitude toward government and would thereby be a cornerstone of American ideology, and yet so many folks are just completely on the moon in terms of understanding its significance.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia. 
Quote:
So that means we all should have M-16's.
No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKC
I've read a fair bit of the historical background for the second amendment. What I posted (above) was just one source.
Robust militias under state control were a major presence in the early US. The US national government recognized the good (taking care of local defense and policing, helping with national defense) AND the bad (the potential for militias to break into warring factions, or for states to challenge the legitimacy of the national government). To try and strike a balance they put the militias under Federal control but set up structures for states to induct and promote the members of the militias.
The 'well regulated militia' no longer exists, but the second amendment addresses those very entities.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:So that means we all should have M-16's.
Originally posted by rue:
"The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.
That is EXACTLY the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment...
Not only that , but some of the citizens in your squad should be equipped with , and trained in the use of the M240 SAW , plus whatever anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons comprise the state-of-the-art today...
I've scarcely ever seen a more damning misinterpretation of facts than demonstrated by Rue's entire post , above...
Doesn't matter how many facts some folk turn up , when they only use them to draw wrong conclusions...
It was an unequivocated position that the 'militia' was comprised of " the whole body " of THE PEOPLE , and more particularly , the able-bodied free men of the respective States...
Further , it is similarly well-known , and beyond equivocation , that the second clause of the 2nd Amendment states ,
" the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms , SHALL NOT be infringed..."
“ That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state…” These are the words of the Virginia Bill of Rights in July 1776.
The first State of Virginia Militia Act of 1777 states, “If any soldier be certified to the court martial to be so poor that he cannot purchase such arms, the said court shall cause them to be procured at the expense of the publick, to be reimbursed out of the fines on the delinquents of the county, which arms shall be delivered to such poor person to be used at musters, but shall continue the property of the county; and if any soldier shall sell or conceal such arms, the seller or concealer, and purchaser, shall each of them forfeit the sum of six pounds. And on the death of such poor soldier, or his removal out of the county, such arms shall be delivered to his captain, who shall make report thereof to the next court martial, and deliver the same to such other poor soldier as they shall order.”
" The great object is, that EVERY MAN be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case."-- Patrick Henry, Virginia Debates on the Federal Constitution, 1788.
" The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. The government is administered by the representatives of the people, voluntarily and freely chosen. Under these circumstances, should any one attempt to establish their own system, in prejudice of the rest, they would be universally detested and opposed, and easily frustrated. This is a principle which secures religious liberty most firmly. The government will depend on the assistance of the people in the day of distress. " --Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Debates on the Federal Constitution, 1788.
“ It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it… ”
--George Washington, 1783.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's not at all. Because they don't even need to show up at your door with "state of the art bang-bang" these days. They just need to nominate some inbred religion-spouting freak who represents your rights in no way at all but hey - you'd have a beer with him/her and he/she talks tough, so you'll fall in line and vote that way!
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
is mere gun ownership a sufficient safeguard anymore?
Don't need guns to conquer the sheeple...
Have to say, I used to be much more in support of gun control, but the current administration, and my time lurking on these boards, has made me reconsider. I admit, I'm like the ignorant neighbors in that I never thought of the 2nd Amendment in relation to casting off a government out of control. Midwest upbringing - I never thought such a thing would be an issue. Sadly, I'm seeing the necessity these days.
God, that's scary.
I don't know. I still think laws like: "ye shall buy no more than 2 assault rifles in one day unless ye apply for special license" or: "ye shall have some training with guns equivalent to folks training to drive a car" aren't out of line. I mean... is that really too much?
-confused and undecided swish
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia.
Where I sign up?
Chrisisgettinagatisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I notice that in all of your definitions of "assault rifles", you all mention a select-fire or full-auto or "burst" capability. No weapons with that capability have been allowed to be imported into this country since 1968.
My Norinco MAK-90 (a Chinese version of the venerable Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 - or rather, the "Modernized" version, the AKM) has none of those capabilities. It is a semi-automatic, self-loading rifle with a 30-round magazine. Yet, in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, it was no longer allowed to be imported into this country.
Now, it IS possible to have a full-auto machinegun, legally, to this day, but it will cost you a bribe - er, I mean "fee" - paid to the BATF, along with getting your local Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) to sign off on it. Needless to say, it's not very easy or common to have full-auto firearms, and it's definitely intended that way.
In all honesty, I'm not too keen on getting my hands on a full-auto machinegun or assault rifle, since it's damned near impossible to stay on target when firing on full-auto. It's much more efficient to have a "burst" capability of either two or three rounds, which puts two or three rounds downrange quickly, and doesn't pull you off-target.
The weapons that are commonly referred to as "assault rifles" in this country absolutely do not meet the definitions most people have for such things. What they really mean when they talk about banning "assault weapons" is short, scray-looking "black rifles" with the capability of firing more than one shot without reloading or recocking. My MAK-90 and Saiga 7.62x39 would qualify under the definitions given in the latest proposed version of the Assault Weapons Ban, which was introduced this year (June '08) by none other than four REPUBLICAN Congressmen. Who was it that was talking about Obama wanting to grab all your guns? Seems several of the Republicans share a vision of an unarmed America. Also, it should be noted that John McCain himself co-authored (with Joe Lieberman) a VERY restrictive gun-control bill some time ago, which fortunately died a well-deserved death without ever coming up for a vote.
So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe" - although it packs a helluva lot more wallop (7.62x54r cartridge), is accurate at much greater distances (400-600 meters), and still carries five rounds in its internal magazine. But because it's a bolt-action rifle, it doesn't get looked at the same way. The SVD Dragunov uses the exact same round, but because it's a semi-auto and uses a 10-round magazine, it's persona non grata in this country. But you can still get a Romanian-built knockoff of it (although with a different bolt and receiver consisting of a beefed-up AK mechanism with long-stroke gas piston system), which is reportedly quite accurate, able to repeatedly hit a target the size of a dinner plate at over 1000 metes (more than half a mile). That rifle, variously known as the Romak III, PSL, FPK, or SSG97, is next on my "must-have" list. Hey, when you're getting ready to defend against the zombie hordes, you need to have layers of protection. Romak from 1000 yards to around 500, Nagant from there to around 150 yards, AK from there to around 15 yards, and then it's on to the handguns, bayonets, swords, and battle-axes.
One thing that should definitely be noted about the old Assault Weapons Ban, and that definitely tends to get overlooked, is that it was only a ban on IMPORTING such mean and nasty-looking rifles. You could still buy one, brand new, as long as it was American-made. The ban was more about protection of American manufacturers than it ever was about safety. And the latest version doesn't look to be any better, even if it is far more all-encompassing.
Trust me, if it ever came a day when I really NEEDED to use my guns to defend my freedom, I'd much, much, MUCH rather have a trusty AK-47 at my side than any version of the M16/AR15 platform. You can club someone with the AK, you can steadfastly refuse to clean it for years, you can bury it in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I've scarcely ever seen a more damning misinterpretation of facts than demonstrated by Rue's entire post , above...
I concur - one reason it wasn't so widely discussed is that it was assumed so deeply there was no need to, both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were extremely in favor of private ownership, but did feel the need to pound out the whole militia aspect to prevent us having "Standing Armies" which are so dangerous to Liberty...
As for why private ownership wasn't debated, why would it be ?
Tell me, does anyone debate your right to own a pair of blue jeans ?
No, it's THAT assumed, and at the time so was private ownership of firearms - how the hell else were you supposed to put dinner on the table ?
Which we have, not only in the persona of the US Armed Forces, but also in our Police, which are MUCH closer to the sum of those expressed fears of our founders than our actual military.
In fact I would ask you to read this particular paper by Roger Isaac Roots.
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Of particular interest is section 722.
POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY
EXCERPT:
"If pressed, modern police defenders would have difficulty demonstrating a single material difference between the standing armies the Founders saw as so abhorrent and America's modern police forces. Indeed, even the distinctions between modern police and actual military troops have blurred in the wake of America's modern crime war. Ninety percent of American cities now have active special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams, using such commando-style forces to do "high risk warrant work" and even routine police duties. Such units are often instructed by active and retired United States military personnel.
In Fresno, California, a SWAT unit equipped with battering rams, chemical agents, fully automatic submachine guns, and 'flashbang' grenades roams full-time on routine patrol. According to criminologist Peter Kraska, such military policing has never been seen on such a scale in American history, "where SWAT teams routinely break through a door, subdue all the occupants, and search the premises for drugs, cash and weapons."In high-crime or problem areas, police paramilitary units may militarily engage an entire neighborhood, stopping "anything that moves" or surrounding suspicious homes with machine guns openly displayed.
Much of the importance of the standing-army debates at the ratification conventions has been overlooked or misinterpreted by modern scholars. Opponents of the right to bear arms, for example, have occasionally cited the standing-army debates to support the proposition that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the power of states to form militias. Although this argument has been greatly discredited, it has helped illuminate the intense distrust that the Framers manifested toward occupational standing armies. The standing army the Framers most feared was a soldiery conducting law enforcement operations in the manner of King George's occupation troops — like the armies of police officers that now patrol the American landscape."
Now, keep that FIRMLY in mind as I quote Excerpts from Federalist #29 - Hamilton.
"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are
even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of
the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed,
composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the
views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia
may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen."
Sounds a lot like Police to me, what about you ?
"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of
danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to
treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere
trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous
artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring
of pol
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
==================
In short, we do - so hand em over.
-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
Quote:
I don't know. I still think laws like: "ye shall buy no more than 2 assault rifles in one day unless ye apply for special license" or: "ye shall have some training with guns equivalent to folks training to drive a car" aren't out of line. I mean... is that really too much?
Signy, first of all, I'm thankful and gratified that you're starting to look around and rethink your previous positions on gun control. I was once exactly where you were. Sometimes it takes tyranny, or at least the hint that it's entirely possible, to wake us from our comfortable slumber to the stark reality that WE THE PEOPLE are the final, last line of defense of our nation.
Training? I'm in favor of it. I have no "official" training, but was raised in a military family and taught firearms safety early and often. It's stuck with me. In some 40 years of handling and firing weapons, I've never shot anyone or had an accidental discharge. To me, one of the scariest things in the world is someone who's never been around guns getting their hands on one for the first time. They don't check them to see if they're loaded, and they always, ALWAYS seem to want to point the damn gun right at you. I gave a friend a rude awakening one day when he wanted to see my semi-auto handgun. I ejected the (empty) magazine, cycled the action, visually checked that there was no cartridge in the chamber, and cycled it again, then visually confirmed that it was unloaded, before I handed it over. And the numbnuts aimed it at my chest! I stepped a bit to the side, and then into him, grabbed the gun and wrenched it towards his thumb, breaking his grip on it and taking it from his hand. "OOOOWWWW!" he moaned, "Whadja do that for?" I replied, "Because you just pointed a loaded gun at me, you fuck!" "But it wasn't loaded," he said. I looked him square in the eye and asked, "How do you know? Did YOU check it?"
Yes, I'm a bit of an asshole. But he and I are still good friends, he now owns several firearms, and he has never forgotten what I taught him.
The Number One lesson I learned from my Dad all those years ago, and the one that has never once left me, is this:
Quote:
In all your years on this Earth, no one is ever going to hand you an unloaded gun. Until you remove the magazine, cycle the action, and visually clear the chamber, EVERY GUN IS CONSIDERED LOADED AND SAFETY-OFF. And it's deadly.
Gun safety isn't hard to learn, and it shouldn't be daunting, either. But you're right - it is at least as important as proper driver training, if not more so. You wouldn't consider jumping into your car and jamming it into reverse and flooring it without looking behind you, would you? It's not hard to learn to look around and be aware; it just takes some learning and discipline to remember it, and then it becomes second nature.
I never, NEVER take my guns for granted or forget to clear and double-check them. It's not hard to do; it's habit. And the one time you forget, someone could die. How many people do you hear about every year who were killed by "unloaded guns", because they forgot to check, or took someone's word for it.
Now, purchase limits? I'm kind of torn. Sure, they've been proposed, and they seem to make sense, but it's not my place to say what a reasonable limit might be. I've heard proposals of one gun a month, mainly to cut down on "strawman" purchases, and that doesn't strike me as being ridiculously restrictive. After all, I sure as hell can't afford to buy a gun a month, but that's just me thinking about my situation...
But I'm definitely with you on the training part. In fact, I'm looking into getting some more training, just to be extra safe. And because I want to go ahead and get my concealed-carry permit.
The problem you run into, in any of these scenarios, is that you're trying to regulate or restrict things that average, law-abiding citizens are already doing. You're (and I mean the group "you", not you personally in any way) not getting any closer to cracking down on the career criminal, who already doesn't care
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But all the supposed 'reasons' to be able to legally own guns - self protection, hunting, sport, collection - are absent from the constitution and bill of rights. The only reason that counts is for making possible "a well organized militia" (direct quote, if you don't recognize it). And I don't see any of those around, do you ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And I don't see any of those around, do you ?
I see hundreds of millions of us. Who's to say what "well-regulated" is, and how do you come to the conclusion that we're not?
Just askin'. :)
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
That's what they meant back then. Is this what you claim to have now ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I see this issue as very black and white. The 2nd amendment is there so Americans can defend themselves on thier property from whatever they percieve as a mortal threat. Specificity about what is an appropriate threat, and specificity about the appropriate weapon serves only to complicate. The occasional Tennesse bitter gun clinger nut job after Liberals using an RPG will have to be punished and unfortunatly written off as a cost of doing business for the 2nd!
The 2nd amendment is there so that they (meaning us) could raise a militia.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From an earlier thread on the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Heller case:
Quote:
As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.
Quote:
See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275
(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves
and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20
(1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear
arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art.
I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.
Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a
right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,
Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear
arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23
(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4
id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them-
selves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh,
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. &
Politics 191 (2006).
They cite these instances to indicate the intent of the phrasing of the Amendment and the common usages of the words and their meanings DURING THE GENERATION in which the Amendment was written. In all cases, the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms is tantamount, whether it be for the defense and security of the State, or for the defense and security of THE INDIVIDUAL.
The INDIVIDUAL maintains the right to keep and bear arms, even if by your narrow view that right is only to fulfill their "membership" of a militia. There's no mention of any central armory that will hand out weapons if such a militia is called forth. It is intended that when you come into such militia service, if and when such is required, you bring your own arms with you. In order to do that, you must first HAVE those arms, and be able to "keep and bear" them.
So what's your definition of "militia", anyway? It's not a standing army; the Framers were abundantly clear about that. It's the *opposite* of a standing army; it's the entire citizenry, ready to rise up and repel any threat against the nation, whether foreign or domestic! And that extends to threats against any individual as well, as a nation of threatened individuals is a threatened nation.
Wiki defines a militia thusly:
Quote:
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
Wiki goes onNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That's what they meant back then. Is this what you claim to have now ?
In case ya missed it, that link is to the actual Title 10 section of current US Law Code relative to the issue.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html
That IS what we have now, law of the land, with not one ounce of vagueness or ambiguity about it.
If you are a citizen of the united states, or have declared intention to be, and a male between the ages of 17-45 and do not meet any of the criteria for organized militia - then you ARE unorganized milita, but militia all the same.
I ain't claimin nothin, I am telling you what the Law is, regarding who is and is not classified as "Militia", as I have done on more than one occasion previously.
Imma save the snark, but seriously, it cannot BE any plainer than that, can it ?
-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
"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
doesn't exactly fit the description of a well organized militia, now does it ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Quote:
§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Gun Safety.
Rule 1 - It's loaded, assume it, even if you just checked, NEVER treat a weapon like a toy.
And if you ain't cleanin or fixin it, it damn well should be loaded!
Without bullets in it, it's just a damn expensive fancy club.
Rule 2 - Do not under any circumstances point the hole in the end at anything you'd prefer not to put a bullet in, cause that's the best way to not put a bullet in it, foo!
Rule 3 - Bullets keep goin till they hit somethin, and most people are terrible shots, even you, so you might wanna keep in mind what's BEHIND your target in light of Rule #2.
And finally, my personal favorite...
Rule 4 - Keep yerrr booger-hook OFF the bang switch till yer ready ta shoot somethin!
(All of this is best uttered in a heavy southern accent, tends to stick in their mind better that way)
As an Anarchist, I might not be much for rules on general principle, but rabidly and slavishly obeying those simple four will keep you out of a world of hurt, I guarantee it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's no Constitutional requirement for a well organized militia - the Second Amendment only says "A well-regulated militia, and we've shown repeatedly what exactly that militia is legally comprised of.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.
Quote:
So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.
That's true. But where is your roaster ? Your chain of command ? Who calls you to duty ? Who gives orders and directs your military action ? You may be defined, but how, in fact, are you regulated ? If you can't show that you are indeed well-regulated, it doesn't count.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regulated means properly disciplined, rather than specifically organized in the context of the statement.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Oh, and those now pondering the fact that they are indeed militia, having not really been fully cognizant or aware of it till now ?
(Ok, yes, I been holding out on ya... a little)
"Welcome to "A Well Regulated Militia..." The only interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Unorganized Militia."
http://www.awrm.org/
-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
"A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."
That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.
Otherwise, if you're an individual you're just a vigilante with a gun. And if you're in a group, then you're just a gangsta'.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.
Incorrect, the word Militia is only used four times in the US Constitution, and nowhere within it is there an organizational requirement.
In fact, one could say that Congress has without a doubt UnConstitutionally neglected their duties regarding it.
All four instances thereof -
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
ARTICLE 1 - SECTION 8
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
(3 instances)
ARTICLE 2 - SECTION 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
(1 instance)
Don't blame us that Congress shirks their duty, and our States fail to appoint us officers.
Come to mention of it, they're pretty stingy with the armament too, but if they'd cease to interfere unlawfully and unconstitutionally, we're quite happy to provide for ourselves.
Now, if you would kindly refrain from stating false requirements in the future, I'd really appreciate it - at least research the topic enough to present a better argument, please.
-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
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Regulated means properly disciplined, rather than specifically organized in the context of the statement.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Oh, and those now pondering the fact that they are indeed militia, having not really been fully cognizant or aware of it till now ?
(Ok, yes, I been holding out on ya... a little)
"Welcome to "A Well Regulated Militia..." The only interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Unorganized Militia."
http://www.awrm.org/
-Frem
'Well-Regulated' also means 'Well-EQUIPPED'...
" reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits. "
This is a fact firmly established , not just by dictionary definition , but by specificity in intent in many of the provisions we've already enumerated...
Not just we ourselves , but in the cites that Rue provided...
Indeed , 'regulation issue' is a familiar term both among 'regular' troops , and the Militia...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course the Militia's first duty is to the authority of their state, then through them, to the assistance of the federals.
How else are you going to keep your efforts properly coordinated with the regular armed forces ?
The exception is when the state, or the federal gov are the aggressors that the militia has been raised against, and this has already BEEN addressed, that issue - by Madison in Federalist #46 posted above.
In extremis (say an invading army establishing a beach-head) a Militia MAY act autonomously to neutralise a patently obvious threat, that harkens back to the minutemen and the whole rationale for swift response, but generally if no *immediate* threat is present, SOP is to call and inform the Governor he has more forces at his disposal and ask how he wishes them deployed.
But in the case of a direct threat FROM the state or federals, they are expected to act autonomously as well under the direction of their own officers, or if none have been appointed, universal tradition since 1774 has been for the units themselves to appoint someone.
There's six tons of historical precedent on every ounce of this, I don't see why I gotta keep re-iterating it to folk.
And of course, being militia, organized or not, is not whatsoever a requirement to defend YOURSELF against harm or threat from any quarter, be it a hopped up junkie or unconstitutional goon squaddie, they're not friendlies by definition, especially if they're kicking in your door at 3am in the morning with guns in hand - common sense at that point ASSUMES ill intent and accords a certain response, which damn sure ain't face down on the floor.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe"
It's been naggin me, so before I roll offa here...
I just HAVE to know....
OK, DOES ANYONE HERE WHO PACKS IRON *NOT* HAVE A MOSIN-NAGANT ?!
Seriously, like everyone I know who's pro-2A has one of the things.
Mine's about as pointless as a bicycle built for fish in the hands of someone with no depth perception worth a crap at 100+ yards, but hey, it was on sale, and cheap, too.
(I double up on hearing protection before I fire THAT thing though.)
-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
Frem
FROM YOUR VERY OWN LINK !
""A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."
That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.
Otherwise, if you're an individual you're just a vigilante with a gun. And if you're in a group, then you're just a gangsta'."
GAWD ... it was such a short post and you completely failed to read it.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe"
It's been naggin me, so before I roll offa here...
I just HAVE to know....
OK, DOES ANYONE HERE WHO PACKS IRON *NOT* HAVE A MOSIN-NAGANT ?!
Seriously, like everyone I know who's pro-2A has one of the things.
Mine's about as pointless as a bicycle built for fish in the hands of someone with no depth perception worth a crap at 100+ yards, but hey, it was on sale, and cheap, too.
(I double up on hearing protection before I fire THAT thing though.)
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Well, when you can pick up the rifle for $79, how can you go wrong?
And you ain't lying about the hearing protection. Fortunately, I have some pretty good protection.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.Quote:
So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.
That's true. But where is your roaster ? Your chain of command ? Who calls you to duty ? Who gives orders and directs your military action ? You may be defined, but how, in fact, are you regulated ? If you can't show that you are indeed well-regulated, it doesn't count.
***************************************************************
Where's the Roaster ?
Uh , generally the camp cook has that...
'Course , if something more large-ish needs roastin' , we can call an airstrike with a MOAB , or a simple nape-scrape...
Meanwhile , here's a bit more Historicity with regard to a Rifleman's relationship with his firearm :
" This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than any enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will....
My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace. "
Clean and ready !
That's what 'well-regulated' really means !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed
An individual with a gun ? You mean 'rifle' , don'tcha think ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seriously. What a crock.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
""A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."
That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.
But I *AM* subject to federal, state, or local government control! I am registered with the federal government (through Selective Service), I am available to be called up, I am available to serve, and if I WEREN'T subject to government control, by definition wouldn't I be a rogue outlaw? I'm not an outlaw; I'm a lawful gun owner (the BATF can attest to that, seeing as how I have to go through a background check every single time I buy a gun).
Now, if I were buying illegal weapons in back alleys from black-market arms dealers, I wouldn't be under government control, and I'd be an outlaw, a vigilante, or a gangsta. But I'm none of those things. I buy LEGAL firearms, LEGALLY. And if I buy ILLEGAL firearms, I expect a knock on the door, and then I would be well and truly subject to government control - in a penitentiary!
I have not been called up or given a commission by my government, but am available if they decide they need me. It's not my fault I haven't been called upon. You'll have to take that beef up with the federal, state, and local governments. Also, if you have a beef with them not calling me up for training, please take it up with them; as I said, I'm available.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ALWAYS subject to its control ? Like right now ? Or just potentially-should-anyone-bother-to subject to its control ?
I could call my neighbors the fire brigade --- why not ? They could be that, should they ever decide to. I could call my family the rulers of earth --- why not ? It could happen some day. You could call yourself and your buds a militia --- why not ? It's not under government control yet, but hey, maybe someday it might be.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Seriously. What a crock.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
The Highest CONTROL , the Highest Authority , would be the Constitution itself , and its Second Amendment...
Anything that Abrogates THAT , or attempts to , is " an enemy , Foreign OR Domestic..."
In which case , a MARKED TARGET...
Self-preservation rights are Inalienable...
An Inalienable Endowment...
Rue , if all this makes you so uncomfortable , surely a charitable collection can be established in your behalf to buy
a one-way ticket for you , to some place of your choosing...
Provided you promise to never come back , of course...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, you and I see most things pretty much eye-to-eye. But on this issue, I don't think we're ever going to agree.
Short of a Constitutional Amendment nullifying the Second Amendment, you're pretty much not going to talk me out of owning guns, either. Now, if you can get that amendment ratified, I'll hand over my firearms, because as I stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen.
I posted this in another thread, and curiously, I got zero response on it. I thought that maybe it would be thought-provoking, but maybe not...
[Please note that this is a satirical piece]
Quote:
What I'd really like to know - REALLY - is why there isn't a hue and cry to ban the automobile. Seriously. No matter how safe we try to make them, close to 40,000 of us manage to die every year in cars. More than all the yearly gun deaths, in fact. And they're usually chalked up as "accidents", which means FAR more people die from unintentional auto accidents than from unintentional shootings.
And it's not like cars are NECESSARY. For proof, I'd just point to the fact that they didn't exist until just over a hundred years ago, and we seemed to get along without them.
Now, if we can't get rid of cars altogether, can we at least agree that we need to exert more government control over them? We should be required to run a background check on anyone who tries to purchase an automobile, and a mandatory waiting period before you're allowed to purchase one. We should have biometric locking systems so that only the registered owner can drive the car; we should make it a felony to let someone else drive your car. We should make it a felony to have an accident in your car within 1000 feet of a school, municipal building, or courthouse. And we should absolutely make it a felony to talk on the phone, eat your food, or drink your drink while driving a car. And drinking and driving should get you at least ten years' hard time.
And you should have to register with a federal database before you can even go look at a new car, or go to a car show. And you should be allowed to buy no more than one car per year, up to a total of no more than two.
Showing off in your car would be considered "brandishing a deadly weapon" and the punishments would be severe. Driving your car inside city limits would be a crime as well. In some places, you'd have to apply for a permit to park a car in your garage - and they might refuse to issue you such a permit at the Chief Law Enforcement Officer's discretion.
Anyone think this is ridiculous? It's what we're all being asked to do with guns, and these are the kinds of things being proposed. And I should note that there is NO protection at all in the Constitution for automobiles. None. Look it up.
Discuss among yourselves.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
ALWAYS subject to its control ? Like right now ? Or just potentially-should-anyone-bother-to subject to its control ?
I could call my neighbors the fire brigade --- why not ? They could be that, should they ever decide to. I could call my family the rulers of earth --- why not ? It could happen some day. You could call yourself and your buds a militia --- why not ? It's not under government control yet, but hey, maybe someday it might be.
Well, you can call your neighbors the fire brigade or your family the rulers of Earth - IF you can find where in the Constitution it says anything about "a well-regulated fire brigade" or "a well-regulated ruler of Earth".
And can you point out one specific example of when I *WASN'T* subject to government control?
On the subject of fire brigades, you absolutely could call your neighbors the fire brigade if they were members of the VFD, which many people are in rural areas. And if they aren't called up, are they then not subject to government control? Are they outlaws and gangstas?
As I said earlier, if I haven't been called up for government-approved militia training, that's not my bad. And it certainly doesn't mean that I've shirked my duties, or that I haven't taken up my own training - training, it should be added, at my own considerable expense.
Also, you seem to be using "under government control" and "subject to government control" interchangeably; they're not the same thing. My car is subject to government control, but that doesn't mean that at all times it is UNDER government control. If it were, I wouldn't be able to speed, and I'm pretty sure I can. And if I do speed, and get caught doing it, then I'm pretty definitely subject to government control at that point, since they can jail me or suspend my driver's license if they so choose.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Rue , if all this makes you so uncomfortable , surely a charitable collection can be established in your behalf to buy
a one-way ticket for you , to some place of your choosing...
Provided you promise to never come back , of course...
Okay, that's an idea I *WON'T* subscribe to: the old "if you don't like it, leave" argument. This nation was founded on disagreement, often violent, and is supposed to FOSTER rational debate and protection of even the most unpopular ideas. In fact, its protections are MOST important to unpopular ideas and speech, because popular ones need no protection from the mob.
I fully support Rue's right to debate valid points here, or anywhere else. We may not agree, but surely we can take advantage of this opportunity to both learn from and educate each other.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"My rifle is my best friend."
That strikes me as hyperbole. If not, then it's just a tad delusional.
"I must master it as I master my life."
A rifle is a poor substitute for having a real life. And btw, you can master a life without a rifle.
"Without my rifle, I am useless."
Well, I'd more say that without the people who fed you and kept you clean and warm and alive when you were helpless; who taught you to walk and speak, and read and write and do math; who created a society that makes possible all the things you take for granted - you WOULD be useless. But without a gun, you're just a person without a gun.
"My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life."
UUhhhm, OK. Forget air, water, food and shelter then. Again, if I may point out the over-wrought and essentially irrational nature of the statement.
"... until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace."
I'm sure they didn't intend for it to read this way -- but Peace is an enemy ? Pardon if I take this as a bit of unintended humor.
So, I get it. This is supposed to bring up all sorts of deep feelings of loyalty and love, and no one who reads this is supposed to think - they just gotta' FEEL.
And what do I feel reading this ? Anyone who takes this seriously as a creed by which to live is just a little scrambled in the head.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ALWAYS subject to its control ? Like right now ? Or just potentially-should-anyone-bother-to subject to its control ?
I could call my neighbors the fire brigade --- why not ? They could be that, should they ever decide to. I could call my family the rulers of earth --- why not ? It could happen some day. You could call yourself and your buds a militia --- why not ? It's not under government control yet, but hey, maybe someday it might be.
***************************************************************
OR , we could call an organization something really clever , like 'Civilian Marksmanship Training' ,
get ourselves a bunch of Army-surplus rifles , and teach young'uns how to properly handle and shoot those firearms...
Even let 'em take 'em home...
Would that satisfy your Constitutional concerns , Rue ?
Or , would they still be a bunch of 'gangstas' to you ?
http://www.thecmp.org
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, the Rifleman's Creed is standard at Marine Corps boot camp. It's part of the learning, the indoctrination.
And when you are a Marine in combat, your rifle and your fellow Marines are the absolute only things in this world of shit that you can count on to save your ass. There's you, your rifle, and your squad, and if you don't function seamlessly as a unit, you are going to die.
It's ugly, but it's true.
For me, a rifle is simply a tool. But for a Marine, it's life itself. You lose your rifle in combat, and you are not coming home except in a box. It's that simple.
Is it barbaric? Yes. Unfortunately, it's also sometimes necessary.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
I know that, but some seem to think it should apply to all civilians in peace time. And anyone who doesn't get with their program should just leave.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Rue , if all this makes you so uncomfortable , surely a charitable collection can be established in your behalf to buy
a one-way ticket for you , to some place of your choosing...
Provided you promise to never come back , of course...
Okay, that's an idea I *WON'T* subscribe to: the old "if you don't like it, leave" argument. This nation was founded on disagreement, often violent, and is supposed to FOSTER rational debate and protection of even the most unpopular ideas. In fact, its protections are MOST important to unpopular ideas and speech, because popular ones need no protection from the mob.
I fully support Rue's right to debate valid points here, or anywhere else. We may not agree, but surely we can take advantage of this opportunity to both learn from and educate each other.
Mike
Then you should not be so critical of Pirate News , or join in the affray when others attack him...We may dissent from his views , but he certainly has a right to express them in this forum...Seems there have been a lot of recent , and virulent , calls for his 'banishment'.
Free speech is for everyone...I defend it for one and all...Same with freedom of religion , freedom of conscience , freedom to peaceably assemble , etc.
Charitable giving , I also support , particularly if it would assist someone in being happier , or in making what they perceive to be a better life somewhere else...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
"And can you point out one specific example of when I *WASN'T* subject to government control?"
What you're missing is that you are calling unorganized strangers under no one's direction a militia. They are not organizing themselves as a VFD would do, or making themselves available by name to the government (at any level), or creating a chain of command or communication with the government or each other, or indeed doing anything that anyone might construe as coming under government regulation, as individuals or a group (regulation here being used in two senses - rules, and being changed from being irregular into something symmetric or evenly paced).
And if they are not subject to government organization and orders for military or policing purposes, then how can they be a militia ? How would YOU distinguish them from criminals or a mob ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And if they are not subject to government organization and orders, then how can they be a militia ? How would YOU distinguish them from criminals or a mob ?
Because the U.S. Code defines them as such:
Quote:
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
How would I distinguish them from criminals? Because they aren't doing anything illegal. Does that count? If they're not criminals, that should distinguish them from criminals.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway - it's pretty late here and really late there.
So goodnight and see you all whenever.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anyway - it's pretty late here and really late there.
So goodnight and see you all whenever.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Kismet! I was just thinking the same thing. I'll try not to shoot anything in my sleep. ;)
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What you're missing is that you are calling unorganized strangers under no one's control a militia. They are not organizing themselves as a VFD would do, or making themselves available by name to the government (at any level), or creating a chain of command or communication with the government or each other, or indeed doing anything that anyone might construe as coming under government regulation, as individuals or a group (regulation here being used in two senses - rules, and being changed from being irregular into something symmetric or evenly paced).
And if they are not subject to government organization and orders, then how can they be a militia ? How would YOU distinguish them from criminals or a mob ?
Firstly , because they're neither criminals , nor a mob...
You've been shown the law codes that define the unorganized Militia , but you've chosen to ignore them...
My dictionary defines 'militia' as being:
" a body of citizen soldiers , as distinguished from professional soldiers..."
Since you also mentioned 'Minuteman' a bit earlier , here goes: ,
" one of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service..."
Remember , no militia , no Revolution , no United States of America...
" What you're missing is that you are calling unorganized strangers under no one's control a militia . "
Ironic , that's exactly what King George thought !
Point of fact , he considered them 'a mob' , and 'gangsters' , too .
So shall it always be , to a tyrant...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
Oh drat, we cross-posted.
So, you are using a subordinate regulation which conflicts with the clear language of the 2nd amendment as your basis. I don't buy it.
If they are NOT a militia by reason of failing to be well-regulated, then there is no basis for them to have guns, and they then are doing something illegal - and are therefore criminals. You also didn't answer about how you could distinguish them from a mob.
Anyway, I won't be back for a few days, so if you reply make sure to 'notify' so I know to get back to this.
Have a good one.
And please, yes - don't shoot anything in your sleep ! (Though it's OK if it's in your dreams. )
good night all ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see hundreds of millions of us. Who's to say what "well-regulated" is, and how do you come to the conclusion that we're not?
Just askin'. :)
Frem brought up a number of links where the original writers of the constitution did just that.
It included officers and drilling.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
OK, DOES ANYONE HERE WHO PACKS IRON *NOT* HAVE A MOSIN-NAGANT ?!
That would be me. They're not lefty-friendly at all, and besides, I can't shoot them at my local range at Quantico Marine base where all Soviet bloc rounds are banned due to some safety problems they've had with steel core surplus ammo.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"My rifle is my best friend."
That strikes me as hyperbole. If not, then it's just a tad delusional.
I can remember one instance where my rifle, along with an M2 machine gun on a gun truck, was truly my best friend. It prevented a gentleman who wanted to shoot an RPG at me from doing so.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Seriously. What a crock.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
The Highest CONTROL , the Highest Authority , would be the Constitution itself , and its Second Amendment...
Anything that Abrogates THAT , or attempts to , is " an enemy , Foreign OR Domestic..."
In which case , a MARKED TARGET...
Self-preservation rights are Inalienable...
An Inalienable Endowment...
Rue , if all this makes you so uncomfortable , surely a charitable collection can be established in your behalf to buy
a one-way ticket for you , to some place of your choosing...
Provided you promise to never come back , of course...
Ok that is completely out of order and absolutely sophomoric.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, I get what you're saying: People citing the 2nd amendment are misinterpreting its intent. And that may very well be. But the reality is, I'll hang on to that misinterpretation- or interpretation (however one chooses to look at it) because I am increasingly mistrustful of my government. I look at widespread gun ownership as a "necessary but not sufficient" factor in keeping "the government" in place.
Yes, there are many factors that must be in place before a viable resistance comes into being. One of them is widespread recognition that government has overstepped its bounds. Given the reaction to "Don't tase me, bro!" I don't see that recognition coming any time soon. Another is communication and organization. Again, our mythology of "rugged individualism" and "the hero" prevents us from acting collectively... a fatal flaw. And yes, many people cling to (what they view as) their 2nd amendment rights IN PLACE OF doing anything meaningful about freedom... or even thinking about it in any real way. Their gun is their substitute, and perhaps their delusion.
But most of the avid gun owners here are not "gun nuts". They HAVE thought about freedom.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I look at widespread gun ownership as a "necessary but not sufficient" factor in keeping "the government" in place.
Finally, some reason!
Yeah, that's what I been sayin all along - while not the only factor, it certainly *IS* a factor.
Quote:
I don't see that recognition coming any time soon.
Alas, neither do I, but you know, on recognition of Government overstepping, we're well ahead of the game as opposed to say, ten years ago.
Half the stuff I can outright prove with public record in hand would have been dismissed out of hand back then, people these days are FAR more willing to do at least a minimum of self-investigation, and the internet has been a serious blessing in that respect.
Quote:
Another is communication and organization. Again, our mythology of "rugged individualism" and "the hero" prevents us from acting collectively... a fatal flaw.
If ever a myth needed smashing, it's that one, yeah...
Don't sit around waiting for a hero, become one - and if that's too much for ya, then be a villan, but get the job done, at least TRY.
That's one of my issues with religion, matter of fact - sure, go ahead and pray, you wanna do that, couldn't hurt none, but while you're doin it, put those hands in action helping out.
Maybe it's cause I don't have a lotta faith in anything, but it's always rooked me to see a congregation of people entirely sufficient to FIX a neighborhoods problems if they stood up and acted on it, sitting in church praying for a solution they could BE if they just tried.
Quote:
And yes, many people cling to (what they view as) their 2nd amendment rights IN PLACE OF doing anything meaningful about freedom... or even thinking about it in any real way. Their gun is their substitute, and perhaps their delusion.
I had to deal with a couple of those during the FLDS fiasco, you might recall me mentioning it - the weapon is an item of last resort, cause if you DO get into a full-on exchange of lead with the powers that be, you ain't walkin away.
Far smarter, and far better, to hack them off at the knees BEFORE it comes to a firefight, by preserving the rights that prevent them from initiating one with you in the first place.
Firearms and the right to possess them are but one small piece of a much larger defense, but I do believe they are a needful and critical part of the greater whole, because to give ground there is to encourage other encroachments, and if they ever do succeed in fully suppressing or destroying that right, anyone with half a brain knows they won't stop there - at which point they'll go down like dominos because the threat to them has so significantly lessened.
But the First and Fourth are every bit as important as the Second, to successfully defend ONE, you have to defend them ALL, otherwise what's the point ?
Quote:
But most of the avid gun owners here are not "gun nuts". They HAVE thought about freedom.
Exactly, one reason I don't like being filed in what I'll refer to as the armed-clueless category.
Every right in the list, as well as many that are not specifically ennumerated but supposed to be protected anyhow - it present for a reason, all part of an interlocking whole we call freedom.
But those ON the list, are there for a very specific set of reasons, codified intentionally to pre-empt even the attempt to revoke our freedoms simply by raising the bar of difficulty in doing so, and as a tripwire to make it abundantly clear when the Gov is stepping on turf it should not.
To give ground here - is a serious mistake and an encouragement to further encroachments, like I said above, and while many people will stand up swiftly and strongly for the First and Fourth, the powers that be and a compliant media bordering on, if not meeting the classic definition of a propaganda machine, has demonised the Second and buried in negative connotations in order to discourage it's defense by painting all that defend it as unstable, violent, etc.
And we're well on our way to that same treatment of the Fourth, what with
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amen Frem.
"We have an accord. Arrrgh."
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
I don't see that recognition coming any time soon.
Alas, neither do I, but you know, on recognition of Government overstepping, we're well ahead of the game as opposed to say, ten years ago.
Half the stuff I can outright prove with public record in hand would have been dismissed out of hand back then, people these days are FAR more willing to do at least a minimum of self-investigation, and the internet has been a serious blessing in that respect.
Revolutions tend to occur when a population is materially uncomfortable, it usually takes more than simply an overbearing government, and certainly more than nasty things being done to people a long way away. While people have plenty of beer, TV and the latest consumer gadget, your unlikely to see any popular anti-government movements.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have always been conlicted on the issue of the second amendment. In principle, I believe in it,
both for the purpose of signifying the right to self-defense, and as an oh shit measure if we lose too much control of our government.
That said, I"m generally not inclined to have a negative opinion of laws that require background checks, of laws that look at criminal records etc...and I'm not so keen on any crazy motherfucker going into a gun store and coming out with a bazooka, nor do assault weapons bans completely bother me.
I also very much understand how both criminal records and background checks can be used unjudiciously by a police state,
so I'm still thinking where most of our energy should go, is in controling our government, and not letting it get out of line.
I guess the counter argument to that is that gun restrictions are evidence of a government getting out of line, but I'd disagree, on the condition that that was what an informed electorate wanted, which I'm not sure we have now.
..............
As a matter of symbolic resistance to tyranny, I think a weapon of any sort can have power, because small acts of resistance that have an actual impact, even if that impact is killing some poor shmo who was just doing his job as part of the police force(talking about police state here), can be a convincing message that resistance isn't entirely futile, and can galvanize a populace.
I'm not sure that that is preferrable to peaceful resistance on a large scale, but I'm not sure that peaceful resistance works without its counterpoint either.
...............
But as to the interpretation of the second amendment, and as to its legal ramifications, I thnk the question comes down to where do we draw the line? Who gets to week out who gets guns? How powerful are the weapons that individuals or groups should be allowed to own if they can procure them?
Should bunker busters be par for the course? (I know they're a gazillion dollars),
Should weapons that can potentally take out 20 or 30 people on a bad day be given blindly over to people who will use them in that way?
Would everybody having a gun really offset that?
Would every homeowners association having a bunker buster be a good idea? Should we all have a bazooka in our trunk, or at least have the right to it? How about a saw on the top of your jeep?
What about grenades? Landmines for property protection?
...............
My question is, mostly for the libretarians, where is the line of regulation, or do you believe there should be no line?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, imma Anarchist, so I don't really draw a line, per se.
Anything larger than man-portable however, I am not completely opposed to the idea of the manufacturer being held responsible for who they sell it to as a matter of general public safety - let THEM do the background check with the clients full permission and vet their purchasers as a condition of insurance liability, yes ?
Anything smaller, simply make certification with an acknowledged safety and use course a condition of sale.
Everybody's happy and the world is safer by that much, without the Government and it's untrustworthy, greedy, grasping hands all over the process, simpler too.
And since this thread really needs a dose of humor...
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=8
-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
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
That said, I"m generally not inclined to have a negative opinion of laws that require background checks, of laws that look at criminal records etc...and I'm not so keen on any crazy motherfucker going into a gun store and coming out with a bazooka...
We already have those. I don't think any of us here (except Frem, for his own valid reasons) are advocating doing away with those requirements.
Quote:
...nor do assault weapons bans completely bother me.
Maybe they should. They aren't actually aimed at anything in particular, and they don't really accomplish anything at all. At least, they *haven't*. Actually, I'd be doing a lot better, monetarily, if another AWB came into existence, because the stuff I already legally own would quadruple in value.
AWBs don't make my current stuff illegal - they simply put a moratorium on importing more of the same. You can still buy and sell all the AK47s and the like that you want; you just can't import more. So it becomes a seller's market.
Quote:
I also very much understand how both criminal records and background checks can be used unjudiciously by a police state,
so I'm still thinking where most of our energy should go, is in controling our government, and not letting it get out of line.
In other words, don't just watch the law-abiding citizens, but also watch the watchers. That's a start. And please note that we already HAVE plenty of laws to deal with gun criminals. Also note that they are rarely enforced, or are enforced haphazardly at best.
Quote:
I guess the counter argument to that is that gun restrictions are evidence of a government getting out of line, but I'd disagree, on the condition that that was what an informed electorate wanted, which I'm not sure we have now.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, what we have now is absolutely not an informed electorate. That includes myself; seems like almost every day I learn something about the 2nd that explodes some of my preconceived liberal myths...
..............
Quote:
As a matter of symbolic resistance to tyranny, I think a weapon of any sort can have power, because small acts of resistance that have an actual impact, even if that impact is killing some poor shmo who was just doing his job as part of the police force(talking about police state here), can be a convincing message that resistance isn't entirely futile, and can galvanize a populace.
I'm not sure that that is preferrable to peaceful resistance on a large scale, but I'm not sure that peaceful resistance works without its counterpoint either.
No way am I going to advocate firing on police doing their legal jobs. Now, if you want to make a case for someone putting a few rounds through a traffic camera or a photoradar unit, that might be a different argument.
...............
Quote:
But as to the interpretation of the second amendment, and as to its legal ramifications, I thnk the question comes down to where do we draw the line? Who gets to weed out who gets guns? How powerful are the weapons that individuals or groups should be allowed to own if they can procure them?
Should bunker busters be par for the course? (I know they're a gazillion dollars),
We have laws and weapons classifications for those things already in effect. You should look into subjects like NFA Class III weapons and the like. Did you know that you can legally own a full-auto machinegun, a silencer, a sawed-off shotgun, a MAC-10 machine pistol, and the like, as long as you pay the BATF a $200 bribe for the appropriate tax stamp?
Quote:
Should weapons that can potentally take out 20 or 30 people on a bad day be given blindly over to people who will use them in that way?
When you say "weapons that can potentially take out 20 or 30 people," are you speaking of cars? They can do that, easily. Matter of fact, one Mercedes-Benz took out over 150 people in France some years ago, and it wasn't rigged with any kind of explosive device or even bu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An accord indeed, Siggy.
Yarrr!
Citizen, have you SEEN gas prices today ?
I told you this would be their undoing, and I've little doubt that some time down the road, it will be.
Cause not only do you get hit at the pump, you get hit at the grocery store, department store, anything that is shipped by road or rail, those increased costs get passed to you to pay.
The average comfort level is dropping pretty quick, especially when you combine escalating inflation and the dollars value plummeting in addition to prices spiking - that HURTS, seriously.
-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
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I see this issue as very black and white. The 2nd amendment is there so Americans can defend themselves on thier property from whatever they percieve as a mortal threat. Specificity about what is an appropriate threat, and specificity about the appropriate weapon serves only to complicate...
The 2nd amendment is there so that they (meaning us) could raise a militia.
Right !
Can't raise 'em if you ain't got 'em !
The militia , whether formally organized , or otherwise classified 'unorganized' , stand as a 'ready reserve' for the defense of Constitutional Liberty...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
An accord indeed, Siggy.
Yarrr!
Citizen, have you SEEN gas prices today ?
Yeah, they're less than half what I pay. No revolution kicking off here either.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Gun control means using both hands." 
Anywho, how many of you believe crime would drop significantly if we were all allowed to carry concealed (or open)? Would the teachers and/or students been able to stop the douche at Virginia Tech, had they all been carrying?
I will grant that the folks at Waco would, if they could, argue that having all the guns in the world doesn't mean crap if Big Brother is coming for you, but should this stop us?
Look at what is happening in Britain right now. They took all their guns, so people started using knives. The government took the knives, so people started using swords. They then took the swords, so people started using cricket bats. They took the bats, and now people are starting to use rocks, and bits of wood. Now, I hear from a friend there, that it will become a crime to be seen carrying wood or rocks of "signifigants size".
The government should fear us. They should be afraid that if they oppress us, we will drag them out into the streets and execute them. But are they? Not anymore.
The founders were right in that the government should always act from a position of terror. The government was never suppossed to get so big that it could truly affect everyones lives. It was always suppossed to be a small hub through which order could be created.
So, maybe we can't enact an EASY change with the guns we've got. but we can start fighting back, if need be. It may come to a point where we are righting another revolution, just like the FOunders did. With gurilla tactics and a whole lot of hope.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Look at what is happening in Britain right now. They took all their guns, so people started using knives. The government took the knives, so people started using swords. They then took the swords, so people started using cricket bats. They took the bats, and now people are starting to use rocks, and bits of wood. Now, I hear from a friend there, that it will become a crime to be seen carrying wood or rocks of "signifigants size".
You're friend is talking nonsense.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Britain sucks..
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Look at what is happening in Britain right now. They took all their guns, so people started using knives. The government took the knives, so people started using swords. They then took the swords, so people started using cricket bats. They took the bats, and now people are starting to use rocks, and bits of wood. Now, I hear from a friend there, that it will become a crime to be seen carrying wood or rocks of "signifigants size".
I saw that movie...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Britain sucks..
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
Quite so...Quite so !
Bigtime suckage going on , across the pond...
No wonder , though , 'cause certain of their would-be "citizen(s)" can't seem to make their delusions square with the hard facts of reality :
http://dailypundit.com/?p=1462
" If it weren’t so utterly stupid - and so utterly predictable - this might actually be funny:
Doctors’ Kitchen Knives Ban Call
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
Yep - that’s right - they’ve just about done away with any sort of firearms possession (by non-criminals, anyway), so now it’s time to start on all those other mean, harsh “offensive weapons”, beginning with those long, pointy kitchen knives.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all…
…The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established…
The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime…"
Predictably stupid...Yes , that does describe an average 'citizen' known to many of us hereabouts...
We'll allow him to remain anonymous , while he "rethinks" his position...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Britain sucks..
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
That article is misleading. There's more non-violent crime in Britain per capita, but a fraction of the US levels of violent crime. It's also not a trend that has changed much before or after the ban.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree Out2.
I tend to ignore certain "citizens" since they are usually of the base, ignorant, whiney type.
These "citizens" never have anything intelligent to say. Nor do they show signs of ever being able to grow up.
Anyways, back to the 2nd amendment discussion...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In any case...what would be the best round be for an H&K .40?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In any case...what would be the best round be for an H&K .40?
For what purpose? What are you using it for?
Plinking and just target shooting for fun - Full metal jacket, basic round. Usually cheapest. Not as good for home protection because (a) it usually goes all the way through a perp, and (b) continues through your walls, your neighbor's walls, and quite possibly your neighbor.
Home protection - Hollow point, shot shells, and the like. Great stopping power, less likely to actually go through interior or exterior walls, thus limiting collateral damage.
Now, if you absolutely have to kill someone, look into Hydra-Shok bullets and others "frangible" rounds - rounds that fragment when they hit. There are some that have a powdered metal core, than won't go through a 2x4, but WILL basically explode inside a "soft" target.
For myself, I generally keep a couple magazines loaded up with FMJ rounds for going to the range, and one with "staggered" rounds - alternate loads of FMJ, hollowpoint (HP), and Hydra-shok, stacked in that order. That's the home-defense mag - if the first one doesn't stop 'em, the second better. If it doesn't, the third should kill them dead.
Same kind of thing applies to shotguns - birdshot, buckshot, slug, repeat.
Just my suggestions...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a lot of hydro-shock, but I was looking ton more of branding. I know that there are brands out there which are just plain garbage...
Alos, I try not to keep my clips full as I heard that this can weaken the spring. Is this true or more of a myth?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Myth. What weakens the spring is constant loading/unloading of the spring. You can keep mags full or empty with little to no difference in the life of the spring.
Brands? Hell, I like the Wolf black box ammo - I started using it for my 7.62x39, and it's so damned cheap AND doesn't jam, that I've started looking at it for other calibers as well.
CCI Blazer is one I stay away from. It just never has seemed to feed correctly in any gun I've put it through. More jams than not, in my experience.
The cheapie Winchester FMJ stuff at Wal-Mart is as good as any FMJ ammo I've found for the price. My 9mm Ruger gets an awful lot of that fed through it, and at less than $0.20 a round, it ain't expensive...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I do not agree with the very thinly veiled slights made against Citizen here. I disagree with him much of the time, but he at least presents thoughtful arguments and often finds sources to support them. He isn't stupid just because he has a different point of view.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I do not agree with the very thinly veiled slights made against Citizen here. I disagree with him much of the time, but he at least presents thoughtful arguments and often finds sources to support them. He isn't stupid just because he has a different point of view.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
LOL No comment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony: Right there with ya. A simple, "Shut up, Citizen" would have sufficed quite nicely.
And Wulfie - "LOL no comment" IS a comment.
Just sayin' is all...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shucks, I love you guys too (just don't tell Chris, he gets jealous).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wolf is ok for AK's but it's a very "dirty" ammo and corrosive after firing, so you wanna clean up right away once you've fired a bunch of it.
It's cheap and effective, sure - but don't fire it and then let your weapon sit uncleaned, you'll regret it.
CCI is crap for anything beyond .22LR ammo.
The Winchester-walmart big boxes are pretty good for range ammo, so long as yer local walmart ain't a buncha pricks about it, and actually sell it.
(INSPECT IT BEFORE LOADING, Quality control ain't that hot, and I've seen missing primers, misloaded and deformed rounds, and even rounds of other caliber, etc....)
Some of em have a crapload of obscure rules about when, how and who they'll sell it to, and practically want a blood sample and DNA test before they hand it over.
But for your home defense load ?
Hands down, Corbon Pow'Rballs.
I been using this puny mousegun* for near 20 years now, and over that time I've tried many an ammunition in efforts to find the best balance of stopping power, reliable feeding, and accuracy - the powerball delivers on all three counts, all the time.
I'll even give you the exact specs for your own weapons box.
Corbon 40 S&W 135 Grain Powerball 20/Box
SPECIFICATIONS:
Mfg Item Num: PB40135/20
Category: AMMO CENTERFIRE
Caliber :40 S&W
Bullet Type :PWB
Bullet Weight :135 GR
Muzzle Energy :526 ft lbs
Muzzle Velocity :1325 fps
Rounds/box :20 Rounds Per Box, 25 Boxes Per Case
Yer lookin at $20-$25 a box, but for personal/home defense use, that's not a bad price at all, just use the cheap stuff for range ammo and practice.
If you doubt em, buy a box, soak a telephone book with the gardenhose and then go to your local outdoor range and put a few powerballs into it - you won't be doubtin no more.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
*Mousegun = .380 Colt Mustang, yeah, go ahead and laff, you wanna.
SIG P220 with.45 winchester hollowpoint vs. CORBON POW'RBALL
2 milk jugs, one walmart winchester, one corbon powerball.
Notice a difference?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
C'mon Frem,
I ain't gonna laff at a .380.
If you were using a .22...
Yeah I would chuckle.
I wouldn't laugh tho, if you had a .22 and all I had was my SpyderCo. Not that the SpyderCo is bad, mind...just that I doubt I would be fast enough to get in close to use it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Anthony: Right there with ya. A simple, "Shut up, Citizen" would have sufficed quite nicely.
And Wulfie - "LOL no comment" IS a comment.
Just sayin' is all...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
Ok, Ok, but saying "No comment" is more mature than what I would like to say to certain "Citizen"s....hows that?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not that the SpyderCo is bad, mind...just that I doubt I would be fast enough to get in close to use it.
You'd be surprised.
Ever heard of the Tueller drill ?
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
An assailant within seven YARDS of you has a damn good chance of getting at least one solid hit on you before you can put them away.
Which is kinda funny cause a perp scoping you out is gonna get much closer than that, there's been a few in my time that didn't take the hints of shadowdance positioning and continued their "interview" only to find me in their face with a deathgrip on their weapon-hand, a free left hand, and no sense of humor about it.
(My rig is crossdraw leftie, and I shoot equally well with either hand*)
At which point not a one hasn't taken the kind offer to pretend it never happened, cause I don't need the hassle and they don't need a hole in them.
Not like they got much choice given the positioning at the time, either.
*Item of note, for anyone pondering amibdextrous fire.
Firing a standard issue left handed is a good way to catch hot brass in the face unless you cant the weapon 30 degrees inside, and this is also why right handed "gangsta" style is ridiculous as well, cause it's a terrible way to hit something and a GREAT way to catch hot brass in the eyes.
My initial training was under the old Parallax system from a low-carry or half-hip position (See Also: Bill Jordan), which these days is referred to as FSA Point Shooting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting
Ergo, I'm a lot less likely to catch hot brass in the face firing left handed than someone who uses a conventional system.
-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
Quote:
Wolf is ok for AK's but it's a very "dirty" ammo and corrosive after firing, so you wanna clean up right away once you've fired a bunch of it.
It's cheap and effective, sure - but don't fire it and then let your weapon sit uncleaned, you'll regret it.
True enough. I tend to forget that not everyone cleans their weapons after firing. It's ingrained into me so much that I actually cringe when someone talks about not cleaning their AK for months on end. I know they're supposed to be able to take it, but I'm not sure *I*could stand it!!
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Anthony: Right there with ya. A simple, "Shut up, Citizen" would have sufficed quite nicely.
Just sayin' is all...
Mike
This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.
How about we go with the somewhat more civil ,
" HUSH , Little Citizen ! "
Seems strangely appropriate and Seren-dip-itous , too ! Go back to sleep , somnambulant 'citizen'...
Now there's an oddity...Turns out , perhaps someone loves 'citizen' after all...
Someone...not me !
I wanna go to the crappy town where they sing songs about Out2theBlack !
Just so's they never try to make me into a 'Hero'...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME