Gun Control Groups Prepare for 'National Day of Protest'

[bodie54]

It mentions a 'free state'. It does not mention anything about protecting the people from their rightfully elected government.
Now who is interpreting it?

I think D-rock already addressed that...

...pretty much every single contemporary of the time, all our founding fathers, the people who created the constitution and in fact pretty much every single citizen thought of it as an individual right to the people as a check against tyranny.

 

[McRocket]

Why do those two things need to be mutually inclusive? What are you basing that belief on? I agree that the militia is a very important part of the right but what makes you think it's the only one. I'm not even bringing up the fact they considered the entire body of the people the "militia". Plus it doesn't make too much sense to have an entire amendment just to make sure the country could create it's own army when it was already covered before in the constitution. Not to mention the fact that pretty much every single contemporary of the time, all our founding fathers, the people who created the constitution and in fact pretty much every single citizen thought of it as an individual right to the people as a check against tyranny. By your way of thinking the people who enacted the law and their intentions have absolutely no impact on what it means. So say if the definition of slavery somehow changes in 100 years does that mean we could go back to using it because we wouldn't be breaking the technical wording of it anymore?

The Second Amendment:
“ 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. ”

Back when the 2'nd Amendment was written (the late 18'th century), the Militia was far different then it is today.
Today, even in the reserves, the main weaponry is kept at military bases (tanks, planes, artillery, ammunition, nuclear weapons, etc.).
Back then the main weaponry (minus some artillery) was the guns of the citizens. If the citizens had no guns, then the Militia had (almost no guns). It was indispensable for the nation that individual citizens owned guns.
That is no longer the case - unless people start stockpiling M1A2 tanks and F-15 fighters.

The 2'nd Amendment had it's time. That time has long since past. And if the Constitution already allows for a military, then the 2'nd Amendment should be deleted.

 

[McRocket]

Who the hell are you to decide whether my statements should be considered as meaningful, in fact, get bent. I know enough anti gun people to know how they think, in fact I'm married to one.

For you to know what they all think, you would have to know them all. And since (I assume) you do not; then you cannot. And your statement should be taken accordingly.

I think I've read enough of their trivial whiny bullshit to know EXACTLY how they are...I think you just proved my point, and I think the fact that crimes are still committed after guns are taken away from the law abiding is proof gun control doesn't work. If you want to rely on someone else to protect you and your family, thats your business, but don't expect me to, and stay the hell out of my way when you're laying down to submit to the will of your opressive leaders. I would rather die free, then live like that.

Hey, bentboy! I typed above I think everyone in America should own a gun. So what are you yakking on to me about?

Yes I can, in fact I just did!!!

I typed you shouldn't, not you couldn't.

Try reading my words a little more before you answer, next time.

 

[Aegis]

I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I found that statement profoundly sad and I feel sorry for you. It seems like too many Europeans are brainwashed by their own culture and the people that run it. Not that we are never influenced by our culture but at least we have a large number of people that are self-deterministic. I also can never understand how they never seem to learn from history or have so much faith in the people that control them to always think the worse things will never happen to them. All governments go bad.

You're just viewing things in extremes. What is sad about leaving some responsibility with the government, yet still question what they do? What exactly is brainwashed in that?
We all allow our governments to make decisions that influence our lives. Both the politicians of today and those of the past. If you didn't you wouldn't follow the laws of your country. And as I said, that shouldn't stop us from questioning the politicians and the laws, but there's no point in trying to believe that we do not in some way and on some level follow the directions set by politicians.

Your comment that too many Europeans are branwashed by their own culture and the people who run, is utterly ridiculous, and you're just painting a very extreme picture of a lot of people.

Others might see people like me as overreacting or maybe even some think of it as being paranoid. However I think I have the truth and history on my side. The people that think the other way have a bunch of empty happy thoughts that aren't going to hold up over the course of time. Even thought I know different I hope they don't come to regret them. They will. Or even worse, their decedents will have to pay the terrible prices for their lack of forethought.

I see you as overly paranoid, and I think that you're making statements about governments and people in other countries, where I wonder just how much knowledge you have of those. Is history some kind of absolute truth that these things will repeat themselves? I personally don't think so.

 

[blakey]

i can't get my head around some of the opinions apparently
held by some american members on this thread

i thought the US was a very patriotic country, with many of
the citizens thinking it to be the best country in the world,
and with "support our troops" being <apparently> the motto
of a large (REP) part of the population

- yet on the other hand many folks on here think they need to arm
themselves to protect themselvesfrom being attacked by their
government or their army

how can you salute the flag while at the same time say you're arming
yourself to fight the government and army that represent and serve
under that flag

the thing is the government & army is part of the US and its history
and development - good or bad, they've been there since the
founding fathers
( although, i guess, opinion might be more against the present gov't
and the army because of lack of success / disasters abroad)

i guess it reflects how divided american society is, but i also think that
oppostition to gun control might be one issue that has support across
the political spectrum or am i wrong - are most NRA members republicans
or is it only democrats that want guns control ?


ah well - as a european i guess i'll never understand - i just don't have
the john wayne fantasy

 

[McRocket]

But is it likely that in the US, the people will be oppressed completely by the military? Is it really necessary for the people to be armed so they can defend themselves against the military, where many of their family members and friends may serve?

I know that it's happening in some countries and it has happened in western countries in the past, but today I just consider it extremely unlikely. Even with the examples you mention, I just don't see it happening that the US military as a whole will turn against their own people.

I agree with your point and your apparent thought process.

No, I do not think it is likely.
And even if it were, individual citizens owning handguns would be absolutely no match for fully armed and equipped combat troops.
So the idea of keeping your gun to protect yourself from your government if they turned on you is not relevent.
If the US government turns it's troops on you and wants you and your family dead - you will almost certainly be killed; no matter how many guns you have.
Or do you have a gun that will penetrate the armour of an M1A2 Main Battle Tank? Or one that will shoot down a B2 Stealth bomber before it drops a GPS guided bomb on your house from 30,000 feet?

 

[blakey]

I agree with your point and your apparent thought process.

No, I do not think it is likely.
And even if it were, individual citizens owning handguns would be absolutely no match for fully armed and equipped combat troops.
So the idea of keeping your gun to protect yourself from your government if they turned on you is not relevent.
If the US government turns it's troops on you and wants you and your family dead - you will almost certainly be killed; no matter how many guns you have.
Or do you have a gun that will penetrate the armour of an M1A2 Main Battle Tank? Or one that will shoot down a B2 Stealth bomber before it drops a GPS guided bomb on your house from 30,000 feet?

good point McR

- one other similar thought i've had
is that if a set of circumstances arose in the future where a significant chunk of american society thought they were being oppressed by the government
then at the same time the government, together with the media, perhaps certain religious groups and other parts of the ruling elite, would be likely to portray that significan oppressed chunk as being un-american, anti-american or an "enemy" of some description
( examples of this from history could be seen during McCarthyism or anti-Vietnam & hippie movement)

if the group was successfully portrayed in a negative light then it would not be difficult to imagine a majority of the american people going along, as they considered it their patriotic duty, with the wishes of the government to repress that group
- what happens then ? should the oppressed significant chunk start an armed insurrection against the US government and against the wishes of <apparently, of course we're in the hypothetical realm here>
the majority of their fellow american citizens ?


that's another reason why i don't see the theoretical use of,
as has been pointed out by McR, relatively small arms to keep in check the most powerful military arsenal ever assembled,
should the government and army ever "attack" the american people,
as being very likely to meet with success
:2 cents:

 

[McRocket]

That is an interesting theory blakey.

If it ever did happen, it makes sense that that is the way it would.

 

[Roughneck]

how can you salute the flag while at the same time say you're arming
yourself to fight the government and army that represent and serve
under that flag

the thing is the government & army is part of the US and its history
and development - good or bad, they've been there since the
founding fathers
( although, i guess, opinion might be more against the present gov't
and the army because of lack of success / disasters abroad)

Because the flag, the country, the people and the government are not one and the same.

Get this through your head: The Government of the United States is not equal to the United States.

But you said it yourself:

ah well - as a european i guess i'll never understand - i just don't have the john wayne fantasy

You're an European, you'll never understand.

It's no John Wayne fantasy. It's a way of life.

"Government is not reason," George Washington said, "it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

There are somethings in life more valuable than life in itself.

Give me liberty. Or give me death

McRocket -
I'd also like to answer your misreading of our Second Amendment:

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.

Do you see the second half of the sentence?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say "The right of the militia" or "the right of the Army". it says "Right of the people".
The "militia" ARE the PEOPLE. To suggest that the second amendment authorises only a National Guard or a militia is being disingenuous.

No, I may not own a weapon that can stop an M1 Abrams.
But I won't live my life on my knees and at least I won't die with a hole in my back either.

"From my cold, dead hands" isn't a cliched quote - it's an ethos.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

With arms, I am a citizen. Without arms, I am merely a subject.
And unless I have done harm to anybody, nobody has the right to question what I own.




cheers,

 

[Facetious]

i guess it reflects how divided american society is

Better Divided and Individualist than Conformist - Collectivist

john wayne fantasy

?

Uhhh . . . Ummm . . . Well . . . Never occurred to me . . .
Fantasy (?)(?)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" - C. S. Lewis

 

[McRocket]

McRocket -
I'd also like to answer your misreading of our Second Amendment:

Do you see the second half of the sentence?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say "The right of the militia" or "the right of the Army". it says "Right of the people".
The "militia" ARE the PEOPLE. To suggest that the second amendment authorises only a National Guard or a militia is being disingenuous.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
'militia
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service'

A militia has nothing to do with non-military citizens who are not registered for selective (military) service owning guns.
And it certainly is nothing to do with ordinary citizens owning guns to protect themselves against duly elected American governments.

With arms, I am a citizen. Without arms, I am merely a subject.
And unless I have done harm to anybody, nobody has the right to question what I own.

Does that include crack cocaine? Heroin? Radioactive materials? Anthrax?
If I do not harm anybody with them, then I assume I can keep them them?

 

[dick van cock]

.With arms, I am a citizen. Without arms, I am merely a subject.

I realize, the Atlantic is mghty deep. Over here, you delegitimize the community (e.g. the state) by bearing arms. Our brightest heads call it the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

 

[blakey]

Because the flag, the country, the people and the government are not one and the same.

Get this through your head: The Government of the United States is not equal to the United States.

i get that bit and i'm not trying to argue with it, Rn

but
i'm just trying to point out that, by definition if america is a democracy <which i think it is>, there must be a certain amount of identification by some americans with their government - bush got elected twice and formerly had 80-90 % appoval ratings

ditto the armed forces - while some americans may disagree with recent use of armed force others agree with it and "support the troops" with all their hearts

and the commander in chief is constantly on tv saying things like "if we show weakness in iraq then the terrorists will have a better chance of attacking your children in america"

just like there are people here in the UK who swallow everything they are told by the media, especially the tabloid media, and government spin and propaganda - i would imagine there are similar people elsewhere, including the united states

& it's those kind of people who i wonder about, why arm themselves to protect themselves from an attack by an "administration" < gov't & armed forces> that they admire, support and whose actions they endorse :dunno:

peace,
cheers

 

[AFA]

I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I found that statement profoundly sad and I feel sorry for you. It seems like too many Europeans are brainwashed by their own culture and the people that run it. Not that we are never influenced by our culture but at least we have a large number of people that are self-deterministic.

It is very rare to get a fair, non-corrupt, politician that doesn't want to push what he wants instead of what his constituents want from him. Most of them have ulterior motives, and almost all of them listen to the rich and politically influential much more than the common person because if for no other reason than they are the only ones with access to them. The money they pump in their pockets makes the situation a lot worse. I have never seen a good politician higher than the local lever EVER, and even almost all of the local ones are bad. If one is lucky they might get some naive person that actually thinks they are doing what's right because of they way they have been brought up in some elite class and not because they want control over you.

That was well put.

There is no special group of old wise men in this culture that can cast light on subjects that baffle the rest of us. Virtually the way to get elected and make your way to the top is taking hold of your financial supporters and making them promises with various pork projects. I think you inevitably have to see the general public as very nieve if not just stupid. The further you go with that attitude the closer you get to the point the US is probably at right now. Total mistrust of elected officials, and a population that largely doesn't bother to vote. Take Bush's election in 2000 and the fiasco in Florida. This is Durkheim's theory of society and similiarly modern Communism. The world moves forward and if you don't agree, you are deviant.

At Tianamen Square in China, the government just arrested and executed citizens as dissenters. While not that bad here, it's a very hardcore example of government deciding what's best for people, with their own self interest as paramount. http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=138527&highlight=tankman

I wrote about Trent Lott's wasteful pet project. A complete failure at your expense.
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=1374144&postcount=20

 

[AFA]

You're just viewing things in extremes. What is sad about leaving some responsibility with the government, yet still question what they do? What exactly is brainwashed in that?
We all allow our governments to make decisions that influence our lives. Both the politicians of today and those of the past. If you didn't you wouldn't follow the laws of your country. And as I said, that shouldn't stop us from questioning the politicians and the laws, but there's no point in trying to believe that we do

That's the way it should be, but sadly it has become a get what you can while you can world. Values have completely broken down. Among politicians there are very few in the US that I think are trustworthy. More act like they have attended acting school and their advisors tell them exactly what kind of "image" to portray in words and photo opportunities. Often people vote for the more attractive candidate, or the one with the best smile. It's not about real issues anymore. People know, (like big corporations), they lie, cheat and steal their way to the top. It reminds me of US reality shows on television. Everyone will do whatever they need to get the big prize money at the end. It encourages poor behavior and deceit, and that is what the US in TV land has become.

TV news has become entertainment, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton so no one that doesn't do the work knows what's going on.

BTW, Brainwashed is too strong a word.

 

[bodie54]

if the group was successfully portrayed in a negative light then it would not be difficult to imagine a majority of the american people going along, as they considered it their patriotic duty, with the wishes of the government to repress that group
- what happens then ? should the oppressed significant chunk start an armed insurrection against the US government and against the wishes of <apparently, of course we're in the hypothetical realm here>
the majority of their fellow american citizens ?

No need to speak hypothetically. That's already happened here.

as has been pointed out by McR, relatively small arms to keep in check the most powerful military arsenal ever assembled, should the government and army ever "attack" the american people, as being very likely to meet with success

As a deterrent against such extremeties, a citizenry cabable of conducting widespread, protracted guerilla warfare with the conviction to live free or die would seem likely to be a pretty daunting spectre.

 

[blakey]

As a deterrent against such extremeties, a citizenry cabable of conducting widespread, protracted guerilla warfare with the conviction to live free or die would seem likely to be a pretty daunting spectre.

true,
but such a group of citizenry would in this day and age
(thinking of the effect of patriotism, media, gov't "propaganda")
only be a minority of the population

i think,
and i could be wrong
<hopefully none of the apocalyptic scenarios being contemplated here ever come to pass>
that, in the event of a part of the citizenry rising up, it would be more likely that the government, army, police etc would be able to convince the rest of the citizens that it was in their best interests to join them and surpress the uprising

 

[Friday on my mind]

true,
but such a group of citizenry would in this day and age
(thinking of the effect of patriotism, media, gov't "propaganda")
only be a minority of the population

i think,
and i could be wrong
<hopefully none of the apocalyptic scenarios being contemplated here ever come to pass>
that, in the event of a part of the citizenry rising up, it would be more likely that the government, army, police etc would be able to convince the rest of the citizens that it was in their best interests to join them and surpress the uprising

Blakey you are correct about it would be a minority most likely,most revolutions/Insurrections are.During the American revolution most of the populace would have said they were still loyal to the crown at least at the beginning of it.I actually do not beleive an armed insureection will take place in the US.The govt would more likely just fall during a crisis due to loss of confidence by large number of people with no violence fighting involved IMO.

 

[AFA]

Does that mean that the military is viewed as tools of the politicians who are apparantly generally considered to be evil and oppresive people? Is the military of a developed country really a potential enemy of it's own people?

Not military, but I forgot the civil rights movement which brought local politicians to bring Police action against non-violent protesters in the Southern US in the 1960's.

 

[Roughneck]

i get that bit and i'm not trying to argue with it, Rn

Ok.

i'm just trying to point out that, by definition if america is a democracy <which i think it is>

It is NOT. America is a Constitutional Republic. All that bullshit baloney from political leaders about America being the bastion of democracy is just that - bullshit baloney.

The United States of America chose to be a Republic. (and no, that isn't incorrect grammar. The United States of America are pleural for a reason).

there must be a certain amount of identification by some americans with their government - bush got elected twice and formerly had 80-90 % appoval ratings

So did FDR and Kennedy - but that doesn't make their administrations any more "constitutional".

You actually support my argument that "Democracy = mob rule" and "Democracy = tyranny by the majority".

And while we are at it - "some Americans":::

"Some Americans" also support the Democratic Party.
"Some Americans" also support the Libertarian Party.
"Some Americans" also support the Ku Klux Klan.
"Some Americans" also support the Black Panthers.

As to your "approval rating" quote - more than 90% of the Americans supported US intervention in Vietnam during it's early stages. Intervention that was - I might add - supported, encouraged and enacted by DEMOCRATS.

Please don't fall for the "labels" bullshit.

The Democrats are no Holier than the Republicans. The mainstream liberals of today scream for intervention as much as mainstream conservatives.

ditto the armed forces - while some americans may disagree with recent use of armed force others agree with it and "support the troops" with all their hearts

Did you hear liberals and Democrats complain about Bosnia? About Somalia? They were both interventionist foreign wars - and if you think it was all about "humanitarian"... then how different is it from a current war supporter who claims the current Iraqi war is "humanitarian - because we went in to liberate Saddam's oppressed people" ?

Did you hear a pipsqueak from liberals/Democrats when Madeline Albright said the death of over 300,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions was "worth it" ?

Dichotomy and hippocracy.

To me "supporting the troops" = bringing them home.
To me "supporting the troops" = not involving them in foreign wars.
To me "supporting the troops" = not using them to nation build.
To me "supporting the troops" = not using them as the world policeman.
To me "supporting the troops" = defending our own borders.
To me "supporting the troops" = not fighting unnecessary wars - be it Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq or Darfur.

The purpose of the United States military is to protect the United States - not enforce UN resolutions or meddle abroad.

and the commander in chief is constantly on tv saying things like "if we show weakness in iraq then the terrorists will have a better chance of attacking your children in america"

George W. Bush is neither a Conservative nor a true Republican. He is no different from FDR or Woodrow Wilson.

just like there are people here in the UK who swallow everything they are told by the media, especially the tabloid media, and government spin and propaganda - i would imagine there are similar people elsewhere, including the united states

No doubt.

& it's those kind of people who i wonder about, why arm themselves to protect themselves from an attack by an "administration" < gov't & armed forces> that they admire, support and whose actions they endorse :dunno:

Because you need to realise that while Americans might support "a" government, they appreciate and love their rights a lot more. Many Americans tend to see government as a nuisance rather than a "help". Oh sure, you have some Americans who clamor for more government intervention and intrusion - but they are few and far between.... hence why we haven't become a socialist state already.


Blakey ~ I mean this not as a "personal assault".

BUT, from your postings here on this board, my only conclusion is that you have little (if any) understanding of American history, civics or politics. I highly doubt you have even a GRASP of politics in America today.... let alone the politics that led to the inception of the Republic.

I don't mean that as an insult. Believe me.
I'm pretty sure that I'd appear foolish if I were to "comment" on the "basic laws" or "legal precedents" of the United Kingdom... I know that I have some basic idea of how it (The United Kingdom system) works - but I'd appear foolish telling the Brits how to run their affairs.


cheers,