Gun Control Groups Prepare for 'National Day of Protest'

[Mr. Daystar]

It doesn't matter where the idea is from. It's the idea, not the origin that matters. You would have to know every single 'anti gun' person to type that with any degree of accuracy. And since I assume you only know a tiny fraction of them (if any), your statement is totally without any meaningful factual basis and should be considered as such.

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. 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.

You should never lump large groups of (let alone tens of millions of) people into any category just because you feel like it; with no significant factual or scientific basis for doing so.

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

 

[Mr. Daystar]

On that thought:

(from wikipedia)

'The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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. ” '

To me that strictly refers to the raising of a Militia. And back then, there were no large peacetime armies. When you went to war, you had to raise a Militia. Which is what this amendment - IMO - is all about.
As far as I am concerned, as long as the United States has a standing peacetime army, the second amendment is irrelevant. And should be stricken from the Constitution. Or re written/amended to simply state that America has the right to have an armed forces - in some legalese way.

Problem is, the army is a tool of the very governing body we may need to defend our selves from. The 2nd Amendment being stricken from the Constitution, is the most ridicules thing I've ever heard. The problem is, to many people think they have the right to interpret the Constitution, and they don't spend enough time realizing that it's pretty self-explanatory. In fact, the politicians that try to rearrange it for the so called good of the people are the most dangerous of all. You also need to realize something, this isn't only about handguns, it's about any gun a law abiding citizen wants to own, it's our RIGHT, we obey the law.

 

[Aegis]

I can understand the people who want a gun to protect themselves and their family, although I still don't agree with guns being legal for that reason. Also I don't agree with many of the comments regarding politicians. Politicians are just human beings. There are good ones and bad ones. There are selfish and greedy politicians and there are those who truly want to make a difference and try to help others. I think that it's good to be sceptical of politicians and their motives, but I also think that some people go too far when they almost portray every single politicians as a monster whose sole purpose is to hurt and oppress the people.
That's just my opinion and very much influenced by the different society I live in.

But I have to ask about one thing. It has been brought up a couple of times in this thread and others, and I'm just quoting one post, so please don't view this as directed at that single post alone. This one was just the last one posted:

Problem is, the army is a tool of the very governing body we may need to defend our selves from.

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?
I just can't see the military turning on it's own people here, in the US, or in most other western countries. They are people with families and friends, and they are willing to defend their country with their lives and willing to fight to protect people in other countries as well. I just can't see them as a whole begin oppressing and killing their own people.

 

[AFA]

It happens, albeit in dictatorships, and world history shows the military is often used as a tool of the political leader. This happened in Cuba, and is now happening in Venezuela. It happened in Europe during the 30's and 40's.

The US has several incidents in it's history that are not pretty. One during a political rally in Ohio.

Kent State gained national attention on May 4, 1970 when an Ohio National Guard unit fired at students during a war protest on campus, killing four and wounding nine. This event, known as the Kent State shootings, caused an immediate closure of the campus as well as many other college campuses around the nation. The Guard had been called into Kent after several protests in and around campus had become violent, including the rioting of downtown Kent and the burning of the ROTC building. The main cause of the protests was the United States' invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_state#History

The police made hundreds of arrests, (of even reporters), in Chicago during a political convention in 1968.

When Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn) delivered a speech nominating George McGovern for President, he infuriated Daley by saying, "with George McGovern as President of the United States, we wouldn't have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago."[7] Daley responded by shaking his fist at Ribicoff, and shouting a phrase that was inaudible, and which has generated much speculation. An uncredited author for CNN wrote, "Most reports of the event also say Daley yelled an off-color epithet beginning with an "F," but according to CNN executive producer Jack Smith, others close to Daley insist he shouted 'Faker,' meaning Ribicoff was not a man of his word, the lowest name one can be called in Chicago's Irish politics."[8]

Subsequently, the Walker Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a "police riot."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response

I think there is an ever increasing number of people who really think the politics of the US don't represent them.

 

[Aegis]

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.

 

[Friday on my mind]

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.

Aegis here is a wikepedia link on the history of the 2nd Amendment.There is no doubt one of the reasons it was approved was that the English had tried to disarm the colonists and some of the founders thought the new republic needed to be protected as I have said before from a new King emerging with the people disarmed having no recourse.I will admit it may be an outdated notion as we don't have machine guns or nukes individually so may not really be able to do much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

On your point that since the army come from the people is it realistic to think they might be willing to oppress their own people,unfortunately I think history of many countries is full of such things.I'm thinking of German Jews in the 30s and 40s.In America it may be more of a class struggle the army is used in,but that has happened in many countries to.Just look at all the Latin American Dictators who exploited there own people while robbing them blind with the aid of their army's.You just give the army some perks that no one else is getting is how such systems thrive.

Lastly let me leave with this one incident in which the American army was called out against americans known as "the bonus army" during the depression of the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army

"Intervention of the military
The marchers were cleared and their camps were destroyed by the 12th Infantry Regiment from Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment under the command of MAJ. George S. Patton from Fort Myer, Virginia, under the overall command of General Douglas MacArthur. The Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the U.S. military from being used for general law enforcement purposes in most instances, did not apply to Washington, DC, because it is one of several pieces of federal property under the direct governance of the U.S. Congress (United States Constitution, Article I. Section 8). Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a member of MacArthur's staff, had strong reservations about the operation. Troops carrying rifles with unsheathed bayonets and tear gas were sent into the Bonus Army's camps. President Hoover did not want the army to march across the Anacostia River into the protesters' largest encampment, but Douglas MacArthur felt this was a communist attempt to overthrow the government and thus exceeded his authority. Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed, including William Hushka and Eric Carlson, a wife of a veteran miscarried, and other casualties were inflicted. The visual image of U.S. armed soldiers confronting poor veterans of the recent Great War set the stage for Veteran relief and eventually the Veterans Administration.

By the end of the rout:

Two veterans were shot and killed.
An 11 week old baby was in critical condition resulting from shock from gas exposure.
Two infants died from gas asphyxiation.
An 11 year old boy was partially blinded by tear gas.
One bystander was shot in the shoulder.
One veteran's ear was severed by a Cavalry saber.
One veteran was stabbed in the hip with a bayonet.
At least twelve police were injured by the veterans.
Over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas, including police, reporters, residents of Washington D.C., and ambulance drivers.
The army burned down the Bonus Army's tents and shacks, although some reports claim that to spite the government, which had provided much of the shelter in the camp, some veterans torched their own camp dwellings before the troops could set upon the camp. Reports of U.S. soldiers marching against their peers did not help Hoover's re-election efforts; neither did his open opposition to the Bonus Bill due to financial concerns. After the inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, some of the Bonus Army regrouped in Washington to restate its claims to the new President."

 

[snake8512]

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.

One of the main reasons that this hasn't happened in the states is exactly because of the ownership of firearms by the general population. Remember an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one is a slave.

 

[Aegis]

On your point that since the army come from the people is it realistic to think they might be willing to oppress their own people,unfortunately I think history of many countries is full of such things.I'm thinking of German Jews in the 30s and 40s.In America it may be more of a class struggle the army is used in,but that has happened in many countries to.Just look at all the Latin American Dictators who exploited there own people while robbing them blind with the aid of their army's.You just give the army some perks that no one else is getting is how such systems thrive.

But what I'm talking about is today. I know that it's happening in some countries and it has happened in others in the past, but is it really likely that it'll happen today in most western countries? I don't think that it is, and as such is not something I'd use as justification for allowing guns.

One of the main reasons that this hasn't happened in the states is exactly because of the ownership of firearms by the general population. Remember an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed one is a slave.

The slave argument doesn't really make sense, and I don't know if you live in the US, but do you really consider guns in the hands of some of the people, to be the main reason why the government and the military hasn't oppressed the people yet? I think that opinion is rather extreme. Even if people don't like the military and what the US forces are involved with around the world, can they really think that the soldiers, of which they may know or be related to several, would all just follow orders and oppress them, if it wasn't for the fact that guns are legal?
I think that's a rather extreme view that comes close to portraying soldiers as midless killers that just follow orders.

 

[Friday on my mind]

But what I'm talking about is today. I know that it's happening in some countries and it has happened in others in the past, but is it really likely that it'll happen today in most western countries? I don't think that it is, and as such is not something I'd use as justification for allowing guns.

I understand what your saying.But I think the idea that the world and people are really much different than the past is not something I beleive.The last century was one full of blood and turmoil and I see nothing that shows mankind has learned the lessons to prevent repeating that.An economic calamity such as the great depression is a very real possibility also again I think and the US govt. barely survived the last one in the 30s.This may not seem like much of justifications for the gun policy we have but the chances of getting the 2nd amendment undone is remote as changes to the constitution are very difficult and this is one issue that is political dynamite for any politician.Many beleive AL Gore lost his own home state of Tennesee in 2000 for not being pro-gun enough.

 

[Aegis]

I understand what your saying.But I think the idea that the world and people are really much different than the past is not something I beleive.The last century was one full of blood and turmoil and I see nothing that shows mankind has learned the lessons to prevent repeating that.An economic calamity such as the great depression is a very real possibility also again I think and the US govt. barely survived the last one in the 30s.This may not seem like much of justifications for the gun policy we have but the chances of getting the 2nd amendment undone is remote as changes to the constitution are very difficult and this is one issue that is political dynamite for any politician.Many beleive AL Gore lost his own home state of Tennesee in 2000 for not being pro-gun enough.

I do agree that as a whole, the world is just as violent and bloody as it has been for centuries. But I also think that most of the western world has changed a lot, and I consider an oppression by the military today as unlikely as a civil war.

I can also perfectly understand why people are so opposed to the idea of having their right to own a gun taken away. Nor do I think that it'll necessarily have the desired positive effect on a society where it happens. I'm just wondered a bit about the reasons that people state for why they need to own guns.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I do agree that as a whole, the world is just as violent and bloody as it has been for centuries. But I also think that most of the western world has changed a lot, and I consider an oppression by the military today as unlikely as a civil war.

I can also perfectly understand why people are so opposed to the idea of having their right to own a gun taken away. Nor do I think that it'll necessarily have the desired positive effect on a society where it happens. I'm just wondered a bit about the reasons that people state for why they need to own guns.

I would say its part tradition, and partly our own image of ourselves as "rugged individualists".May be best summed up as a lot of americans think this guy is the epitome of what an American man should be like lol.

http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T440/WayneStagecoach01.jpg

 

[AFA]

But what I'm talking about is today. I know that it's happening in some countries and it has happened in others in the past, but is it really likely that it'll happen today in most western countries? I don't think that it is, and as such is not something I'd use as justification for allowing guns.

It could happen. That's not my thinking though.

I don't think I need politicians making determinations about what's best for me on any matters that affect either myself or the original charter of the country.

I don't think they are superhuman, working by divine inspiration or anything making me want to relinquish that kind of control or power over either myself or people I know.

If anything, I think the political system, (as well as large corporations traditionally supporting them), are pretty well corrupt, and most politicians and policy changers campaign to serve their own self interests. Generally that means power and money. Gulf War 2 is really bringing that out, full scale. I have repeatedly quoted links to in depth news clips that really get into the guts of this deceit. "Why we fight", a film originating with a past General / President, and now an update by his Son, talks about the politics of the US encouraging war to drive the military - economic machine for financial gain.

 

[Facetious]

With swiss cheese borders (c/o "da Feds")

A N Y scenario is plausible, IMO

Gun Up ! :thumbsup:

 

[Aegis]

I think that we already are allowing politicians to determine what's best for us in many cases. I also think that it's needed, although I agree that the sound of it isn't exactly pleasant. But we have laws and regulations, and I think that we have to have it that way. There are limits of course, but I still think that on some level we will have to accept that politicians influence us and our country, although that shouldn't stop us from questioning their actions and motives.

 

[Facetious]

Back onto the initial topic spirit -


Interesting how JJ & Sharpie go after the firearms here

. . . and how many days after the incident !

Easy to see that they can't cry "Hate Crime" or "Illegal Alien" as that's only applicable to one specific racial group (One Way Street)

 

[Friday on my mind]

I think that we already are allowing politicians to determine what's best for us in many cases. I also think that it's needed, although I agree that the sound of it isn't exactly pleasant. But we have laws and regulations, and I think that we have to have it that way. There are limits of course, but I still think that on some level we will have to accept that politicians influence us and our country, although that shouldn't stop us from questioning their actions and motives.

Aegis your view of politicians is a thoughtfull reasonable one IMO.Trust but verify as we used to say about arms control.The problem is that Americans resoundingly have been conditioned now to not trust govt in any way.The election of republicans is/was really a rejection of any sort of trust in politicians as they run on you can't trust the govt to ever spend money wisely and all politicians only care about there own personal advancement.Even the recent accension of Dems is just due to anger over Iraq I feel and not the realization that some things we have to let govt do or they will just not be done correctly.Your view is very much sounding like an enlightened European approach which I can only hope we can have some of in the future.Read some of the debates I have had with some in this Forum on Health care,we are the only developed country in the world that uses the private for profit insurance system that we have.We spend double per captia what any other country does but only rank 37th in the world according to 2000 World health organization ranking and have more than 40 million with no insurance coverage..But yet many claim they think the govt would do a worse job if they were to take it over with a single payer plan as most in the world have.Its all the propaganda IMO that they have been fed by the corporate interests that say were good, govt is bad.

 

[AFA]

I think that we already are allowing politicians to determine what's best for us in many cases. I also think that it's needed, although I agree that the sound of it isn't exactly pleasant. But we have laws and regulations, and I think that we have to have it that way. There are limits of course, but I still think that on some level we will have to accept that politicians influence us and our country, although that shouldn't stop us from questioning their actions and motives.

A lot of "what's needed" is determined by the special interests of a select few. I was talking to someone about Enron corporation. Like the Bush administration and the health of the US economy, they consistently distorted reality and lied to the public about the failing health of the company and told people with pensions in company stock to hold their stock while they got off the ship in the last lifeboat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Accounting_Scandal_of_2001

But that behavior is widespread in the corporate world and as I said politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyco_International#Legal_charges

 

[D-rock]

On that thought:

(from wikipedia)

'The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ 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. ” '

To me that strictly refers to the raising of a Militia. And back then, there were no large peacetime armies. When you went to war, you had to raise a Militia. Which is what this amendment - IMO - is all about.

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?

I think that we already are allowing politicians to determine what's best for us in many cases. I also think that it's needed, although I agree that the sound of it isn't exactly pleasant. But we have laws and regulations, and I think that we have to have it that way. There are limits of course, but I still think that on some level we will have to accept that politicians influence us and our country, although that shouldn't stop us from questioning their actions and motives.

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. The US is already starting to. The people in power and the common citizens are pretty much two distinct groups anymore. On a practical level the later doesn't really come from the former like it's supposed to be. We are the longest running representative democracy I can think of and we are only a few hundred years old. That's not very long when considered against written history of over 6000 years. (And I'm sure people weren't any different before that.) That doesn't bode well for human nature, and it tells what power does to people that are able to obtain it considering every government older than that has fallen either from the outside, incompetence, or corruption. To have all of that against the people in charge and to still think of tyranny as something that might happen instead of when it's going to happen doesn't make any sense. People would have to stick their head in the sand to believe otherwise. Remember it's not always a person, a dictator, we might have to fight against. Tyranny can also come in the form of an entire class of people that oppress another. All it ever takes is for some inequalities to develop and for people get a little desperate, or just the right timing by those who want to seize power for it to form.


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 doesn't change the outcome. In the end they want to get what they want. Lets get serious here. They are human beings more flawed then even most and that's saying something. It's not like we have angels and wise men looking after us and doing the best for our well-being. It's the same old song and dance that has been going on for as long as we have.

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.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

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?
I just can't see the military turning on it's own people here, in the US, or in most other western countries. They are people with families and friends, and they are willing to defend their country with their lives and willing to fight to protect people in other countries as well. I just can't see them as a whole begin oppressing and killing their own people.

That is in fact what I meant, and how I meant it. I can't see things getting any better, every day a little more of our freedoms, and rights are being taken away, and to be honest, I've never been given any reason to trust our leaders, they haven't proved anything to me. The fact is, you don't know how the military is going to handle the situation, they may be people like you and me, but they are soldiers, and they do have a responsibility to their leaders. Plus, I don't think it will happen all at once, little bits at a time, thats how they'll do it.

 

[McRocket]

Problem is, the army is a tool of the very governing body we may need to defend our selves from. The 2nd Amendment being stricken from the Constitution, is the most ridicules thing I've ever heard. The problem is, to many people think they have the right to interpret the Constitution, and they don't spend enough time realizing that it's pretty self-explanatory.

This is 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. ”

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

The 2nd Amendment being stricken from the Constitution, is the most ridicules thing I've ever heard.

In your entire life, that is the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard? I do not believe you.

In fact, the politicians that try to rearrange it for the so called good of the people are the most dangerous of all. You also need to realize something, this isn't only about handguns, it's about any gun a law abiding citizen wants to own, it's our RIGHT, we obey the law.

Fine. Get rid of the Second Amendment and 'bye bye' to your right to own them. This right was granted to you be men; not God. And it can be taken away by men.