More weapons regulations

Remove all ads!

Ragusa, while the right to bear arms may have become little more than an entertainment feature in modern culture, you have to remember that it started for (and in theory still serves) a much more serious purpose. If the UK, or Germany, or some other nation that is far more restrictive on fire arms, were taken over by a militaristic dictatorship, even through legitimate means like Hitler did, what recourse would the people really have, assuming a sizable amount of the military sides with the government, either out of greed or out of fear. Now, yes, there's little there that could damage an Abrams, or an F-22, but those are really most effective in open warfare, not so much in the guerilla fashion. In the US such a government would still face sizable and well-armed resistance from the civilian populace, even today. Seriously, you don't see this stuff being used in crimes because it's so expensive, distinctive, and heavy, so why refuse it to the public?

 

Well, as I see it the people who are most keen on their weapons are the people who are generally most likely to support a militaristic dictatorship. The people who would oppose such a thing the most vehemently are liberal sissies who tend to be opposed to widespread gun ownership. The right wing people who love their weapons the most would probably create the main power base of any American militaristic dictatorship.

 

Sorry joacqin but thats just silly.
Almost all of those that support the second amendment value the rest of the bill of rights just as much.

 

I agree.

 

It is the second amendment which protects the constitution and all of the other amendments. The fact that it is the 2nd amendment should show its importance. Most people have no clue as to what the amendments are after you get past the 5th.

For those who want a refresher course

 

Well, when they originally wrote the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms might have been 1st, but then they realized that it's slightly more important to be able to meet to figure out where the attacking British were coming from.

 

You guys can say what you will but especially you Martaug would be in the forefront of any attempt of a military takeover of the United States. You wouldn't even see it as a military takeover, it would probably be labelled an attempt to protect the United States from its domestic commie/hippie/liberal enemies or to give the US a government who is willing to stand up and not go Chamberlain on your evil foreign enemies both scenarios which you would cheerfully support.

 

Joacqin, you are now not just making vast and completely unbased assumptions, you are making targeted insults to forum members without either excuse or cause.

As to who would support what kind of government, that really depends more on what actions that government took. If Obama (just as an example) institutes martial law, or a nationwide intelligence service akin to the Nazi SS, and bases his movement on the 'rights' of the poor to get what they want, the 'right' of women to have abortions, and the 'right' for homosexuals to marry in any state of the union, it would be liberals backing him up every step of the way, not conservatives. The fact of the matter, though, is that a large group of the US would oppose any such dictatorship that extended it's powers beyond that of the Constitution regardless of it's position on hot-button issues, and this group is a mix of liberals and conservatives.

Joacqin, what you don't seem to realize is that we're talking about extremists here, and every group has extremists. There are probably just as many nutjob liberal extremists in the US as there are nutjob conservative extremists.

 

I'd be one of the voices of decent there joacqin. The use of the military as a means of force within the boarders of the US is a violation of the basic precepts that founded this country and the military. The military is not a police force -- calling out the National Guard during an emergency is one thing, actually using the active military to battle its own citizens would not be tolerated.

I believe the leaders of the military would disobey such an order -- claiming it to be unconstitutional.

 

I don't take anything joacqin said personally because at last he is honest & open in his dislike of what i believe in & stand for, As is his right.

There actually is a group called the "Oath Keepers"
http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Colu...s-sworn-to-uphold-Constitution-no-matter-what

Here is a link to their site
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

Joacqin, i would never take part in installing a government that did not uphold the full constitution, no matter what you may think of me.
Our constitution is part of what makes america & americans act, believe & think that they are different(maybe even better, whether warranted or not) than a lot of other nations.

 

This is the thing though, I made my post in response to NOG's comment about you needing the guns to protect yourself from your government. I do not think that it is very likely at all, but if it would happen it would be a right wing coup of that I am certain. Any possible attack from the left would be on a grassroot level in the form of "terrorism".

As for you Martaug, you have posted here bragging about how you fired employees who voted contrary to yourself, you have posted about how an armed rebellion against Obama is in brewing and you made that seem like a good thing. I am sure you would be convinced you supported the constitution but you would marsch in the first row of any proto-fascist government in the US. That is just my evaluation of you though but that is the impression you have given.

Keep in mind, from where I am standing the bulk of the Republican party are not far away from such a thing. They are using populism in it's basest way and relying on the fear and hate of people more than anything and their rhetoric is not far removed from that of most right wing dictators during the last century. There might still be some less unsavory characters in the party (I believed McCain was one of them before his presidential campaign) but now they have more in common with true ultra-right wing parties than anything else.

This was all quite off-topic, the main point is that the argument that you need weapons to protect you from the "man" is not a very strong one. I am going to stick to belief that some people want weapons because they are small and scared people, most likely with very small penises.

 

Can you expalin this, TGS?

Yes, it was so "important" that it was left out of the original version of the Constitution. That is why it is an "Amendment." The entire Bill of Rights was added about 4 yeats later at the insistence of Thomas Jefferson, who was not part of the framing, but in France at the time.

And yes, TGS, it appears even the GWB administration could have used a "refresher" on a number of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights.

 

Right you are, Chandos. Just for the chuckle, their most accomodating legal interpreter, John Yoo, from what I last heared and read failed consistently to correctly quote the constitution in his writings outlining nothing but the unlimited power of the president in wartime - except, of course, when the president is of the other team. In that case the limits on executive power are quickly re-discovered.

 

Ragusa - Congress is hard at work right now unwinding Mr. Yoo's repeated violations of the Constitution. I would not be surprised if he is made to account for them at some point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469663/

More Yooisms:

And these morons worry about Obama.

 

I don't quite know how to respond this. I always considered it obvious that the citizenry would need to bear arms to prevent tyranny. How else would the public be able to keep their government honest, protect their rights, and live up to these famous words.

 

That's the DoI. It is a separate document from the Constitution. At the time it was crafted there was no America and thusly, no standing American army. The Continental Army was formed in 1775 and formed around George Washington for the purpose of defending your home state, which the English had all but invaded. It was an odd situation because the population still considered themselves as "Englishmen," fighting for their rights as "English."

With the founding of the country, after the DoI, the question was how to respond militarily to the English, who would send an invading army into the Hudson in August, 1776 (which was the offical date, in August, that the DoI was adopted). The idea of a standing professional army was largely disputed by Congress, which was divided between the Continental Army under Washington and the local militia. It's kinda hard to have a local militia to defend a local area without an armed citizenry. The thing is, the states wished to control their own defense and were suspicous of a "national" army. That meant that citizens would still provide much of the defense of their local townships. Yet, we all know in the end it was really Washington and the Continental Army that won the Revolution.

The US army was not founded until 1784, and even then it was very small and Congress still relied upon local militia as the first line of defense in case of a foreign invasion. The Right to Have and Bear Arms is fundamental for the defense of the People, not only in individual protection but to help defend the state in times of foreign invasion. It's still largely in our nature to be able to defend our families and properties down to the "last man," if need be.

The Constitution places the standing, professional army under civilian control through the President, who is elected directly by the people. For the military to refuse the command of the President places the national military at odds with the Constitution and the American people. The President is made to answer for violations of the Constitution by the Rule of Law, through the elected leaders in Congress. The reason the Founders did not want a military in the first place is because they were afraid that it would decide the Rule of Law for itself and place itself outside of its Consitutional role of answering to the American People.

 

Maybe it's obvious to Americans but as an outsider do you distrust your army that much? Democracy is culturally ingrained in Western civilization at this stage. I can't conceive of an army rebelling against the government. Besides, how would they rally enough of their number together without having someone disagreeing and alerting the authorities? Americans almost seem fanatic in their devotion to democracy and the army takes great pride in itself.

I've always understood, as Chandos illustrated, that the right to bear arms was essential at the time of America's birth to protect the infant nation. I don't see how it's necessary in this day and age.

 

First off, I ddin't say it we needed them, I said it was a foundation part of the US, and that many of us still remember why.

Secondly, for the most part, this isn't based on a current fear. It is based on a conceptual and principled readiness. Nations and peoples have long memories, especially when it comes to issues of formation, freedom, and oppression. In the US, the Right to Bear Arms is looked at along the same line as the military bringing weapons on food-distribution missions. You may not really expect to need them, and you hope to God that you won't, but you'd much rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them. The whole problem with preparing for something like an extremist coup is that you can never expect it, so you have to prepare for it when it seems irrational to do so, or not be prepared at all.

And Déise, it's more an issue of the government rebelling against the people than the army rebelling against the government.

 

I'd love to see a government trying to rebel against the people without having the military on their side! I don't think it would go so well somehow...

When you talk of a nation's memories it explains a lot. At the foundation of the American state its citizens needed to be armed to protect it. At the foundation of the Irish state a civil war was the immediate consequence. Michael Collins, essentially our Washington, was killed in the fighting and a number of other politicians were deliberately assassinated. As a consequence possessing a gun was soon made a capital offence. The police force was founded as being unarmed, to demonstrate that one would not need a gun in order to oppose the state. Obviously the death penalty no longer applies but gun ownership is extremely restricted due to the danger of them being smuggled to the IRA in the British counties (not much of a concern these days).

It's still hard for me to see the point of bearing arms in today's world. An extremist government could probably only come to power in the event of a catastrophic crisis (dwindling oil or water? asteroid?). A military dictatorship might not be our greatest concern then. I'm also not convinced of the ability of citizens to fight back. The army possesses great training and organisation. Unless the army is split in two any resistance would be highly fragmented and could quickly run out of resources. A force brutal enough to seize power could also be brutal enough to suppress a guerilla war (slash and burn may be reprehensible but it can be effective in such situations).

 

How many gun crimes does New Zealand have?
If you follow typical american liberal logic they should be awash in violence.
As seen here: http://www.guncity.co.nz/xurl/PageI...d/1/orgfn/silencers-suppressors/content.html#
Silencers are cheap & readily accessible, so holloywood style assassinations should be happening everyday.

That's just a heck of a deal, $49.99* for a hushpower .22 silencer.
Here you have to send in 2 sets of fingerprints to the FBI,
wait up to 6 months,
pay your $200 tax stamp,
& them buy your equivalent silencer for ~$350.00.

New zealand is looking better & better as a good place to take a vacation too.
* - thats $49.99 NZ so ~ $25 US!! This is looking better & better. Just wish i could legally ship them home

PS - I didn't know y'all had brotha's in NZ, http://www.guncity.co.nz/content.asp?syscmd=picview&picID=144966, thats just gotta be a brothas gun