Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: NO assault weapon used at Sandy hook

World Class Peach





Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 09:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXcvOE

according to this report the AR 15 style weapon was NOT used it was all done with 4 handguns so please lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines we have a perfect example of their use by criminals the nut job who shot first responders was a convicted murderer who got out of jail and got a hold of some illegal weapons one of which was a AR15 and did what criminals do broke the law, and no amount of gun laws or control would have stopped him but staying in jail for killing his grandmother with a hammer would have!

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 10:44 AM
quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXcvOE

according to this report the AR 15 style weapon was NOT used it was all done with 4 handguns so please lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines we have a perfect example of their use by criminals the nut job who shot first responders was a convicted murderer who got out of jail and got a hold of some illegal weapons one of which was a AR15 and did what criminals do broke the law, and no amount of gun laws or control would have stopped him but staying in jail for killing his grandmother with a hammer would have!

This report was aired prior to the coroner's report, where he confirmed the victims were shot anywhere from 3 to 11 times each with the assault rifle. The shooter also had two handguns on him, one of which he used to shoot himself. A shotgun was left in the car. All this information is easily found.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:23 AM
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2633
(2632 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:35 AM
so, its not an assult rifle, but the manufacturer labels it as an AR-15. no wonder the general public is confused.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:36 AM
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:43 AM
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11675
(12118 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:43 AM
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

Also the term "assault weapon" needs to be defined. While "automatic", "semi-automatic", or "single-shot" have specific meanings, the definition of "assault weapon" seems vague. In the media it appears to mean anything that looks scary.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23373
(23372 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:44 AM
Whew, it wasn't assault rifles that were used in killing all those people.

 

____________________

Quit!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:47 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

Also the term "assault weapon" needs to be defined. While "automatic", "semi-automatic", or "single-shot" have specific meanings, the definition of "assault weapon" seems vague. In the media it appears to mean anything that looks scary.

Start by banning everything but single shot rifles and shotguns. If you really want to call yourself a hunter, hunt with a bow.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23373
(23372 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:49 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?


Don't fall for Alloak's convoluted logic questions, Dug.

I wear a helmet to protect my head from banging it on the desk after reading his posts.

[Edited on 12/28/2012 by michaelsio]

 

____________________

Quit!

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11675
(12118 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:54 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

Also the term "assault weapon" needs to be defined. While "automatic", "semi-automatic", or "single-shot" have specific meanings, the definition of "assault weapon" seems vague. In the media it appears to mean anything that looks scary.

Start by banning everything but single shot rifles and shotguns. If you really want to call yourself a hunter, hunt with a bow.

Fine with me. I just hate to see imprecise terms used as if they mean something. I'm not a gun advocate. I'm a clear communiction advocate.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 11:57 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

Also the term "assault weapon" needs to be defined. While "automatic", "semi-automatic", or "single-shot" have specific meanings, the definition of "assault weapon" seems vague. In the media it appears to mean anything that looks scary.

Start by banning everything but single shot rifles and shotguns. If you really want to call yourself a hunter, hunt with a bow.

Fine with me. I just hate to see imprecise terms used as if they mean something. I'm not a gun advocate. I'm a clear communiction advocate.

This is a strange issue, iin the since that I am not really anti-gun. But we've got too many guns and too many nuts, and past a sngle shot rifle or shotgun, I don't see the need or the point.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:00 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?


No. Angst over an object that, when sold, represents a chance of ever being used to kill someone of next to zero. Do you really fear ever being harmed by an assault rifle?

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:09 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?


No. Angst over an object that, when sold, represents a chance of ever being used to kill someone of next to zero. Do you really fear ever being harmed by an assault rifle?


Your choice of analogy sucks. Here's another which isn't perfect but I think is closer (you might not agree)...I happen believe in strict traffic laws (DUI in particular), mandatory driver tests before being issued a mandatory driver's licence that includes a photo that is registered with and can be revoked by the state, and motor vehicle manufacturing safety laws. I also have angst about people who drive cars who have no business doing so that might end up killing me or a loved one some day. Does all that make me anti-car?

[Edited on 12/28/2012 by gondicar]

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:19 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?


No. Angst over an object that, when sold, represents a chance of ever being used to kill someone of next to zero. Do you really fear ever being harmed by an assault rifle?


Your choice of analogy sucks. Here's another which isn't perfect but I think is closer (you might not agree)...I happen believe in strict traffic laws (DUI in particular), mandatory driver tests before being issued a mandatory driver's licence that includes a photo that is registered with and can be revoked by the state, and motor vehicle manufacturing safety laws. I also have angst about people who drive cars who have no business doing so that might end up killing me or a loved one some day. Does all that make me anti-car?


Not at all. In fact, if preventing death is your true motive those are much more worthwhile areas of concern. Problem is, they're not political like the gun-control argument is.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67578
(67939 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:20 PM
Guns don't kill people - vending machines kill people.

The car argument is ridiculous (and was used by Jesse Ventura in the video), but this is taking it to another extreme.....as only alloak can do......

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:34 PM
quote:
Guns don't kill people - vending machines kill people.

The car argument is ridiculous (and was used by Jesse Ventura in the video), but this is taking it to another extreme.....as only alloak can do......


Not as extreme as walking around in fear of ever being harmed by an assault rifle.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 12:39 PM
quote:
Problem is, they're not political like the gun-control argument is.

Are you serious? Of course they are poliital. If you don't belive it, just start by googling "seat belt laws and politics".

Hey michaelsio, can I borrow your helmet?

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:07 PM
quote:
quote:
Guns don't kill people - vending machines kill people.

The car argument is ridiculous (and was used by Jesse Ventura in the video), but this is taking it to another extreme.....as only alloak can do......


Not as extreme as walking around in fear of ever being harmed by an assault rifle.


When someone is seen walking down the street carrying an assault rifle casually slung over their shoulder, how should people react? Is it "extreme" to be frightened of such a person and call the police?

By the way, this happened just the other day in my city...

quote:
Bill Nemitz: A world so safe, it's scary

By Bill Nemitz
Columnist

He insists that he speaks for no one other than himself. And that when he slung his assault rifle over his shoulder and went out for a stroll around Portland on Christmas Eve day, he wasn't trying to make a statement about anything.

So ... why do it?

"It's a tool to defend yourself," Justin Dean replied during a 30-minute telephone interview Thursday. "When people carry a weapon, if something bad happens, they can defend themselves."

Welcome to Justin's world – and that of all those other gun owners whose love for their weaponry is rooted not in Maine's time-honored tradition of hunting, not in the camaraderie of the shooting range or the thrill of owning a rare collectible.

No, this is a world of pure paranoia. A world where the bad guys, however invisible, might be anywhere. A world where your personal safety is directly proportional to how much firepower you're packing – and if that scares the hell out of everyone around you, well, that's just not your problem.

Dean, as all of Maine knows by now, lit up the Portland Police Department's switchboard Monday when he attached a new sling to his Daniel Defense assault rifle, slapped on a fully loaded, 30-round magazine and spent 3˝ hours strutting his stuff from his apartment in the West End down to Back Cove and back.

Little wonder that 65 eyewitnesses, the searing memories of the massacre Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn., fresh in their minds, frantically called police to report what most probably thought was a crime in progress.

Except it wasn't.

Police kept an eye on Dean, even spoke with him at one point. But because carrying a weapon, even a loaded assault rifle, is not illegal in Maine, the 24-year-old former Army Ranger was free to go on his way.

"I'm not a violent person," Dean told me when I called Thursday to learn a little more about him. "I'm a peaceful person. But at the same time, I'm not going to give up my right to defend myself. I'm not going to not defend myself or make myself a target. I'm not going to do that."

Defend himself? Against whom?

"There are lots of examples of assault and robbery in Maine," replied Dean.

On Portland's Back Cove footpath? In broad daylight?

"Period," said Dean. "Just period."

So who exactly is Justin Dean? And what makes him so fearful of being assaulted and/or robbed in a state that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, has the lowest violent-crime rate in the country?

Born in Portland, he grew up in New Hampshire. His father is from Afghanistan, where Dean served three deployments (along with one in Iraq) as a member of the Army's elite 1st Ranger Battalion from 2008 to July of this year.

He's now a freshman at the University of Southern Maine (where any and all weapons are prohibited) and plans to major in finance.

His wartime story, Dean said, is "complicated." While he was reluctant to go into detail, he did mention a platoon sergeant who died during his 12th deployment overseas and lamented the "disconnect" between those who serve in the military and civilians who "don't want to hear the truth."

Did I detect a hint of bitterness in his voice?

"I'm not bitter," Dean replied. "But it's like, you know, who are you to judge me? You haven't walked a mile in any of our shoes and we've walked a lot of miles, so ..."

He readily acknowledges that he "didn't like the military." At the same time, Dean said he has neither sought nor received counseling for post traumatic stress disorder or any other mental health problem because "I'm not some crazy veteran."

Meaning?

"Everyone has adjustment trouble, but that doesn't mean you're about to snap," Dean said. "Destroying things and destroying life, that's bad to me. It's very easy to destroy things and people – and it's a lot harder to build people up and to help people out. And that's what I like to do. I'm not some guy who's, like, walking around the streets, you know, like: 'Give me a reason to do this.' Not at all."

Still, there's that assault rifle, which Dean said he'd have brought out sooner had he not been waiting for the new carrying sling to arrive in the mail.

"I wasn't going to carry before without the sling," he said. "I mean, that's ridiculous."

How so?

"You know how bad this story is, how it's gotten people (upset)," he replied. "How much worse would it be if I was carrying a rifle around in my hands? It's totally legal, but that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do."

Yet walking with that same rifle over your shoulder is a smart thing to do?

"That's a choice that I make," Dean said.

A choice that could have unexpected – and entirely unintended – consequences.

What would Dean do if someone with a concealed-weapons permit mistakenly perceived his rifle as a threat, pulled out a handgun and ordered Dean to drop the rifle?

"I'd probably have to drop the gun or else he'd shoot me," said Dean. "I mean, it's not going to help anyone to get in a shootout."

How about an unarmed and misguided "hero," thinking he was preventing the next mass murder, tackling Dean from behind?

"I would hit them a lot. I would hit them with my elbows and fists and whatever I could get, but I wouldn't shoot them. Unless they were bashing my skull and I was clearly, you know, done for."

With that, Dean turned a deaf ear to any more "what if's."

"That's all really speculative, sir," he said. "I mean all these hypothetical things – they didn't happen and they don't really happen."

In fact, during his three-plus-hour walk this week, he said, "people completely avoided me for the most part."

Speaking of things that don't happen, has Dean ever found himself in a civilian situation where he needed his rifle?

"No. Not yet," he said. "But then again, there could be a time when it's the one time I didn't (have his weapon at the ready)."

How convenient: In Justin's world, we're more than welcome to picture Justin Dean the armed victim, staring down his would-be attacker with the steely eye of a trained marksman.

But speculating about Justin Dean the hapless magnet for trouble, rolling in the dirt while someone tries to relieve him of his assault rifle? Well, that's just silly.

Nor can we suggest that there's no need, in any scenario, for a 30-round magazine on the Back Cove footpath. Smaller magazines, insisted Dean, don't deter anything.

"That Cho guy had a 10-round magazine," he noted.

That what guy?

"The guy at Virginia Tech," Dean said. (He was referring to Seung-Hui Cho, who in 2007 committed the worst mass murder in U.S. history.)

So, fellow Mainers, how do we live safely, securely and peacefully alongside Justin's world?

Do we ignore him and hope he tires of making a frightening spectacle of himself?

Do we watch him like hawks and add fuel to whatever fears already drive him?

Or do we just pray that his self-centered paranoia, whatever its source, remains just that?

"The chances of me ever committing a crime with this weapon are zero percent," Dean promised. "No crimes are ever going to happen from my firearm."

If only he could guarantee no tragedies.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67578
(67939 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:21 PM
quote:
quote:
Guns don't kill people - vending machines kill people.

The car argument is ridiculous (and was used by Jesse Ventura in the video), but this is taking it to another extreme.....as only alloak can do......


Not as extreme as walking around in fear of ever being harmed by an assault rifle.


Or living in fear that someone will break into your house while you are there? Or living in fear of everyone so much that you have to carry a gun everywhere?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:36 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Doug beat me to it.

quote:
lets be sensible about assault weapons and high capacity magazines


The problem is how to define "sensible" when their very existence in the general population makes no sense at all.


Or when the percentage of these items ever used to kill someone is so low it can hardly be calculated, yet cause such angst. People are killed by vending machines too, are those next?

You want to equate 20 dead first graders at the hands of a nut with an assualt rifle to a vending maching falling on someone and then question the angst over the dead kids?


No. Angst over an object that, when sold, represents a chance of ever being used to kill someone of next to zero. Do you really fear ever being harmed by an assault rifle?

But we're not talking "chances" here, we are talking incidents that have already occurred. I'm not afraid of being harmed by any kind of gun, which is one of the reasons I don't own one. Grew up with guns in the house, hunted some when I was younger, but it just doesn't interest me. All my relatives hunt and own guns. My son bow hunts a bit (he's 12), and he likes it. What is the need for handguns and assualt rifles? What purpose do they serve that can't be served by other weapons that don't have the cpacity for such devastation when in the wrong hands?

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:40 PM
Ok so by most of your opinions here I can say with certainty that if it is the guns fault then a smaller spoon will solve the obesity problem in this country I mean it must just be because we eat with to big a spoon right?
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:43 PM
and you can hide your head in the sand if you so choose this is a free country but you still have to abide by the laws of this country not a little bit or not almost but to the fullest... and the second amendment is still in the Consitution, either we have the right to bear arms or we don't !

By Lawrence Hunter
Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.
Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.
A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.
The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.
That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.
Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.
Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”
Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.
That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.
They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.
The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”
The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.
The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.
That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”
But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.
A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67578
(67939 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:44 PM
Vending machines don't kill people, spoons do.


 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/28/2012 at 01:54 PM
quote:
the second amendment is still in the Consitution, either we have the right to bear arms or we don't !

We do.

But no where does it say you have the right to own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, just like it doesn't say you have a right to own hand grenades, patriot missle batteries or nuclear bombs. It says "bear arms", and what we're talking about where/how to draw the line, but like so many others you seem to insist on making it an all or nothing discussion when it comes specifically to guns.

We have freedom of speech, but it is still a crime to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, just like it is a crime to commit libel and slander. We have freedom of religion, but human sacrafice in the name of religion is still a no-no last I checked. These rights/freedoms were never intended to be unconditional.

[Edited on 12/28/2012 by gondicar]

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com