A message to our Leadership in America

[Bren122]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[steelish]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

And I never thought you were arguing against the right, just pointing out that your interpretation of the Second Amendment was off.

[Bren122]

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

the success of British/English colonised societies relies on a common written language and the belief in the rule of law. Canada, New Zealand and Australia do not have the 'right to bare arms' and have done as well in building societies. any reading of the history of the early US makes it clear that the founding fathers feared one thing above all- a military dictatorship based on a standing army. it was why so many of them were opposed to Washington being the first president. disbanding the continental army and establishing the militia was the primary goal of the second amendment at that time.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

[steelish]

What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States?

The South was not attempting to take over the U.S.

[steelish]

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

[DuncanONeil]

And I agree...a civilian should not have military style weaponry. But I do not really want the government messing with our right to bear arms. What they need to do is place tighter restrictions on such weapons.

This is not a complaint.
The toughest weapons go to two kinds. Collectors, I think we can all presume they have no intent to go on a killing spree.
And the bad guys. The bad guys are concerned with two things in a fire arm. Rate of fire and is it concealable.

[steelish]

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

I don't have a Barretta (I assume that is what you're referring to) nor do I have a .50 caliber rifle (thank God) but I do have a very nice CZ 75BD. I know I'm being cheeky now, but I can't help it. Most people who don't understand seem to think that gun owners are "shoot 'em up" type people who will take wild pot-shots at anything and everything. (possibly because my neighbors dog shit in my yard) But nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor violence but I am not so stupid as to not be knowledgeable about guns and gun safety.

[DuncanONeil]

and both sides say that before every election.
all governments fear the people; that is precisely the problem. rather than doing what is right, too often they do what is popular. that's why your budget is pushing a deficit of $2trillion. we increasingly measure the concern of a government on an issue by how much it spends and not on how much it actually helps.

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

where a regime/ government maintains the support of the army it maintains its hold on power. name one revolution that has succeeded where the army has stood by the government.
What was the civil war if not an attempt to overthrow the elected government of the United States? why did it fail- because the army remained true to the union.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

even if it is the will of the people? because that is the argument i am trying to make. very few people believe that gun ownership is an absolute wrong; by the same token very few see the need for military style weaponry in civillian hands. it was the same argument played out in Australia and guess who lost- because it was the will of the people.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

Well i could have used the old lefty ploy and made political mileage out of the frequent rampage shootings in America but i thought that it would be self evident that the ability to do so was more aptly made with the example cited.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

and its the few who feel the absolute necessity of owning such a weapon that scares the crap out of the rest. a recent report on Military Intelligence.com said that, at some points in the calendar, there were more Barretts in the hands of civilians than in the army in the US.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[Bren122]

Currently the budget is pushing $2 trillion because the administration has determined that giving monies to their friends is good for the country. It may also be because they believe that all of the country's money belongs to the Government.
How well off do you think you would be if you had the capability of raising the credit limit on your own credit card whenever you chose. It seems that some in Government are desirous of getting more than half of the people receiving their monies from the Government. The Government does have a "social justice" agenda. If you want true "social justice" it needs to come from the people, not from above.

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

The Civil War was not in the least bit an attempt to overthrow the Government. Thirteen states decided that their best course of action was to create a new country. They did so. The rest saw that as an insurrection. As for the army remaining true to the Union is patently false. Many of the military leaders in the South were members of the US military that quit the military and went to the south. Some of those were:
Himself a graduate of West Point and a former regular officer, Confederate President Jefferson Davis highly prized these valuable recruits to the cause and saw that former regular officers were given positions of authority and responsibility.[8]

* Richard H. Anderson
* Pierre Beauregard
* Braxton Bragg
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.
* Samuel Cooper
* Jubal Anderson Early
* Richard Ewell
* Josiah Gorgas
* William Joseph Hardee
* Ambrose Powell Hill
* Daniel Harvey Hill
* John Bell Hood
* Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
* Albert Sidney Johnston
* Joseph E. Johnston
* Robert E. Lee
* James Longstreet
* Dabney Herndon Maury
* John Hunt Morgan
* John C. Pemberton
* Edmund Kirby Smith
* Gustavus Woodson Smith
* J.E.B. Stuart
* Joseph Wheeler

you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

In the US, in spite of the second amendment, there are myriad restrictions on ownership. Your comments imply a belief that proponents of the Second desire unrestricted. Nothig could be further from the truth. Just because we stand by the Second does not mean that reasonable controls, or none, are to be dispensed with. All of the concealed carry states have restrictions on the ability to carry and no one is opposed to those restrictions.

again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

Rampage shootings are not an issue of guns, but an issue of people.

This surprises you!?!?!? There are, in total, some 2.9 million in the US military and well over 300 million in the country. So the quote is meaningless!
And a Barrett is now a collectors piece. Its position in the Military has been replaced by newer weapons. To make a point, there is a gentleman relatively near hear that has several tanks and other armored vehicles, According to you I should be in deathly fear of this man.

Oh, incidently, when has there been a "rampage" shooting involving a Barrett

[/QUOTE]

[DuncanONeil]

Republicans are just as guilty of pork barrelling and overspending; though i do agree with your critique of the current government.

And I am in favor of firing all 535 of them! Although I may make an exception for Liberman.

you are naming individuals, many of whom were not on the active list- Jackson being the most obvious. the United States Army as a whole (or even a majority) did not go over to the other side.

I was unhappy with the listing for two reasons, one being it was indentified as "some", and had no specific info on each. They were meant to be examples. But without further research I find your rebuttal less than satisfying.

again- i have not mentioned conceal or carry.
but the NRA has been opposed to delays for background checks, background checks, psychological assessments and the banning of weapon types and individual weapons and ammunitions. it has opposed banning armour piercing bullets- the so called "cop killers." this is the number one representative group for gun owners.

The NRA does not oppose background checks.
There is no opposition to "armor piercing" bullets being banned, to civilians. There is an objection to the change being sought that will identify nearly all rifle ammunition as "armor piercing". "(A)mending the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law, which currently restricts bullets made with certain metals and jacket constructions designed to penetrate protective vests worn by law enforcement officers. The change, supported by Sen. Obama, would ban any bullet that can be used in a handgun and that can penetrate the least protective vest worn by law enforcement officers." Clearly intended as an end around.
As for the "psychological assessments" Such a person would fail the background check.
Why are you so concerned about the mere mention of CCW? Data shows that in the places this is law has reduced crime!

[DuncanONeil]

To say; "government is meant to serve, not fear, the people. " is foolish. To make it simple, you fear your boss. Not because he is mean or any such thing but because he has the power to fire you.
For the Government to fear the people makes the Government responsive to the people. When the Government does not fear the people you arrive at a situation like we have now, where the Government decides that it does not matter what the people say or desire we are going to pass the law we think is best for them.
The people did not want to bail out the auto companies. The Government went ahead anyway! The people have determined that the Government plan for health insurance is fatally flawed and do not want it. What is the Government position? Pass it anyhow! We'll fix it later! The second part of that is proof they know it is flawed, why not fix it first?

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.
the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.
the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

[DuncanONeil]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

[Bren122]

"the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society. i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense."

Then how do you reconcile the fact that states that have authorized an ability for its citizens to carry concealed handguns experience a significant downturn in violent crime?

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.

[DuncanONeil]

No you did not I did. However, the focus and tenor of your recent messages has been that having weapons available and ready was the major contributing factor in wide spread violence. My making the jump to CCW, with its concomitant reduction in violent crime is more appropriate than your jumping back to either the founding or the expansion and attesting that those conditions do not exist and therefore the need for firearms does not exist.
Why is there a need in a modern city for firearms, some cities (some portions of others) have the same reputation as Dodge city did before the arrival of Wyatt and his brothers. I do not know how big that town was but it is not unreasonable to understand that you could get from one side to the other in a short period of time. I live in a place with some 600,000 people, 97 square miles of ground, and only a bit over 600 cops on duty at a given time, with less on the street. In certain parts of town you could be beaten to death before the cops get there. Yet you seem to wish to insist that that is my best option.
You also try to base a complete ban on firearms on a single category. The is a word for that tactic. To use such to get someone to agree and then postulate that into a general dismissal of all firearms is not a valid argument.

your post does not make sense in light of the quote; i don't mention conceal and carry laws.

it is this simple- liberals say that all guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.
i am saying that going to the public and saying that no gun should be banned because back in 1870 it was useful on the prairies is to ignore that very few people live on the prairies anymore. what possible reason could there be in an urban or rural environment for a gun with a 30-50 round magazine with a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds per minute?
the vast majority of the public are all for handguns for self defence and hunting rifles, etc. where you lose them, and worry them, is when you mount a defence for these automatic and semi-automatic military rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles.