Which begs the question how he came about those firearms. I mean, if everyone's responsible with their firearms than how could this psychotic clown get access to what... was it three different guns? Clearly, there's some gaps in the system... whether it be the black market (including conventions), and those quote unquote "responsible gun owners" who are quite sloppy managing their firearms (the Newtown school shooting).
I've been thinking long and hard how everyone could keep their firearms/clips while appeasing the anti-gun crowd, and I keep going back to the national guard. If you want to own unlimited/varying firearms than you have to join the national guard (a regulated militia). Not only will you serve your country (with service amended to a local capacity only), but you’ll get all the training necessary to responsibly handle any firearm (thereby further protecting your individual rights – the updated part of the constitution). Most importantly, the national guard could evolve to include social services that screen everyone with psychological exams to weed out – some of – the mentally ill applicants, and offer social services to anyone else in need. Some might argue the costs, but armed guards in schools don’t come cheap either. Others might argue why responsible gun owners should go through all this trouble to which I would counter that a well trained gun owner is a more responsible gun owner (and far more competent than the quote unquote “bad guy” with an illegally obtained firearm). This would also eliminate the need for the NRA along with its polar opposites, and it wouldn’t hurt firearm sales. There’s only one caveat; you’ll have to trust your government, so I concede my idea’s D.O.A. among this crowd.
You know what Himmler said when they disarmed the German populace?
If a citizen wants to use firearms he should join the SS or the SA. (paraphrased)
No shit, go look it up yourself. Oh, and while you're at it why don't you look into what the 1968 GCA was based on, some more Nazi regulations, intended to keep the poor blacks that were fighting for their rights from getting firearms. Who sponsored it? Democrats mostly, the same Democrats that were passing segregation laws in the south following the civil rights act in 64. The same democrats that have been pushing for gun control since.
See the parallels in your arguement. A disarmed populace is powerless against it's government. That is the reason the 2nd exists.
Also, you need to use the words in the Constitution in the context of their time. "A well regulated militia" does not mean what you think it means.
"well regulated" in the time frame meant disciplined citizens, not controlled by the state.
Here's what Hamilton had to say about it in Federalist 29: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
hamilton said:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
obviously he intended for the public at large to be armed, and to be armed well enough that they could serve effectively as a military force. Implying that the citizens of our nation should be armed similarly to the military.
There you go, a founding fathers own argument.
Point taken. I must admit it's hard - for me - to process why some of these bureaucracies can't be trimmed-back to a manageable size... especially in light of the current budget crisis. It seems like the opportune time to do so.
because the republicans and democrats in our country are not too dissimilar in their goals. Sure, they talk about their idealogical differences, but in practice they have one singular goal; remaining in power.
This is reflected in our partisan voting regulations that are exclusionary in nature, written by the two major parties in the last 60 years. And the redistricting controlled by those same two parties.
I too like Kastein am a registered Libertarian and have been for a long time.
it's funny that Liberal used to mean someone that was for liberty above all else, but that term was co-opted by the progressives. So now we're Libertarians.
If you are too stupid to not learn from history or think that it doesn't repeat itself than you deserve whatever it throws at you.
Always amazes me how humankind is so willing to stick their heads in the sand and pretend bad things never happened and that for some reason they couldn't again in the future.
You're right; I'm supposed to read posts from someone who makes loose connections between my comments regarding the American Nation Guard and the German SS. Besides why would you care what happened in Germany when you're quick to massacre Polish+German cold war History, ignore my comments because I'm a Canuck, and threaten to deport Piers Morgan back to England. You can't cherry pick world history in your favour, and call me stupid.
NAZI was originally a National labor union that got hooked up with Hitler
Then came Nationalized health care
and then came gun control,
check you history,
now think about Obama,
do you see any simularities
You're right; I'm supposed to read posts from someone who makes loose connections between my comments regarding the American Nation Guard and the German SS. Besides why would you care what happened in Germany when you're quick to massacre Polish+German cold war History, ignore my comments because I'm a Canuck, and threaten to deport Piers Morgan back to England. You can't cherry pick world history in your favour, and call me stupid.
You must me combining me and another guy. I don't think I've brought up German or polish history in this thread or any other. I just know history has a way if repeating itself and to wave away the horrible historical events like a bothersome fly is pretty damn dumb.
NAZI was originally a National labor union that got hooked up with Hitler
Then came Nationalized health care
and then came gun control,
check you history,
now think about Obama,
do you see any simularities
So does that mean - next - Obama will round up all the Gypsies, Poles and Jews, and put us on a train onto a boat onto another train off to Auschwitz? I hope not, I have Polish roots, I don't have blonde hair/ blue eyes, I’m politically vocal, and I’ve seen that death camp first hand.
You know the conversation’s going down the cr*pper when terms such as pinkos, libtards, and nazis are brought to the forefront of the discussion. We could sit here, drawing present-day conspiracies from select parts of history, or we could discuss how to secure gun ownership for everyone, best perform background checks on 100% of all new gun sales, and - after those NAZI comments - tackle mental health issues. Personally, I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away; I respect that part of America’s history/tradition; moreso, it wouldn’t be my place to say otherwise (even if I disagreed with gun ownership which I don't). I rather see bare minimums set to quiet the anti-gun crowd, but that requires both sides willing to compromise. Compromise never used to be a polarizing concept until recently it seems.
You must me combining me and another guy. I don't think I've brought up German or polish history in this thread or any other. I just know history has a way if repeating itself and to wave away the horrible historical events like a bothersome fly is pretty damn dumb.
It's not about drawing comparisons. it points to the reasoning of why the 2nd amendment was written the way it was, it allows us to prevent these kinds of things to happen. You cannot say it hasn't, why do you think this country came about in the first place, we fought for our independance and left our selves a way to do that agian if our goverment ever oversteps it's authority . The constitution is the law of the land and laws cannot circumvent it. If the do not like the way it is written, then they must try to get it ammended. That is not what they are doing, they are trying to circumvent it and that is illegal. They know they cannot amend it as that will take way more backing than they can get and they know it. This is a system where they want us to give and they take, next time they will expect us to give again and they will take, and this will continue until they have taken everything and we are left with nothing. I am not willing to accept that and will not give one inch of what I am gaurunteed by my constitutional rights.
once you do that, it will then also allow you to send letters to your local newspapers also. We need to educate the public, so remember to write level headed letters, they are already trying to portray us as gun crazy idiots
You're the one that invited the comparison with your own idea. Did you check the quote? Is it inaccurate? I did paraphrase it, but the root of it is accurate, and it's exactly what you proposed in modern form with our National Guard. Did you look at the text and structure of the GCA of 68 and compare it to the German legislation in 38? Who better to point out the similarities than the Jews?
Who else could possibly so invested in making sure that another government won't disarm it's population?
I merely pointed out that your reasoning was exactly the same reasoning that the German government used when they disarmed their people.
What happened afterwards was a result of a populace that could not defend themselves.
The 2nd amendment exists to protect us from that sort of thing.
I love that you ignore reasonable thoughts simply because they bring up a subject with which you are uncomfortable, or you dismiss them simply "because that can't happen." The crux of the gun control argument is based on feelings that such a thing cannot happen these days. Why can't such a thing happen? Do you feel better about life to think that it's impossible?
Newsflash, it's happening right now, in the middle east. Genocide of entire segments of populations.
Who's going to stop such a thing? The UN? A NATO coalition? That worked out wonderfully for all those Bosnians. We're not so far removed from genocide and mass murder as you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
Also, no thoughts on the wording of "regulated militia"? You need to understand the document and it's wording before you go pontificating on it's meaning. The supreme court ruled that "regulated milita" uses my definition, the correct one, and not yours. It does not mean regulated by the state or any government, as that would be self defeating to the amendment.
I like Senator Feinstein, she does a good job representing the state that elected her.
The assualt weapons ban enacted in 1994 was the result of the shootings at 101 California St in San Francisco. Here
Also it is important to note that Senator Feinstein was thrust onto the national stage while president of the county board of supervisors due to a double homicide assination. video footage.
Contrary to popular opinion then Mayor Feinstein courted the US Navy in an attempt to get the USS Iowa or USS Missouri Battle Groups homeported in San Francisco Bay. It was her successor Mayor 'No Nukes" Agnos and the Bay Area's contingent of congress members that squashed her plans.
Any attempt by Senator Feinstein for a renewal of an assualt weapons ban requires the passing in both houses of congress, the signature of the President, and the Constitutionally based challenges before the Supreme Court. For all the members that do not reside and vote in California, look at your own states elected members in both the House and Senate. Will they support an attempt by Senator Feinstein? If the answer is yes, well there's your problem.
The op-ed piece posted by xjeeper is spot on regarding commitment. The underfunding of state run institutions and the bureaucratic red tape to have a person that needs to be off the streets commited is appalling. The piece is also spot on regarding the "loophole?" and grandfathered pieces. The difference between what occurred in Germany & Austria last century and today's USA is that the US is populated with American's. American's don't like being told what to do and will say so loudly and if necessarily violently. This is a country that was born of revolution and I celebrate that every July 4th by exploding things.
The greatest threat to freedom in this country is complacency and letting emotions sway logic. We failed after 9-11 and allowed the creation of the DHS and the expanding power of the TSA. Private ownership of firearms is what keeps the US from becoming more of a police state than it already is. More machetes than guns were used in the Rhwandan genocide and Cain killed Able (or was it the otherway around) before gun powder was invented.
And so,* here* it* comes* again!***On the backs of dead innocents, and* the lying tongues of Washington D.C.* political hacks:* *Another* "Assault Weapons"* (sic)* Ban.* Real assault weapons are weapons that can fire in semi-automatic and* full automatic mode, and/or*in 3 round burst mode. No one in the USA can buy one of* those legally unless they go to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and pay them a couple of hundred dollars every year;* get fingerprinted and submit to a truly extensive background check;* waive*their rights to the 4th Amendment and; *give BATFE the right to enter your home at any time of the day or night, holidays, weekends, etc. unannounced so they can check and see*if your "little friend" is there with you!* If you plan on leaving your house with it, you must give notice to your municipality's and county's law enforcement agencies, and don't forget, BATFE!* If you plan on traveling anywhere in the USA with it, you must provide BATFE with an itinerary and have them approve it before hand, and then notify every single jurisdiction you will be going through (cities, counties, states) that you are*coming through with your "little friend".** In other words,* real assault weapons are super-regulated and monitored!** What the media and the anti-gun crowd like to call* "assault weapons" are* military look-alikes.* Sort of like the car* you drive to work everyday and the one that carries the same name that you see on NASCAR races.* They may look alike* but they are worlds away.* But hey, when the Founders drafted the* Bill of Rights they weren't thinking * "let's include a Second Amendment so that John Smith can go hunting*and *target shooting.* Heck, no.* They were thinking that* power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.* They were afraid* of what happened in Germany on January 31, 1933:* Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor, and he became a monstrous dictator and the ultimate psychopath; *or what happened in Egypt just a very short time ago:* President Morsi* was elected democratically, and now he has written* a very* unjust and religion-based Constitution and has given himself dictatorial powers with no oversight.** It's not being paranoid.*** It's*exactly what the Founders had in mind.* They did* not* trust* in* centralized* powerful governments. Period.* They wanted to guarantee a* measure of last resort should the USA succumb to a dictator who would attempt to abrogate all* God-given freedoms.
Feinstein is a liar who is leveraging dead children for political gain......as is Obama.
Why couldn't the NRA take literally 10 seconds to say..."and to you responsible gun owners out there, keep your guns in a safe,secure place at ALL times. Remember,responsible gun owners save lives through prevention."
You have got to love the irony here. The same newspaper that posted the names and addresses of permit holders in two NY counties had to hire (gasp) armed security because they felt threatened.
And so,* here* it* comes* again!***On the backs of dead innocents, and* the lying tongues of Washington D.C.* political hacks:* *Another* "Assault Weapons"* (sic)* Ban.* Real assault weapons are weapons that can fire in semi-automatic and* full automatic mode, and/or*in 3 round burst mode. No one in the USA can buy one of* those legally unless they go to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and pay them a couple of hundred dollars every year;* get fingerprinted and submit to a truly extensive background check;* waive*their rights to the 4th Amendment and; *give BATFE the right to enter your home at any time of the day or night, holidays, weekends, etc. unannounced so they can check and see*if your "little friend" is there with you!* If you plan on leaving your house with it, you must give notice to your municipality's and county's law enforcement agencies, and don't forget, BATFE!* If you plan on traveling anywhere in the USA with it, you must provide BATFE with an itinerary and have them approve it before hand, and then notify every single jurisdiction you will be going through (cities, counties, states) that you are*coming through with your "little friend".** In other words,* real assault weapons are super-regulated and monitored!** What the media and the anti-gun crowd like to call* "assault weapons" are* military look-alikes.* Sort of like the car* you drive to work everyday and the one that carries the same name that you see on NASCAR races.* They may look alike* but they are worlds away.* But hey, when the Founders drafted the* Bill of Rights they weren't thinking * "let's include a Second Amendment so that John Smith can go hunting*and *target shooting.* Heck, no.* They were thinking that* power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.* They were afraid* of what happened in Germany on January 31, 1933:* Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor, and he became a monstrous dictator and the ultimate psychopath; *or what happened in Egypt just a very short time ago:* President Morsi* was elected democratically, and now he has written* a very* unjust and religion-based Constitution and has given himself dictatorial powers with no oversight.** It's not being paranoid.*** It's*exactly what the Founders had in mind.* They did* not* trust* in* centralized* powerful governments. Period.* They wanted to guarantee a* measure of last resort should the USA succumb to a dictator who would attempt to abrogate all* God-given freedoms.
Feinstein is a liar who is leveraging dead children for political gain......as is Obama.
Wait, the founders of the constitution knew what was going to happen in Germany on January 31, 1933. Well, at least it took you guys over a dozen pages to confirm godwins laws.
Wait, the founders of the constitution knew what was going to happen in Germany on January 31, 1933. Well, at least it took you guys over a dozen pages to confirm godwins laws.
you sure like to twist things don't ya, what we are talking about is events that happened that they were smart enough to relize could happen and have happened. Not specific things in the future from when they wrote it, just senarios. They layed the framework to insure it was not a posibility here. Do you think those things would have been posible if the citizens in those events had been given the right to bear arms in those senarios.
I've been thinking long and hard how everyone could keep their firearms/clips while appeasing the anti-gun crowd, and I keep going back to the national guard. If you want to own unlimited/varying firearms than you have to join the national guard (a regulated militia). Not only will you serve your country (with service amended to a local capacity only), but you’ll get all the training necessary to responsibly handle any firearm (thereby further protecting your individual rights – the updated part of the constitution). Most importantly, the national guard could evolve to include social services that screen everyone with psychological exams to weed out – some of – the mentally ill applicants, and offer social services to anyone else in need. Some might argue the costs, but armed guards in schools don’t come cheap either. Others might argue why responsible gun owners should go through all this trouble to which I would counter that a well trained gun owner is a more responsible gun owner (and far more competent than the quote unquote “bad guy” with an illegally obtained firearm). This would also eliminate the need for the NRA along with its polar opposites, and it wouldn’t hurt firearm sales. There’s only one caveat; you’ll have to trust your government, so I concede my idea’s D.O.A. among this crowd.
You see, that idea still makes it a requirement that the government approve of you before you can own a firearm. It is in fact a defacto ban.
This is counter to the thoughts of the 2nd amendment, as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court happens to be the final say on our rights regarding the constitution, so I put it to the people that want to restrict my right to own a firearm:
Amend the 2nd amendment or piss off. Even at that, the Constitution does not grant a damned thing, it is there to protect us from government taking away natural rights.
Owning a firearm and having the right to protect myself and those around me are natural rights given to me by no man or government.
Wait, the founders of the constitution knew what was going to happen in Germany on January 31, 1933. Well, at least it took you guys over a dozen pages to confirm godwins laws.
No you twit, the founding fathers had only lived under tyranny and planned for it's re emergence. Why don't you dig into the history a bit and see what the real start of our Revolutionary war was about.
members that do not reside and vote in California, look at your own states elected members in both the House and Senate. Will they support an attempt by Senator Feinstein? If the answer is yes, well there's your problem.
