my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » right to bear arms (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: right to bear arms
11bravocharlie2
unregistered

posted 04-30-2000 12:39 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I hear alot of people talk about the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals, but I don't here anyone talk about the right to bear arms against our own government. One of our founding fathers said something like "A people who fear the government live in tyranny.A government who fears the people there is freedom." I for one believe the American citizen should be able to own the basic infantry rifle that our military has. And I do own one except it is not automatic which is of little use in accurate shooting and does not bother me. During our Revolutionary War if the average citizen did not own an equal or better weapon as the British did we probably would have lost the War. It was close enough as it was. I do not believe our government will in the near future go nuts or we will get a dictator. At the same time, time changes and as history tells us so do governments. If you believe that crime will stop without guns or our government will never become more corrupt than you are ignorant about history. Just pick up any world history book and look at how many wars there have been in the last century. How many countries have been occupied by other countries.If the citizens can not own decent weapons than governments can pass any laws they want to. We may have more murders than most other nations, but we are by far the most free country in the world. Alot of out crime is caused from social and parenting issues. No stable two parent homes where there is almost always a parent at home(greed). Kids are not being watched after school to see who they are spending time with.Perpetual welfare class of people where crime and ignorance runs rampant.

IP: Logged
bod
Member
Member # 2333

posted 04-30-2000 12:59 AM     Profile for bod   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
If the citizens can not own decent weapons than governments can pass any laws they want to

Yes, sure. On what planet do you live?

Posts: 80 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
JFA
unregistered

posted 04-30-2000 01:14 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree, let every citizen have a basic infantry rifle. Assuming the government doesn't resort to the use of aircraft, armored vehicles, or artillery to crush a rebellion, our freedoms will be safeguarded.
IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 04-30-2000 01:42 AM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
JFA,

What good are mechanized forces against freedom fighters living amongst a populace? Tanks, planes and artillery tubes are the unwieldy tools of yesterday in so-called fourth generation warfare. Unless the government resorted to Chechnya style attacks on populated areas, all the expensive toys would be useless.

Besides, who says patriots couldn't get their hands on portable nuclear, biological or chemical weoponry in today's world Not to mention that even the most Orwellian would-be overlord would give pause after a .308 slug tunnels through his thick skull...

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
JFA
unregistered

posted 04-30-2000 01:59 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hmmm...I stand corrected.


IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 04-30-2000 02:04 AM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
QUOTE "I hear alot of people talk about the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals, but I don't here anyone talk about the right to bear arms against our own government." UN-QUOTE.

Er....am I reading this right? Are you saying that you should HAVE access to military weapons so that you CAN use them against your currently LAWFULLY incumbent government? WHY would you want to do that?

The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 04-30-2000 02:11 AM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Raver >

Some of my recent ancestors and older relatives did just that against their lawful government, located in Vichy.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jussi Saari
unregistered

posted 04-30-2000 07:27 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I've got a two questions to all of you who think that freedom and democracy are in danger unless people have guns:

1. How many cases can you name where a western democracy had it's government turn into oppressive tyrants because citizens didn't have enough guns, or where an attempt to do so was prevented by people having guns.

2. Since attack helicopters and armored vehicles with thermal sights can be a huge threat against a force that has no anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons, should also Stingers, LAWs and Javelins be available to anyone who has the money?


Jussi


IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 04-30-2000 09:09 AM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Raver yu funny funny guy

The misconception about the idea of democracy and the implementation of it is the following:
Democracy in theory INSISTS on participation of the eligible voters.
Democracy also requires a valid palette of would b representatives.

None of the above conditions are presently met - thus the process is undemocratic, invalid = illegal

In a future conflict between the armed forces and the populace I`d hope to see the ranks deserting and making for home with the hardware entrusted to them in order to protect their own families from the ensuing anarchy Local spontanious alliances, miltias are the key IMO...

The periodic redistribution of wealth is as inevidable in any society as death of the individual or taxes

The Army cannot sustain itself without the support of civilians, thus I don`t think it`d be effective in the long run in maintaining the status quo.

[This message has been edited by Toecutter (edited 04-30-2000).]


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 04-30-2000 06:48 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
So, if someone told you to pay tax and you didn't want to, you'd shoot hi,? Is that the theory, or what?
It's probably the most stupid suggestion I've ever heard.
There should be NO guns whatsoever allowed.
Only the police and territorial defence units should be allowed to have any kind of weapons.
Americans claim that they wouldn't be safe unless they have a gun to fend of criminals.
what they don't realize is that all those guns in the society is what is making it unsafe.
In Sweden, "civilians" are only allowed to have hunting rifles and competition guns.
They are not allowed to be carried in public places and are to be locked in certain rifle safes when not used.
In the last decade there have been (as far as I know) three or four incidents with random killings (the kind we hear happening in the US hundreds of times every year).
Of course bank robbers and such use guns, but they're mostly stolen military weapons.

Anyway, there is NO need for any american citizens to carry guns, if you ban and collect them at once.
You're f***ing brainwashed.

------------------
Up there, where the air is rare...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 04-30-2000 07:47 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bogey, would you like to be one of the jackbooted thugs who'd have to search {and probably tear apart} every single private dwelling and yard of property to check for hidden guns? That's pretty much what would have to happen and what the "Master Race" types did.

I'd say gun control had better apply to a nation's army and government agencies as well as its private citizens, with 100's of millions killed this century by governments out of control, I'd say they're the ones that have no need for weoponry.

Also as I said in another post, you Europeans don't yet have the massive hard drug blight present over here, wait 'till you see that sh*t, you'll love it!

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 04-30-2000 08:32 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Interesting post. Actually until relatively recently, the general population of the USA WAS better armed than the military.(In the area of small arms.) Early on the Army had smoothbore muskets. The people had access to rifles.(Much superior!) Then came rifled muskets for the Army...Henry repeating rifles for the population...Again in the 1860's,70's,80's Winchester repeaters were prevalent amoung the average citizen while the Army had to use the single-shot Sharps and Springfield rifles. In the early 20th Century everyone could buy whatever rifle the Army was using. The Thompson sub-machine gun was sold to the general public FIRST because the Army was not interested! And so began the first instance where the Govt. feared it was out-gunned by the public. So what happened? They BANNED unregulated sales of the Tommy gun! Sure you say, that was because criminals were gunning down each other and the Police in the streets. Did the ban stop the criminals from using Tommy guns?
After WWII surplus weapons were again numerous and cheap. The public could buy just about any weapon of war it wanted as long as it was not fully automatic and over .50cal. Then came Oswald and things started down the long road to gun-owner hell! Military weapons became harder to acquire. The prices start to rise. Now the better weapons were no longer as accessable to the common man. 30yrs. later along came Bill and now semi-auto military weapons are under attack.

I guess the point to all of this is its not such a strange or shocking idea that the US population should be at least as well armed as the average soldier. In fact its a time honored tradition that has just recently come under attack by Government. Then again as Govt. continues to trample on the civil liberties of its people,perhaps Govt. SHOULD fear a well armed population!

Look...There is no way the American people will take up arms against its Govt. unless it is the last recourse to save liberty. However if it ever comes to that,don't think it can't happen.

------------------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
11bravocharlie2
unregistered

posted 05-01-2000 12:53 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bod I did not mean that our government here in United States is going to pass unjust laws or there is going to be a dictator. What I meant is that as long as the populace has the means to defend itself it is kind of a balance of power which I hope the citizens never have to use.Jussi Saari most "Western Democracies" are to young to have a good idea what lies in the future. Western Democracy is a spec of sand in human history. As for arms citzens should be allowed to own I don't think they should be allowed to own tanks, helicopters, antitank missiles, antiaircraft missiles, or anything of that distructive power. All I'm saying is we should be allowed to own the basic infantry rifle. As it is now we are allowed though it is semi auto. Believe me I spent time in the 101st airborne division as an infantry soldier and it is easier to hit your target with semi-auto mode. Next comes our Swedish reader. First when is the last war the Swedish fought in. You are lucky your country did not feel the wrath of Hitler. Sweden had a pretty good steel production deat with the Germans in World War Two. Second Sweden does not have the diverse and disparety of cultures and economic woes of the United States. We have alot of scum bags here that cause most of the problems with guns. The vast majority of suburban law abiding gun owners never cause a problem here. It is usually the young inner city toads that cause most of the crimes with guns. The recent shootings in the past couple two years could be blamed on poor parent guidance and the amount of violence on tv, at the movies, and video games. Prior to the 70's there was little in youth gun violence. There just happened to be less violent movies, no video games, and divorce rates were lower. I will not give up my guns because some stupid parent did not bring up there kid right and the kid stole a gun or bought a gun from someone who stole it and kills someone. Believe me I do not want to fight our government in the future I believe in firearms as a last resort and only for defence. I would not feel as free without them, we Americans have a special freedom, but there is a price to pay for it. There are nut jobs out there who will use guns for the wrong reasons and always will. I think there will be a moral revolution in this country if anything. We need to get back to dedicated marriages. Break the cycle of unmarried pregnancy by no longer socially condoning it.Breaking the welfare trap. Learn to respect our elders again. Less material greed. I think if we do this and shield our chidren from some of the violence of games, movies, and television violence might lessen.
IP: Logged
11bravocharlie2
unregistered

posted 05-01-2000 01:02 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I did not mean to put down video games. I love video games, but the more violent ones should be kept from kids until they are more mentally developed to deal with the violence. Being able realize it is just a game and once you turn it off it does not affect your social skills and judgment. My two favorites are Microsoft Combat flight simulator and I was waiting for Silent Hunter 2 to come out. I hope it does it looks like I would lose alot of sleep over it. Thats one of may gauges for a good game.
IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 05-01-2000 02:55 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The trouble is, the idea of the civilians being as well-armed as the infantry might have been ok back when the most harm that one nutcase could do with a rifle was kill a few people. But now, one nut with an M-16 or AK-47 can kill ten or twenty people, sometimes more. That provides plenty of ammunition for the leftists to use against the Second Amendment.

But things get worse as weapons technology advances. Has anyone seen the latest types of basic infantry rifles that will come into service in ten years? The US Army's next basic infantry weapon will be not only a rifle but also a grenade launcher, with thermal sights and other gadgetry, all packed into a compact little weapon. You can bet we won't be allowed to buy those!

And what about 20 or 30 years from now, when you're wimpiest infantry weapon is a particle beam rifle ten times as deadly as an M-16? And for that matter, if you still have the right to own an M-16 in 30 years, what good will it do against government troops and police wearing body armor that won't even be fazed by such wimpy projectiles as a 20th century armor-piercing "cop killer" round? You see what I'm getting at.

Technology is making the right to bear arms obsolete. As the offensive and defensive capability of armies and police forces increases each year, it becomes clear that there is no way civilians are going to be allowed to even remotely keep up.

As much as I hate it, there is no stopping this trend where the balance of combat power swings completely to the side of the government. It's a natural product of the very same technology we enjoy everyday. And yes, over time this will affect how governments treat their citizenry. As police forces and armies becoming increasingly omnipotent compared to the civilians, of course an attitude of contempt for those citizens will result. We already see this in places like China or Iraq.

Also, remember that in the future surveillance technology will progress to the point where everyone, everywhere, will be monitored all the time. Sophisticated AI will ferret out the troublemakers for law enforcement, long before said troublemakers have even had a chance to get a decent rebellion organized. Technology will allow a relatively small number of police and military personell to control huge populations. And of course, to control riots and other large-scale disturbances, non-lethal devices using methods like EM pulses will be able to neutralize entire crowds at will. So even civil disobedience will become useless in the future.

As the 21st century progresses, we "old timers" are just going to have to accept an end to the freedoms we grew up with. Citizens will have a lot of rights on paper but not in reality. But one good thing about technololgy is that governments will be able to put down insurrections without having to resort to crude responses like pulverizing towns and doing mass roundups of people just to get a few rebels. As long as you pay your 80% income tax and keep your mouth shut, you should be fine.

[This message has been edited by mbaxter (edited 05-01-2000).]


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 05-01-2000 05:09 AM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Pretty good summary MBaxter but you have to remember that technology can b turned against either side in an instant...
Tho I don`t believe that this centralized form of government will survive much longer(I`d give the corrosion to fully consume the current model another decade...) the trends that you`re describing are truly frightening. Hell, I`ll just move to Japan for a little acclimation...

That`s the reason anarchy is a viable alternative...for me...but then I`m being overly optimistic here...


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-01-2000 07:13 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bogey - "There should be NO guns whatsoever allowed. Only the police and territorial defence units should be allowed to have any kind of weapons."
Abso-friggen-lutely correct! I totally agree wtih you. Thank God for someone with with some nous here.
I'll have to add that I think that farmers do on the odd occasion need to have small weapons to deal with vermin, etc.

Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 05-01-2000 07:55 AM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I posted this under another topic, but I'll post it again. My friend wrote it about a month ago:

For many people, the word "propaganda" evokes dark connotations of the Third Reich and swastikas along with fascist and communist regimes. Many people hear the word "propaganda" and automatically associate it with negative, oppressive actions. In order to understand where people get the idea that propaganda is an evil nemesis, let's first define "propaganda." "Propaganda" is the spreading of ideas or information deliberately to further one's cause or damage an opposing cause; also ideas, facts, or allegations spread for such a purpose, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Nowhere does the definition describe propaganda as existing solely to coerce others to be mere myrmidons of the state. The reason many people think of propaganda the way they do is because of government indoctrination or, in other words, propaganda the government (and Left) uses to affect and taint the citizen's view of propaganda. Although this article will expose some of the methods of Left-wing propagation, I am not writing about the usage and influence of propaganda. This article will address the gun control issue and, as previously mentioned, uncover some of the propaganda the Left uses to push its illogical, shameful anti-gun agenda. Without a doubt, this writing will be labeled right-wing propaganda and be thought of as radical by some people, particularly gigantic intellectuals such as Diane Feinstein (Rep. CA-D), Joni Kletter, Cynthia Tucker (AJC writer), and other groups from the Left. Whatever pathetic rhetoric and outlandish statistics the Left uses to further its illogical belief, one can see past their omissions and half-truths by using simple logic and reasoning skills combined with the facts.
Guns are inanimate objects. In the world's entire history, no inanimate object has ever done anything but obey the laws of gravity and physics. That being said, the old phrase "People don't kill people, guns kill people" should be discarded as incorrect. Crime is a people problem, not a hardware problem. Of course, the proponents of gun control sadly fail to realize the facts. You see, these people cannot deal with the logic of the matter, therefore they hide from it and must resort to using half-truths and manipulating statements. You are more than likely familiar with Bill Clinton's claim that more than a dozen children are killed by a gun each day. Did you know that in that certain statistic, a "child" is defined as anyone under the age of 25? The reason the age is so high is because if it wasn't, Clinton and all of his demagogues might actually have to face-up to the truth; if it wasn't like that they couldn't put on a frown and talk about how many "children" are killed each day by people using guns.
Let's now move on to discuss Diane Feinstein. Ms. Feinstein is an elected senator in California; she is also a Democrat. One of the actions that gained her notoriety in the gun debate was her crusade to "ban" assault weapons and high capacity magazines. That idea of hers was based purely on cosmetic features. Despite media depictions, real assault rifles are extremely rarely used in crimes. I doubt that Ms. Feinstein could even tell us what an assault rifle is. Ms. Feinstein is quick to attack the responsible gun owning citizens of America for owning firearms; however, she is also quick to buy and carry a gun for herself. Ms. Feinstein had, and still might have, a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Either she might actually have begun to see just how asinine the anti-gun crowd really is, or the hypocrisy is absurd.
Throughout all the gun hysteria, you will constantly hear Liberals refer to nonsense data and make statements that are completely devoid of any rational thought whatsoever. Recently a column appeared in the Yale Daily News that confronted the gun control issue. The column, written by Joni Kletter, was later reprinted in the Oklahoma Daily; it was in the Oklahoma Daily where David Deming read Ms. Kletter's column. Dr. Deming as an associate professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, holds a Ph.D., and is an NRA member; obviously this man is not stupid. In Ms. Kletter's article she brilliantly wrote, "easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country, including criminals, youth and the mentally disabled, to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want." First of all, let's examine an obvious lack of logic displayed by this woman: Deranged killers with handguns would have a lot easier time killing "as many random people as they want" if their victims were all prohibited from owning handguns. Dr. Deming decided he should respond to the column with a very valid point: "I just want to point out that Kletter's 'easy access' to a vagina enables her to 'quickly and easily' have sex with 'as many random people' as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let's hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs." It is undeniably so that easy access to a gun gives a person the chance to use that gun and go on a killing spree. Same thing with anyone behind the wheel of a car driving past a group of pedestrians. However, the very same easy access to a gun gives a person the opportunity to defend themselves against a predator with bad intentions.
The mainstream media, a favorite tool of the Left, also greatly contributes to the brainwashing of people. Last year in Georgia it became easier for a citizen to obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm. Needless to say, this upset many Liberals, especially Cynthia Tucker. Ms. Tucker, an editor and writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote that it would be "open season" on police officers and that officers would die in large numbers due to the increased level of ease for private citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits. This is a perfect instance of the aversion to the facts most Leftists have on the issue. The fact is, as pointed out by Neal Boortz, that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in the United States where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit. What is frightening is that this woman controls what you read in the newspaper. How's that for propaganda, or should I say the lack of and purposeful disregard for more logical, sensible newstories that show the positive usage of firearm possession? Americans use guns to defend themselves over one million times each year -- and 98% of the time the gun isn't even fired, just shown.
Look, I'm not denying that there is a serious crime problem in America. There is, but gun control is definitely not the answer. Surely enough, the facts show that violent crime rates decrease when it becomes easier for private, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple and makes sense: Criminals don't like the idea that their victim may be armed. Still not convinced? Here are some cold hard facts for you to choke on: 99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year, and 99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year. Also, out of all violent crimes committed, ones where guns were used only account for 12%; and the vast majority of the guns used to commit these crimes were stolen. One more thing, instead of creating new firearm legislation, wouldn't it make more sense to just enforce the current laws? Bill Clinton doesn't think so. Since Clinton has entered office, prosecutions for firearm violations have declined over 54%, yet this creep continues to call for more gun legislation. Pathetic.
As each piece of firearm legislation builds up on another, it is ultimately leading to the disarmament of private citizens in the United States. Socialists like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are set on this; they await the day when it is illegal for Americans to possess and use guns. This means that only criminals and the GOVERNMENT will carry guns. Is that what you want? Criminals have zero regard for the law right now, why would that be any different once guns are outlawed? Criminals are still going to get and use guns whether they are illegal or not. This is serious, folks. If we remain on the current path, it will inevitably lead us to the day when it is a felony for a man to own a gun, to exercise his Second Amendment right. In case you forgot, the Second Amendment is as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Some groups interpret the Second Amendment as a method of enabling the government to arm a government militia. This is an obscene misinterpretation. If, in fact, the purpose of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is to enable the government to arm a government militia, then this would be the only one of the Ten Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights that confers a power or right on the government.
Use your power of choice wisely. Go vote on election days (unless you are on welfare). I deeply urge you to look into the Libertarian presidential candidate, Harry Browne. Mr. Browne is a very intelligent man who would make a fine president. You can receive information concerning Mr. Browne, his party affiliation, and platform by visiting www.lp.org. If, after reading this, you still support the gun control effort, then you have a serious comprehension inability. Bill "The Era of Big Government Is Over" Clinton is a liar and a rapist. His wife is a liar as well; remember that. The final words of this text come from Charley Reese. "You can rely on the government to protect you and your family, but as for me, I will choose Colt, Glock, and Remington. They're more reliable than the administration and more accurate than most newstories about firearms."


I posted some other stuff under the safety locks topic if you want to read it


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
1
unregistered

posted 05-01-2000 09:48 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
icebrain, i beleive in owning firearms, but i know right wing propaganda when i see it.
IP: Logged
JFA
unregistered

posted 05-01-2000 10:26 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[the old phrase "People don't kill people, guns kill people" should be discarded as incorrect.]

What? I've never heard it phrased that way, ever. I have heard it phrased the opposite way countless times by gun rights advocates.


IP: Logged
Dan.
unregistered

posted 05-01-2000 11:54 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter,

Your post starting with "The trouble is, the idea of the civilians being as well-armed as the infantry might have been ok back when..."

Outstanding! I recently wrote and article for my newsletter (for my Tactical Hangun organization) pretty much on that. My take was since the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to own "arms," and specifically NOT "ordinance," we would end up not being able to own the next generation of military smallarms as they would be including ordinance in the weapons system. I speak of the 20mm and .223 mix coming up sometime in the next decade or sooner.

Okay, now my question: Can I reprint your post, in it's entirety, in the June edition of my newsletter? Want a copy or subscription?


Bogey,

I'm gonna keep this short, so you can follow it.

In America (and I am quickly caring less about other countries), LESS than 2% of all guns are EVER used in a crime.

In all violent crimes, handguns are used LESS than 8% of the time. WE DO NOT have a gun problem, we have a crime problem.

The PRESENCE OF A GUN has been documented by Handgun Control Inc, an anti gun organization, to prevent over 85,000 violent crimes per year.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Report says the presence of a gun deters over 500,000 violent crimes per year.

So, where is your problem? Leave the guns where they belong: in the hands of law abiding Americans. If your country does not have our crime rate, well, good for you. But, do NOT be so f***ing arrogant to force your cultural viewpoint down my throat.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Dan


IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 05-01-2000 03:39 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Dan, by all means feel free. What newsletter are you referring to, by the way?
Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 05-01-2000 03:58 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Right to bear arms... how about...the right to arm bears

I believe that more than anything the gun control advocates lean strongly towards the left of the political spectrum.

They want everybody to abide the thousands of rules and not be able to defend themselves when the friggin goose stepping gestapo/secret police come knocking at your door.

I'm sorry but when you start screwing around with the Constitution...I'm reaching for my rifle. Those sacred words that were put on paper by our fore fathers were NEVER meant to be toyed with...nough said!


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Big Stick
Member
Member # 596

posted 05-01-2000 07:30 PM     Profile for Big Stick     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Amen.
Posts: 571 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 05-01-2000 08:28 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What the U.S. and Canadian governments are doing is unethical, if not criminal. By refusing to enforce exsisting laws and go after criminal organizations, they've created the current situation of crime and hysteria. Then they go and blame gun owners for the results of their inactions.

It's almost like letting drunk/dangerous drivers have a free run of carnage behind the wheel {while the authorities do little or nothing} until the government reacts by banning private automobiles. I really do think there are people who benefit by letting lawlessness slide until radical government intervention seems like the only answer.

I'm sick of paying for other people's mistakes, and as a young person I'm sick of rights and opportunities vanishing before my eyes before I have any say in it. I hope those responsible die badly.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
icebrain
Member
Member # 1981

posted 05-01-2000 08:56 PM     Profile for icebrain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
nicely worded, guys... I got the following in an email earlier today...

MORE ANTI-GUN SILLINESS

The city of Annapolis, Maryland, wants to buy back toy guns. And no ... I’m not kidding.

Last week, Annapolis Alderman Cynthia Carter proposed that the city start a program to buy back water pistols, cap guns, and other toy weapons. She wants to curb violent behavior among children and argues that children "can't distinguish between a real gun or a play gun."

That's not all. Carter adds that she wants to eventually make all toy guns illegal.

What an absolutely moronic idea. Does Carter really think that toy guns make children violent? Does she really think that the lack of parental involvement and a culture of violence take a back seat to plastic guns when it comes to the root causes of violence in this country? Saying toy guns are responsible for youth violence is like saying toy cameras breed a new generation of pornographers.

The Washington Times reports that Steve Dasbach, the national director of the Libertarian Party, had something to say on the subject: "Do we praise this politician for going after toy guns instead of constitutionally protected real guns? Or do we point out that buying back toy guns will no more keep our streets safe than buying back non-alcoholic beer will keep Ted Kennedy sober? Or should we just give this politician an award for coming up with the most entertainingly goofy idea of the year?"

It's absolutely ludicrous--but it's just more of the same predictable nonsense from the leftist anti-individual rights crowd.

Brace yourself, folks. The anti-gun rhetoric is becoming more and more shrill – more irrational – more pervasive – and more dangerous. I’ll stand by my prediction. If the Democrats take the White House this year look for an absolute ban on all but hunting and antique firearms by 2005. Those same federal officers that went in after Elian will be coming in after your guns.

also, this was printed in "the vent" of the ajc, possibly one of the most leftist publications around: "They went after Elian because of people with guns" does that make ANY sense AT ALL?!?!?

now along this note, im thinking of starting a pool as to how long it takes our government to completely corrupt itself and collapse into a fascist regime... it depends on who is elected... if gore, maybe by 2005


Posts: 589 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
JFA
unregistered

posted 05-02-2000 12:55 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[...rhetoric is becoming more and more shrill – more irrational – more pervasive...]

There's been a lot of that going around lately. Now Al Gore is a fascist?

No offense, but I think some of you might be alienating potential supporters with your hysterical accusations, blanket condemnations, and exaggerated predictions of doom. It's quite possible to defend the second amendment without coming across like a LaRouchie. I used to be in favor of stricter gun control laws. I am now generally opposed to such laws. I was won over by statistics and philosophical, constitutional, and legal arguments, not by polemics and invective.

Flame away, if you feel like it.


IP: Logged
Big Stick
Member
Member # 596

posted 05-02-2000 02:10 AM     Profile for Big Stick     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
This is great...

We (The People) have to defend the Constitution.

Every president is obligated to swear to defend the Constitution. It is a pre-condition for him to take the office (BTW, what would happened if the president-Clinton-elect simply refused to take the oath?), but after he performs "the drill", he is free to f... it every time he feels like it. Can you say "'executive order' or 'executive privilege'"?

What was the name of one of his goons (the one whose hair travelled from his head to his chin, the really skunky one) who actually said it in front of the camera,:

"a stroke of a pen... a new law, pretty cool, huh? And f.. you the american citizens wherever you are. "

Man, I miss a "trial by fire"...

The second amendment is not about hunting!!!! Is it about keepin the government in check.


Posts: 571 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 05-02-2000 05:42 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good God I weep for some of you people ...
You just can't be helped!

Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
1
unregistered

posted 05-02-2000 08:50 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
the second amendment is not about keeping the government in chek, its about assembling a militia that will be under government control to repell any invasion and to put down any rebellion, wich was common back then.
IP: Logged
Raver
Member
Member # 2100

posted 05-02-2000 09:08 AM     Profile for Raver   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Billzilla,

mate I can understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day, you and I don't live "over there" and so trying to impose OUR moral views on the question of gun control in North America doesn't hold water, just as an American trying to dismiss our answer to crime/gun control don't hold water either.

It is far better to ask questions so as to try to understand where they are coming from rather than just make a blanket statement. That way you can be more informed rather than sinking into a flame war which acheives nothing.

In principle I agree with what you are saying, but having locked horns with other members on this site, I now have an understanding of why they are so passionate about their "right to bear arms". It is not a simple case of black and white...it is deeply linked to issues of lawlessness and also corruption at most levels of government.
Issues which we too see in Aust, but no where near as bad as in the US.

The Raver has spoken!


Posts: 276 | From: Melb/Aust | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Dan.
unregistered

posted 05-02-2000 10:03 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter,

I founded and direct a tactically oriented shooting club that allows shooters, from novice to experienced, a chance to learn and practice tactical handgun (and occasionally rifle or carbine) shooting.

I publish a newsletter for, but not restricted to, the members titled Silhouette.

Thanks for the permission, it'll be in the June edition!

Si Vis etc

Dan


IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 05-02-2000 12:41 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Raver, anyone >

I can appreciate your statements, I was actually for gun control when I was younger, until I began studying the issue and found some troubling inconsistancies on the anti gun side. Actually the push against induvidual rights isn't merely limited to gun control, free speech, freedom of religeon etc are all being slowly eroded.

I've spoken to many induviduals of differing political views {many who I wouldn't have thought I'd have anything in common with} ranging from Far Righters to Marxist-Leninists who don't like what's going on either. To the New Leftists who are behind the denial of the induvidual, any view differing from theirs' is seen as extreme or an illegitimate aberration to be discounted outright.

It's these people that really irk me, I'm not forcing them to go out and purchase a collection of firearms so I don't expect to be attacked on any front in return. By and large these people seem to be wealthy and privledged, often products of a generation that grew up in unprecidented opportunity and freedom and yet now see fit to attack, attack, attack those same principles now that've moved into the means of power.

What's wrong with these people? It's a big jump between pushing for civil rights and argueing on the alledged merits of say, warrentless and trialess property seizures, searches and other such harassment, nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
bod
Member
Member # 2333

posted 05-02-2000 01:04 PM     Profile for bod   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
How come none of these lefties are on the net? Who are they?
Posts: 80 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 05-02-2000 04:44 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Big Stick...The first time I heard the term "Executive privilege" was when Nixon was in the Whitehouse. The next time was when Regan was lying about Iran-Contra(which BTW is probably the most CRIMINAL act EVER carried out by a sitting president). The third time was by Bush trying to cover up HIS involvment in Iran-Contra. Clinton was just following his predecessors lead when confronted by embarrassing questions. Selective memory problem, I guess!

About citizens owning advanced military weapons...Ideally,at least, the Govt. should not and has no right to fear a law abiding citizen with a machine-gun. The Army could train me and say "Here, keep these Stingers and LAWs under lock and key. Use them only if called upon to do so." They would be perfectly safe from threat by me. And there are millions of people like this in the US. If that sounds crazy to you, then you don't know American History. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be controlled by a corrupt ruler or govt. That is why they put their trust in the American citizen and allowed individual rights to bear arms. Standing armies came about as a necessity to fight foreign wars and invasion from outside. You need a highly trained and cohesive force to combat other highly trained armies and to project power abroad. It is still constitutionally up to "the people" to defend Democracy from within. Why do you think it is illegal for the military to perform civilian police duties?(Another vital concept that has fallen to the War on Drugs BTW!) Which brings up another example of why more and more Americans are finally waking up and seeing the "light". There have been a few "things" happening in the US over the past 10-15 years. These "things" individually seem resonable to most. They were enacted under the honorable guise of "public safety" and the "War on Drugs".
Road-Side Safety Checks...Americans can no longer operate their motor vehicles on public streets in a legal manner without being subject to stop and search by Police. At these roadblocks you must show your "papers"(drivers liscense,registration,insurance card)and demonstrate you are not "unsafe" before you can procede. While you are showing one officer your papers, others are walking around looking in the passenger commpartment. Courts say if this a "random' practice then its OK. (unusual concept,but quite handy as we shall see).
Gun-control falls under "Public Safety"
The War on Drugs...
Outright seizure of private property by LAW ENFORCEMENT not judiciary, without a hearing. YOU must prove said property was NOT acquired by drug money. They don't have to prove anything except there were drugs present on said property.
It is illegal in many states to carry over a certain amount of cash. Again said cash is subject to seizure and YOU must prove the money came from a legitimate source.(Usually its not much money either...a few thousand dollars)
Drug testing...You must submit to search and seizure of bodily fluids,without probable cause,if you want employment or to retain employment in most places. In effect you are being accused of having illegal drugs in your system and are required to prove to your employer that you do not.(Again OK if it is "random")
Certain parties in Govt. are increasingly asking for "help" from the military to combat the influx of drugs into the country. Definately a Police action.
The Miranda Law is coming under fire as not being necessary anymore.
Ruby Ridge,WACO,Elian,The Media Propagandists,and on and on.....
The list keeps getting larger and "things" that were once taken for granted as freedoms are no more.
Well...got a little long winded and most of you fellow Americans already know what I'm saying. This post is aimed at those who are having trouble understanding where we "paranoid Americans" are coming from.

------------------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
bod
Member
Member # 2333

posted 05-02-2000 05:12 PM     Profile for bod   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"This post is aimed at those who are having trouble understanding where we "paranoid Americans" are coming from"
I don't know about other non-americans, but i can't see this as anything else than the fact that you do not have a *working and living* democracy. But what is strange is that it does not seem like you want a democracy either, you want anarchy. I don't know exactly what, but there is something very unlogical about what you are saying.

Posts: 80 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 05-02-2000 07:07 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
bod, anarchy in North America would be a disaster who's effects would be felt for decades, and not just within our borders. However, it or just about anything else would be preferable to totalitarianism. You guys seem to trust your leadership more than I could say I can, probably with good reason.

While I think the Canadian government is more stupid and shallow than anything else, the corrupt U.S. government, which has a very big say in what happens in Canada, worries me. When you guys think of your government you think of mature, stable democracy. Over here, at the reigns of the sole remaining superpower, obsolute power has corrupted absolutely.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 05-02-2000 10:17 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
bod...You nailed it when you say the US isn't a "living and working Democracy". How can a democracy work when only 30% of the eligible population bothers to vote in any given election? A lot of voters that do so regularly, always vote along strict party lines regardless of the candidates. Most Americans appearently are happy living in their own little worlds and could care less about issues unless they feel directly affected by them. I hear them all the time...I don't drink and drive. Why should I care about roadblocks...I'll pee in the cup. I'm not a dope-head...I don't have any use for a gun. They might as well ban them all...I don't use drugs,what do I care if some dealer looses his yacht?...blah,blah...never imagining anything happening to them. These are the same people who were screaming bloody murder when LA was burning and they had to wait 7 days to purchase a gun to protect themselves.DUH!!!! Or the boat owner who lost his yacht because someone he invited onboard to a party left a joint in the ashtray.DOH!! I guess its just that I remember when the Constitution really meant something. It had the ultimate power,through strict intrepertation by the courts,and its power was final and not to be trifled with. Sadly we are losing the very foundation of our government when the President,legislators, and the courts can say "The Constitution doesn't really mean THAT. We can ignore this or that part as long as its for the "public good". BULL!!!!
I may seem illogical or unreasonable. I don't know. It is great to be able to discuss viewpoints with others. Especially non-Americans. I can respect anyone's right to any viewpoint they choose. Even your's Billzilla! I just hope for your sake,Billzilla,that you are right. 'cause if you're wrong, you're up the creek without a paddle!

Oh and bod...I'm not advocating anarchy at all! I again just wish the Govt. didn't feel such a pressing NEED to protect me from myself. I'm just fine. Some of us tend to speak in grandiose fashion when we wrap ourselves in the Constitution and Old Glory.

One more thought before I hit the sack. After reading through my previous post I think I see where it seems illogical. By advocating a well armed society as a hedge against tyranny,I am NOT at the same time advocating the overthrow of any government now in place. A lot of people jump to that conclusion. We still have peacful elections to accomplish that. If the people would take control. However, there is a need for vigilance among the "sheep herd". There are always Wolves about!
------- -----------
Joke 'em if they can't take a....

[This message has been edited by Tailspin (edited 05-02-2000).]


Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
9-Ball
Member
Member # 3981

posted 05-03-2000 04:56 PM     Profile for 9-Ball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bod:
"This post is aimed at those who are having trouble understanding where we "paranoid Americans" are coming from"
I don't know about other non-americans, but i can't see this as anything else than the fact that you do not have a *working and living* democracy. But what is strange is that it does not seem like you want a democracy either, you want anarchy. I don't know exactly what, but there is something very unlogical about what you are saying.

You're right and you're wrong. We don't live in a "working and living democracy", and we don't want anarchy either.

Our laws, like the English Laws that preceded them, are based on precedence. Ever since the Reconstruction period in our country, interest groups have been allowed to "reconstruct" laws in order to "correct" past "injustices". I'm talking about "victimhood" here. If you're allowed to twist and pervert laws, in effect, being able to make yourself out to be some kind of victim, the ramifications of changing the laws are applicable to future cases being heard in the legal system.

Right and wrong, fair or unfair, honesty, integrity, or how you feel about a situation have very little to do with court findings. It is strictly "interpretation" of existing laws... laws that may have been twisted or perverted to fit some politician's or beaureacrat's idea of "self-esteem" or "feel-good, band-aid" politics.

In this country, everytime a child is harmed or killed by a handgun (including the 19- to 25-year old children pointed out by Mr. Clinton's spin machine), the politicians and special interest groups go bananas. Do you seriously think for one microsecond that they give a rat's patooty about that child? If you do, then you to can probably qualify for some type of "victimhood".


Posts: 27 | From: Niceville, FL, USA | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
9-Ball
Member
Member # 3981

posted 05-03-2000 06:09 PM     Profile for 9-Ball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 1:
the second amendment is not about keeping the government in chek, its about assembling a militia that will be under government control to repell any invasion and to put down any rebellion, wich was common back then.

1, I am inclined to disagree. The second amendment, like the other nine in the Bill of Rights were meant for the private citizens, not the federal government. It gave citizens the right to form militias and to keep arms for such purposes as were deemed appropriate, self- and mutual- defense being among those purposes.

Many would argue that the National Guard is one such militia, but that is not possible, since the Guard can be, and has been in the past, federalized, and used to thwart efforts of state governors attempting to carry out their duties as they saw fit.

The Bill or Rights were reserved by and for the citizens during a period in US history where the only time the federal government's intervention was required to settle matters of dispute among the individual states. Usually matters concerning interstate commerce and criminal acts where perpetrators fled to avoid jurisdictional authority.

At that period in our history, there was still a movement afoot to establish our government as a monarchial system, hence, many wanted George Washington to be our king. Washington refused to be the king, but many of those who followed tried to establish the position of the presidency as a monarchial position.

With effort and research, you'll find that since the implementation of the Reconstruction Acts, the federal government has "questionably" implemented an amendment that has given it supreme power to regulate citizenry, immigration laws, federal banking regulation, and civil rights laws that were technically either encompassed in the original intent of the Constitution, or strictly forbidden. So you see, the federal government has effectively wrested power from the hands of the people, and placed it squarely under their control. Fortunately for all of us, they're doing it in such a piecemeal fashion, that no one can see it coming until its too late.

Once we've lost the Bill of Rights that we once reserved for ourselves, the federal government is not going to give it back. If you think you can hold a referendum to vote it back in, you better think again.


Posts: 27 | From: Niceville, FL, USA | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2  3  4  5 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved