Senator Says None of our [Constitutional] Rights are Absolute
- Thread starter BlueCollarCritic
- Start date
- Status
deirdre
Senior Member.
the truth is in todays day and age the idea of 'defending against tyranny' is obsolete anyway. as we've seen from all the militant standoffs in the usa. in the 17-1800's yea your town may have stood a chance against the federal government, but not anymore. I don't even think 'state' national guards are 'state' anymore.
Hevach
Senior Member.
It was no different in the 1700's. Shay had a force of 1200 men, armed with weapons the equal of the military (there was no gap between civilian and military weapons at the time), and he still stood basically no chance, they were met by an initial force of over 1300 at Springfield and then pursued by nearly 5000 reinforcements from Boston. What modern militia has had that kind of manpower or equipment ready for a standoff?
And the state national guards were never state, partly thanks to Shay's Rebellion, as governors who tried to use them to block school integration were shown when the president had them stand down.
If anything, modern militias are much better at standing up to the government than they were in the 1700's, because they're no longer met by the military, they're met with law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Many of those stand offs end the same way Bundy's did - he got to keep his cattle, gets to keep grazing them on other ranchers' land, will probably keep grazing them on public land without paying his fees, didn't have to pay his back taxes or anything. Waco was an exception, and even that took several events in which law enforcement packed up and left before it reached that point.
And the state national guards were never state, partly thanks to Shay's Rebellion, as governors who tried to use them to block school integration were shown when the president had them stand down.
If anything, modern militias are much better at standing up to the government than they were in the 1700's, because they're no longer met by the military, they're met with law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Many of those stand offs end the same way Bundy's did - he got to keep his cattle, gets to keep grazing them on other ranchers' land, will probably keep grazing them on public land without paying his fees, didn't have to pay his back taxes or anything. Waco was an exception, and even that took several events in which law enforcement packed up and left before it reached that point.
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No. They say I want a firearm for self defense.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Most gun owners do not fear the federal government. They fear the people the federal government cannot protect them from.
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
Exactly. So when they invoke the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia" as the reason for their gun ownership it's an untruth. This, as a perceived right, only surfaces when they think that theirentitlement is under threat.
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree; however, the principle behind the entitlement is valid. Government should need to have reason NOT to push its citizens to rebellion. Without the threat of arms tyrants are emboldened, this I think our forefathers understood.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Now.....a reasonable sentiment but.....IF ONLY those who are so vociferous could be made to comprehend this simple logic.
As I've said before: The "lobbyists" tend to influence "opinion". One must always remember that Lobbying Groups usually work either for political "sides", or for companies intent on improving their sales. Gee....improving the "bottom line" by promoting the increased sales of guns and ammo?
"What a Country!!!"
"Yakov Smirnoff....What a Country"!!!
(Might not be the "topic", but just for sentimental reasons...it's meant to be enjoyed!)
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Lobbyists may well influence legislation primarily for economic considerations; however, the average citizen is motivated by fear, ideals, and pragmatism. The survivalists as a subculture drives a significant amount of the gun and ammo market I am sure. The rest is driven by hunters/hobbyists and people wanting personal protection from four legged as well as two legged threats. Where I grew up and lived for much of my life, it was common practice for everyone to be armed. I never feared others with arms and still don't to this day.
J
Joe
Guest
No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my guns
deirdre
Senior Member.
I don't have a problem with reasonable guns for protection, hunting, even tyranny phobias...so how does a silencer play into those needs again?No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my guns
J
Joe
Guest
I don't remember anyone pack up during Waco ? Only after the murdered the children they were trying to protect from Koresh.
J
Joe
Guest
A silencer you need to pay a fee . Id like to have one but only for the sake of my hearing . Its a pain to shoot with ear protection on . Ive actually damaged my hearing by shooting because I thought my ear plugs were in all the way . Now I wear better hearing protection . I wish theyd legalize them without the permit .
MikeC
Closed Account
In these parts hunters often use silenced small caliber guns for rabbit shooting - this is not hunting so much as pest eradication. Paddocks will often have dozens of rabbits in them, and a silenced rifle allows several to be killed before any will take flight.
deirdre
Senior Member.
and tanks and drones and tear gas and planes and money. but I guess if you're willing to kill children and women you might 'win' temporarily.
Hevach
Senior Member.
I'm referring primarily to the CPS investigation in 1992 which quit before investigating most of the allegations. There was also the incident in 1986 involving corpse desecration that the police refused to get involved in, and a meth lab some time after that. There was a pretty long history of local authorities staying away from whatever was going on in the Branch Davidian camps even if it wasn't the Davidians themselves (the meth lab was set up by renters).
J
Joe
Guest
Well we are still in Afghanistan .
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
J
Joe
Guest
We outgun the Taliban yet still haven't defeated them .
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
There are states in the Union that have laws that govern militias, what they are and what they're used for.. my understanding is that they carry the weapons equivalent to whatever threat they may need to "defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" or the US itself. Now.. one thing I WILL say is that Militias dont have a great reptuation in the US.. most of them are fanatic anti government types that see anyone in authority as a threat to their liberties.. be it a game and wildlife ranger, a cop, or serviceman in the Military. Then there are militias that really nothing more than gun clubs for enthusiasts to get together and go out to the range.. pretty much the same difference between a biker club and a biker gang.
On the one hand, you have what was most likely intended by those who drafted the constitution.. The ability to defend against a government that can become/has become tyrannical. On the other, you have the time frame it was drafted in.. does it still apply? Personally, I think it does.. maybe not for the exact same reasons as to why it was drafted but the Constitution is a living document. I dont agree with the "out of my cold dead hands" crowd, but I dont agree with those that want every firearm ever created removed either. Two extremes of the same coin. There's got to be a decent compromise.
The biggest hurdle to get across is from the people that are afraid of firearms. Not respect, but fear. Fear leads to panic, panic leads to stupidity. If you educate people, teach them to respect firearms, then they become no different than any other tool. You have people that gush about the magazine size.. or the "looks" of the weapon in question. if it looks like something out of Rambo, then its dangerous... ok, fine.. I dont agree with that (primarily because Im pretty familiar with firearms and their abilitiese), but I have no issue with people feeling that way. On the other hand, you have these nutjobs that intentionally walk around with AR-15s strapped to their backs in condition 1 (mag in, round in the chamber), loaded down with magazines and body armor, then get pissed and confrontational when they're approached by cops, because terrified citizens are blowing up 911 with phone calls. Both sides of the equation are wrong.
Where do the rights of one person infringe on the rights of another? If this is going to get fixed, then theres only one solution.. and its three pronged. First, Educate the public.. teach them to respect firearms like they do electricity.. make it universal (this ties in witht he above post about the testing etc and high scores).. two figure out what causes the vast majority of the gun crime in the US... Criminals do not give two whits about what's legal or illegal... they're gonna do whatever they wanna do, so making MORE laws isnt going to fix anything...and finally, learn to respect one another in general, AND with this gun stuff... Basically Dont go cramming your rights down other people's throats.. on BOTH ends. The antigun crowd are just as bad as the Progun crowd. If we do those things (and god knows they're not simple things) then we can start to get beyond all this stupidity and start dealing with what's really tearing this country apart head on. We all have basic, inalienable human rights.. I wouldnt call owning a gun a HUMAN right, but its a right Americans have... whether or not you exercise that right is up to the individual.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
mostly I totally agree. and I am for states rights. different states definitely have different needs. thugs may not give two wits about gun laws but mass murderers aren't typically thugs. the texas tower, vt, aurora sandy hook, perhaps even the dc sniper. I do not believe any of these people would have the contacts to have bought illegally. that's the biggest problem, gun crimes are a spectrum.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Yep, but those are also isolated incidents where there was a clear intent.. they wanted to create fear.. or get recognition for a cause etc. The average jerk isnt going to go that far, which is why I hate the fact that both sides of the argument use those incidents as a crutch. IF wed had guns.. etcetcetc wouldnt have happened.. IF guns were banned then these things never would have happened.. etcetcetc. ALL of it boils down to the three points I made in the last of that post.. 1) Education, 2) Research and Cause, and (probably most importantly) 3) Respect. I agree with ya Deirdre.. i do.. honestly.. but I look at firearms the way you look at Sandy Hook, or Pilots look at Chemtrails.. All three of us have our areas of expertise, and we know our subjects inside and out because we've dealt with them for years.. my stance, honestly, is that if it were availability of weapons that were the issue then youd see a LOT more friendly fire incidents in the military. The difference between civilans and military though, is edcuation and respect.. both for/with the weapons and one another.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Thanks Svartbjorn for pointing out the idiocy of gun over-enthusiasts. I get you want to pack heat while walking around the mall in the good part of town. I get the self defense. I don't get the kevlar and clip outfit with the AR-15 on the back thing. It's like are you really expecting the zombie apocalypse right here and now, or is Crimson Dawn set to go off soon?
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Most of that is a passive-aggressive over reaction to misinformation coming from the media... or asshole law students trying to make a name for themselves. I dont personally carry a firearm, but I collect them.. as did my grandfather and father. I collect weapons for the same reason people collect stamps, or aircraft patches, or space patches.. I enjoy them. I enjoy cleaning them, I enjoy using them.. but Im not stupid enough to just parade myself around town with one. I dont buy into the whole open carry thing, because MOST of the time your own weapon gets used against you.. with that said, its not my place to tell another person they DONT have the right to carry just because I dont.. or because I dont agree with open carry. Thats my point Jeff.
deirdre
Senior Member.
usually when people bring up the 'car' analogy its idiotic. but the truth is (I absolutely hate! wearing my seat belt, im short its annoying) it is a good analogy. with cars we have to pay extra taxes, pay insurance, get educated (for ex I cant drive a motorcycle or 18 wheeler without more training) it just irks me when gun owners (and im not anti gun) whine because they think they are equivalent to a military trained person or police officer etc, when they aren't willing to prove mental health etc.
I hate it, (and its dangerous to me) but if I have to wear my seatbelt to save lives, im willing to give up some 'rights'. I also know there are many many many responsible gun owners, and we typically only hear from the zealots. But America has to stop this equal rights bunk. a military trained gun handler is NOT equal to a civil with no required training or oversight. ; ( 'Political correctness' has run amok.
deirdre
Senior Member.
; ) agreed and I should have the right to taser an open carry because they might start shooting. but I don't and that's unfair.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Again, I agree with you.. I see no reason not to treat firearms like a car.. licensing, registration, taxes, testing etc.. 100% do I agree. What I dont agree with are the idiots on both sides of the topic screaming at one another causing more trouble than its worth and hiding behind rhetoric. It does no good what-so-ever, and just causes more problems.
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
Inevetible that this thread would drift into a gun debate, but the point is, can we really lay down "inalienable" rights that will be pertinent and workable hundreds of years in the future? (Especially in a couple of lines of text).
Melbury's Brick
Senior Member.
I shouldn't get into gun debate. It doesn't apply to me. I usually only bother when people use erroneous comparisons with the UK. I've visited the States on several occasions (got relatives) and I love being there. But having to have a firearm at hand when working or relaxing at home seems really, really sad to me. I daresay someone will come up with stats to the contrary, but it feels to me that I have more chance of being struck by lightning than shot!No really just for home protection . Or in my case I work late at night at times by my self and there is some less than desirables around . It is also a deterrent from tyranny as well . Kind of like MAD (mutually assured destruction) .When they create a Utopia Id be the first to rid myself of my guns
J
Joe
Guest
I agree it is pretty sad in a way . But until society changes ? Ill keep mine
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Me thinks custom and history is involved in the weapon rights comparison between the UK and US. The UK has not had a frontier attitude for centuries (within their own boarders), the US's experience is much more recent. We are also a nation of criminals and cast offs from the UK and the rest of the world. We are much more disposed to violence to solve an issue, it is in our genetics.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Are you referring to the USA, or to Australia, there?
Well, this is ancient history really....whether the "colonies" rebelled....in ANY location....against "The 'Crown'".
Centuries ago.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't know about being violent but me thinks Aussies are more likely to throw a party!Are you referring to the USA, or to Australia, there?
Well, this is ancient history really....whether the "colonies" rebelled....in ANY location....against "The 'Crown'".
Centuries ago.
It would be hard to determine which colony got the most criminals, it would be an interesting debate however.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I just wanted to make a comment about a misconception over UK gun controls. The first real law to control was not until 1920 and that only gave the police the ability to refuse a licence. Gun ownership was widespread, so much so that I recall reading that in 1909 during anarchist attacks in London the police had to ask citizens to lend them firearms so they could defend themselves.
The modern law did not come into being until 1968 and further amendments have been in reaction to massacres in 1987 and 1996. These gained popular support even though gun ownership was widespread. But even though gun control is modern the British attitude is also linked to our policing and "policing by consent" and that goes back to the start in the mid-Victorian era.
The modern law did not come into being until 1968 and further amendments have been in reaction to massacres in 1987 and 1996. These gained popular support even though gun ownership was widespread. But even though gun control is modern the British attitude is also linked to our policing and "policing by consent" and that goes back to the start in the mid-Victorian era.
AB Hammer
New Member
Muskets? Not assault rifles? Do you even know what an assault rifles is? So let me tell you. AR15 is a semiautomatic rifle. Not an assault rifle like the M16 which is an assault rifle that shoots full auto as the AR15 does not but they do look very similar. Now lets go to understanding what to bare arms. If you have knife you are armed. If you have a bow with arrows you are armed. A weapon of any kind is armed and to bear arms is to use them no mater what arms you are carrying if it be needed. So if someone is coming to shoot you? You have the right to shoot them, (self-defense) But you do not have the right to commit murder. That is breaking the law.
Now napalm, Do you know what that is? Let me enlighten you. It is a gasoline mix with a jell. Not to mention not wise to try to make, or you might blow yourself up.
Anthrax? Again not wise to the point of being a total lunatic if you try.
Note, Militia as it is defined by the time of the Constitution of the United States is all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). That simply means the people.
- Status
Similar threads
