wingnut, you pose fair enough questions. Whether I'd take to civil war to keep the firearms we have depends on where I saw the country heading. Towards a Hitler or Stalin like world, there is no question. Given the traditions of the peoples of the US, then realistically the only reason for such total disarming of individuals is movement towards a totalitarian state, so my answer effectively becomes a "yes," fight is necessary. Were I in some country in which I found such disarming to be overwhelmingly favored by the people there, I'd vote with my feet and move to where more of my kind are found.

You ask about semi's with clips, and over the years I've gone back and forth on the issue in my own mind. It's not an issue of appeasement. Rather, it's where I personally draw the line, regardless of where the antis stand. I'm firmly against selling hand grenades at Wal-Mart. I'm not opposed to selling clip fed semis there, but it is very close to what I think is a prudent limit. For a true, 1789 style of militia to serve its purpose of deterrence against government, I do not believe such firepower is necessary. (Conversely, equal access to weaponry in no way guarentees one's security; witness Rwanda.) I wonder, where do you draw the line?

Compared to personal access to weapons, I'm far more concerned with the general public apathy towards politics and defense. This thread is surely destined for oblivion in the Political Forum if I stray down that path, so I won't. You can PM me if you're dying to know my views there.

Lastly, you attribute my apology to a "conciliatory" nature. Among strangers, I've found it best to be a gentlemen, and I had stepped outside my personal bounds for that definition. I'm too often quick to anger; airing my opinion of the man I see behind your words, served no purpose and only lowered the atmosphere of a forum I enjoy.

Let me point out that the current makeup of the supreme court is currently composed of:

TWO Reagan Appointees
THREE G.H.W Bush Appointees
TWO Clinton Appointees
TWO G.W.Bush appointees.

I'd hazard a guess that unless the appeal takes FOREVER
to get before the full circuit court and even longer to get before SCOTUS that the decision will be upheld.

It is possible, even likely that in the remaining 20 months of his term President Bush will get to make one more appointment to the bench...

Frankly in the balance if the only good things G.W.Bush as done in his two terms as president is to appoint the two memebers of the supreme court he has already appointed that he had a successful presidency.

If he gets to appoint a third so much the better!

If he accomplished NOTHING else in two terms G.W.Bush has PREVENTED Either Al Gore or John Kerry from making those appointments to the bench.

And from a second amendment standpoint that's really all that matters about the last six years.

Let us hope it is enough...

AllanD

An outstandin commentary between individuals! One who believes the Human species has the right to fight for his choices and that that right is inviolate. Another who believes government has the power to legislate those rights. Sounds like an embracement of tyranny to me. Asdf also doesn't like to be at the range while other shooters "blaze away" with their AR's. Sounds like he should take up pond fishing for carp and give up his mild attachment to the shooting sports. If indeed we need to fight for our rights I believe current firearms technology would be more suitable for the very serious task.

rickt300, there is no denying each of us can fight for his choices, no matter what others think. I don't consider that a "right." That is simply one's decision. No matter what weapon you have at hand, you can always choose to fight. Government can do nothing about that.

History shows that to be successful in his fight, one needs suitable weapons AND the support of others, fighting with him. I'm more concerned with gathering the support of those I live among. You and wingnut are more concerned with the weapons you have at hand. I understand your stance, and I realize there is merit in it, but I do not feel it is an optimum solution.

As for being at the range with AR's blazing, kindly get your facts straight. I said I don't like those at the range when I take a non-shooter there for the very first time, especially if the non-shooter is a bit nervous about guns.

By the way friends, in response to the recent court decision, at least one left leaning political magazine has called for an outright repeal of the 2nd. That won't happen any time soon, but the ball is now rolling.

Asdf the ball has been rolling since 1937. Certainly I prefer a more sedentary action than civil war in as far as protecting my rights. However people such as yourself, trying to placate the anti-civil rights groupsare doing nothing more than pushing the ball toward them. Another thing, many non shooters are facsinated by the more modern action types.

I assume by 1937 you mean the 1939 Miller case. I'm not sure why you consider it especially important. Restrictions on the private ownship of weapons go back to the early 1800's. While the Miller case was the last Supreme Court ruling, it in no way ensures victory for the gun prohibitionists, as the recent DC case shows.

As for placation, I'm curious in which ways you placate the "anti-civil rights groups." Where do you draw the line on weapons?: full-autos, mini-guns, hand grenades, mortars, TOW missiles, anti-aircraft missles, nerve gas, atomic weapons?

Do you pay that portion of your income taxes that goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies to industry, etc., or do you placate there as well?

I thought it was in the 30's that laws were passed to make it necessary to register and get a permit to own fully automatic weapons such as the Thompson submachinegun the gangsters were so fond of. As far as the heavier weapons, no I don't care to have them laying around. I however feel that owning semi-automatic versions of current military arms should not be restricted, nor should any weapon need to be registered. The truth is though in my hands you have no reason to fear fully automatic weapons unless you are pushing an unlawful or unconstitutional act upon me. I smell a democrat, Asdf.

rickt300, while I may trust you with a full auto, how do we decide who is to be trusted? What simple test will clearly define who is to be trusted? Do you really trust the government to administer this test fairly? Even the Army doesn't let its soldiers wander around off duty with full auto rifles, and they've worked with the soldiers long enough to begin to estimate who is and who is not safe.

Questions such as these lead me to worry more about gathering the support of the people I live among than in gathering potent weapons.

You smell a democrat in me? I smell a socialist in you. I feel that Social Security, Medicare, etc. are all affronts to the US constitution equal to the attacks on the 2nd. I'm no Democrat. I usually vote Libertarian, but mostly to send to the Republicans a signal they are out of line.

Since you're so busy assuming this and that, you never thought to ask what I think about the militia and the 2nd. No, I don't want full autos laying around, and I'm not especially keen on semi's; there's too many idiots out there. But I do think the Framers were correct in fearing a large standing army, disconnected from the People. I'd like to see mandatory militia training for all the people. I'd like to see Sarah have to take markmanship classes. I don't care if most of the people choose to not keep a rifle at home (I'd like to see that, but not M-16s). I do care that they get together for minimal military training and detailed discussions on the state of our military; I want them to have to think about the military and what it means. This should be annual at the minimum, and more often in times of war. Yeah, it's inconvenient, but I think it for the best; and no, I don't think my fat, lazy fellow Americans would ever put up with it (which, by the way, is why the Militia fell by the wayside: people in times of peace don't want to be bothered with military duty).

quote:

while I may trust you with a full auto, how do we decide who is to be trusted? What simple test will clearly define who is to be trusted?

How about the old tried and true "Innocent until proven guilty" ?!?!

wingnut, it seems anyone asking for hand grenades, mortars, dynamite, etc., can make the same argument: "trust me."

Yes.

And??

Like I said, innocent until proven guilty.

I have handled dynamite and it's more modern replacements, grenades, full-auto rifles and carbines, etc., many times. I have never killed anyone with any of them. Never even given anyone so much as a scratch.

LOGICALLY Explain why I should be prohibited from owning them.

Actually I smell a paranoid troll willing to submit to a police state and unwilling to provide either for his own security or provide support for those willing to stand up for their (his) rights. You are either on one side or the other as the top of the fence is a razors edge.

quote:

wingnut, it seems anyone asking for hand grenades, mortars, dynamite, etc., can make the same argument: "trust me."

While I have not read all of the posts on either side, I will give my opinion on this one. IIRC, Marion Hammer said it best when testifying before congress on the Clinton gun ban. It went something like:

Senator Boxer, "So just what are your limits to owning firearms? Would you advocate owning a bazooka?"
Hammer, "Senator, if I was a law abiding citizen and the protection of my life, family, home and country required me to own a bazooka, then yes, I would so advocate."

That pretty much covered it for me.

The problem, wingnut, is not necessarily you owning one, of course. I'd say about 10% of the people I've met I wouldn't care to have owning any of those. The problem is not knowing which person is worth the risk. Were I convinced you owning an M-16 would change the course of history (for the better), it would be worth the risk. Were I in battle with you somewhere (same side), it would be worth the risk. However, for far too great a percentage of the people I've met, the perceived benefits aren't worth the perceived risk. That's my judgement in the matter. I doubt there is much point in us carrying on further here, in a hunting forum.

Ok rickt300, I'm the paranoid one, but I don't feel I need an M-16 to defend myself? I'll ponder that one.

You may stop thinking about it, which will make your MIND closed, not the case.

Oops, that sentence should have been phrased in past tense.

If you wish to withdraw from the debate, fine. But as long as free men refuse to give up freedom, the case will not be closed.

I may not be alive after the fight, but everyone will know that there has BEEN a fight, and that I didn't surrender my rights, OR MY NEIGHBOR'S , even though I may not have agreed with his decision to roll over and give his own away without joining the fight.

quote:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. - George Washington

What will it take to make you understand that if we fight strongly in and win these "political" fights, we may not have to fight for our lives in a real firefight?!?!?!

As long as we are equipped to defend ourselves equitably, then this will be true.....

quote:

Arms , like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order... - Thomas Paine

I believe that both quotes mean the SAME arms in the hands of the citizen militia as in the hands of the standing army. And will talk about it, discuss it, debate it and FIGHT for it in any forum, in private, in public, in the countryside, or in the streets, at any time day or night, for as long as I live.

Now who said I wasn't going to continue in the political battle for gun rights? You and I may not agree on where to draw the line on weapons, but I know we have some common ground. The prohibitionists are emboldened by the return of the Democrats to congress; now is not the time to sleep. Best wishes,

Karl

quote:

Now who said I wasn't going to continue in the political battle for gun rights?

YOU did, when you stopped at SOME gun rights!!!!

You've already given up on squad-type weapons. You've already given up on private ownership of automatics.

In fact, you have subscribed to the anti's dream, by giving up on any repeater with a detachable magazine.......

quote:

Given the circumstances, I'd be very pleased if they drew the line at cartridge repeaters with blind magazines, and I doubt we'll do much better than that.

You say you will fight, but it seems that you may be VERY limited in whose rights you think worth protecting.

State your position publicly, right now.

If the current government banned private ownership of full automatic guns today, and sent squads out to pick them up (of course, they know exactly where to look, since all have been registered and taxed since 1934), what would you do to prevent it? Would you only ask the "jack-booted thugs" politely not to follow the orders given by their commanders? Would you take the bold step of writing a letter of protest to the editor of a newspaper?

Or would you stand beside me and physically resist the unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of law-abiding American citizens? Would you carry that resistance to the use of deadly force, if it became necessary in order to prevent abrogation of the Constitution?

Would you do the same for semi-automatic versions of the same guns?

For pump actions? Bolt actions?

What if Diane Feinstein had her way, and the congress voted for "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." INCLUDING YOUR OWN SINGLE SHOTS!! Would you then be willing that blood be spilled to keep that from happening?

quote:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier , are the birthright of an American." -- Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

If you would fight for any of these, but not for another, YOU have already lost the fight. You should voluntarily turn your guns in now, you don't deserve them and have no right to them!!!!

quote:

" A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government ." -- George Washington

You seem eager for civil war. I am not. I don't think the political process in the US is so far gone as to make me want war. Were Feinstein to somehow manage to get her way, my rifles, all unregistered, go into hiding while I wait to see what's afoot. Because it's out of step with public opinion, I can't forsee her getting her way, so it coming to be would certainly be cause for panic. Next I join the Guard to see what's the sentiment in those who can make an effective fight. If they are with her, things are looking hopeless; if not, I'll do all I can to keep it not. If in end the totalitarian state feared comes to be, the hidden rifles then finally come out for use, not before.

Which weapons do I think people should keep? That is not settled in my mind. Given the current state of affairs, any repeater from lever to even full-auto is certainly ok so long as it is of limited magazine capacity and slow to reload. Sustained firepower I see no need for outside all-out war. I know there are practical problems with this stance, which I why I say the issue is not settled in my mind.

Yup, I've no desire to see "squad-type" weapons on the street. Why? Because there are no squads on the street. There is only a bunch of guys who get a grin owning such weapons. I see no sense of common purpose fostered by the ready availability of such weapons. I also see no way they will stop a federal army from having its way with me. So I got a squad weapon, big deal; they have laser guided missiles that will take me and my "squad" out from a mile away.

I do not think for one minute that a bunch of disconnected guys owning potent weapons makes for an effective fighting force, and by that I mean stopping an enemy, not harrassing it, be that enemy internal or external. Disorganized guns owners means a guerilla war at best, and I think that hardly ideal.

Your quote from Coxe is, unfortunately, easily dismissed. Coxe could not have imagined the weapons we have today. You simply cannot prove he would have been so inclined today.

I very much like your quote from Washington (and I'd like to know a reference for it). I wish you would listen to him, and to all the words in the 2nd. You seem quite willing to ignore his call for the people to be "disciplined" with their arms, and because of that, I can honestly say I find it is you who have given up on his ideals. Several posts back I mentioned I do want a return of the militia, but a rabble is not a militia, and Washington knew that.

Are you willing to submit to Washington's discipline, wingnut? State here in what form you find acceptable. I think you'd find the common citizen would be far more willing to accept more potent rifles in your hands--and ignore Feinstein--were they convinced you stood with them.

Like I said before....

Stay across the pond. You fit well the prevailing "sheeple" attitudes there, and would be useless here, if bad goes to worst.

Yeah Asdf is truly eurotrash. What else can he say?

So gentlemen, our long running debate is to end with name calling worthy of adolescents?

rickt300, I suppose "euro-trash" is appropriate enough, although I believe you have the wrong perspective. My libertarian leanings and my support of individual ownership of firearms both put me squarely out of step with European socialism, so from their viewpoint, perhaps I am trash, to be deposited back in the US, where I came from.

By our own words, you and I draw the line in weapons at not so different points. I feel semis of limited capacity are ok; you advocate larger, detachable magazines. There seems to be little abuse of the type of weapon you favor, and so I'm comfortable with leaving things as they are. You are opposed to gun registration, and so am I.

wingnut, I understand your arguments, but I honestly do not think they are practical. An attempt to contain government that was viable in 1789 is not necessarily so in 2007.

The prohibitionists claim the National Guard is the Militia, but we both know this is rubbish. The Guard is an extension of the federal army, free to be used in badly executed ventures such as Vietnam and Iraq. Most citizens don't want to be involved personally in that, and so in creating the Guard, the feds have skillfully poisoned the notion of militia.

The Constitution calls for the Militia to be limited to use within the national boundaries. Were this so, getting more of The People to become "disciplined" and "well regulated" in their possession of arms would be possible. I don't believe 21st century Americans have the resolve to make for 100% participation in the Militia, but I believe it could be much higher than in the Guard. The Constitution also is clear that while the feds must fund the militia, control remains firmly in state hands. Given today's population levels, I'd argue that organization at a county or even city level would be more appropriate. Dispersed, safeguarded stockpiles of suitable weapons would remain in suitably local control. I think this would provide a more effective deterrent than letting anyone purchase anything, but perhaps this is also just a recipe for mayhem.

I don't believe Americans today see any need for this. They are happy to wallow at the federal trough, so perhaps there is no armed solution. The US Army has remained honorable in its intentions for over 200 years. The federal government still responds to changes in public attitude, as Bush has found out in the last elections. I'll still send in my check with my 1040 this weekend, knowing full well that over 3/4 of federal expenditures violate the Constitution, but I won't stop worrying about the problem.

quote:

Because it's out of step with public opinion, I can't forsee her getting her way......

AND

The federal government still responds to changes in public attitude........

Public opinion has NOTHING to do with it! Do you fail to understand that the United States is NOT a democracy, and with good reason? We are a "representative republic" because the Founders of this nation intended for us to be so. Democracy, (majority rules) is simply a more gentle form of mob rule. If the mob decides that your rights are no longer important, you lose them.

A representative republic is designed to protect the MINORITY'S "inalienable rights", which are "endowed by their Creator", NOT any government!

quote:

Your quote from Coxe is, unfortunately, easily dismissed. Coxe could not have imagined the weapons we have today. You simply cannot prove he would have been so inclined today.

I take Coxe's words at their face value. He said " every ....implement of the soldier" You are assuming that he would change them and his mind. I say he would NOT! He had just seen his country come through a horrible war. He knew what it took to win that war, and what it would take to hold on to that victory. He said EXACTLY what he meant, and YOU can't prove that he would say differently today!

The long, difficult, circuitous thought process that you would have to undertake, as detailed in your post from yesterday, before you could decide whether or not you would feel compelled to join a shooting fight, is ridiculous. The fight would be LONG over!! The first moment that any government openly attempts to abrogate the very foundation of the nation it represents, in this case the Constitution, is the moment that that government has become illegitimate, and is the moment that that government must be immediately removed.

How long has it been since you read, not skimmed but actually READ, and thought long and deeply about, the Declaration of Independence? I suggest that you do that TODAY. If you are anywhere near as intelligent as you seem to be (however misguided), you cannot fail to see the parallels between those times and these! I honestly believe that we are very close to HAVING to have a revolution. It will take BOLD statements of resolve to fight no matter the cost, by MANY citizens, to turn the present direction of the current official government of the United States BACK to the course on which it should be and negate the need for the drastic action.

And every person who takes the timid “wait and see†stance that you have expressly advocated shows weakness of resolve on the part of the citizenry, and thereby strengthens those who would steal our liberty, our rights and our very nation.

And for the record, I DO feel that the Swiss model of citizen involvement in the militia/military, and possession of firearms by the citizen-soldier (full-automatic rifle in the home of almost every active member) is admirable, and would advocate the implementation of a similar program here. Mandatory service and training is not at all a bad idea.

wingnut, I admit to being lax in recent study of the times of 1776-1789, and you are correct, all Americans need to study this (and European history, and ...). I have such books on my shelves at home, but they are there (not yet read) and I am here, for a few more months.

I understand your concerns about waiting too long. Too many good people in Germany did so in the 1930s, and Germany paid a hideous cost for that. My "timid" response represents a faith in the nature of the American people and its institutions. Perhaps this faith is indeed misguided. I try to always keep an open mind.

I will tentatively disagree with your statements on public opinion. Clearly the federal government was not meant to be what we have today; clearly its power was to be greatly limited; and clearly most of the the function of government was to reside in the States. Whether the individual states were meant to be so powerless over individuals is not so clear to me; study is required. I know in Illinois, the new Constitution, including its interventions in personal life, was very well supported by those eager for the trough.

Lastly, public opinion cannot be dismissed lightly. Any constitution is only words recorded on paper. Without the support of the bulk of the people, one's victory is tenuous. Even the mighty Soviet Union succumbed to internal discontent (unfortunately, it may be on its way back to life).

quote:

Any constitution is only words recorded on paper. Without the support of the bulk of the people, one's victory is tenuous.

Not as long as the will to resist and fight still exist. As long as we can prove that we WILL fight and have the arms and capability to win that fight, there won't have to be a fight.

Availability of weapons suitable for citizens to use in resisting a professional military may result in a few miscreants using those weapons inappropriately in civilian circles. But the citizens witnessing such would be equipped to stop it, immediately and publicy, and hopefully VERY graphically for the news cameras.

It would take only a few instances of criminals being totally obliterated by citizens, immediately upon committing a crime of violence, and having those instances shown on world-wide media, to chill the desire in others who would contemplate such.

The real trouble with socialism loving trolls is that they feel nothing is worth fighting for. A real shame.

A proposal such as yours I've seen and considered many years ago. It's not readily dismissed in some branches of the Libertarian Party. While it has its pluses, I see practical problems.

Some miscreants seem to crave their own death. To retard a modern professional army, I see a need for anti-tank and anti-aircraft missles. I can also see bin Laden's cohorts or the like launching these into the buses packed with teenagers lined up in front of the high school near my home, and obliterating about 10 of those buses before enough citizens crossed the field to the launching point to subdue them with their Colt 1911s. Boeing 777s with nearly 400 souls aboard take only two of the most basic shoulder launched missles to down on takeoff. I'd worry that the technological multipliers that can make a civilian militia potent also makes the observed number of miscreants too potent to be acceptable. There must be a reason armies keep their best toys well secured, available only on a need to use basis.

A militia provides strength through numbers. While obviously useful, armies struggle constantly to provide cohesiveness in units which makes them more than the simple sum of its members. I would worry that the common resolve needed to halt an army would be lacking. If it is not lacking, then wouldn't there often be enough resolve and numbers to provide the desired solution by political means instead?

How to arm the militia? Every man for himself? What constraints do we provide on the Gates and the Waltons, to prevent the super wealthy from becoming super-potent? Do we counter by giving every poor person a squad-type weapon? Do the police want to enter slums with such weapons poking out every window; or would there truly be no need for police?

I'm not trying to belittle your position, wingnut. I understand its appeal, but it seems to me the technological genie is out of the bottle, and new solutions must be found.

If only 1% of the population will commit to the stance that I have taken, the battle is won.

300,000,000 citizens X 1% = 3,000,000 determined Americans.

Say half are male = 1,500,000.

Say half are of the age and physical fitness to actually engage in a true fight = 750,000.

Plus those older, younger, and less fit who would still contribute. Plus the females willing to actively participate in a shooting fight.

A force of effectively over one million, ready to pull a trigger.

If all are armed with modern weapons, no hired army in the world could could whip a million determined Americans , even if their organization was not perfect.

If you don't stand for something you will fall for nothing. If the same number of people voted they could swing any election and it wouldn't matter their age or abilities.

quote:

Originally posted by wingnut:

quote:

Any constitution is only words recorded on paper. Without the support of the bulk of the people, one's victory is tenuous.

Not as long as the will to resist and fight still exist. As long as we can prove that we WILL fight and have the arms and capability to win that fight, there won't have to be a fight.

Availability of weapons suitable for citizens to use in resisting a professional military may result in a few miscreants using those weapons inappropriately in civilian circles. But the citizens witnessing such would be equipped to stop it, immediately and publicy, and hopefully VERY graphically for the news cameras.

It would take only a few instances of criminals being totally obliterated by citizens, immediately upon committing a crime of violence, and having those instances shown on world-wide media, to chill the desire in others who would contemplate such.

Imagine for just a moment something like the bank robbery in the movie "Heat", which was used as a "training film" by the bank robbers who committed the great hollywood shootout...

Now imagine EITHER robbery being committed
in say... Casper, Wyoming?

The ONLY thing the police would get to do in that case would be to show up AFTERWARDS, identify the bodies of the criminals and take statements from the people who gunned the criminals into worm food....

We have a perfect actual historical event as presedent, the James-Younger gang's "Raid" on Northfield, Minnesota where the gan practically got shot to pieces, by people armed mostly) with single shot buffalo rifles and double barreled shotguns...

MILITARY wapons are what seems to be required by the constitution, the idea being that a universally armed populace with the same weapons as the military COULD NEVER be subjected by ANY standing army that a government could afford.

AD

True, they could never be subjugated, but they could be exterminated. An effective defense requires an effective organization of defenses. The resistance you mention seems to be one of harrassment, and for that, less potent weapons suffice.

Aparently Asdf you feel there is no hope for keeping any of our freedoms. I completely agree that if the Hollywood shootout had happened in Wyoming it would have taken a lot less time to stop. Possibly the robbers picked Hollywood because they knew there wouldn't be many powerful rifles handy to the good guys.

No, rickt300, I honestly believe our freedoms will survive, but I think the best hope for it remains in the political realm. I do think a wide distribution of firearms is a useful deterrent, but I disagree as to the capability of weapons unorganized individuals should be allowed. I would like to see the political process reformed, to make it more responsive to the people, and I would also like to see a greater reliance on the militia instead of the standing army.

I think it is politically unwise to try to force at the federal level an increase in the capability of guns the individual can own. Expecting the Supreme Court to say everyone in D.C. gets to keep an M-16 at home is political suicide for gun owners. For individuals, a lower level of protection than that at the constitutional level, backed with a decision to allow states to set a higher level, would be great. If Wyoming wants, say, mandatory carry for all its citizens, I applaud their decision. Massachusetts will likely set a lower level. So long as the floor is low enough (but not a ban) to defuse a call for repeal of the 2nd, I think that will be for the best in the long run.