Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems, I wouldn't use the VT incident as a bassi for saying that gun control laws are too strict. This guy bought his gun legally. That sorta kills the argument that gun control laws are keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

I still cannot understand how laypeople say gun laws need to be loosened when policemen overwhelmingly think the opposite. I'm not saying people with a "loosen gun control laws" don't have interesting or valid arguments, but I haven't heard any reason why I shouldn't listen to people whose business it is to keep the streets safe.

As for Vietnam, I can assure you that not many .22s brought down F-4s and B-52s flying at 50,000 feet. We lost most of our aircrew to SAMs and AAA.

Someone mentioned earlier that the police groups have an "agenda". It is important to remember that big groups like associaions of police chiefs and such ALWAYS have agendas. Sometimes the agendas are totally good, sometimes totally bad but mostly they're somewhere in the middle. I don't know why they support stronger gun control per se but I do know that I am not sure I give them much more credence than anyone else. I don't see where their opinion on something like this is of more value. We're not talking about an issue where it requires special training and education to understand the ins and outs. It is a pretty transparent issue that ordinary citizens can easily be just as informed about.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

FRPLG, I would just assume that police officers, who have experience dealing with people who lose it and have a gun readily accessible, people who have defended themselves from criminals with the guns, who travel to gun accident scenes, etc. would have a unique perspective on the gun issue.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

A lot of people (e.g., Beems) have made a lot of interesting points. However, I still cannot believe we are talking about the need to bear arms in the event we need to mount an insurgency against our government. I am not trying to belittle anyone's arguments, but that one seems a little "out there" for me.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

A lot of people (e.g., Beems) have made a lot of interesting points. However, I still cannot believe we are talking about the need to bear arms in the event we need to mount an insurgency against our government. I am not trying to belittle anyone's arguments, but that one seems a little "out there" for me.

true it is "out there" a bit but you never know.
i think it's silly that we are even discussing taking our guns away just because some freak went on a killing spree and a hand gun was his weapon of choice.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

A lot of people (e.g., Beems) have made a lot of interesting points. However, I still cannot believe we are talking about the need to bear arms in the event we need to mount an insurgency against our government. I am not trying to belittle anyone's arguments, but that one seems a little "out there" for me.

Armed citizens have overthrown oppressive governments and toppled despotic regimes throughout history.

In fact, we are witnessing that right now in Iraq, where poor but determined people with primitive roadside bombs are quickly becoming enough to send the most powerful military force in the world into retreat. Maybe they're not doing it in actual numbers, or with classic battlefield strategy -- but in a test of wills.

It's like Ho Chi Minh said of the French in 1952:

"If ever the tiger pauses, the elephant will impale him on his mighty tusks. But the tiger will not pause, and the elephant will die of exhaustion and loss of blood."

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I don't disagree that it's done Beems. My only point was that it's kinda strange to be talking about our government this way.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't disagree that it's done Beems. My only point was that it's kinda strange to be talking about our government this way.

Why would you find it strange? The founding fathers who structured our laws and gov't. didn't find it strange, in fact they understood the reality far to well, and that is why the people have the right to bare arms. If you can't fight back it makes for an easy takeover, but if you can fight back it's a major deterent for a gov't to order it's military to attack it's countrymen when the entire military has friends and family amoungst them. Our entire gov't. structure has been designed to protect the people of this country from a gov't takeover, as is not the case for many countries all over the world.

You greatly underestimate the evil, and greed for power in this world. In which we are not islolated from in our country.



Adolf Hitler disarming and exterminating the Jews is a classic example of the horrors that can happen when we fail to realize the potential of evil manifested in man. In fact, more than a hundred and seventy million (170,000,000) people were exterminated by their own governments during the twentieth century. The one thing all these atrocities had in common was "gun control." Clearly those that wish to disarm people are far from being within the will of God and in fact are anti-Christ. I highly recommend purchasing “innocents betrayed” at JPFO for a history of how evil and disarming citizens goes hand in hand. After you see this documentary you’ll never allow yourself or family to be disarmed by so-called “gun control” laws.

Do not be deceived, the spirit behind the gun-control effort is allied with outright evil and history proves this point with perfect clarity.


DISARM THE PEOPLE FIRST

The principle of first disarming the people before full scale oppression of the people, was seen first hand by Reverend Wesley Millen who, as a missionary, witnessed the communist take over of Asia. In his lectures he would explain how in the first 90 days the communists were so benevolent, humanitarian and helpful, and at the same time laboured vigorously to confiscate all weapons. The people were told peace had arrived and they would no longer have need of weapons. Once the people were disarmed Reverend Millen said, "Then at the end of ninety days we learned the difference between theoretical communism and Bolshevik terror."

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by offiss

Why would you find it strange? The founding fathers who structured our laws and gov't. didn't find it strange, in fact they understood the reality far to well, and that is why the people have the right to bare arms. If you can't fight back it makes for an easy takeover, but if you can fight back it's a major deterent for a gov't to order it's military to attack it's countrymen when the entire military has friends and family amoungst them. Our entire gov't. structure has been designed to protect the people of this country from a gov't takeover, as is not the case for many countries all over the world.

You greatly underestimate the evil, and greed for power in this world. In which we are not islolated from in our country.

Adolf Hitler disarming and exterminating the Jews is a classic example of the horrors that can happen when we fail to realize the potential of evil manifested in man. In fact, more than a hundred and seventy million (170,000,000) people were exterminated by their own governments during the twentieth century. The one thing all these atrocities had in common was "gun control." Clearly those that wish to disarm people are far from being within the will of God and in fact are anti-Christ. I highly recommend purchasing “innocents betrayed” at JPFO for a history of how evil and disarming citizens goes hand in hand. After you see this documentary you’ll never allow yourself or family to be disarmed by so-called “gun control” laws.

Do not be deceived, the spirit behind the gun-control effort is allied with outright evil and history proves this point with perfect clarity.


DISARM THE PEOPLE FIRST

The principle of first disarming the people before full scale oppression of the people, was seen first hand by Reverend Wesley Millen who, as a missionary, witnessed the communist take over of Asia. In his lectures he would explain how in the first 90 days the communists were so benevolent, humanitarian and helpful, and at the same time laboured vigorously to confiscate all weapons. The people were told peace had arrived and they would no longer have need of weapons. Once the people were disarmed Reverend Millen said, "Then at the end of ninety days we learned the difference between theoretical communism and Bolshevik terror."

I think you may have read into his comments more deeply than what was said or intended.

That being said, you make some good points.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by offiss

Why would you find it strange? The founding fathers who structured our laws and gov't. didn't find it strange, in fact they understood the reality far to well, and that is why the people have the right to bare arms. If you can't fight back it makes for an easy takeover, but if you can fight back it's a major deterent for a gov't to order it's military to attack it's countrymen when the entire military has friends and family amoungst them. Our entire gov't. structure has been designed to protect the people of this country from a gov't takeover, as is not the case for many countries all over the world.

You greatly underestimate the evil, and greed for power in this world. In which we are not islolated from in our country.



Adolf Hitler disarming and exterminating the Jews is a classic example of the horrors that can happen when we fail to realize the potential of evil manifested in man. In fact, more than a hundred and seventy million (170,000,000) people were exterminated by their own governments during the twentieth century. The one thing all these atrocities had in common was "gun control." Clearly those that wish to disarm people are far from being within the will of God and in fact are anti-Christ. I highly recommend purchasing “innocents betrayed” at JPFO for a history of how evil and disarming citizens goes hand in hand. After you see this documentary you’ll never allow yourself or family to be disarmed by so-called “gun control” laws.

Do not be deceived, the spirit behind the gun-control effort is allied with outright evil and history proves this point with perfect clarity.


DISARM THE PEOPLE FIRST

The principle of first disarming the people before full scale oppression of the people, was seen first hand by Reverend Wesley Millen who, as a missionary, witnessed the communist take over of Asia. In his lectures he would explain how in the first 90 days the communists were so benevolent, humanitarian and helpful, and at the same time laboured vigorously to confiscate all weapons. The people were told peace had arrived and they would no longer have need of weapons. Once the people were disarmed Reverend Millen said, "Then at the end of ninety days we learned the difference between theoretical communism and Bolshevik terror."

Woah, hold on a minute here. Did you just say that people who are for gun control are anti-Christ? I can't say I agree there.

I don't know that it's fair or right to go back to our founding fathers everytime as the basis for an argument. For one thing, the right to bear arms doesn't even really mean the same thing anymore because the arms (or weapons) aren't even the same anymore. There is a pretty big difference between giving everyone the right to a musket and the right to an AK.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There is a pretty big difference between giving everyone the right to a musket and the right to an AK.

I would be all for limiting the right to bear arms to muskets. The laughs alone at watching someone try to commit a robbery, murder with a musket would be priceless.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Woah, hold on a minute here. Did you just say that people who are for gun control are anti-Christ? I can't say I agree there.

I don't know that it's fair or right to go back to our founding fathers everytime as the basis for an argument. For one thing, the right to bear arms doesn't even really mean the same thing anymore because the arms (or weapons) aren't even the same anymore. There is a pretty big difference between giving everyone the right to a musket and the right to an AK.

Actually no, I didn't say that, it happened to be in the article I pasted, I was going to take a few things out of it which maybe I should have, or put a little foot note, I don't neccasarily agree with that, nor have I read the book they recommended, it was just the basic premace of the article I was refering to. Sorry.

The type of weoponry is irrelevent, it's the spirit in which, and why, this law was brought forth in our constitution.

Any good con man relies on the trust of the person he is going to con.

With all these dictatorships in all these countries around the world, and with all these people being oppressed by them, you still think we are immuned to such a takeover? Maybe not tommorow, but there are people working overtime to try and make it happen.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I don't know that it's fair or right to go back to our founding fathers everytime as the basis for an argument. For one thing, the right to bear arms doesn't even really mean the same thing anymore because the arms (or weapons) aren't even the same anymore. There is a pretty big difference between giving everyone the right to a musket and the right to an AK.

Let's apply that same argument to another individual right that our founders came up with -- the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Certainly they never envisioned the terrorist plots of the 21 century, "dirty bombs", cell phones, or other remote electrical detonation devices.

Would you say this guarantee is similarly 'outdated' and should be scrapped, since the world is a different place now and times have changed? Would you argue that their call for probable cause and search warrants issued by an objective third party to be the product of a primitive age and should be adjusted for modern times?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Let's apply that same argument to another individual right that our founders came up with -- the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Certainly they never envisioned the terrorist plots of the 21 century, "dirty bombs", cell phones, or other remote electrical detonation devices.

Would you say this guarantee is similarly 'outdated' and should be scrapped, since the world is a different place now and times have changed? Would you argue that their call for probable cause and search warrants issued by an objective third party to be the product of a primitive age and should be adjusted for modern times?

i think people are flexible enough to go with the flow. but when the powers start abusing it, thats when the chaos starts. the patriot act, in the beginning, was a good tool to combat terroism. but once the powers realized what they had, it became abused to the point it should probably be abolished

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Let's apply that same argument to another individual right that our founders came up with -- the Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Certainly they never envisioned the terrorist plots of the 21 century, "dirty bombs", cell phones, or other remote electrical detonation devices.

Would you say this guarantee is similarly 'outdated' and should be scrapped, since the world is a different place now and times have changed? Would you argue that their call for probable cause and search warrants issued by an objective third party to be the product of a primitive age and should be adjusted for modern times?

The Constitution was designed to be re-interpreted and amended as society (and its problems) changed. The 4th Amendment is no exception. For example, if you go into most public places, no one can search your person without probable cause. But, if you go into an airport (a public place), the government has every right to search you. The development of the airplane was something the Founding Fathers didn't envision and which the Supreme Court addressed, thereby changing the meaning of the 4th Amendment. Moreover, the government has a right to use all sorts of electronic surveillance equipment on people and places (e.g., airplane "flybys" over property to see what people are doing) without a search warrant and without violating the 4th Amendment.

IMO, the gun control issue and the 2nd Amendment is no different. Today's weapons are far more lethal than muskets and the need for militias to prevent against the "King's men" is far less great than it was in the 18th Century. Gun violence is a major problem that requires a serious and dramatic solution. I don't know exactly what that solution is, but I do know that the status quo is not working.

[KLHJ2]

All I know is that I better not be asked for a permission slip from a pshchiatrist to obtain my firearm from Big Bubba Loaded Clip down at the Tackle Box.