To what extent should people own firearms?

[FightingFalcon]

sfcdoublel said:

Hey FF, In order for a tyranical government to exist it has to have control of the military. All members of the US Armed Forces swear to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foriegn AND domestic. Also all are trained in their rights when it comes to unlawfull orders. It would be difficult in the extreem for a dictatorial regime to gain power in the US.

As for gun ownership, it's a constitutional right. Period. Although I do question the need to own 82 handguns, unless they are all antiques or rare.

I agree SFC - I took my Oath of Office a couple months ago and I agree with you that one of the military's goals is to defend against domestic threats to our country.

However, a government does not become tyrannical overnight. Furthermore, I wonder how many military Officers would actually be willing to declare war on their own country. I would because I take our Oath extremely seriously (especially the domestic enemies part) but I'm just not sure about everyone else. The people shouldn't put all of their trust in the military or anyone else, regardless.

Lastly, as for your comment that it would be difficult in the extreme for a tyrannical government to form - how about France in 1789? It was one of the most important turning points in human history (certainly one of my favorite....the execution of a king) but guess what? Within a decade, revolutionary France, the home of liberty and democracy, was suffering under the yolk of another tyrannical dictator. How could that happen? Well, it happened for many reasons but it's just important to know that it happened. Don't think that it can't happen in the United States either.

In addition, the British executed their king in 1649 (King Charles I) but within a short time they were under rule of his son, King Charles II. People who lose their vigilence in defending democracy are bound to lose it.

[FightingFalcon]

That's right but what was it that made it tyrannical?
Did they not attempt to set up a government that would not be able to become a tyranny? Everyone has a responsibility to protect home and hearth as well as to stand up to tyranny, that is not what I dispute. Under our form of government the time to stand up to tyranny is before the only remedy is an armed insurrection. At that point the founding fathers experiment in democracy will have proved to have been a failure. Since I will never be willing to accept that, I will never support an armed insurrection no matter how sympathetic I might be to the grievances of those that do.

The American Experiment can only fail if we let it. The Republic is not the government or the people who sit in Washington D.C. The Republic is an ideal that is embodied in the US Constitution - as long as it survives the American Experiment will live on. If the government fails, it does not mean an end to the Republic so long as the American people are willing to overthrow their own government. I have no ties to any government that sits in Washington D.C. - I only serve the Constitution, the Republic and the ideals that it represents.

Ah but they did put it in the Constitution in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Why even do that if it was assumed?

The biggest grievances against the tyrannical British government were put in the Bill of Rights. For example, why did the Founding Fathers need to put the right against quartering soldiers in there? Sounds stupid today but not back then. I think the Founding Fathers put it in there to emphasize a point. Regardless, the 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear that all rights are reserved by the people. Even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't in the Constitution we would still have the right to own weapons.

What I asserted is that they would have been horrified by the idea that the right to own and bear arms would be for the purpose to threaten the government with an armed insurrection in order to protect our individual and collective rights

But that's exactly what Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson said in the quotes I provided. Plenty of other Fouding Fathers felt that way too and I can get quotes from them as well, if you'd like. The overwhelming majority of them knew how precious liberty was and how easily a country could slip into tyrannical rule. As TJ said, the biggest reason for owning guns is to prevent tyranny in the government. Any populace that lacks the means to overthrow its government have already become slaves to them.

We are talking civil war here and I will not support you. No matter how sympathetic I might be to your cause I will not support an armed insurrection and will in fact oppose it.

Even if you are forced into supporting a tyrannical government? Surely you can't believe that. You would side with a tyrannical government over patriots who were struggling to re-establish a government that supported the ideals of the Republic? I don't believe that for a second.

I understand your point that we should never allow tyranny to take hold. But dictators are well versed in the art of propaganda and they don't take power over night. It took Hitler many years to get his hold on power, just as it is with nearly all dictators. You won't wake up morning and suddenly think that the government is tyrannical. Because if it takes you that long, then it's already too late.

PS No hard feelings

[cameron]

Thanks FF no hard feelings on my part either just wanted to make sure

[MrDoublel]

FF,
Be careful talking about "Declaring war on their own country". We are sworn (in Gods name) to defend and uphold the Constitution. The vast majority of us in uniform would refuse to accept orders that would install a tyrannical form of government. Remember, there are LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL orders and we all know the difference (or damn well better!). To declare war on your own country would be declaring war on the constitution.

I know a lot of the lefties are going on about Bush setting himself up as a generalissimo. Ain't gunna happen. Come '08 he steps down and someone else (God how I hope it isn't Hillary!) steps up.

[AmericanPride]

It is the inherent duty of all able Americans to own a firearm, for the protection of the home, the family, and the community and country.

[Sailor]

cameron said:

I have a great deal of respect for you all but your gonna hafta count me out. Not gonna support an armed insurrection or any one who does.

From my "signature" over at THC:

"In it's most basic form the right to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right to maintain the means of one's own self-defense. If a man chooses not to arm himself, that is his choice and right. It is NOT his right to force HIS choice upon ME." -- The OldSailor

The choice of whether or not to keep a firearm is, of course, yours. I know of local cases here where possession and use of firearms by citizens has saved innocent lives.

Once, I found it necessary to take pistol in hand out of concern for a neighbor and my family when the neighbor came crying to my door, screaming her home had been invaded. Needless to say, I didn't need to use it. The invaders (she was correct) kicked in the front door to get in and left through the rear.

The only people who saw that Luger in my hand were the cops who responded to my wifes call. Once all the searching and clearing was done one officer took an interest in the weapon, admiring it. I'd like to think that when I sold it someone like him bought it from the gun shop.

[sneegro9783]

robertfollette said:

"In it's most basic form the right to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right to maintain the means of one's own self-defense. If a man chooses not to arm himself, that is his choice and right. It is NOT his right to force HIS choice upon ME." -- The OldSailor

Well put, sailor.

[sneegro9783]

cameron said:

I have a great deal of respect for you all but your gonna hafta count me out. Not gonna support an armed insurrection or any one who does.

To each their own. I'd neither need nor desire your support.

[libertyrules]

Like many that argue against the 2nd amendment, your premises are rooted in an inability to understand English.

The 2nd amendment has a main clause which conatins the subject: The right, and a verb: Shall in a negated form. It also contains a present participle. The present participle has is used as an adjective forG "the well regulated militia. The well regulated militia is utilized as a reason for the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the entire construct of the sentence that establishes the regulated militia as limit on the right. That my good man is a fraudulant attack utilized by the Liberal Left.

The construct of the 2nd amendment does not create a right. It actually assumes that the right pre-exists. another fallacy of those at odds with the 2nd amendment.

please learn to understand the english language prior to making an arguement one way or the other.

[cameron]

libertyrules said:

Like many that argue against the 2nd amendment, your premises are rooted in an inability to understand English.

The 2nd amendment has a main clause which conatins the subject: The right, and a verb: Shall in a negated form. It also contains a present participle. The present participle has is used as an adjective forG "the well regulated militia. The well regulated militia is utilized as a reason for the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the entire construct of the sentence that establishes the regulated militia as limit on the right. That my good man is a fraudulant attack utilized by the Liberal Left.

The construct of the 2nd amendment does not create a right. It actually assumes that the right pre-exists. another fallacy of those at odds with the 2nd amendment.

please learn to understand the english language prior to making an arguement one way or the other.

Looking to pick a fight libertyrules?

I speak english, but thanks for the tip.

OK I'm willing to concede the point. Whatever right the Second Amendment protects regarding the private possession of guns, for whatever definition of "militia," is not an absolute right. It must serve the overall public interest, including (from the preamble of the US Constitution) the need to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Whatever right there is to possess firearms is no less important than the right of every American, gun owners included, to protection against the possession of guns by persons who by any reasonable standard lack the crucial credentials for responsible gun ownership.

[libertyrules]

Ah, the Preamble.

That has become the mantra of the statist. Cameron are you aware of the definition of the "general welfare" as written in the Preamble? It has nothing to due with providing welfare generally which seems to the norm post FAbian socialist inspired New Deal.

The Preamble was written by Gouv. Morris. he really was the Bill Clinton of his day, a master of slippery language. The domestic tranquility was a direct reference to Shay's Rebellion. Do you recall that ? It also inspired Thomas Jefferson to profess that the tree of liberty would require the blood of tyrants and patriots every 30 odd years, as this blood was the natural manure of liberty. Furthermore, a little rebellion was like a storm - it cleansed the atmosphere.

In addition, the Preamble is not law. it is merely an openning statement. it lacks any power. Or perhaps, you still believe that our tyrants in DC still operate under the premise of the preamble's 1st three words?

In any case, your opinion concerning the 2nd amendment is just that, conjecture and opinion. The construct of the 2nd amendment and all the documented statements: during the Constitutional Convention, written in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and spoken during each state's ratification process clearly establish a clear school of thought that completely discredits your subjective conjecture.

[tits]

This is the entire premise for every SCOTUS case since 1803. "What does the definition of is really mean?"

I am not an attorney, but I have sat in the hot seat a few times concerning environmental laws. My greatest gripe against the entire "adversarial law" is that it is based on who can best defend their opinion.

Everyone who wishes can read the laws and guidelines established by those wealthy land owners 240 years ago. Heck they can even read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates. And if they wish they can search any one of the Law sites to read the arguments and the SCOTUS decisions for every decision since the Marbury v. Madison (1803) and form their own opinion.

Why do you think that your study of law is superior to that of Cami? Especially if you are arguing opinions. Like my favorite bit of animation: the 1971 Nilson's "The Point" pointed out: "everybody's got'tem" concerning a point of view.

Liberty this is not an attack on you, it is mearly a question. The best person to speak to this is Oly on THC. Pete is a retired Constitutional Law lawyer on medical retirement (another who suffers from heart disease). Pete has argued before SCOTUS several times.

[libertyrules]

Regarding Constitutional legal experts, I@have access to one of those. An Uncle of mine served under the house committe chaired by Peter Rodino. He was a Capt. in the US Naval reserve and a Constitutional Law expert during Nixon's Impeachment. He was involved in writting several of the briefs for the cases against the whole cabal from Liddy to Halderman.

No Kidding. I was a 7 year old at the time, and still have the newpaper article from the local newspaper complete with the -- local boy goes to DC and makes a name for himself story line. Personally, I think he is an a$$h@le, but because of him, I take the time to learn what we were meant to be, this association, experiment and hope that they termed these United States. Note: not The United States.

[sgt0311usmc]

Here's a thought:

The first ammendment was a list of the first things that came to mind: Freedom of religion, Press, assembly & to say whatever (idiotic idea or comment) you want about that government (that they were proposing);

THE NEXT THING THAT APPARENTLY POPPED INTO EVERYONE'S MIND WAS - OOPS, WE PISS THE BULLY OFF, HOW WE GONNA PROTECT OURSELVES ....

HENCE - The second ammendment.

There's ALREADY (financial, market, paperwork & licensing) restriction on all gun ownership, including legal MG's. Even if you DO own an MG (or other Class 3), there's also restrictions on storage, transport & ranges that are legal to use them on. And, there's plenty of penalties for mis-use of firearms. There's even penalties that take away your second ammendment rights for NON-GUN offenses - Even for unjudicated accusations. SO ...

MAYBE the only law left to be written is a nationwide recognition of state CCW's (like the driver's license); and then, maybe they need to enfore the exsisting laws ...

Maybe ...