Your right to 'Bear Arms'

reply to post by browsey


yeah but in europe we get deranged felon kills 8 wounds 130+ (Belgium) and the like of the norway killer that dispite all the draconinal gun laws of europe a felon(in belgiums case) convicted of possessing forbbiden guns and gun parts as well as 2000K pot plants gets 16 months in jail then gets probation manages to arm him self again and then go on a frigging rampage? or you have people like brevik or how ever u spell his name plotting the deaths of children for over a decade and the cops even when informed still cant stop him due to having to call for police with guns you guys can belittle us for our guns and gun culture but its kept us from having hundreds of our people shot on the street by a mad man in one go(look into the texas bell tower shooting from back in the day,civillians pinned him down with fire and allowed cops to storm the tower and kill that sob)yeah we get our fair share of gun crime but idiots will usualy commit crimes regardless of the laws or kids shooting up some schools but at least we dont get triple digit kill ratios of our citizens when some one does loose it,hell the la bank roberry cops got them because they raided a CIVILIAN gun store and got better fire power then the guys with aks and body armour . and one more point on gun control look at belgiums gun laws some of the most draconian in the world and this guy got his hands on more with his record wouldnt make me feel safe....switzerland as the right idea gun for every citizen and they have almost no gun crime you would think they would be having more deaths per year but they dont funny how a lack of gun control can lead to a lack of deaths..... sorry for the rant

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I have never really pondered this question before, but I think the answer is obvious...The right to bear arms, which includes the right to "bare" arms, especially in the summertime, includes only those arms that can legally be bought and sold in the United States.

If I am wrong, I cannot think of any other solution/answer to the problem/question...

hypothetical: all weapons (including kitchen knives) are outlawed. That, according to the logic you present, means you have the right to bear a stick of wood?

The "Right to Bear Arms" is invoked as a truth of nature independant of the laws of man. It is like the Right to Fair Treatment or more directly the Right to Defend Your Life.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The "Right to Bear Arms" is invoked as a truth of nature independant of the laws of man. It is like the Right to Fair Treatment or more directly the Right to Defend Your Life.

That right there sums it up.

Well if you think that guns are the problem then you thought wrong. Guns create a safe and responsible society. Where is my proof? Look at Switzerland. Every male in good standing of a certain age is REQUIRED to keep and own a gun. Joining the militia is MANDATORY. Switzerland has very little to no crime or murders involving guns. In fact, the holocaust never came no Switzerland because Hitler knew that there was no way his Army could defeat them when every male was trained. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And America is crazy. Therefore you have more crime.

Originally posted by WarriorOfTenacity
Well if you think that guns are the problem then you thought wrong. Guns create a safe and responsible society. Where is my proof? Look at Switzerland. Every male in good standing of a certain age is REQUIRED to keep and own a gun. Joining the militia is MANDATORY. Switzerland has very little to no crime or murders involving guns. In fact, the holocaust never came no Switzerland because Hitler knew that there was no way his Army could defeat them when every male was trained. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And America is crazy. Therefore you have more crime.

As an American, I cannot find a single invalid point with this post. Star.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

But that wasn't the point. The point was that Americans don't understand nor wish to inform themselves about the differences between Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Marxism, and so on and so forth,

Those "differences" are mainly degree, not quality.

As long as you acknowledge the FACT that socialism is not communism,

I do not acknowledge that as "fact" at all. They are precisely the same thing. It's only a matter of degree.

and that there are many socialist parties in Europe

Beyond doubt. Europe is eaten up with socialism. Thankfully, America is not Europe.

who not only functioned very well within the Democratic system,

Also beyond question. Democracy is nothing more than Socialism Lite, whereas communism is Socialism Heavy. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is the operative phrase in all forms when feeding the masses BS and bluster.

but were in fact the main champions and defenders of justice, liberty, equality, privacy, individual freedom and sane economic policies,

"Justice" is in the eye of the beholder, as is what is perceived as "sound economic policy". Equality IS a hallmark of Socialism - everyone is equally destitute and oppressed. Well, except for the Big Wheels who live in the dachas, that is. Liberty, privacy, and individual freedom are all entirely absent from socialist systems - it's built in to the system. It harks back to that whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing.

in spite of the continuous assault on those same principles by right wing totalitarians, which continues today.

"Right wing", "left wing" - it makes no difference. Totalitarianism is to be found firmly entrenched in the wing-nuts of BOTH sides of that false dichotomy. Wing-nut-ism is SO last century, and you appear to have gotten trapped in it. A totalitarian is a totalitarian. I can't say that I care at all which wing he flies with.

Obama is a tool of Wall Street. His cabinet, among them Timothy Geithner (Former president of the NYC FED) and staff William Daley (former JP Morgan exec) prove that. His campaign sponsors JP Morgan Chase, Google and Microsoft prove that. His blatant subservience to Wall Street proves that. Obama is a right wing capitalist.

Obama is a fascist - as was Bush, as are neocons. Fascists are collectivists who believe companies should benefit. Socialists are collectivists who believe no one should benefit. Either way all benefit flows to the top, and away from the people. The only difference is in who you choose to put at the top.

Your arms, civil liberties and freedoms are being taken away by right wing capitalists.

My arms and freedoms are being taken by neither side, nor will they be while I still breathe. I have no "civil liberties", nor do I want any. You can have my share of that particular government issued pie, OK? What the government issues to you, they can also withhold. It's not a good idea to fall into that trap - it gives them total control over you if you allow yourself to become that dependent upon a government.

Sleep well. Ron Paul, who won't be allowed to make it anyway, isn't going to save you. If you believe that, you're as foolish as the sheeple who believed in Obama. I suggest you judge a candidate on his actions after assuming the presidency, not his promises before.

I don't believe you've EVER seen me stumping for Ron Paul. EVER. I'm at a loss to understand why you think I believe Ron Paul will "save" me, or why you think I would want or expect him to. Can you point out a post of mine that at any time supports Ron Paul?

From what I can tell so far, the entire field of candidates is designed to perpetuate what we've had for the last 20 years or so.

And inculcate yourself with some knowledge gleaned from books not revised by the Texas Board of Education.

I don't think I've ever been to Texas, much less been educated there. What on Earth does their Board of Eduction have to do with anything at all? Books are OK places to get your knowledge, I reckon - if you're incapable of walking the ground. It seems fairly obvious, as I stated in my first post, that is the place you are getting your "knowledge" - from the books. That's precisely what I meant when i said "another academic socialist".

There is a world out there; it's bigger than the United States, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

Yes, there is. There truly is. You should go find out first hand how the other half lives under your precious academic socialism when it gets translated from your books to operations on the ground.

And don't insult my intelligence with this reflexive McCarthyist automatron drivel.

You're welcome to label me with anything you like - even "McCarthyist". it will in no way change the contents of what's inside to fit your world view.

Academically gleaned from your books.

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Freeborn
I think Americans have a right to do and choose as Americans see fit.

I also think that there is far more of an inherent gun culture within the USA than there is in most, if not all, other 'Western' countries.
The right to self-protection through the use of arms is simply a part of the national psyche.
In addition hunting as both a pastime and as a business is engrained in a large part of US culture.

However, I think it's ridiculous to justify the right to bear arms by claiming an armed civilian population could realistically be a match for a tyrant supported by the US military.
It would be like using a pea-shooter to stop a tank.

Point taken:

but what is the only other option absolutely no means of self determination? If every German Jew had a bolt action rifle and a couple of boxes of cartridges: the SS would've run out of henchmen well before the tanks came rolling in:. they would not have attempted the round ups in the first place.

No I can't knock out a tank with a hunting rifle:BUT "A rifle behind every blade of grass" IS an awesome deterrent in and of itself. Ask the Japanese.

Finally someone responds to this nonsense with common sense. An armed populace most certainly is a very real deterrent to tyranny. If it wasn't, the socialists wouldn't be trying so hard to disarm people.

reply to post by nenothtu


If I were to call you a "McCarthyist" I'd expect you to view it as a compliment. I would.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Freeborn
I think Americans have a right to do and choose as Americans see fit.

I also think that there is far more of an inherent gun culture within the USA than there is in most, if not all, other 'Western' countries.
The right to self-protection through the use of arms is simply a part of the national psyche.
In addition hunting as both a pastime and as a business is engrained in a large part of US culture.

However, I think it's ridiculous to justify the right to bear arms by claiming an armed civilian population could realistically be a match for a tyrant supported by the US military.
It would be like using a pea-shooter to stop a tank.

Point taken:

but what is the only other option absolutely no means of self determination? If every German Jew had a bolt action rifle and a couple of boxes of cartridges: the SS would've run out of henchmen well before the tanks came rolling in:. they would not have attempted the round ups in the first place.

No I can't knock out a tank with a hunting rifle:BUT "A rifle behind every blade of grass" IS an awesome deterrent in and of itself. Ask the Japanese.

Finally someone responds to this nonsense with common sense. An armed populace most certainly is a very real deterrent to tyranny. If it wasn't, the socialists wouldn't be trying so hard to disarm people.

edit on 20-12-2011 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Just to dot the t's and cross the i's: that quote "rifle behind every blade of grass" was incorrectly attributed to Admiril Yamamoto. He didn't actually say it.

Originally posted by tangonine
reply to post by nenothtu

 

If I were to call you a "McCarthyist" I'd expect you to view it as a compliment. I would.

Ah, but one must speak to people on their own level, else no "communication" takes place - it goes right over their heads!

If someone attempts, poorly, to insult you, the attempted insult must be acknowledged so that they know it took no effect. Otherwise, they think you just missed it.

That erroneous assumption, in turn, bolsters that ever present collectivist superiority complex found in all tyranny-minded folks.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by tangonine
reply to post by nenothtu

 

If I were to call you a "McCarthyist" I'd expect you to view it as a compliment. I would.

Ah, but one must speak to people on their own level, else no "communication" takes place - it goes right over their heads!

If someone attempts, poorly, to insult you, the attempted insult must be acknowledged so that they know it took no effect. Otherwise, they think you just missed it.

That erroneous assumption, in turn, bolsters that ever present collectivist superiority complex found in all tyranny-minded folks.

Or... do Iike I do and fall back to "Neener! Neener!"

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Probably you would never know who fired first, but there would be an exchange of fire or you wouldn't get there in time anyway.

My question was less about others knowing who fired first and more about who would actually indulge in firing first, the government or the detainee? I don't see either engaging in firing, thus the neighbours won't be coming to the rescue either.

In the context of militias correcting the unconstitutional use authority, yes-- there would be a high level of awareness and commitment among neighbors. And it would be the start of a long time away from home.

It is not just awareness and commitment that makes up a militia, but organisation, leadership and a clear identification of the sides.

Organisation and leadership require trust. Can you identify one individual in your neighbourhood whose orders you will follow without question at the risk of losing your life? If you can, you are capable of being part of a militia, if not you are not.

Its kind of like long division, you can't choose answer directly, you need to trial and error a multiplier that will fit. recursive

Alot of people could come to the same conclusion at the same time. That's why thinking and relevant information are important.

Of course. But I hear few saying tyranny is already here and the US needs an armed revolution now! It is quite possible they are not coming out openly and risk being targeted by the government before there is sufficient number of people willing to revolt. But since it is near impossible to engage in private communications any longer, unless some take the risks of voicing such an opinion and organise, no one will ever know how many are willing to join a revolution at any given time.

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Probably you would never know who fired first, but there would be an exchange of fire or you wouldn't get there in time anyway.

My question was less about others knowing who fired first and more about who would actually indulge in firing first, the government or the detainee? I don't see either engaging in firing, thus the neighbours won't be coming to the rescue either.

In the context of militias correcting the unconstitutional use authority, yes-- there would be a high level of awareness and commitment among neighbors. And it would be the start of a long time away from home.

It is not just awareness and commitment that makes up a militia, but organisation, leadership and a clear identification of the sides.

Organisation and leadership require trust. Can you identify one individual in your neighbourhood whose orders you will follow without question at the risk of losing your life? If you can, you are capable of being part of a militia, if not you are not.

Its kind of like long division, you can't choose answer directly, you need to trial and error a multiplier that will fit. recursive

Alot of people could come to the same conclusion at the same time. That's why thinking and relevant information are important.

Of course. But I hear few saying tyranny is already here and the US needs an armed revolution now! It is quite possible they are not coming out openly and risk being targeted by the government before there is sufficient number of people willing to revolt. But since it is near impossible to engage in private communications any longer, unless some take the risks of voicing such an opinion and organise, no one will ever know how many are willing to join a revolution at any given time.

Different situations have different sides firing first. Either could fire first

If there is no leader then you draw straws or some such for each situation.

I have three guesses about the way the big bad could go

1) Ultimata come and go. The people prepare for the inevitable conflict. At some time it starts. like the Revolutionary War

2) One group or state is able to maintain a stand off and the rest of the freedom forces join in. like the American Civil War or the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.

3) TPTB move on the whole population. First you survive, then you join up. like Afganistan

Number three is what most people say they envision.

Except for the French (not including the Illuminati), a revolution has never happened successfully for the freedom fighters without help from sympathetic outside powers.

It would be unlike anything that has happened before, if for no other reasons than the technology involved and the lack of an outside power to help.

Originally posted by tangonine
Ah, They joys of gun threads on ATS. What was that Einstein quote about insanity and repetitiveness?

I don't recall....could you repeat it for us

Originally posted by tangonine
Ah, They joys of gun threads on ATS. What was that Einstein quote about insanity and repetitiveness?

You're referring, of course, to the people who think that by passing a law banning guns they will magically disappear and no one will ever use them in a crime ever ever again and they all lived happily ever after, the end?

Still lots of ignoramuses that need to be educated tango. No offense.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by tangonine
Ah, They joys of gun threads on ATS. What was that Einstein quote about insanity and repetitiveness?

You're referring, of course, to the people who think that by passing a law banning guns they will magically disappear and no one will ever use them in a crime ever ever again and they all lived happily ever after, the end?

Still lots of ignoramuses that need to be educated tango. No offense.

None taken, I'm with you completely.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
If there is no leader then you draw straws or some such for each situation.

That would mean everyone is ready to follow the orders from anyone else! That requires a degree of trust several times the conventional leadership structure.

1) Ultimata come and go. The people prepare for the inevitable conflict. At some time it starts. like the Revolutionary War

This is not going to happen. First off, you have to identify the enemy before you can go to war with them. In this instance it appears the enemy is the federal government together with the Congress and the federal courts. It is only when the three of them collude that the constitution be subverted.

Since there are governments at other levels, state and city, with some fire power and legitimacy, unless these agencies decide to back the revolutionaries and not the federal government, the war will be a war against every form of authority and for anarchy rather than a constituional republic.

2) One group or state is able to maintain a stand off and the rest of the freedom forces join in. like the American Civil War or the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.

This makes sense regardless of what the likelihood is. Some states refuse to let the unconstitutional federal authority operate on their territory and may arrest federal agents sparking off a confrontation with the federal government and the revolutionaries join forces with the state government.

3) TPTB move on the whole population. First you survive, then you join up. like Afganistan

This is the most unlikely of scenarios unless the TPTB are stupid. It is almost like their wishing for a revolution and not avoiding it.

Number three is what most people say they envision.

In other words, they are waiting for the TPTB to initiate the revolution and exactly why I don't foresee it happening.

Except for the French (not including the Illuminati), a revolution has never happened successfully for the freedom fighters without help from sympathetic outside powers.

It would be unlike anything that has happened before, if for no other reasons than the technology involved and the lack of an outside power to help.

Well, there is always a first time for everything!

But, for an outside power to be even remotely interested in taking sides, they have to know what the different sides offer. A side that claims to restore constitutional governance is no more preferable to a side claims to be working under the authority of the exact same constitution. Why should an outside power care whether the US government arresting its citizens on its territory is constitutional or not or whether the US launches a war of agression without a declaration of war from the US Congress?

But foreign powers that see a prolonged internal strife that weakens the US as being in their interests may offer covert assistance to the revolutionaries, just enough to keep the strife going, but not enough to let them win.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by tangonine
Ah, They joys of gun threads on ATS. What was that Einstein quote about insanity and repetitiveness?

You're referring, of course, to the people who think that by passing a law banning guns they will magically disappear and no one will ever use them in a crime ever ever again and they all lived happily ever after, the end?

Still lots of ignoramuses that need to be educated tango. No offense.

Just look at Australia if you want to know how taking guns away from legal owners effects crime rates.

AAA had travel alerts for parts of Australia street crime was so bad.

it poor quality but i did it myself here for some lafs: youtu.be...