Originally posted by Indigo5
(A) No...Owning a gun does not make you a "Lord and Master" in the USA....
Ah, but we are not discussing people who merely "own" guns - we are discussing non-military folks who are issued
them by the government. DHS
"troopers" will not "own" these guns. That will not prevent them from abusing them, as they have already demonstrated a propensity towards abuses.
(B) I wasn't demanding you move to Somalia...only pointing out that there are regions in the world better suited to that fantasy of lawlessness and
For the moment, perhaps, but DHS has demonstrated a proclivity to simply take power they have not been delegated, and against the wishes of their
victims. Warlords? no... they are far worse than that. They are Warlords with governmental blessings. As has been pointed out, gun ownership in
Somalia is around 1 in 10 of the population. The "warlord" ethos might be a bit harder to maintain and enforce if their victims were more able to
(C) What makes you think I don't own guns? I both own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment.
"Believing in" something is apparently not the same thing as supporting it, or even understanding it. A review of the Heller vs. DC Supreme Court
decision might be in order there, so that you understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, and in particular the concept of "operative clause". The
"introductory clause", the part that says "A well-regulated militia...", does seem to indicate that military grade weapons are part of what are being
discussed there (although only part), and what is being protected in the hands of the people by the "operative clause" - the part that says "...shall
not be infringed".
Question - What is a "militia" without military weapons?
Answer - a pile of bodies, AKA "victims".
I do not believe the 2nd Amendment means we can not discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of crazy folks and criminals...and frankly the
NRA exploits folks with paranoid, tyrannical fantasies to shut down those conversations.
You will NEVER be able to keep guns out of the hands of "crazy folks and criminals" - you will only be able to take them from the people who are
willing to give them up, generally referred to as "law abiding citizens". That's ALL this current spate of legislative proposals address. What,
exactly, do you think would make "crazy folks and criminals" suddenly decide to obey laws they have consistently ignored up to this point? Wouldn't
that change of heart suddenly convert a "criminal" into a "law abiding citizen"?
The most you can hope for is to minimize possession by crazy folks and criminals, and that starts with enforcing existing restrictions, not trying to
create new ones in the absence of enforcement.
The NRA supports the "gun control" agenda. I've had nothing to do with them for years, and cannot foresee a circumstance that would put me into their
camp. I've not forgotten their support of the "Assault Weapon Ban" in a bid to preserve their precious turkey guns. Their entire gig is to collect
money, and THAT is what they do with fueling fantasy. They do not care if you can be effectively armed, as long as they can go hunting.
I personally am not concerned with who owns firearms - I'm more concerned with the right
to own them, the potential to possess them unmolested
by governmental entities. A careful reading of the Constitution will show that it is not there to limit the people, but rather to limit the
government. The Bill of Rights, for example, does not "grant" us any rights at all - it only prohibits the government from interfering in rights which
are pre-existent, enumerates what some of those are, and specifically prohibits the government from interfering in their exercise.
edit on 2013/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)