Liberals on guns: let's burn this strawman right up! (states, countries, United States)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No state has banned any weapon. They have banned "bling bling" that makes them look more like military weapons, but they haven't banned a weapon.
You can go and buy a rifle that fires the same round as the M16, the AK-47, or any other assault rifle, they just don't look like the military grade stuff.
So, keep spinning in circles.
The Supreme court has ruled its ok to ban certain things off of weapons. Home defense doesn't mean an assault rifle. Hunting doesn't mean a flash guard.
Face it, you're argument that the constitution is being infringed upon, is bull, and you know it.
The Supreme court has ruled, and I wager to bet they know a hell of a lot more about the Constitution than anyone else on this board.
I doubt the current criminals sitting in treason on the court today know as much about the constitution as those who wrote the bloody document?
Clearly, you suffer a gross lack of knowledge of this subject which leads you to make such outlandish and irrelevant statements such as "home defense doesn't mean assault rifle" . Where in the 2nd amendment does it identify a purpose for the 2nd amendment right to bare arms? In the language itself "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The purpose is to secure freedom ... not home defense against a burglar, and NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with hunting.
Once again, you are injecting your false perceptions and rationalizations when they clearly have no relevant value to the issue. And before you or someone else latches onto the "...well regulated militia ..." portion as proof that it's only for the military and it authorizes "regulation" (as is so often the case with unlearned people who think they know what they are talking about) ... let me nip that in the bud too .... "well regulated" in the context and language of the day meant "well equipped", and the "militia" meaning the common people. So in straight forward modern language the 2nd Amendment really says .. "It's important for the citizens to be well armed in order to maintain freedom".
Now you can fuss and moan all you want, or you can educate yourself on the subject and you'll see a common mentality among the framers of the constitution regarding the basic nature and history of government tyranny, and the measures those drafters observed in developing the constitution which focused more on ways to prevent such tyranny and protect the people's liberty than any other concern, including the rights of those people to keep and bare arms to defend against such tyranny.
Here are a few examples, just for educational purposes so you don't have to take my word for any of this ... I'll let you argue that the founding fathers didn't know what they were talking about ... and see how far that will get you!
Quote:
‘‘Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined’’
— Patrick Henry
======================================
‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’
— Patrick Henry
======================================
‘‘No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).’’
— Thomas Jefferson
======================================
‘‘To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...’’
— Richard Henry Lee, 1787
======================================
‘‘And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.’’
— Samuel Adams
======================================
‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’
— James Madison
======================================
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’
— Patrick Henry
======================================
‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’
— George Mason
======================================
‘‘The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’’
— St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803
======================================
‘‘Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States’’
— Noah Webster, 1888
======================================
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi
======================================
‘‘In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.’’
— Aristotle
So you may argue with Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Aristotle and even Ghandi if you care to ... but let's be CLEAR what side you are supporting through such a lack of understanding and knowledge of this important matter:
‘‘Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.’’
— Heinrich Himmler
‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’
-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938
Now, I'll close with just one more appropriate quote:
‘‘ They, the makers of the Constitution: conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.’’
‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’
Originally Posted by jeepejeep
Please, the list would be prohibitivly too long starting with virtually everyone in the current administration. Every one of them at one point or another has stated an anti-gun objective. If you truly don't know this, you are really out of touch.
Look up the voting records of:
Diane Feinstein
Charles Schumer
Bill Clinton
Barack Obama
Nancy Pelosi
Herry Reid
Barbara Boxer
And on, and on and on...
Here's a good place to start your research:
Nancy Pelosi on the Issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679
These people are not against gun ownership.
I think you need to define "anti-gun". To me it would mean a person is 100% against private gun ownership.
Right they're only against the peons owing firearms, they're all for it for themselves, and they're really against the common man actually carrying a firearm while they avail themselves of it. Look into how Dianne Feinstein votes and what laws she proposes, while carrying a gun.
Amazing, it seems all of the exception to the rule, pro-gun liberals in the country are posting in this thread. It's too bad there are 50 million other anti-gun liberals who vote in anti-gun politicians.
Don't do much service rifle competition do ya. CA has banned the AR 15 in it's proper form, the M1A, AR 10 etc. Fortunately, I do not live in CA, but did used to go there to compete in service rifle and IPSC. No more. Yep, their laws have made LEGAL use of certain types of firearms pretty much extinct. These so called 'assault rifles' as you say, are used for a lot of legitimate purposes, but, thanks to thinking like yours, are now only available to criminals. In TRUE military trim, I might add. The little switch on the side has that nifty extra notch. I find it interesting how you demonize such things as flash guards, and throw out the term "assault rifle" to describe such pieces as the good ol' AR. Talk about spin. Do you know what the top competition rifle is at the Camp Perry competitions is these days? Yea, the 'evil' AR 15. Hunting and home defense are not what the 2nd ammendment is written for. Like it or not, service style rifles, in the tradition of the American Rifleman, training in proper marksmanship with same, is what the Constitution guarantees us the right to. The rifles of choice today are the ones you say we do not need, in your infinite knowledge. The arrogance is appalling.
This is an excellent point that I neglected in my posts, and I applaud you for presenting it.
The 2nd amendment language "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state ......" portion means "well equipped", in essence, it would indicate that the framers would have considered "well equipped" to mean "state of the art" ... or most modern, and efficient available arms.
Given that the purpose is to defend freedom, I cannot fathom the notion that the framers would have entertained the idea of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bare inferior arms to that of a potential threat to the liberty being protected. The idea itself is ludicrous.
Yet this is exactly what the gun control nuts would have you accept ... that only police and or military should have "assault" riffles, and the rest of us should be happy to have a 12 g shotgun or a bolt action 22.
All of these "common sense" efforts of the gun grabbers to ban certain types of weapons is just another effort to dilute the ability to defend our freedom.
In addition, if we had a legitimate government that served the people, they would want a well armed society of law abiding citizens to defend against criminals and foreign threats ... of course ... they do not want that because they know that it is their tyranny which is the true threat to out liberty, and not some outside threat.
In lieu of a total confiscation of firearms which they would ultimately prefer, making sure they have overwhelming firepower, by limiting the people's access to weapons of inferior capability is the next best alternative. One could hardly defend oneself with a S&W revolver in the face of fully automatic AR15's. As someone once said ... my pistol is what I use to get back to my gun.
The problem we face is an emasculated populace who have been trained to fear guns in the hands of anyone but the authorities ... when the reality is that there is never a time when fear is more warranted than when only the authorities have the guns.
These are the people referred to in some circles as the "useful idiots", who, out of pure ignorance, champion causes and agendas that are counter to their own best interests. They literally are more dangerous to liberty than the tyrants and despots because they are among us .. our neighbors .. friends, relatives and associates and are much more difficult to identify.
Right here on this thread .... several liberals who claim to be pro-gun .. some of them, I think, actually believe they really are ... though there is always that "but" ... "I believe in gun ownership, BUT ... " and then there is the long list of caveats and exclusions and restrictions .... all for the greater good of course, and none of these conditions are considered infringements. These people have no conception of the statement "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", nor do they seem to even grasp the elementary definition of common terms such as "infringe".
These are the same people who firmly believe in the 1st amendment also, until someone says something that offends them .. (and that is easy to do as they are very easily offended) ... then, all bets are off.
The bottom line is ... and this is not an opinion as much as it is actual experience ... you cannot reason with an extreme liberal. Their minds lack the ability to reason .. their positions on virtually every matter is void of reason, so it's just a frustrating exercise of futility. You might as well accept that, and plan accordingly.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-09-2010 at 09:48 PM..
Show me when the government tried to disarm the people.
Not one case in american history, other than a few militias and cults, who had usually obtained illegal weapons.
Show me where the federal government tried to outlaw guns.
Study your history....I specifically mention OTHER COUNTRIES. I did NOT say that the US government has tried to disarm the American people....at least not in the manner it was done in other countries....Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, for instance.
The left in this country HAS, however, have been trying to incrementally disarm the American people for decades by passing ever more restrictive gun laws. Anti-gun groups and leftist politicians are on record as saying that their ultimate goal is the banning of all private ownership of firearms. The NRA is the one group that has consistently and successfuly stopped the legislation that would infringe on the Second Amendment.
Do your own research. I don't work for you. If you have any guts at all, you'll do the research to see if you can prove that I'm wrong....and if you have any integrity at all, you'll admit, after having done the research, that I'm right.
Study your history....I specifically mention OTHER COUNTRIES. I did NOT say that the US government has tried to disarm the American people....at least not in the manner it was done in other countries....Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, for instance.
The left in this country HAS, however, have been trying to incrementally disarm the American people for decades by passing ever more restrictive gun laws. Anti-gun groups and leftist politicians are on record as saying that their ultimate goal is the banning of all private ownership of firearms. The NRA is the one group that has consistently and successfuly stopped the legislation that would infringe on the Second Amendment.
Do your own research. I don't work for you. If you have any guts at all, you'll do the research to see if you can prove that I'm wrong....and if you have any integrity at all, you'll admit, after having done the research, that I'm right.
But I won't hold my breath.
I'll worry about my country.
Y'all blow my mind sometime.
I argue that a waiting period is good, I hear "Government trying to take my guns!"
I ask y'all to prove that, and you bring up Germany? Really?
You know, I like to debate, but when you use irrational arguments, its kind of hard to.
Its like arguing that someone has a good marriage, and you bring up that a completely different couple had a bad one, so all marriages are bad.
I argue that a waiting period is good, I hear "Government trying to take my guns!"
I ask y'all to prove that, and you bring up Germany? Really?
You know, I like to debate, but when you use irrational arguments, its kind of hard to.
Its like arguing that someone has a good marriage, and you bring up that a completely different couple had a bad one, so all marriages are bad.
Waiting periods are no longer required. A background check, through NCIS/FBI over the phone is now in use, has been for some time. Waiting periods are now there merely to cause inconvenience and make a statement. Since the instant check went into effect, I know of only 4 cases where felons were stopped from buying a firearm at a dealership. Most criminals are smarter than to try and beat the system. They bypass it instead and get whatever they want as well. All the way up to heavy weapons and LAW. My biggest gripe with the current proposals on the table from anti firearms types is the so called 'assault weapons' issue. One cannot walk into Cabelas and buy an 'assault weapon' , thus the anti types now are using the term 'semi auto assault weapon'. There is no such critter. These idiots point to such items as flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips etc as 'evil' and 'unneeded', when they do nothing at all to change the function of the rifle or make it magically into a massively destructive battle implement. It is quite silly. I will aquiese that there are irresponsible firearms owners out there, no doubt. There are folks who just go for the military look based on a fantasy life within their own mind. They are a small percentage of firearms owners, and are not actually part of the 'shooting community' comprised of responsible owners and users who take the art of the gun seriously. I own , and use, several semi auto versions of service rifles. My son and I compete with them and they o double duty on the ranch as well. They are tough, reliable, accurate, and versatile. If I had to make do with just one rifle , it would be one of these. Thankfully, I dn't have to make that choice, and never will God willing and the river don't rise. The haters really need to get off the 'assault weapon' thing. If they actually knew what fools they are making of themselves about it, I'm sure the hoopla would quickly die off.
Incrementalism is the great deceiver in the gun regulation debate.
I don't think any rational person would disagree with wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of psychopathic killers. But the gun control measures, methods and solutions designed to do that are without exception a step in the wrong direction, ineffective, and an affront to the constitution. Psychopaths and criminals won't obey the law, and will get the guns anyway.
And you cannot allow "a little infringement" .. because that will only lead to a lot, just as anything else. It's incrementalism.
The government decides they want to put up a toll on a highway ... people start to complain .. the officials say don't worry .. it's only 10 cents, so the people say, well, since it's only 10 cents .. it's no big deal. Then the amount is raised ... and raised again, and again, and next thing you know, you're paying a buck a mile, and they start plopping up toll booths on three other highways. Now, it's a big deal, but now, it's too late to stop it.
The income tax was a TEMPORARY tax ... don't worry ... it's only temporary to pay for the war ... trust us ... we'll end the tax as soon as the war is paid off. Trust us indeed.
Hey .. we need the Patriot Act ... oh don't worry about all of that loss of liberty ... it's not designed for the law abiding American ... it's to be used against the terrorists. DON'T WORRY ... BE HAPPY. Later on ... the Tea Party are terrorists ... anyone who disagrees with the government is a terrorist ... people who voted for Ron paul are terrorists ... people who believe in the constitution are terrorists ....
Hey, we need to use torture against the enemy combatants ... water boarding .. stuff like that ... these are cold blooded killers ...and they don't deserve lawyers or due process ... we need to lock them up to keep America safe.
We need to strip search grandma in the airport ... because you can bet, those terrorists are crafty .. sooner or later, they're going to load up grandma looking types with bombs .... oooohhhhh, be afraid ... be very afraid.
Sounds like a lot of BS doesn't it?
That's because it is ... just like gun laws ... they know the criminals won't pay any attention to those laws ... but they don't care, because it's not the criminals they worry about ... they worry about 60 million Americans with guns getting sick and tired of government's criminal shenanigans.
The only legitimate form of gun control is the ability to hit what you are aiming at. That's gun control.
Still don't see any straw men burning. Matter of fact, many of the lib/pro responders here are strengthening the view that their goal is to further some form of firearms restriction. Their whole premise is based on that goal. "We support firearms rights, we just want to see SOME restrictions. You know, like 'assault weapons'. After all you don't hunt with these". And other such drivel. And so, if we were all to surrender our AR's or agree to retrofit them with less 'military' cosmetics and limit our magazine capacity to 3, the cry would go up against bolt action "long range sniper rifles with telescopic sights that are designed only to kill at extreme ranges with one shot". There is no end to it. The lib/pros are to convinced that they actually know what they are talking about, and that they actually do support the 2nd amendment because they can live with hunting. Sad, and dangerous.
I argue that a waiting period is good, I hear "Government trying to take my guns!"
I ask y'all to prove that, and you bring up Germany? Really?
You know, I like to debate, but when you use irrational arguments, its kind of hard to.
Its like arguing that someone has a good marriage, and you bring up that a completely different couple had a bad one, so all marriages are bad.
I bring up the other countries because the same tactics used to disarm the people in those countries are being used here. And you call that an irrational argument? I call denying it and irrational argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
