Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles?
10-16-2008, 10:43 AM
#136
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
If someone really feels that the right to bare arms will make a difference today, they need it explained to them that they have never breathed the air of liberty they claim to posess. That liberty was lost when we lost the ability to defend it, and I truthfully do not know when that happened but I know it was before any of us were born.
Maybe that is where part of this is coming from.... The lack of belief in a situation where we would be individually disarmed combined with the knowledge that even if we are armed to the teeth, it makes no difference like it used to when most citizens took it upon themselves to be personally responsible for the maintenance of our Free State. It would take months at the least to arm and train each citizen capable of taking part in upholding our freedom. It would take seconds for our own government to destroy us.
Maybe that is where the rationality is missing from those that claim they keep and store weapons for reasons surrounding the 2nd Amendment. It's a nice idea, and history has taught me that at one time maybe it worked. Can't people see that things were different then? Our "military" was our people. Now it's our government. Have our predecessors failed us so badly? It's our responsibility to clean it up, problem is, I don't think we can. I applaud those who want to hold true to our nations roots and cling to what they think is Liberty but... I think things have changed. Even in my father's day, every self respecting 10 year old boy knew how to handle and operate a firearm with aplomb. I have watched my mother defend our house with an 1800's 12ga when I was a small boy. She could out-shoot many of my father's friends when the guns and target fun came out. May she rest in peace. Anyway, I feel this spirit has faded so drastically that it would be hard to bring it back. Many of my friends my age have never held let along fired a weapon and, as scary as it may seem, would have no idea what to do if they needed to.
The good that has come of this is that it has renewed a sense of interest for me in my country and it's history. I even downloaded all 586 pages of The Federal and intend to digest as much as I can for myself.
10-16-2008, 10:55 AM
#137
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
And you're in CA, imagine how many guns people own in states with even less regulation.
10-16-2008, 11:00 AM
#138
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
I can see that.
There exists a natural right of self protection, in which, any force is allowed, including deadly force, when you are in fear for your life.
Adding to this, one does not go looking for a fight, but if a fight happens to find you, and things get ugly, you must defend yourself.
Do you agree with this?
Adding to this, one does not go looking for a fight, but if a fight happens to find you, and things get ugly, you must defend yourself.
Do you agree with this?
To the Founding Fathers, one of the greatest concerns was the idea of tyranny, especially in the form of gov't tyranny.
These men had read, studied, and learned from all of the classical books pertaining to this subject; Machiavelli's The Prince is one such book.
The Founding Fathers knew that an unarmed populace would be ripe for a tyrannical govt, and as such, wanted to ensure that the people had the means necessary to prevent a tyrannical gov't from starting.
It's also important to remember that the idea of a large standing army...like we have today...was an abhorrent idea to the Founding Fathers.
But, they also had to reconcile the fact that the gov't would need to protect the people from foreign invasion.
The question was, how do protect the State and People(by creating a military that could become oppressive) while allowing the People to keep the gov't from becoming tyrannical?
The solution was simple & concise:
Form the militia and arm the People.
This is what is said in the 2nd Amendment.
Arms are a right of the people to prevent gov't tyranny.
These men had read, studied, and learned from all of the classical books pertaining to this subject; Machiavelli's The Prince is one such book.
The Founding Fathers knew that an unarmed populace would be ripe for a tyrannical govt, and as such, wanted to ensure that the people had the means necessary to prevent a tyrannical gov't from starting.
It's also important to remember that the idea of a large standing army...like we have today...was an abhorrent idea to the Founding Fathers.
But, they also had to reconcile the fact that the gov't would need to protect the people from foreign invasion.
The question was, how do protect the State and People(by creating a military that could become oppressive) while allowing the People to keep the gov't from becoming tyrannical?
The solution was simple & concise:
Form the militia and arm the People.
This is what is said in the 2nd Amendment.
Arms are a right of the people to prevent gov't tyranny.
I do not want to give up/give in. I do not see how, at this stage, we could get back to the place of being able to defend our Liberty.
10-16-2008, 11:15 AM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Thank you for this, really. It is along the lines of what I feel is my understanding. I feel that the balance has been tipped so far out of range of the original intent that there is, in effect, an unarmed populace and our Founding Fathers' worst fears have come true. Back then, I would have seen a well armed People as being around an equal to the standing army. Today I do not see it that way, and I do not find comfort in pretending that owning a mass of weapons is equal to maintaining Our Liberty. At the same time I see why some would think that - maybe I just wanted to hear the reasoning, to see if that was really it......
I do not want to give up/give in. I do not see how, at this stage, we could get back to the place of being able to defend our Liberty.
I do not want to give up/give in. I do not see how, at this stage, we could get back to the place of being able to defend our Liberty.
We're in charge of who we put in charge. And we don't need to resort to an arms pissing match to to make it known. The president shouldn't be leading us, we should be leading him/her.
Last edited by Superglue WRX; 10-16-2008 at 04:21 PM. Reason: i kant spell
10-16-2008, 06:20 PM
#140
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
I believe until I can legally own a true assault rifle in the PRK, my 2nd Amendment right is being violated.
Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to seek relief in the courts.
10-16-2008, 07:33 PM
#141
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Maybe because the courts don't think your right is being violated, considering the fact that you own guns. That was the intent of the law no? So that you can own guns, or was it so you can own the coolest guns as well, I forget. Maybe the NRA just keeps pushing the issue because they love to lobby for stuff, just like any other lobbiest group. It's fun to attack gray areas of the law and make people feel that instead the law should be black and white but only if it's to their advantage/interests.
10-17-2008, 09:25 AM
#142
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Maybe because the courts don't think your right is being violated, considering the fact that you own guns. That was the intent of the law no? So that you can own guns, or was it so you can own the coolest guns as well, I forget. Maybe the NRA just keeps pushing the issue because they love to lobby for stuff, just like any other lobbiest group. It's fun to attack gray areas of the law and make people feel that instead the law should be black and white but only if it's to their advantage/interests.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has pursued the matter.
There is a case that is slowly working it's way through the court system that involves the California DOJ illegally bugging a gun store in the central valley area,iirc.
I do not know all of the details, but you could probably google it.
In California, there's a list of named "assault weapons" that are prohibited from being owned, if they were not registered back in the 90's.
The govt said that gun registration would not lead to gun confiscation.
That was a lie.
A few folks that were ignorant enough to register their once legal gun, got a surprise visit from DOJ confiscating their now "illegal" fire arm.
And were charged with crimes.
A few more points on tyrannical govt.
During Clinton's time in office, two huge atrocities against the people occurred: Ruby Ridge and Waco.
The base charge that the govt used in both cases were the failure to pay the $200 "gun tax" on "illegal" firearms.
While I'm not defending the decisions that the Weaver's or Branch Dividians made, I'm certainly condemning the govt decision to murder people on weapons charges that may not have been valid in the first place.
I'm just pointing out recent facts that shows that govt is more than willing to become tyrannical and turn on the very people it was devised to protect.
Is it too late to make a difference?
Perhaps...perhaps not.
But what I...we...must not tolerate, is further erosion of our right to self protection of a tyrannical govt.
10-17-2008, 12:38 PM
#143
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Back in the day, it was illegal to own marijuana w/o a permit. But in order to get the permit, you needed to show up with the marijuana in hand, which was illegal. No permits were ever permitted.
Same tricks different subject. It's to catch stupid people.
For a refresher,
Waco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
The atrocity to the raid was the ATF ignoring standard procedures. The Davidians were tipped off about the raid and notified the ATF that they knew. The ATF continued. One of the members pleaded to 911 for a cease fire. The ATF only agreed once they expended all of their ammo. Finally the FBI took command and actually tried to negotiate. Negotiations didn't work because both sides, then a final raid.
Ruby Ridge:
I haven't read enough about, I wasn't old enough to care about the news in '92
Either way, sighting two incidences with fairly unstable families with a stock pile of guns would hardly indicate a tyrannical government. In fact, I would be just as concerned if the government did nothing in both cases.
To further the point, I think it's much more appalling that they just spent $700 billion of our money to essentially privatize the banking system. Guns are the least of this countries problems.
Same tricks different subject. It's to catch stupid people.
For a refresher,
Waco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
In May 1992, Chief Deputy Daniel Weyenberg of the McLennan County Sheriff's Department called the ATF notifying that his office had been contacted by the local United Parcel Service regarding a driver seeing a package that had broken open on delivery to the Branch Davidian residence, revealing that it contained firearms, inert grenade casings, and black powder. On June 9, 1992 a formal investigation was opened and a week later it was classified as sensitive, thereby calling for a high degree of oversight from both Houston and Headquarters (italics on the original).....
The documentary Inside Waco claims that the investigation started when in 1992 the ATF became concerned over reports of automatic gunfire coming from the Carmel compound.....
Subsequent investigations, including sending in one agent undercover, revealed that there were over 150 weapons and 8,000 rounds of ammunition in the compound. Most of the weapons were legal semi-automatics; however, the ATF alleged there were also a number of firearms that had been illegally modified to fire full-automatic.....
The documentary Inside Waco claims that the investigation started when in 1992 the ATF became concerned over reports of automatic gunfire coming from the Carmel compound.....
Subsequent investigations, including sending in one agent undercover, revealed that there were over 150 weapons and 8,000 rounds of ammunition in the compound. Most of the weapons were legal semi-automatics; however, the ATF alleged there were also a number of firearms that had been illegally modified to fire full-automatic.....
Ruby Ridge:
I haven't read enough about, I wasn't old enough to care about the news in '92
Either way, sighting two incidences with fairly unstable families with a stock pile of guns would hardly indicate a tyrannical government. In fact, I would be just as concerned if the government did nothing in both cases.
To further the point, I think it's much more appalling that they just spent $700 billion of our money to essentially privatize the banking system. Guns are the least of this countries problems.
10-17-2008, 02:53 PM
#144
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Back in the day, it was illegal to own marijuana w/o a permit. But in order to get the permit, you needed to show up with the marijuana in hand, which was illegal. No permits were ever permitted.
Same tricks different subject. It's to catch stupid people.
For a refresher,
Waco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
The atrocity to the raid was the ATF ignoring standard procedures. The Davidians were tipped off about the raid and notified the ATF that they knew. The ATF continued. One of the members pleaded to 911 for a cease fire. The ATF only agreed once they expended all of their ammo. Finally the FBI took command and actually tried to negotiate. Negotiations didn't work because both sides, then a final raid.
Ruby Ridge:
I haven't read enough about, I wasn't old enough to care about the news in '92
Either way, sighting two incidences with fairly unstable families with a stock pile of guns would hardly indicate a tyrannical government. In fact, I would be just as concerned if the government did nothing in both cases.
To further the point, I think it's much more appalling that they just spent $700 billion of our money to essentially privatize the banking system. Guns are the least of this countries problems.
Same tricks different subject. It's to catch stupid people.
For a refresher,
Waco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
The atrocity to the raid was the ATF ignoring standard procedures. The Davidians were tipped off about the raid and notified the ATF that they knew. The ATF continued. One of the members pleaded to 911 for a cease fire. The ATF only agreed once they expended all of their ammo. Finally the FBI took command and actually tried to negotiate. Negotiations didn't work because both sides, then a final raid.
Ruby Ridge:
I haven't read enough about, I wasn't old enough to care about the news in '92
Either way, sighting two incidences with fairly unstable families with a stock pile of guns would hardly indicate a tyrannical government. In fact, I would be just as concerned if the government did nothing in both cases.
To further the point, I think it's much more appalling that they just spent $700 billion of our money to essentially privatize the banking system. Guns are the least of this countries problems.
Did not appear to be the white power kinda guy. Just a dude that wanted to make a few extra bucks by hacking off a shotgun barrel.
His wife's brain was blown out of her head onto the kitchen floor in front of her family.
She was unarmed.
Randy's 14yr old son, Sam, had his arm removed by a sniper's bullet, and then his heart.
If that ain't tyranny, I don't know what is.
And 200 years ago, Americans would have tarred & feathered those *********** for giving away our money like that.
10-17-2008, 03:56 PM
#147
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I have met and talked to Randy Weaver.
Did not appear to be the white power kinda guy. Just a dude that wanted to make a few extra bucks by hacking off a shotgun barrel.
His wife's brain was blown out of her head onto the kitchen floor in front of her family.
She was unarmed.
Randy's 14yr old son, Sam, had his arm removed by a sniper's bullet, and then his heart.
If that ain't tyranny, I don't know what is.
And 200 years ago, Americans would have tarred & feathered those *********** for giving away our money like that.
Did not appear to be the white power kinda guy. Just a dude that wanted to make a few extra bucks by hacking off a shotgun barrel.
His wife's brain was blown out of her head onto the kitchen floor in front of her family.
She was unarmed.
Randy's 14yr old son, Sam, had his arm removed by a sniper's bullet, and then his heart.
If that ain't tyranny, I don't know what is.
And 200 years ago, Americans would have tarred & feathered those *********** for giving away our money like that.
Besides, wasn't Randy Weaver accused of threatening the lives of government officials, included the president? Doesn't that mean you were palling around with a terrorist?
10-17-2008, 04:29 PM
#149
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Maybe it was bull****, I kinda skimmed through it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
In January 1985, the US Secret Service investigated allegations that Weaver had made threats against the President and other government officials. While the Secret Service was told that Weaver was a member of the Aryan Nations and had a large weapons cache at his residence, Weaver denied the allegations and no charges were filed. Weaver later filed an affidavit with the county clerk that he believed that he may have to defend himself and his family from an FBI attack.
