History of Un-armed Citizens

Originally posted by americandingbat I'm pretty sure the NRA and other organizations have plans in place to challenge its constitutionality pretty much the second it goes into effect.

I hope you're right but they didnt do anything in 94 when Clinton banned firearms.

And even if these groups did challenge a ban it takes a couple of days for a law to be written, passed and enforced. It takes years to challenge and repeal.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Perhaps that's because the '94 bill wasn't unconstitutional.

What I'm arguing is that you don't need to worry about them repealing the 2nd Amendment. Some gun control, yes that's probably on the agenda. But the OP's claim that President Obama wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment as one of his main goals is unwarranted.

As I said in an earlier post, it is at the least unwarranted because even someone who leans as far to the left and hates guns as much as I do, would not stand for repealing a part of the Bill of Rights.

edit: and Clinton did not "ban firearms"

[edit on 2/19/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


So you're just arguing semantics? A disingenuous literalist?

You dont have to go so far as to technically and specifically amend the 2nd amendment out of the constitution to make the practice of said amendment impossible.

It's just stupid to waste time on the words.

You dont have to waste any more time. There is no indication Obama wishes to literally amend out the 2nd. You win. Hooray!

edit to add: Yes Clinton did. 19 specifically named FIREARMS were BANNED by him as well as many others which included a set combination of features.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by americandingbat

 

So you're just arguing semantics?

If you think that repealing the Bill of Rights is semantics, then yes I suppose I am.

But that was the claim made in the OP, and that's what I was addressing.

edit to add: Yes Clinton did. 19 specifically named FIREARMS were BANNED by him as well as many others which included a set combination of features.

Now who's arguing semantics? Your statement clearly implied that Clinton banned all firearms, not specific firearms.

reply to post by americandingbat


No. They can't do any search and seizure until Martial Law has been declared. They can justify a "lawful" search and seizure with this bill, but only after Martial Law has been declared. Becasue then it is in the interest of Home Security.

Originally posted by americandingbat

Now who's arguing semantics? Your statement clearly implied that Clinton banned all firearms, not specific firearms.

And yours implied he did not ban any when he clearly did.

Fun, huh?

Actually, Clinton has tried to push this before. After the assault weapon ban, and the trigger lock law, President Clinton was trying to push "random weapons sweeps" lower class areas. It was shot down after they figured out he really meant searching private homes with out warrants, which is what the Gustappo did.

Ammunition Accountability Act

Obama doesn't need to ban your guns. He and his minions are trying to register your ammunition. They have bills before 18 states now to have all ammunition encoded. All other ammunition including handloads must be destroyed by July 2011.

Check out the above bill from TN posted on a blog.

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
It was shot down after they figured out he really meant searching private homes with out warrants, which is what the Gustappo did.

And which is something that us gun-hating, government-loving liberals won't stand for. We get pretty worked up about it when they start threatening random searches of lower-class neighborhoods – it's part of our "victimization" mindset

Look, I'm not saying don't fight the gun control laws. I'm just saying don't assume that liberals won't have your back if it gets pushed too far.

Like I said earlier, as long as you'll have our back when they try to modify the 1st Amendment to get prayer back into the schools.

Originally posted by americandingbat I'm just saying don't assume that liberals won't have your back if it gets pushed too far.

So what's too far?

Seems that with language like "shall not be infringed" we've passed the "too far" line a long time ago.

Sorry, but I cant in good conscious entrust my freedom with anybody even if they claim to "have my back." There's always a qualifier there that they dont confess up front. You "have my back" until when? Why factor such weak support into the equation when you'll have to eventually factor it out again anyway. Eventually being the relative point of "too far."

reply to post by plumranch


Wow. Thats a total waste of time and money. Besides, by the time they get us registering ammunition we'll be out. You seen the availability of consumer grade ammo lately?? And the prices!

It's another move by the gun law nuts to take control of our rights and keep an eye on us.

americandingbat, the issue is not"some gun control". There's about 20,000 gun laws on the books right now. What people say when they mean "gun control", like Obama, and Biden, they're talking about taking firearms from free, law abiding citizens. The reason why that pisses us off is becasue it's never been the law abiding, gun owning Americans out commiting gun crimes.

By enacting laws that prevent private citizens the rights to own guns, you give more power to criminals. They will have no problem buying a dirty gun somewhere and carrying it un-registered. If HR 45 passes, which sadly it looks like it will, it will be the beginning of a "gun ban".

The wordplay is pointless. It's like calling a dog a cat. Sure you can call him a cat all you want... but it's still a dog. You can call this bill any thing you want.. but the bottom line it that it's a "gun ban". Private citizens, free people, will have the hardest time getting a fire arm legally until we can't get them at all.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by jBrereton
You're doing a pretty #ty job of safeguarding your freedom.

Compared to whom? Compared to the UK, where the populace cowers behind closed doors as gang violence continues unabated in the streets?

Whoops, shouldn't have gone to the shop just now then. Lucky to have escaped for the several thousanth time in my life with all the gangs about -_-

Don't speak to me of safeguarding freedom. The problem is human brutality, not the weapons we choose to express it. The difference is that Americans still have the choice of hiding behind locked doors or standing up to fight. You don't.

— Doc Velocity

Uhu... so the wiretaps, FEMA camps and the rest are all reversible things, and if the populace so chose they could sort things out?

I, for one, doubt it.

reply to post by Vodo34861


I got news for you folks, there are already gang members in the military. They go in to learn how to properly shoot and get some hand-to-hand to back it up. There are almost as many gang cliques in the military as there are in prison.

Chrono

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by americandingbat I'm just saying don't assume that liberals won't have your back if it gets pushed too far.

So what's too far?

Seems that with language like "shall not be infringed" we've passed the "too far" line a long time ago.

I think my personal line would be, when I think that the kind of people who could form a "well-ordered militia" no longer have access to reasonable firepower.

And of course, my definition of "reasonable" will be very different from yours.

In practical terms, I'll keep an eye on threads like this here; I'll listen to my real-life friends who are pro-gun-rights; and I'll keep an eye on what other things are going on.

Sorry, but I cant in good conscious entrust my freedom with anybody even if they claim to "have my back." There's always a qualifier there that they dont confess up front. You "have my back" until when? Why factor such weak support into the equation when you'll have to eventually factor it out again anyway. Eventually being the relative point of "too far."

You don't need to entrust me with anything; I'm just letting you know, not telling you to change what you do. I suppose I'm suggesting that people in general stop assuming that there are only two positions on the issue and that anyone who is "liberal" and wary of guns would automatically back the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Or would stand silently by if the most extreme projections of this thread came true and Martial Law was declared and "they" started coming for your guns.

I believe the point has already been made in this thread, but I also very much doubt that the military forces would be thrilled at the prospect of taking guns from law-abiding citizens, and I'm quite sure that the police forces would not be happy about it.

By all means, oppose this bill. Write your senators and representatives, and tell people why it's so important. I'm just not buying some of the projections that are being made.

The original poster is dead on. When the Nazis rolled into the Warsaw ghetto the Polish men were able to come up with three handguns to defend thousands of people. Two were antiques and had no ammo, the third was broken and unusable. Please remember that the Jews of Europe were "civilized, enlightened" and "progressive" peoples. They had no weapons. The Holocaust would have been very limited and short-lived if the Nazis had been greeted with a hail of machine gun fire when they kicked in people's doors. People should also be aware that the police are not there to protect you, This has been established in the courts in Warren vs. District of Columbia and was upheld in the appeals court. Police are bodybaggers, not guardians. In all the publicity about school shootings, you've never heard the media report on the shootings averted because someone had a gun and took out the shooter. You also won't hear about the drastic drop in crime that occurs when the populace is armed. Richmond, Va. experienced a huge decrease in violent crime when they allowed concealed-carry. On the other hand, you have Washington, DC, with stringent gun laws and massive crime. Predators go after the weak and unarmed. I remember vividly at the age of 17 asking a fellow student who had just transferred from New York City why there were muggings in NY and never in our southern city. I thought it was some kind of cultural thing. He replied bluntly: "If you pull a gun on somebody in NY, they piss their pants and hand you the money. If you pull a gun on somebody here, they pull out a bigger gun." I never forgot that.

reply to post by americandingbat

And how will they convince the Supreme Court that this does not violate the Second Amendment, if it does constitute a virtual ban?

1. The Supreme Court's refusal to rule on OThuga's NOT BEING ANY KIND OF EVEN CLOSE "NATURAL BORN" CITIZEN issues DEMONSTRATES that every last Justice is in the employ of the Oligarchy or scared spitless by threats from the Oligarchy to them and their families.

2. That the Constitution is used toilet paper as far as the Oligarchy and as far as OThuga are both concerned.

3. Therefore, looking to the Supreme Court to UPHOLD the shredded Constitution is . . . Three Stooges laughable.

Sadly.

reply to post by W3RLIED2


I gotta say, im personally on the fence about guns. I find myself agreeing with many of the OPs points, but there is a big difference between that agreement and me actually making a trip to the store to pick up a rifle.

The only thing that hangs in my mind through this whole discussion is that, with modern technology, weaponry, and the such, what makes you feel confident any arms available over the consumer markets would serve as viable protection in the event of a government such as the US mudering its own people en masse?

it seems there's been a lot of debate about the potential for a trained marine to kill their own people, for people to lay down and take it, the logistics of rounding up entire populations for extermination in FEMA encampments.

Not to spoil the paranoid party, but the government could kill millions of citizens without the use of guns or brainwashed soliders-- all the way from the the exotic anthrax to slow contamination of water/air supples (where are the chemtrail nuts when you need them!) and with whatever other murdering thing they have that WE DON'T know about. I mean why waste the time and money constructing camps and incinerators when you could distribute a vaccine to the chosen few and unleash a contagious virus into major cities and every municipally controlled water supply? the effect would be the same, and there's much less working against the so called "PTB" in this scenario than the model we've debated in this forum... no risk that the sheep will bite back or the marines will revolt against their orders.

Whats worse is that you make it sound as if you already live free and are advocating guns as a way to preserve this right. You aren't free, nobody is and we've been enslaved for years. And why kill slaves so blind to their servitude that there's no danger to their continued production and no threat to the master?

Yea, theres a reason its called MasterCard. Theres a reason why most people don't "get" the way money works or how markets generate capital and production. If everyone did, they'd realize the work they do and the life they've led is all in the service of their owners. If you ask me, I'd rather be dead than a slave, so I really see no purpose in having a gun. Why fight to protect such an existence.

My point is that the organization of american society is one that is DESIGNED for structural violence. One can prattle on for hours about people needing guns to protect themselves from burglary but never address the social conditions which it made it possible AND probable that one human would be compelled to act with force against another to satisfy some need or requirement set upon them- by the metrics and rules of their environment. And who sets these standards, these guidelines, the field on which the game is played?

I guess what I'm saying is: if everyone bought a gun to protect their freedom, we'd be talking about mass graves filled with politicians and bankers, not innocent people.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by chaeone86]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS The Holocaust would have been very limited and short-lived if the Nazis had been greeted with a hail of machine gun fire when they kicked in people's doors.

Not actually what happened in Warsaw in 1944. After a very short period when the Jews fought back and the Nazis fell back for a day, they came back in with Sturmörsertiger and Panther tanks and generally #ed them up on a massive scale.

Having an armed populace might delay the inevitable. But that's it.

Originally posted by jBrereton
Uhu... so the wiretaps, FEMA camps and the rest are all reversible things, and if the populace so chose they could sort things out?

For your information — and I know you're not exactly informed when it comes to American history — the American people have dealt with emergency detention camps and domestic spying for decades. It's not a new development.

Thousands of innocent American citizens were incarcerated during World War II, for example, simply because they were immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from enemy homelands. It was considered imperative to the war effort to isolate these citizens, interrogate them, and determine their threat to national security. I'm not defending that action, it was an atrocious imposition of a cynical and paranoid government on American citizens.

Same was true of the "communist witch hunts" of the 1950s, which destroyed American lives and careers as our FBI spied on and illegally obtained or concocted incriminating information on suspected Commie sympathizers. Most were blacklisted from working again in their chosen professions, and some incarcerated.

The 1960s were rife with unconstitutional domestic spying by the immaculate Kennedy brothers, JFK and RFK, who not only wiretapped and planted moles in suspected subversive organizations across the country, but who also used the Internal Revenue Service like an Executive weapon to illegally punish American citizens who were merely suspected of inciting domestic unrest. Does anyone really wonder why these two Gestapo-wannabees were assassinated?

And I could go on citing U.S. government brutality and oppression against blacks during LBJ's administration; the FBI spying and disseminating hate propaganda on Martin Luther King Jr prior to his assassination; the hopelessly screwed-up domestic espionage of the Nixon administration; the National Guard gunning down unarmed protesters at Kent State; the government's domestic guns-for-drugs-for-cash-for-missiles-for-hostages covert operations of the late 70s and early 80s that came to be known as Iran/Contra (that probably resulted in the deaths of more than a few American citizens); the domestic spying and entrapment of the late 80s and early 90s that resulted in the deaths of innocents (at Ruby Ridge, for example); and the highly illegal domestic spying and executive abuse by the Clinton administration and its sinister Justice Department against American citizens (Waco, OKC, Paula Jones, et cetera, ad infinitum).

Compared to some of these shameful moments in American history, the domestic offenses of the GWB administration shine pale. But I'm not defending GWB, either. I'm completely anti-government.

The point is that America has endured repeated attempts to violate our Constitutional rights from within — and, yes, with adherence to the Constitution, America always self-corrects from the onslaught.

Here endeth the lesson.

— Doc Velocity


[edit on 2/19/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by jBrereton
Uhu... so the wiretaps, FEMA camps and the rest are all reversible things, and if the populace so chose they could sort things out?

For your information — and I know you're not exactly informed when it comes to American history — the American people have dealt with emergency detention camps and domestic spying for decades. It's not a new development.

Thousands of innocent American citizens were incarcerated during World War II, for example, simply because they were immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from enemy homelands. It was considered imperative to the war effort to isolate these citizens, interrogate them, and determine their threat to national security. I'm not defending that action, it was an atrocious imposition of a cynical and paranoid government on American citizens.

Same was true of the "communist witch hunts" of the 1950s, which destroyed American lives and careers as our FBI spied on and illegally obtained or concocted incriminating information on suspected Commie sympathizers. Most were blacklisted from working again in their chosen professions, and some incarcerated.

The 1960s were rife with unconstitutional domestic spying by the immaculate Kennedy brothers, JFK and RFK, who not only wiretapped and planted moles in suspected subversive organizations across the country, but who also used the Internal Revenue Service like an Executive weapon to illegally punish American citizens who were merely suspected of inciting domestic unrest. Does anyone really wonder why these two Gestapo-wannabees were assassinated?

And I could go on citing U.S. government brutality and oppression against blacks during LBJ's administration; the FBI spying and disseminating hate propaganda on Martin Luther King Jr prior to his assassination; the hopelessly screwed-up domestic espionage of the Nixon administration; the National Guard gunning down unarmed protesters at Kent State; the government's domestic guns-for-drugs-for-cash-for-missiles-for-hostages covert operations of the late 70s and early 80s that came to be known as Iran/Contra; the intense domestic spying of the late 80s and early 90s during Desert Storm; and the highly illegal domestic spying and executive abuse by the Clinton administration and its sinister Justice Department against American citizens.

Compared to some of these shameful moments in American history, the domestic offenses of the GWB administration shine pale. But I'm not defending GWB, either. I'm completely anti-government.

The point is that America has endured repeated attempts to violate our Constitutional rights from within — and, yes, with adherence to the Constitution, America always self-corrects from the onslaught.

Here endeth the lesson.

— Doc Velocity

And how many of those things were solved by the general populace being armed?

Not a single one.

The internment camps ended because the war did. McCarthyism died on its knees because McCarthy was a stupid drunk and was called on it on national television. JFK and RFK got taken out because they went against the establishment and got iced for it. The Iran-Contra # was cleared up because it was in the US' interest to have both Iran and Iraq damaged by their war in the 1980s equally, etc. etc. etc.

Please don't presume I'm ignorant to the history of the US, it's very patronising.