Is this the USA you know and love?

reply to post by Lasheic


The rights of gun owners is one place that I think that the states have over reached their authority in terms of abridging a federal right.

The second amendment is clear, and simple.

"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. "

It is simple, and clear; however, all of this liberal states and cities, like the one I live in, think they are smarter than the founders. I think it is fine if you regulate machine guns or assault rifles, but handguns and hunting rifles should be accessible to anyone without a criminal record who has taken a gun safety course just like 3000 lbs killing machines called cars.

It's interesting that there are no identification numbers attached to the policy enforcers that could be used to identify who these assailants and criminals are. Again, the action that follows should be a citizens grand jury investigation which includes the power of attorney to subpoena witnesses and identify who in the city/state government is behind this activity. People have the power themselves, they don't need to wait for elections or for some authority to say "Oh ok, we'll do it your way.".

reply to post by finemanm


I agree with you on the 2nd amendment, and I believe the point is further reinforced by the definite lean of sentiments found within the personal correspondence between the representatives who drafted and ratified the Constitution.

However, where it may become contentious is in the scope of purpose weighed against the cost vs. risk analysis of modern arms in society. On the one extreme, it can be argued that the purpose of the amendment to grant the right to bear arms is intended not just for personal protection - but for the effective protection against threats both internal and external. In 1778, civilian grade weaponry was pretty much on par with military weaponry. Sometimes better. While the primary firearm for both sides were smooth-bore muskets, innovations in American Rifle designs allowed citizen-soldiers and militias to snipe at British Troops at a distance. The regiment shoulder to shoulder formation was used by the British in part to counter their musket inaccuracy problems (basically, a shotgun effect). Yet this tactic was ineffective as a counter at a distance against small dispersed groups. By this line of reasoning, some would advocate the allowance of assault rifles, mortars, and armored vehicles as necessary to the defense of a free state against modern military tactics and weaponry.

However, as a republic is based on the rule of law, the question becomes; How would said laws be enforced if the citizenry were as equally well armed as the enforcement agent? With widespread access to much greater firepower, how would gang-warfare vs. citizenry vs. police conflicts interplay? It's a non sequiter to assume that a loosening of restrictions on firearms will lead to an increase in violence. However, in what instances of violence which DO occur, the effects of such weapons and defenses in citizen hands would be greatly amplified. Especially if law enforcement were not voluntarily ceded the power in weaponry and use of such in the line of duty. I would recall the events of the North Hollywood Shootout in '97 as an example of such.

Now I do agree with the right to carry handguns and rifles, and the scope of which being a state decision, but effectively banning their possession or lawful use is in error. A Republic cannot stand if the laws cannot be effectively enforced. The act of ensuring the enforcement of those laws acts directly counter the right to defend against threats of the state. The counter to this which the citizens hold, of course, is numeracy. Our enforcement capabilities simply could not resist a full scale revolution of armed American citizens, while the size of the force required to effectively stand against the enforcement ensures that such an effort TRULY would, by necessity, be the will of the people.

If I just happened to be walking through the middle of these protests, I should have a right to stand to the side and watch what happens without fear of being hit with rubber bullets and tear gas, like those kids I saw in another video watching from an outdoor stair case on their college campus.

While I agree that the abuse of an observing citizen is morally reprehensible and should be punished within the bounds of state/local law. There does lay the problem of identification issues when dealing with situations such as this. How does one differentiate between a civilian protester, a civilian observer, and a civilian counter-protester? What is to prevent someone from using the chaos to riot, then seek refuge among crowds observers until an opportunity to re-enter is present? Many deplore the requirement of permits and approval for coordinated displays of perceived grievances as "Free Speech Zones". Yet the establishment of a perimeter (and ideally a law enforcement buffer if the potential for violence is suspected) is there just for this purpose of identification and the protection of innocent observers. It's not always effective... but that's one of the rationales.

While I don't think the law should necessarily bend for sentimentality, I think that we (as observers) should weigh the position of those charged with the enforcement of the law to understand their side of the situation. Many seem to write off considering the law enforcement agent's position as a weakening or apologetic for perceived atrocities. Yet understanding and empathy does not require that one must condone an act. Some people refuse to consider the other side, which I assume is an unconscious measure used to prevent the challenging of ones own assumed presuppositions and morality. It becomes fundamentalist and rigid, and ultimately irrational.

As an example, I believe that over-reactions and the potential lashing against those who were innocent or not related has more to do with the circumstances of the situation - rather than intentional abuses or premeditated evil intent as some would believe. I would suggest that the Stanford Prison Experiment helps explain the phenomena far better than theories such as NWO/Government aggression/oppression.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Actually its just a big cluster ...... and you have a couple sheeple well its the law bull turkey, ya'll are just a bunch of frogs sitting in boiling water!!!

Don't know or UNDERSTAND whats happening to you until your boiled to death.

the plan is working to perfection!! they have the mangled laws in place "do as I say not as I do" and just to express your RIGHTS, you have to organize a party with permits and advance notice so it can be ????? Geeeeze

its always better when the enemy tells you what there planning so you can counter.

Nothing like the flawed legal system at work. someone has to live by the law because it sure isn't the lawmakers!

reply to post by svpwizard

ya'll are just a bunch of frogs sitting in boiling water!!! Don't know or UNDERSTAND whats happening to you until your boiled to death.

Here's a question. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you invoke such stupidly inaccurate analogies such as the slow boiled frog? Even if intended expressly as a simile, the stigma of idiocy surrounding it by it's (mis)use as an analogy/metaphor should have warned you off such a statement. In light of the rest of your post, though, I believe I already know the answer to my (apparently rhetorical) question.

So I call either troll or fool, with neither one of which merits further discussion.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


The fact that you are defending the riot police in this situation boggles me. Why are you here? Why is it that you feel that these kids deserved being ATTACKED for doing nothing other than what they normally do?

And as for the "permit to hold an event on public property" as opposed to "permit to protest" come on. Are you serious? Are you actually going to sit here and tell me that you believe that cock and bull?

Let's not forget the countless "permits to be on public property" that were denied and ignored. That doesn't factor into our rights does it?

And who are the police to speak on behalf of the people about whether or not they mind if people protest outside? I'm tired of higher ups making decisions FOR THE PEOPLE rather than letting people handle decision themselves. You speak how people have the right to keep others off of their property but the roads belong to everybody. What about those that do want to protest? Do their opinions not count? Is it not their road as paying taxpayers just as much as anyone else?


You logic is flawed and you base these cock and bull laws that infringe on our right on a higher plateau than morals and ethics. Nothing in the above videos, or 90% of the videos I've seen of the event was called for and is quite frankly a perfect example of where this nation is headed.

The lands the same but the people are different, for the first time in my lifetime, the people are scared. -- and the bad thing is, we have nothing to fear except for fear it's self. we are America and we are stronger now than ever before. and Uncle Sam has a new something or another... otherwise they would not be so bold as to stick a thumb in the American Peoples Eye. I saw a sign that said it all... cram it down our throats in 2009. we will shove it up your butt 2010. well said....