Guns Don't Make Us Free. Period.

True, what you're saying is that since guns don't make us free anyway, why bother owning one. Its the same argument as the gun banners, just from a different angle.

I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I've explicitly said the exact inverse at least four or five times. I support the Second Amendment. I own guns myself.

I find it interesting how so many people just keep inserting their own preconceived notions in. To date, I have not yet heard anybody in the United States of America advocate that all guns are banned. I'm sure there must be somebody out there who has...but to my knowledge... I've never encountered this individual.

Human rights to self protection simply ARE, they are not granted or regulated by government.

Ok...but how does banning a CERTAIN CLASS of extremely dangerous weapons which have a long history of being used irresponsibly to commit mass murders prevent you from protecting yourself? If we are talking about the finer points of the philosophic argument it seems pretty clear that almost nobody from ANY COUNTRY who thinks that each individual should be allowed to have a large stockpile of mustard gas, Captain Trips SuperFlu, or an H-bomb at their disposal. Now...clearly there are differences between these weapons...but THIS objection is based upon a logical test for contradiction in a particular viewpoint...not necessarily an argument that is centered on pragmatism. While owning an nuclear weapon and an assault rifle are CLEARLY different in terms of "common sense"...I'm simply asserting that a similar brand of "common sense" be applied to ultra-high capacity, easily reloadable combat weaponry. In short...an AR-15 and Grandpa's shotgun are as different from one another as Indy Car and a Camaro...and only one of those is considered street legal for the common citizen to use as their daily driver because reasonable people know that there isn't really any practical application for an Indy car on the Interstate and it very well could cause a lot of accidents.

Likewise, we all acknowledge that driving an 18-wheeler is more dangerous than driving Toyota Tacoma pickup...so we require these people to have a bit more stringent requirements for their CDL and then we proceed to every once in a while CHECK BACK WITH THEM periodically to make sure they didn't go blind at the very least. At the very least...isn't it a good idea to make sure that people who wield such power over life and death are physically fit to do so?

As an American and a gun owner I see the frustration you feel. There is one major problem though. You are comparing an individuals right to own a gun to an armored tank brigade. I think without exception, everything you mentioned could not be solved by whoever you expect to organize a movement of gun owners to become judge and jury on most if not all of what you mention. However, all of what you mention simply needs 1,000,000 American People to march peacefully on Washington and say "we are not going home till you quit your crap." "You work for us and we are firing you."

I agree with you completely. Obviously firearms play little if any role in keeping the government in check or keeping us "free".

I respect your feelings and my prayers are with you and beyond..

And I, yours. FYI...I'm also a gun owner too. I have been since I was 8 yrs old....and for the life of me I cannot understand how anyone thinks an armed population has somehow held the government in check.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Of course the US government did all these things while we had guns. Now imagine what
They would do if we didn't have guns. That's what makes me nervous.

If every man, woman and child that could hold a gun marched on the Capitol in the MLK fashion and forcefully removed the people behind these massive abuses on our rights and freedoms, perhaps change could occur. But our armed are in armchairs. Long ago we were made into domesticated animals. We watch these events occur and have become numb to them. Gun owners have succumbed to their blissfully ignorant world, what do you stand up for? And if a man does stand up, if someone attempts to right these wrongs, they will be found, and they will be legally held indefinitely without public trial. Unless they're murdered first

The right to bear arms may have mattered sometime ago, but nowadays it provides very little defense against the government. Even if we were to assemble a large group of people to fight back, the level of technology the government has would easily eliminate all whom oppose.

I don´t think the founding fathers ever expected there to be weapons that have the ability to kill millions with the press of a button. I think the people should look for the most peaceful way of changing the things they do not like within there government. People only get what they tolerate.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

True, what you're saying is that since guns don't make us free anyway, why bother owning one. Its the same argument as the gun banners, just from a different angle.

I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I've explicitly said the exact inverse at least four or five times. I support the Second Amendment. I own guns myself.

I find it interesting how so many people just keep inserting their own preconceived notions in. To date, I have not yet heard anybody in the United States of America advocate that all guns are banned. I'm sure there must be somebody out there who has...but to my knowledge... I've never encountered this individual.

Human rights to self protection simply ARE, they are not granted or regulated by government.

Ok...but how does banning a CERTAIN CLASS of extremely dangerous weapons which have a long history of being used irresponsibly to commit mass murders prevent you from protecting yourself? If we are talking about the finer points of the philosophic argument it seems pretty clear that almost nobody from ANY COUNTRY who thinks that each individual should be allowed to have a large stockpile of mustard gas, Captain Trips SuperFlu, or an H-bomb at their disposal. Now...clearly there are differences between these weapons...but THIS objection is based upon a logical test for contradiction in a particular viewpoint...not necessarily an argument that is centered on pragmatism. While owning an nuclear weapon and an assault rifle are CLEARLY different in terms of "common sense"...I'm simply asserting that a similar brand of "common sense" be applied to ultra-high capacity, easily reloadable combat weaponry. In short...an AR-15 and Grandpa's shotgun are as different from one another as Indy Car and a Camaro...and only one of those is considered street legal for the common citizen to use as their daily driver because reasonable people know that there isn't really any practical application for an Indy car on the Interstate and it very well could cause a lot of accidents.

Likewise, we all acknowledge that driving an 18-wheeler is more dangerous than driving Toyota Tacoma pickup...so we require these people to have a bit more stringent requirements for their CDL and then we proceed to every once in a while CHECK BACK WITH THEM periodically to make sure they didn't go blind at the very least. At the very least...isn't it a good idea to make sure that people who wield such power over life and death are physically fit to do so?

Earlier you said:

We are indisputably the BEST ARMED civilian population in the history of planet earth and are also LEAST FREE nation in the history of planet earth in terms of incarcerating it's own citizens.

Are you suggesting that if we become the LEAST BEST ARMED population it would be possible to become the MOST free nation? Our freedom, or lack thereof has, as you say, little to do weaponry, it has a lot more to do with the government using the same tactics on us that they used on the Indians ~ lies. They've been lying to us since the beginning and no one wants to acknowledge that historically that's simply what those who want to rule the masses have to do. Why? Because pretty lies will always net them enough fanatical believers and blind followers to drag the rest of the go along to get along populace with them.

Banning a certain class of weapons from private ownership is nothing more than the camel's nose under the tent.

Once AR15s are history do you think nut cases won't find other means of killing? What about Oklahoma City? Not one bullet was fired but 19 children under the age of 6 died there and we still haven't been told the truth about that event. Should we ban fertilizer? What about Waco? 28 children died in a raging inferno lit BY the government that NOW wants to protect children from killing machines. THEY are the PRIMARY child killing machine.

Please allow me to correct this one statement: "almost nobody from ANY COUNTRY who thinks that each individual should be allowed to have a large stockpile of mustard gas, Captain Trips SuperFlu, or an H-bomb at their disposal."

Almost nobody from any country thinks the US GOVERNMENT should be allowed to have large stockpiles of mustard gas, drones, A-bombs or any of the other "toys" that they regularly DO use to kill children. All this hand wringing on the part of our current liars in government is hypocrisy at its finest. If you want to get dangerous weapons out of the hands of homocidal maniacs and lunatics, start there. Instead we defer to them, we pay them, we frikking VOTE for them.

I dont understand one thing about this issue. People have begun actually reading the constitution again, and this issue has made people more aware of the reasons behind gun laws and gun ownership rights.

BUT

People still think the 2nd amendment is about defying a "tyrannical"government.

It is not. It is about PERSONAL security, as expanded in the 14th amendment. States reserve the right to form militias under it as well, BUT, it is about PERSONAL security. Not treason.

to quote myself from another post.

--------------------------

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by elysiumfire

 

The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.

III. DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The only mention by the United States Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed found the right to be protected from any infringement, including the state slave codes. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote that citizenship "would give to persons of the negro race .. the full liberty of speech ... and (the right) to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857). In other words, if blacks were citizens, then the Second Amendment would invalidate state laws which prohibited firearms possession by such citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''[14]

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

www.guncite.com...

"The TRUTH shall set you free." And the "truth" is the Second Amendment confers an individual right to self protection with firearms AND a collective right of armed individuals to overthrow tyranny if their government ever usurped totalitarian power (which resides with the people and the states).

Originally posted by AxelAxel
If every man, woman and child that could hold a gun marched on the Capitol in the MLK fashion and forcefully removed the people behind these massive abuses on our rights and freedoms, perhaps change could occur. But our armed are in armchairs. Long ago we were made into domesticated animals. We watch these events occur and have become numb to them. Gun owners have succumbed to their blissfully ignorant world, what do you stand up for? And if a man does stand up, if someone attempts to right these wrongs, they will be found, and they will be legally held indefinitely without public trial. Unless they're murdered first

Great. I'm glad you agree that the argument for "freedom" by "holding the government in check" is moot since Americans are too fat and lazy, anyways.

So really...the only thing you are arguing for is the "freedom" to have the means to kill your fellow peasants and/or own something that gives you a false sense of empowerment...correct?

The domesticated animals argument is a PERFECT analogy. When you leave the gate open for the cattle...they don't "RUN" away so much as they wander aimlessly until they get struck by a car and they are actually MORE likely to be preyed upon by the wolves than they were back on the farm. Turns out, PETA's efforts to "liberate" livestock really hasn't been thought out too well, huh?

Do you see any parallells here?

I'm not from USA ( and sometimes proud of that lol... ) and my english will suck

Because serioulsy... You look ridiculous...

Why you think that banning assault gun are "TAKING OUR ARMS AWAY!?!?!?!"

You will still be able to have handguns. Why you want assault and semi-automatic guns easy to acces ?

These guns, can kill 20 people and more in 10min... Why you want that ?

If you want gun for hunting, It should be a SPORT, so your gun dont need to be automatic.


And the argument : you can kill without a gun.
THE SAME DAY IN CHINA !! A guy stabbed 20 kids at a school and NONE ARE DEAD. 0 !!!

Yeah you can kill with anything... BUT GUNS ARE MADE FOR KILLING. Some USAers kids of 4 killed other kids or parent... A kill with a knife would not be enough strong for that!!!



In resume :

!!! Semi-automatic and automatic gun are WAR gun. Make to kill as MANY PEOPLE the fastest way/time... !!!

So a leash... ban these.... Keep your handgun to "protect yourself"... Like Zimmerman did... Pffff ( lol america look so stupid to the world right now... )

I think I got this in an email and am sorry if it has been posted before:

I don’t carry a gun… … to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I realize there are those among us who intend us ill will and I choose to respond with equal force.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I flew with a first officer who's mother had died. He had gone to California to finish packing up her house for sale.
It was late and he was hungry so he thought he would walk the two blocks to a childhood eatery he had grown up with eating their fine food.

There were 4 young bucks (the oldest being 17 and the youngest 14) coming his way. He smiled and nodded as they went by. The next thing he knew he was on the ground and had been cold cocked in the back of the neck and head.

Now, Mr. First officer was 5'11" 34 years of age, in good shape ( he liked to jump out of perfectly good airplanes and was a ??master jump instructor??) anyway, he actually regained consciences just long enough to try to stand up and fight to run clear..He got in two good punches before he was knocked out. He says he would have been killed on that sidewalk if 2 cars had not stopped and said they were calling 911. Even with that his pocket book (bill fold) and watch were stolen.....

In his flight bag he carried the x-rays of his wired together jaw and very expensive teeth implants. He also suffered a few?? broken ribs and felt lucky to be alive.

He did end up going to class for a concealed hand gun license in the state of Tx. where he lived when I flew with him. Just one man's experience and change of heart. He had always figured he could handle just about anything until mean old reality smacked him a few times.

There are wolves, there are sheep, and then there are sheepdogs.

reply to post by Bardahl


The wolves are not all of the same mind. Nor are the sheep. They are all different. Some wolves want to harm you some want to be left alone and respected. The same with the sheep.

Originally posted by FreeQuebec86
I'm not from USA ( and sometimes proud of that lol... ) and my english will suck

Because serioulsy... You look ridiculous...

Why you think that banning assault gun are "TAKING OUR ARMS AWAY!?!?!?!"

You will still be able to have handguns. Why you want assault and semi-automatic guns easy to acces ?

These guns, can kill 20 people and more in 10min... Why you want that ?

If you want gun for hunting, It should be a SPORT, so your gun dont need to be automatic.


And the argument : you can kill without a gun.
THE SAME DAY IN CHINA !! A guy stabbed 20 kids at a school and NONE ARE DEAD. 0 !!!

Yeah you can kill with anything... BUT GUNS ARE MADE FOR KILLING. Some USAers kids of 4 killed other kids or parent... A kill with a knife would not be enough strong for that!!!

In resume :

!!! Semi-automatic and automatic gun are WAR gun. Make to kill as MANY PEOPLE the fastest way/time... !!!

So a leash... ban these.... Keep your handgun to "protect yourself"... Like Zimmerman did... Pffff ( lol america look so stupid to the world right now... )

You bring up a good point; China has gun control. This pic is how that works out for them:



Case closed, I'd say.

reply to post by FreeQuebec86


Side note. How're you guys doing up there with your Quebec Sovereignty Movement? Still think you can vote it in?

On another sight board a friend of mine who is a successful writer Larry Correia has written a piece on gun control and gun free zones.

larrycorreia.wordpress.com...

[QUOTE] Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED. [QUOTE]

I do not usually read fantasy type books; With Larry being on another board coupled with some of the things he has posted I kinda felt obligated to read his first book so I did as a passenger on a long international flight....Well I have read the other books he has published and have not been disappointed.

I realize there are those who have made up their minds on both sides of any debate/ argument and will not be swayed by facts or,,,whatever...call their position faith...but, there are a few people who realize they do not have all the facts to make an informed opinion. They are willing to look at something without preconceived notions and quite capable of a mind change when a new piece of info is presented to them in such a way that " DING DING" ...."Wow, I never thought or looked at it that way"! You really can not fault them; even some Scientist have a hard time changing their theories when new facts go against their long held beliefs.

Kind of funny: I joined this board because some of the things on ATS are very interesting to me and sometimes I to get a "DING DING" moment I would not have seen or thought of otherwise.

Unfortunately for me, most of my posts have been on gun stuff and I ain't even a gun nut or cowboy. I just believe my view of the intent of the Constitution and the 2a is one which is shared by others who have done a bit of research. America is the Constitution and without it...whatever we would become would not be America with all it goodness of the people and faults of the control freaks. The Constitution is what protects us and makes us equal under the law...etc etc or it is supposed to. Many of the abuses we see or hear about are not Constitutional yet there are those in our very own government who say they are.....NDAA among other things.... anyone?

IMO the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun from mayhem is a good guy with a gun. Even cops/military hold this to be true or they would go forth unarmed.

Debating some of the actions by cops or American war policies is for another thread.