Many advocates believe that individual gun ownership helps preserve American liberty, making goverment fearfull of trampling on the rights of its citizens. If goverment goes too far, the argument goes, Americans have the right to revolt by force.
Liberals are forever asking: why would anyone need a gun like that? And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be goverened but we will not be ruled.
Consent is key. Americans are much less willing to trust their governmrnt today than they were even a generation ago.In August 2011 a Rassusman Reports survey found that a pitiful 17 percent of likely US.voters believed federal government today has the consent of the governed. Another polster, Democrat Pat Caddell, called the result unprecedented... pre-revolutionary

I would agree that humans have the right to bear arms but not because the government or some piece of paper known as the Constitution says so. You have the right to bear arms because it's philosophically contradictory to oppose it.

The Constitution protects the right - it does not grant the right.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights place limits on Government to protect the citizenry.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: The Constitution protects the right - it does not grant the right. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights place limits on Government to protect the citizenry.

Isn't the Constitution an implicit contract? I know I never signed it. Is it okay for a person or a group of people to make implicit contracts with people?

I don't understand why an entity would have to violate rights in order to protect them. Maybe you could explain?

Let me say it another way, the philosophy you believe in is protected by the Constitution.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Isn't the Constitution an implicit contract? I know I never signed it. Is it okay for a person or a group of people to make implicit contracts with people? I don't understand why an entity would have to violate rights in order to protect them. Maybe you could explain?

That's okay. The Bil of Rights isn't about YOU. It's about government and what government is and is not allowed to do. You've had your natural rights since birth and the Constitution had nothing to do with that.

quote Originally posted by V8 Vega: Many advocates believe that individual gun ownership helps preserve American liberty, making goverment fearfull of trampling on the rights of its citizens. If goverment goes too far, the argument goes, Americans have the right to revolt by force. Liberals are forever asking: why would anyone need a gun like that? And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be goverened but we will not be ruled. Consent is key. Americans are much less willing to trust their governmrnt today than they were even a generation ago.In August 2011 a Rassusman Reports survey found that a pitiful 17 percent of likely US.voters believed federal government today has the consent of the governed. Another polster, Democrat Pat Caddell, called the result unprecedented... pre-revolutionary

I'll say it again - if the government wants you dead, you will be dead before you know they wanted you dead. The founding fathers either failed to understand or point out that the government at some point would be able to develop weapons that no citizen can overcome.

I understand the emotion and reason behind this, but the possibility of success went out the door in the early 1900's. Sure, you might take out a sheriff, or cop, or an FBI agent or whatever, but they won't just go away. He's got a gun, we better back off man!

Those days are long gone. I can't imagine any current or ex-military person that actually thinks they couldn't easily take out an armed citizen. They know it and we know it. We will never have matching firepower. The only hope we have is that those people refuse to comply and I think that is more protection than being personally armed.

Personally protection against another armed citizen is a separate subject, but the argument that citizen can stop the military is ludicrous.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: I don't understand why an entity would have to violate rights in order to protect them. Maybe you could explain?

You should read The Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke. That may help you to understand as his philosophy was one of the major factors in our Constitution. The citizenry grants power to a governing body to provide protection to them as a whole. Without a governing body you have natural law where everyone is free to practice it's enforcement, however this leads to might makes right. Basically I could steal from someone who is to weak to do anything about it. By formong a governing body, you place the power to judge right and wrong and to issue greivances and punishments in that governing body. The only way a governing body can do that for the whole of a population is to restrict it's liberties. The question is at what point do those restrictions become impossing on the whole of the population it is to protect in such a way that the body must be tore down and reformed? Our founding fathers new a governing body could and most likely would overstep it's boundries of power so they tried to make it so the population could tear it down and reform it if the need arrised, as John Locke says must happen with any governing body. Are we at that point yet? I don't know, although I hope we aren't as what would replace it may not be better then what we have. I think at the point where it has become so bad that any replacement would be an improvement is when revolt will happen but that's just my guess.

The only way this can happen is if:

1. The military refuses to act; (our best hope)
2. The citizens somehow take over substantial amounts of military firepower. (Next to impossible given they can kill you from a distance no gun will ever achieve.)

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by TK: The only way this can happen is if: 1. The military refuses to act; (our best hope) 2. The citizens somehow take over substantial amounts of military firepower. (Next to impossible given they can kill you from a distance no gun will ever achieve.)

So.. when the USSR fell...

It can happen.

quote Originally posted by Khw: So.. when the USSR fell... It can happen.

Not the same as the scenario in the OP. You know that. The citizens didn't win a battle with their consumer weapons against the military weapons.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: You should read The Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke. That may help you to understand as his philosophy was one of the major factors in our Constitution. The citizenry grants power to a governing body to provide protection to them as a whole. Without a governing body you have natural law where everyone is free to practice it's enforcement, however this leads to might makes right. Basically I could steal from someone who is to weak to do anything about it. By formong a governing body, you place the power to judge right and wrong and to issue greivances and punishments in that governing body. The only way a governing body can do that for the whole of a population is to restrict it's liberties. The question is at what point do those restrictions become impossing on the whole of the population it is to protect in such a way that the body must be tore down and reformed? Our founding fathers new a governing body could and most likely would overstep it's boundries of power so they tried to make it so the population could tear it down and reform it if the need arrised, as John Locke says must happen with any governing body. Are we at that point yet? I don't know, although I hope we aren't as what would replace it may not be better then what we have. I think at the point where it has become so bad that any replacement would be an improvement is when revolt will happen but that's just my guess.

What a great response. I think you just did a very good job of defending the minarchist point of view. You've led me to only more questions darn it.

"The citizenry grants power to a governing body to provide protection to them as a whole."
The unanimous citizenry or the majority? Can people delegate right's or powers that they don't have to somebody else?

"Basically I could steal from someone who is to weak to do anything about it."
Is there no voluntary means of preventing theft or the recuperation after the fact?

quote Originally posted by TK: Not the same as the scenario in the OP. You know that.

Sorry, I thought your reply was to the last couple of lines in my post since it came right after mine.

There was decenssion of the poulace in the USSR. Gorbachev's economic policies failed and the russian monetary system was a joke... Sound familiar? They had suffered a devistating loss in Afghanistan which demorilized the nation. They also were falling behind technology wise. Then you had outbreaks of the nationalist movement which weakend it's governements control in several of the states. Low and behold what happened next?

quote Finally, the situation came to a head in August of 1991. In a last-ditch effort to save the Soviet Union, which was floundering under the impact of the political movements which had emerged since the implementation of Gorbachev’s glasnost, a group of “hard-line” Communists organized a coup d’etat. They kidnapped Gorbachev, and then, on August 19 of 1991, they announced on state television that Gorbachev was very ill and would no longer be able to govern. The country went into an uproar. Massive protests were staged in Moscow, Leningrad, and many of the other major cities of the Soviet Union. When the coup organizers tried to bring in the military to quell the protestors, the soldiers themselves rebelled, saying that they could not fire on their fellow countrymen.

Wow, that sounds exactly like one of the things you suggested would need to happen doesn't it?

No one said open warfare had to be declared in the streets with 20 years of fighting to tear down the government. The fighting doesn't have to last very long at all, the revolt just has to happen and the military has to show it's allegence to the people they are sworn to protect. After that it's all history.

quote Originally posted by Khw: You'll have to give me a day or so to look into those. Sadly since snow is keeping me from getting to my job sites the wife has suggested we do out grocery shopping today so if I can get up there tomorrow I can go. So... I'll be out shopping for awhile, LOL. But when I get back I will ook over the links and other questions you have posted and see what thoughts come to mind .

Buy some avocados! Add a little bit of sweetened condensed milk, a little bit of regular milk, and some ice in the blender and you have the best milkshake/smoothie you ever tried!

I'm still waiting for someone to delineate who other than the anti-gun equivalent of Alex Jones and the like is advocating the outright banning of firearms in the hands of citizens or who in the administration with the power to affect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment.

Thus far, no one has. No one.

In 2008, the pro gun rallying cry was "Be VERY afraid....If elected, Obama's gonna take ALL our guns away." He won and yet those guns remain in the possession of the citizenry....if anything, gun sales have accelerated since his election. Four years later, the attempt to place some degree of gun control (not complete prohibition...but control) is being met with the same fallacious cry. The rhetoric is being defined by pro gun advocates in the terms of an "either/or" proposition. Any attempt to require registration, limit capacity, limit access, monitor ammo sales, you name it has been decried as "They're taking ALL of our guns away!".....a position no one has been able to provide any tangible evidence of....yet the rhetoric continues.

My questions are always the same..."Given the present-day proliferation of firearms in America, how would this or any subsequent administration achieve such a goal?" Does one imagine that citizens would suddenly be incapable of hiding their weapons or simply denying they possess them? Which branch of the US Armed Forces would be responsible for the confiscation process and how could any administration guarantee complete compliance by any agency so ordered to carry out the process? " The simple logistical hurdles alone would prove overwhelming to the extent that, short of a door-to-door search of every structure in the country and sweeping the entire landscape with metal detectors, it would be virtually impossible to guarantee success of such a policy.

Also, I've asked this question as well and, beyond declarations of individual bravado, it too has gone virtually unanswered...."Which branch of the US Military does the pro gun lobby sincerely believe they are likely to defeat with rifles and handguns?" It's unlikely that the same government in possession of unmanned drones, nuclear missiles, physiological and psychological weaponry is going to be deterred by citizens wielding automatic weapons, regardless of the numbers involved.

There is a marked lack of realism in the arguments being put forward by the pro gun lobby...not to mention that it's highly probable that some manner of gun control is looming on the horizon....whether the pro gun advocates like it or not.

I think it's safe to guess that the fringe elements on neither side will be pleased with the outcome.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by TK: I'll say it again - if the government wants you dead, you will be dead before you know they wanted you dead. The founding fathers either failed to understand or point out that the government at some point would be able to develop weapons that no citizen can overcome. I understand the emotion and reason behind this, but the possibility of success went out the door in the early 1900's. Sure, you might take out a sheriff, or cop, or an FBI agent or whatever, but they won't just go away. He's got a gun, we better back off man! Those days are long gone. I can't imagine any current or ex-military person that actually thinks they couldn't easily take out an armed citizen. They know it and we know it. We will never have matching firepower. The only hope we have is that those people refuse to comply and I think that is more protection than being personally armed. Personally protection against another armed citizen is a separate subject, but the argument that citizen can stop the military is ludicrous.

Your point is moot though isnt it. Would you rather have nothing?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Hypothetically it would probably start with using taxpayer money to buy back guns. Maybe rewards for turning in neighbors.

Theoretically, one can only buy back guns from those willing to sell them, I would presume.....regardless of the funding source.

Rewards for turning in neighbors? Really? The "Thought Police?" Is the sense of paranoia amongst pro gun advocates truly that extreme?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I'm still waiting for someone to delineate who other than the anti-gun equivalent of Alex Jones and the like is advocating the outright banning of firearms in the hands of citizens or who in the administration with the power to effect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, no one has. No one.

First. "outlawing the second amendment" Of course they are not proposing that.. YET. They are denting and dinging it. Chipping away at it and ignoring the last four words. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" These things that are proposed ("Assault Rifle bans, Mag limits") are a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Second. Have you seen the video of Fienstien saying if she had enough votes she would outlaw guns. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"

quote Originally posted by CoryFiero: First. "outlawing the second amendment" Of course they are not proposing that.. YET. They are denting and dinging it. Chipping away at it and ignoring the last four words. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" These things that are proposed ("Assault Rifle bans, Mag limits") are a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Second. Have you seen the video of Fienstien saying if she had enough votes she would outlaw guns. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in"

The operative word in that is "IF". Feinstein DOESN'T have enough votes nor would she garner them. I fail to see the relevance.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Theoretically, one can only buy back guns from those willing to sell them, I would presume.....regardless of the funding source. Rewards for turning in neighbors? Really? The "Thought Police?" Is the sense of paranoia amongst pro gun advocates truly that extreme?

I suppose it depends how badly people need money, and how much is offered. Could also tax ownership of certain guns, yearly registrations, etc. Make that expensive.


Not sure how thought police fits. Just thinking thats what they wanted people to do if they saw suspicious things torrorist related after 911, I dont think there was a reward though.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Not sure how thought police fits. Just thinking thats what they wanted people to do if they saw suspicious things torrorist related after 911, I dont think there was a reward though.

This might help clarify the reference for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Intent I suppose means something. Insert something you care about instead of firearms.

Exaclty - and she does have power. More than Alex Jones who liberals seem to be using as a red herring.

quote Originally posted by CoryFiero: Exaclty - and she does have power. More than Alex Jones who liberals seem to be using as a red herring.

Again, I repeat what I proposed in the above post...."who in the administration with the power to affect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment."

Feinstein has as much or as little power as any other individual member of Congress to determine legislation. If the past 4 years have demonstrated nothing else, it has shown how even the minority can derail legislation. She certainly doesn't possess anywhere near the degree of clout you imagine.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I'm still waiting for someone to delineate who other than the anti-gun equivalent of Alex Jones and the like is advocating the outright banning of firearms in the hands of citizens or who in the administration with the power to effect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, no one has. No one. In 2008, the pro gun rallying cry was "Be VERY afraid....If elected, Obama's gonna take all our guns away." He won and yet those guns remain in the possession of the citizenry. Again, four years later, the attempt to place some degree of gun control (not complete prohibition...but control) is being met with the same fallacious cry. The rhetoric is being defined by pro gun advocates in the terms of an "either/or" proposition. Any attempt to require registration, limit capacity, limit access, monitor ammo sales, you name it has been decried as "They're taking ALL of our guns away!".....a position no one has been able to provide any tangible evidence of....yet the rhetoric continues. My questions are always the same..."Given the present-day proliferation of firearms in America, how would this or any subsequent administration achieve such a goal?" Does one imagine that citizens would suddenly be incapable of hiding their weapons or simply denying they possess them? Which branch of the US Armed Forces would be responsible for the confiscation process and how could any administration guarantee complete compliance by any agency so ordered to carry out the process? " The simple logistical hurdles alone would prove overwhelming to the extent that, short of a door-to-door search of every structure in the country and sweeping the entire landscape with metal detectors, it would be virtually impossible to guarantee success of such a policy. Also, I've asked this question as well and, beyond declarations of individual bravado, it too has gone virtually unanswered...."Which branch of the US Military does the pro gun lobby sincerely believe they are likely to defeat with rifles and handguns?" It's unlikely that the same government in possession of unmanned drones, nuclear missiles, physiological and psychological weaponry is going to be deterred by citizens wielding automatic weapons, regardless of the numbers involved. There is a marked lack of realism in the arguments being put forward by the pro gun lobby...not to mention that it's highly probable that some manner of gun control is looming on the horizon....whether the pro gun advocates like it or not. I think it's safe to guess that the fringe elements on neither side will be pleased with the outcome.

You know just as well as everyone else that they are not going to try an outright ban. Instead they will ban a few things at a time until the day comes when an overt ban is just a small step away. That is exactly what happened in the UK. Even you advocate a ban on "assault" weapons and hint at banning semi-automatic weapons. The tactic of the left is to chip away at the 2nd Amendment until there is nothing left at all.

With regards to fighting the military, it is possible with weapons. It is impossible without. Syria and Libya are recent examples of rebellions that started with small arms against regimes that had tanks and planes.

"the Winchester rifle deserves a place of honor in every Negro Home." Ida B. Wells

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: This might help clarify the reference for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

If someone is "turned in" for posessing something illegal it would not be thought police for "potential crime" it would be crime (owning said weapon).

Thats what I mean.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Again, I repeat what I proposed in the above post...."who in the administration with the power to affect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment." Feinstein has as much or as little power as any other individual member of Congress to determine legislation. If the past 4 years have demonstrated nothing else, it has shown how even the minority can derail legislation. She certainly doesn't possess anywhere near the degree of clout you imagine.

So your argument is not that they intend to weaken or eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Nor is it that they are trying to weaken it. You argument is that they are currently impotent at doing it.

I don't care if they are impotent. The fact is that they are trying. They only have to succeed once to take away my freedoms.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Again, I repeat what I proposed in the above post...."who in the administration with the power to affect the process to any measurable extent is proposing legislation geared towards outlawing the 2nd Amendment." Feinstein has as much or as little power as any other individual member of Congress to determine legislation. If the past 4 years have demonstrated nothing else, it has shown how even the minority can derail legislation. She certainly doesn't possess anywhere near the degree of clout you imagine.

If she doesnt have enough power, and cant sway enough people, etc.
I guess we can hope it stays that way.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: "the Winchester rifle deserves a place of honor in every Negro Home." Ida B. Wells

Cute....but irrelevant. To my knowledge, no one's talking about Winchester rifles.

Besides, I.B. Wells' statement was made during a period when roving bands of White supremacists systematically attacking Negro households was rather commonplace. No connection to today...to my knowledge anyway.

Please try to remain on point.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: So your argument is not that they intend to weaken or eliminate the 2nd Amendment. Nor is it that they are trying to weaken it. You argument is that they are currently impotent at doing it. I don't care if they are impotent. The fact is that they are trying. They only have to succeed once to take away my freedoms.

The argument is "they are not going to take away ALL guns, so you're all wrong"

quote Originally posted by 2.5: If she doesnt have enough power, and cant sway enough people, etc. I guess we can hope it stays that way.

Hope hope hope, see where that will get you. The minions sure get riled up when it is explained why the 2nd is and why it is so important. I think the leftist have blown it by not waiting another twenty years for another generation to die off before trying their power grab. Maybe they think they are running out of time.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Cute....but irrelevant. To my knowledge, no one's talking about Winchester rifles. Besides, I.B. Wells' statement was made during a period when roving bands of White supremacists systematically attacking Negro households was rather commonplace. No connection to today...to my knowledge anyway. Please try to remain on point.

They were also used by the US and other world militaries. They were the "assaault" weapon of their time.

quote It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people. After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.

Learn your history (since you were probably never taught it in the public school system): http://constitutionalistnc....er-leftist/id14.html

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Hope hope hope, see where that will get you. The minions sure get riled up when it is explained why the 2nd is and why it is so important. I think the leftist have blown it by not waiting another twenty years for another generation to die off before trying their power grab. Maybe they think they are running out of time.

I'm with ya. My hope post was sort of a tongue in cheek response.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: They were also used by the US and other world militaries. They were the "assault" weapon of their time.

"Of their time" is, I believe, the basis for both sides of the argument.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Your point is moot though isnt it. Would you rather have nothing?

How are you defining as "nothing"? My point is that the argument that citizens need to be armed to defend themselves against the government was made moot long, long ago. That ship has sailed so it's a silly argument to make. Sounds good but it doesn't overcome the facts -we are severely under-armed in a conflict with the government.

Are there any law enforcement officers or government agents that actually think "we need to leave them alone, they have guns!"? No, they just get bigger weapons. The arms owned by the majority of citizens will not overpower the government. Of course, we can again run a guerrilla war and be a constant annoyance but in the end it's very unlikely we can outlast them. It was one thing to do it when the arms where equal, but they ain't anymore by any stretch. The fact that various founding father's said it was important for the citizens to be armed to throw out the government if they went too far is of zero value today other than philosophically. Anyone proposing an attack on Washington, DC? Only an idiot. Of course if the military and other armed agencies join the citizens, then we certainly could throw them out but at that point our consumer guns will be of little consequence.

I do not at any level support the restriction of gun ownership although I do think there is a limit on what "arms" someone can possess, but my threshold is well above what is practical to own (I don't want to citizens to have nuclear arms for example.) Fully auto? Sure. Howitzer? Maybe not.

One-on-one violence in America is declining but we are seeing an increase in spree killing. That is the problem to be solved. Restricting gun ownership won't solve that. But the number of spree killings is so rare that we can't draw ANY statistical conclusions on the cause. We're only shooting in the dark (I made a pun!)

In conclusion - let's stop with the "government overthrow" argument and figure out why we are seeing more spree killings.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-11-2013).]