|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 5:37:54 AM
|
|
|
cog41
Posts: 626
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: The Great State of Texas
Status: offline
|
These gun arguments can go on and on and on and on.
Vote for McCain and keep yur powder dry. Vote for Obama, don't just keep it dry but hide it.
_____________________________
Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you."
Hook'em Horns! Roll Tide!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 9:53:43 AM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Read this article, it's pretty darn good:
Article
I did read it and went throu the answers, as I find in the issue the individual right to carry weapons plus the militia notion I did find that:
"Finally, regarding gun control, I firmly believe that the proliferation of lethal weapons within the U.S. has reached breaking point, and it is time for serious thought to be given to a sane, practical re-interpretation of the second amendment.
Given the constitutional emphasis on maintaining a 'well regulated militia', perhaps firearms ownership should be tied to service in an organization such as the National Guard or Naval Reserve. Furthermore, comprehensive and periodic background checks (eg. by the FBI), and a mandatory three-month waiting period for acquisition of new firearms should be enforced.
I think these measures could be employed without violating the raison d'etre of the second amendment.It's a tough topic, but one worth thinking through.
blessings,
James"
I do find his idea good as in my understanding if people want to belong to militias they must be organized as I was reading cancealed carrying laws here There are already lots of people having weapons and etc do not know how many want to belong to militias thou..but as much there are responsable owners who are adult and mature if people are going to embrace militia ways, to me is a different situation as in my head come picture of " a bunch of young highly testosterone males" want to be part of militia let them be in organizer manners.
What is missing to many males in my view are the traditional iniciations to manhood by elder males etc, but unfortunatly the situation of broken homes and so many kids growing up without Dads and strong male figure etc does delay maturity and lessons and whatever young men may need and are missing inside themselves..well, who knows ..I'm not a male. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 10:27:52 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1231
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
rebelman: I will address the points in your post one at a time later tonight if I have time, as well as the less-than-convincing article you posted.
For now, can you answer me this: Is it acceptable for a Christian to become a police officer? Is a Christian allowed to become Secret Service agent? Or a prison guard? How about a security guard? Is it acceptable for a Christian to join the military? Should a Christian ever be a bodyguard?
I am sure you probably already see my point, but I would like a response.
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 1:58:36 PM
|
|
|
Stephanos
Posts: 1115
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: offline
|
Again the WHOLE POINT of militias as the Founders envisioned them, were they were NOT controlled by the Federal Government. This quickly and decisively rules out Guard/Reserve Units as the "modern" militia. The founders wanted to ensure that the people of this nation, had the right, and ability to take up arms for themselves if/when the government got out of control. The founders had just gotten done fighting a war against a tyrannical government. They wanted to ensure that the citizens had not only the ability, but the RIGHT to be able to arm themselves if the need arose.
Secondly, I again want to have the idea stressed, that so called gun-control laws, ONLY effect those who would never use their firearms illegaly in the first place. The criminal is going to get a firearm and use it whether it is against the law or not. By making it harder for the honest citizen from getting firearms, it as a result making it easier for the criminal to target that person KNOWING that they cannot defend themselves from the attack. Statistics have shown and proven that Criminals ADMIT they are afraid to target honest folk who they even suspect is carrying a firearm (I am talking about CCP here) or target a home when the family is there and the family is armed. Criminals may be stupid when it comes to commiting crimes, but most dont want to die, and wont risk attacking a armed person. By making it harder for the honest citizen from legally obtaining a firearm, you make it harder for them to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 2:33:21 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again the WHOLE POINT of militias as the Founders envisioned them, were they were NOT controlled by the Federal Government.
Well, I do guess that people do not come up in a mold and maybe those who embrace the militia who may want to get to be trained by some already who got pro trainment into fight...and I do guess among the persons who carry weapons there are many already who are and were in the military. Why not to give the opportunity to those inexperience in pro fighting and knowledgement of weapons and etc to learn in invironments that can do a good job training militias.
I personaly would prefer to be trained by an ex marine or a marine who did open a "militia school" reggarding combat and etc than the next door neighbor and in his back yard. But this is my thought as I did grew up in a militar invironment, I like organization and structure of military..not much of a rebel and that everything goes and just take the arms..
Plus I was thinking that a militia structure of some sorts would even help young people who are attracted to the "brotherhood of gangs"...if those young people had a choice that instead to belong to a gang embrace a militia brotherhood organized by responsable citizens etc that would be good reggarding youth crimes and etc.
Some do want to live as the past others may want to adapt the past rules to the present realities and pressing needs of their unique communities. Than the freedom the Constitution brings is just amazing and no one should be subjected to be mold or boxed reggarding their militia, people have the right to chose which militia style they want to embrace. My oppinion, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 3:44:45 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1226
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: somewhere over the rainbow
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Again the WHOLE POINT of militias as the Founders envisioned them, were they were NOT controlled by the Federal Government. This quickly and decisively rules out Guard/Reserve Units as the "modern" militia. The founders wanted to ensure that the people of this nation, had the right, and ability to take up arms for themselves if/when the government got out of control. The founders had just gotten done fighting a war against a tyrannical government. They wanted to ensure that the citizens had not only the ability, but the RIGHT to be able to arm themselves if the need arose.
Exactly.
Since ancient times, the well-armed individual organized into militia units was not only the best method of preventing one noble or chief from gaining too much power, but also the least costly way of using limited manpower to defend the community or tribe.
In today's technological society, it is still true that the well-armed and trained individual, especially when organized into locally led militia units, is a threat to centralized control.
When a nation's policy is defensive, militias are generally adequate and successful, as in the case of Switzerland. But our forefathers knew that every nation that disarmed its citizens, and who ceased to depend upon militias for its defense, relying instead upon standing armies, inevitably embarked upon an imperialistic policy abroad and authoritarian rule at home, and eventually destroyed itself.
Since ancient times, weapon control and game laws have been used by ruling elites to dominate populations, prevent effective resistance to their arbitrary rule, and to maintain a subservient labor force. Only those with a license were allowed to hunt, these eventually being restricted to the gentry and those in political favor. Even Blackstone in his Commentaries remarked, "Prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to the government by disarming the bulk of the people . . . is a reason oftener meant, than avowed, by the makers of the forest and game laws." By mere coincidence, only licensed hunting is legal today even on private property, and hunters are under increasing attack. Could the motivation be the same?
Let's face it, the only reason for gun registration is eventual gun confiscation. And the only reason behind gun confiscation, is eventual tyranny.
From this article, giving historical examples throughout human history of those in power disarming the populace before invading them or committing other heinous acts against them.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp
Here is what Machiavelli had to say about this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#2
In his view, whatever benefits may accrue to a state by denying a military role to the people are of less importance than the absence of liberty that necessarily accompanies such disarmament. The problem is not merely that the ruler of a disarmed nation is in thrall to the military prowess of foreigners. More crucially, Machiavelli believes, a weapons-bearing citizen militia remains the ultimate assurance that neither the government nor some usurper will tyrannize the populace. “So Rome was free four hundred years and was armed; Sparta, eight hundred; many other cities have been unarmed and free less than forty years” (Machiavelli 1965, 585). Machiavelli is confident that citizens will always fight for their liberty—against internal as well as external oppressors. Indeed, this is precisely why successive French monarchs have left their people disarmed: they sought to maintain public security and order, which for them meant the elimination of any opportunities for their subjects to wield arms. The French regime, because it seeks security above all else (for the people as well as for their rulers), cannot permit what Machiavelli takes to be a primary means of promoting liberty.
Here's what Plato thought:
"Then to be sure, the people will learn what sort of a creature it has bred
and nursed to greatness in its bosom, until now the child is too strong for
the parent to drive out. Do you mean that the despot will dare to lay hands
on this father of his and beat him if he resists? Yes, when once he has
disarmed him." (Republic 295)
Aristotle believed that:
the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be
incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they
will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under
these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and
to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows
distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he
humbles them.
From Politics, page 82
It seems so many important historical figures understood this concept of disarming the populace paves the way to a tyrannical government.
The 2nd Amendment guaranteeing citizens the right to keep and bear arms is not an antiquated notion that we can get rid of now that we have a professional military.
It's been shown repeated over and over throughout human history that before those in power could overwhelm the population, they first disarmed them.
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 3:54:18 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 401
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
That's right! Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms in the event that we need to start a revolution! Remember, this thing called America was often referred to by our founding fathers as "the great experiment." I am not sure that they were confident it was going to last 20 years let alone some 200+ years.
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 4:23:34 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I do have a question for you guys..don't forget I'm learning but:
There are already groups that finds the Gov a tyran already and are legaly armed, don't you guys want to know and that Gov agencies keep those groups activities into check and to maintain us informed? At the moment law and order are given to authorities into place, given by the people electing those authorities etc.
I am talking about those groups that in the past had issues with Gov, those I do not remember at the moment that locked themselves in compounds and end up dying (hope I'm not confusing issues here..) as the KKK , Arian nation and other Supremacist groups, or the Black Panter style, or any other ethnic extremists militia etc they may be very much legaly armed of course.
I do think the Constitution is very much balanced and 1 amendment does not over rule all the others, there is not golden amendment that comes above all others..I hope not if so there is no balance and the power is unequal between amendments.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 5:29:30 PM
|
|
|
HighPlainsDrifter
Posts: 1293
Joined: 9/22/2005
From: The Great Sioux Empire
Status: offline
|
quote:
Without the 2nd Amendment, the rest will eventually fall soon after.
Totally and completely correct.
_____________________________
Molon Labe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 7:49:22 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
we are slaves to the dictatorship.
In that case even I will get hold of a weapon..control remote style of course..by the time anything like that happens, anythings goes I supose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 8:01:25 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1231
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
Adriana, I really admire your openness and willingness to learn about an issue that you don't know about.
I don't expect you to ever have to carry a gun or shoot a bad guy. Just please don't stop the rest of us good guys who want to do so. If you were my unarmed neighbor, I would come to your defense in a second. You don't need to fear gun owners, only gun abusers!
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 9:25:59 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you very much ManimalX,
Sure, as I now understand the issue and the standings of gun owners.
I really enjoy to learn and understand where others are coming from. The process I take is very spontaneous and can seems messy to some at first...but I do get there..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/26/2008 11:13:26 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1666
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Adriana, I also admire you're openness and willingness to learn about things that tend to get very emotional. There are so many people who let their emotions rule and shut off the learning process. Thanks for some good, thought provoking discussion.
_____________________________
“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/27/2008 3:12:37 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you Zamdad,
I get emotional but recuperate my racional etc I keep pressing.
I do realize and was reminded inside that people who went through dictatorships do have social, region trauma and other traumas, Argentina and Chile did get worse stuff than Brazil. Nations do take time to recuperate revolutions within hurts really deep still..many just desapeared, many were tortured in our nations were young students even some still in high school age..people in the military was not safe from secret informants within etc as any silly stuff and you were accused to be "communist", against the regime etc and taken away..
Than sometimes some issues take you by susprise and all of the suddenly stuff like 1 single word triggeres things happened decades ago etc
Yes, I do think that dialogue is much needed about gun issue as to see where people comes from with their positions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/27/2008 9:48:29 PM
|
|
|
jbow
Posts: 785
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: Dixie
Status: offline
|
He don't know about two of my handguns...
The recent Supreme Court ruling kinda makes it hard for government to take anyones gun. An armed community is much more safe than an unarmed one.
If someone breaks into my home in the night they better be ready to meet their maker because I will send them to see Him, pronto.
J
_____________________________
"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/27/2008 11:01:32 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 401
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
I don't even own a gun, but have been talking about getting one for a while now. I guess I better go get it because it's possible that my time may be running out. I had better move right up to the 9mm. I was going to get this Ruger 22 that I really liked just to hone my target skills, but now I had just better move right up to the one that will actually do some damage if I need it.
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/27/2008 11:33:12 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1231
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
rgsoundguy: You don't necessarily have to skip the .22. If someone breaks in your house and is getting shot at by ANY caliber, he is going to flee. A .22 can do damage, don't doubt that.
It all depends on what your primary use is going to be. If you want something exclusively for home defense, a .22 might not be the best choice. However, a .22 is a excellent gun for camping or hiking, and is a great gun for taking down small game in a survival (or even recreational) situation. Also, .22 ammo is WAY cheaper than 9mm. If you are going to be at the range a lot, a .22 will make your wallet much happier. If you don't have much experience shooting handguns, a .22 is an excellent training weapon, is easier to handle compared to a 9mm, and is also much less intimidating if you have spouse or child that wants to learn.
Again, it is very dependent on what your primary use will be. I personally prefer a revolver for home defense. The Ruger SP101 is a personal favorite of mine. I prefer a revolver as a home gun because it is almost idiot-proof. Perfect for fumbling in the dark. You point and pull the trigger. No worrying about the jams or misfeeds you sometimes have with an autoloader, and no worrying about the safety. Drop a revolver and it won't go off. Get it wet and it will still shoot. The only downside is ammo capacity. An autoloader 9mm will hold 17 rounds or so. The Ruger revolver holds 5 (or 6 if you get one chambered in the new .32 Federal Magnum). This can be a turn off to some people, but the way I look at it is if I am in a situation that requires more than 6 rounds, I don't have a good chance anyway.
On the third hand, you could always buy both... 
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/27/2008 11:44:51 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 401
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
Thanks for the advice. I am interested in target shooting for the moment which is why the 22 appeals to me. However, I just have a bad feeling about the direction things are heading, and I have a feeling that home defense may be very necessary soon, which is why I may want something a bit more powerful. I've shot a 9mm before and did pretty well with it. I shot a revolver as well. I didn't do too well with that for some reason. Anyway, thanks for the advice I will take it under consideration as I do some "shopping."
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/28/2008 1:32:16 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
Are all guns carrying lethal bullets? There are no guns carrying plain anaesthetic ,like those they shoot animals in safaris ?
I still have problem carrying a lethal weapon, even if I have to defend my life. I do think they could make weapons that put people down but not kill..than I would have time to call 911 and the police would pick up the intruder etc.
Only than I would have no problem carrying my weapon also.
Ewww..in the past people were really strong, need to be brave as carrying those heavy swords some were barbarics. LOL..now I remembering Conan/Arnold movie... my imagination do come into pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/28/2008 1:36:45 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 401
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AdrianaS
Are all guns carrying lethal bullets? There are no guns carrying plain anaesthetic ,like those they shoot animals in safaris ?
I still have problem carrying a lethal weapon, even if I have to defend my life. I do think they could make weapons that put people down but not kill..than I would have time to call 911 and the police would pick up the intruder etc.
Only than I would have no problem carrying my weapon also.
Ewww..in the past people were really strong, need to be brave as carrying those heavy swords some were barbarics. LOL..now I remembering Conan/Arnold movie... my imagination do come into pictures.
Well, you could look into carrying a taser. They can be brutal but there is normally no long term or permanent injuries as a result. A lot of police officers use them now. I see it as a great alternative to deadly force. Of course, there are still the people out there calling it too painful and unusually cruel.
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/28/2008 1:51:06 PM
|
|
|
AdrianaS
Posts: 1229
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgsoundguy
quote:
ORIGINAL: AdrianaS
Are all guns carrying lethal bullets? There are no guns carrying plain anaesthetic ,like those they shoot animals in safaris ?
I still have problem carrying a lethal weapon, even if I have to defend my life. I do think they could make weapons that put people down but not kill..than I would have time to call 911 and the police would pick up the intruder etc.
Only than I would have no problem carrying my weapon also.
Ewww..in the past people were really strong, need to be brave as carrying those heavy swords some were barbarics. LOL..now I remembering Conan/Arnold movie... my imagination do come into pictures.
Well, you could look into carrying a taser. They can be brutal but there is normally no long term or permanent injuries as a result. A lot of police officers use them now. I see it as a great alternative to deadly force. Of course, there are still the people out there calling it too painful and unusually cruel.
Well, if it is lawful to carry taser gun I would choose it as my weapon of choice without a doubt! 
Just imagine depending what the intruder is carrying as choice of weapon, for exemple a very potent weapon that I sure do not know the name..and there is a confrotation between we 2 face to face I still would be happy with a taser gun weapon.
I think that most people do not have an arsenal like James Bond and depending what the other guy is carrying he would choose a match in potence weapon..I do think that in home invasions most intruders are carrying commom weapons..but in bank assaults and stuff like that the bandits are carrying military weapons I suppose..most civilians do not have an arsenal at home like the organized crime bunch and others.
Thanks.
hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Gun Ban Cometh: Obama WILL Disarm You - 9/28/2008 1:59:18 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 401
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AdrianaS
I think that most people do not have an arsenal like James Bond and depending what the other guy is carrying he would choose a match in potence weapon..I do think that in home invasions most intruders are carrying commom weapons..but in bank assaults and stuff like that the bandits are carrying military weapons I suppose..most civilians do not have an arsenal at home like the organized crime bunch and others.
Thanks.
hmmm...
Adriana, you ended your last post with something that is very important to keep in mind. Most criminals are using guns that were purchased illegally anyway. So if guns were to be banned, the only people that would truly be disarmed are the true law abiding citizens. Criminals would still have, and still be able to get them in all the places they do already.
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
