DescentBB

Much has been discussed on this BB about the right to carry arms and how the intent of the 2nd amendment was as a brake on corrupt government. Some of the anti-gun persuassion were of the opinion that one can't fight city hall by taking up arms. To date I can't remember a good analogy in favor of the armed citizen going up against some form of our govt. (after we kicked the Brits booty of course)...until now.
Condoleeza Rice gave a first hand example that we may all well pay heed to, especially when you hear elected officials talk about how the average citizen needs not own a firearm:

http://tinyurl.com/8gmtt

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion."

"In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves."

The problem is we do not know what form of govt., either federal or local, that may crop up where the only defense will be what you can carry in your own two hands. Condi gives us something to really consider.

While I do not own any guns personally, I strongly believe in having the right to do so. Especially with the state that the world is in today.

Especially with the state that the world is in today.

maybe i'm being overly argumentative. but what's the WORLD got to do with it?

surely you mean the state of "america".

yes?

or are you expecting an invasion?

I liked that episode of the simpsons where Moe explains that guns are for "keeping the king of england out of your face". Sounds about right. That could easily apply to an overly oppressive government as well.

BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer wrote:The Second Amendment guarantees "a well-regulated militia"

No it doesn't. It states: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..." That's not guaranteeing anything, it's stating the reason that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

roid wrote:

Especially with the state that the world is in today.

maybe i'm being overly argumentative. but what's the WORLD got to do with it?

surely you mean the state of "america".

yes?

or are you expecting an invasion?

What rock have you been living under?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer wrote:The Second Amendment guarantees "a well-regulated militia"

No it doesn't. It states: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..." That's not guaranteeing anything, it's stating the reason that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

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.

This is a statement, there is not anything like 'so or that' in there. There are two main statements here; a well regulated militia is necessary, and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. This has been in effect for a long time before liberals (like you I am assuming) tried to change it. It was well established and understood what this meant, and still is well understood by many to mean that the government has no right to mess with our owning guns. When people don't have guns, you get subjects of an overbearing and armed government. You also get a high escalation in crime because the only people that own guns are criminals, and they don't care at all about the law. That just encourages them because they no longer have to worry about robbing an armend household or person.

Gun control and gun elimination are two distinct issues; yet whenever the left brings up gun control, the right counter-punches by talking about how horrid gun elimination would be.

Gooberman wrote:the right counter-punches by talking about how horrid gun elimination would be.

...because the right knows that that is the ultimate goal of the left. All of the major organizations for gun control seek to have firearms removed completely. It's a slow and annoying process of one unconstitutional [hence illegal/void] law after another.

Goob, surely you're not naive enough to truly believe that "gun control" doesn't naturally lead to "gun elimination", incrementally, of course.

I'm taking a stab here, but I seriously doubt you're up to snuff on current bills and legislative efforts that, if passed, will severely limit the choices of hunter, sportsmen, re-loader, et al. I say stab because anyone who claims to stand firmly on the constitution and takes the position of "gun control is okay- but, should be limited" can't possibly have the slightest clue what's coming down the pipes.

I strongly urge you to do some research on the topic before you back "gun control", please. At least familiarize with current AB's, etc so that you're not blindly following what "feels/seems right".

Check out:
AB-352
AB-357.

Goob, surely you're not naive enough to truly believe that "gun control" doesn't naturally lead to "gun elimination", incrementally, of course.

Surely you're not naive and arrogant enough to dictate to me where the conclusion of my position leads. Which is a position in favor of some gun control but not gun elimination.

The irony of your post is alarming as it stands out as the perfect example of my above comment. You post two bills which epitomize ways to control guns, the first wants semiautomatic pistols that are not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters to fit the definition of "unsafe."

Where is the total gun elimination here? You are smart enough to see the forensic use of such a bill. If you try and declare this the cornerstone of the left trying to get your guns, then you are pulling ★■◆● out of your ass. Your second bill impacts two assault riffles, what percentage of the total gun make-up is this? Where is the end of all guns?

You didnâ??t even try to tie them to gun elimination, you just posted. You started with an assumption that A -> B and then showed how rampant A is, while hardly anything you posted actually addressed how A -> B!

Incidentally , unless you had me read the wrong bills because you weren't specific in location, both of these are California bills, which hands down is one of if not *the* most liberal state in the Union. When arguing a point on averages you do not use the most extreme example to prove your case.

I do not deney that some liberals want guns eliminated, I do deney that it is the majority. The former are just posterized for political gain.

Barry, I'm on the left, I am one of those who gets to decide where I feel the natural conclusion of gun control leads with my vote, you don't, having gun control is not your position. So you have no say to tell me where the position ends on this issue, and your bull shitting to claim knowledge of the sum of all liberals in America, based on california law that doesn't come close to bringing total gun elimination to the table, on this position.

Before you post more blanket statements, connect these to total elimination (and if you do this without using a slipery slope argument I will be beyond impressed). Even you said that they "limit the choices;" this != elimination! If you are going to criticize my point please criticize it for what it is actually saying. It didn't say anything about the non-existance of gun control, which is all you addressed.

I know several hunters that vote D. You're just...wrong. If it moves to gun elimination, America will move to the right in unison on this issue, and rightly so.

Heh.. Goob,

I was going to explain, but there's no use.

Take care of yourself.

You too.

Top Wop wrote:

roid wrote:

Especially with the state that the world is in today.

maybe i'm being overly argumentative. but what's the WORLD got to do with it?

surely you mean the state of "america".

yes?

or are you expecting an invasion?

What rock have you been living under?

earth. or maybe a big rock of tin foil.

and you didn't answer my questions.

- what has this got to do with the WORLD?

- is america expecting an invasion?

fine i may as well just make the point i'm making clearer.

american gun laws have no juristiction outside of american soil - you leave the country and you are under the juristiction of the laws of the country you stand in - so american gun laws have nothing to do with YOU leaving america. so i guess it has something to do with you needing guns at home to protect yourself from the scary world OUTSIDE that can come IN to america.
does USA have hostile neighbours? canada, mexico, no. USA doesn't have hostile neighbours.
are you expecting a seabased invasion? i find that hard to believe.

my only conclusion left is that you are defending yourself from "dem terrorists". you know, the ones that are so prevalent that america is getting car-bombed ON HOME SOIL. or are sending anthrax packets out to you personally coz you are so important. or are breaking into your house to kill YOU and your loved ones because they have a fatwah declared on you and your family.
coz a gun will protect you from terrorists, yes sir.


given that the discussion in this thread has been solely about at-home gun control and how it will effect your ability to defend yourself from your fellow americans. do you think it just may be possible that saying:
"Especially with the state that the world is in today."
was a typo? and actually ment to read:
"Especially with the state that the COUNTRY is in today."

roid wrote:given that the discussion in this thread has been solely about at-home gun control and how it will effect your ability to defend yourself from your fellow americans. do you think it just may be possible that saying:
"Especially with the state that the world is in today."
was a typo? and actually ment to read:
"Especially with the state that the COUNTRY is in today."

world (wûrld)n.

1. The earth.
2. The universe.
3. The earth with its inhabitants.
4. The inhabitants of the earth; the human race.
5.
1. Humankind considered as social beings; human society: turned her back on the world.
2. People as a whole; the public: The event amazed the world.
6. often World A specified part of the earth: the Western World.
7. A part of the earth and its inhabitants as known at a given period in history: the ancient world.
8. A realm or domain: the animal world; the world of imagination.
9.
1. A sphere of human activity or interest: the world of sports.
2. A class or group of people with common characteristics or pursuits: the scientific world.
10. A particular way of life: the world of the homeless.
11. All that relates to or affects the life of a person: He saw his world collapse about him.
12. Secular life and its concerns: a man of the world.
13.
1. Human existence; life: brought a child into the world.
2. A state of existence: the next world.
14. A large amount; much. Often used in the plural: did her a world of good; candidates that are worlds apart on foreign policy.
15. A celestial body such as a planet: the possibility of life on other worlds.

---

Consider the possibility he meant "world" in the sense of definition 11, or possibly 5.2, 6, or 8. Or, perhaps, he meant it universally -- considering the state of the whole world, it seems to make sense to him to protect himself in his own little corner of it. His corner happens to be inhabited by fellow US citizens (and possibly others), but they're part of the world at large.

Why do you hate America?

You are a little thick with that socialist mind of yours, so let me explain:

Just over a week ago not far from where I live (and really close to our favorite harbor where we like to hang out) there was a deranged man on Mother's day who after having an argument with his wife went on his bike and searched for his daughter and her friend and killed them both in the park.

Just a few days ago there was a well known rapist, robber, and murderer in California. The police had a hard time tracking him down until finally it ended with him being shot after a classic California speed chase, during which he nearly killed people as he almost ran over a group of innocent bystanders on the sidewalk including a father and a 4-year old who just got out of the store.

These are the people I am talking about. The world is not all happy go lucky as you think it is and im sure your own country isnt too different ether. Its not just about "dem terrorists" as you so eloquently put it.

Top Wop wrote:Just a few days ago there was a well known rapist, robber, and murderer in California. The police had a hard time tracking him down until finally it ended with him being shot after a classic California speed chase, during which he nearly killed people as he almost ran over a group of innocent bystanders on the sidewalk including a father and a 4-year old who just got out of the store.

What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment?

The right to bear arms to defend ourselves against such nutjobs.

I don't see how any of the people involved in that snippet of a story, except the police, could have defended themselves had they been armed.

One word, Dedman...

Columbine.

There was a spree of home invasion roberries not long ago in the central valley. The 15-22 year old kids went to an embroiderer with black jackets and had him sew "police", etc on the back, then, they'd knock at the door, force their way in, shoot everyone in the house and take their things.

Or,


How about the folks who lived in the country about 5 miles from us and had their house broken into while they were at home. They tied and beat the father nearly to death, raped the mother and shot the 11 year old kid up with meth. They took nothing.

Or,

How about the family in the next town who, while eating dinner, heard a knock at the door and 4 masked men force their way in. They tied up the father and made him watch his son being shot multiple times... watched as each one of the animals fucked his 13 year old daughter, then shot his wife in the head and left.

or,

how about the 6 dead teens in my town in the past 3 weeks due to gang violence were two innocent bystanders were injured in the gun fire.

Or,

How about my friend coming out of the local 7-11 after going in for a soda. A truck pulled up, held everyone who was there at gunpoint while the 3 criminals who came from behind the store beat him with a 2x4 and kicked him in the head while he was down. He tried to get away and they chased him across the street to a gas station where they beat him more. Nobody could do anything because the guys in the truck told them that if anyone tried to help him, they'd be shot. He was in the hospitol 3 days.


Or,

How about another friend that, not 3 weeks ago was put into the hospitol for stepping on someones shoe as he was walking past. Yeah, they pulled out a knife, cut the ★■◆● out of him, stabbed him in the head while they dragged the knife down his face.

There are hundreds of examples where crazy prople cause havoc and nothing really could be done to stop it. There are hundreds of more examples where something could have been done to stop it and it has everything to do with our second amendment.
If guns are not the answer then tell the criminals so I can stop carrying mine.