Assault Weapons Ban

[Line475]

And then there is this-

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507

[Mohawk]

I know, SHOOTALL, I know. They quit listening to their neighbors decades ago.

[skarke]

Please take this in the spirit intended.  I am in my late 40s, and as such, have formed a couple of opinions and beliefs.

Here's an apology for one.

Being armed goes beyond a right, and is more accurately described as a reponsibility.  It is our guarantee that we can remain governed by the consent of the people.  The second amendment clearly states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is just that, necessary.  Our founding fathers understood that threats to freedom not only come from outside our borders, but within.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly verified that the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is the trained, armed marksman, the group of individual citizens forming in defense of freedom "en Masse".

I would argue that seeds of elitism being sown by the current government and their willing cohorts in the media present a far greater threat to this country. By definition, these beliefs place one man's value (pick any euphamism, "educated, weathy, smarter, better speaker, etc") greater than another.

These beliefs lead to loss of liberty.  When liberty is in peril, it is our obligation as free men to defend it.  NO ONE would argue that Germany prior to the War was uncivilized.  However, overwhelming propaganda coupled with an inspiring leader can move civilization toward barbarianism, as history records.

The only deterrent to arbitrary rule is a willing, informed and able opposition.  All agree that this position is one that prepares us for the worst case scenario.  I argue that worst case is, historically speaking, just around the corner at any time.

 

[deltecs]

Please take this in the spirit intended.  I am in my late 40s, and as such, have formed a couple of opinions and beliefs.

Here's an apology for one.

Being armed goes beyond a right, and is more accurately described as a reponsibility.  It is our guarantee that we can remain governed by the consent of the people.  The second amendment clearly states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is just that, necessary.  Our founding fathers understood that threats to freedom not only come from outside our borders, but within.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly verified that the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is the trained, armed marksman, the group of individual citizens forming in defense of freedom "en Masse".

I would argue that seeds of elitism being sown by the current government and their willing cohorts in the media present a far greater threat to this country. By definition, these beliefs place one man's value (pick any euphamism, "educated, weathy, smarter, better speaker, etc") greater than another.

These beliefs lead to loss of liberty.  When liberty is in peril, it is our obligation as free men to defend it.  NO ONE would argue that Germany prior to the War was uncivilized.  However, overwhelming propaganda coupled with an inspiring leader can move civilization toward barbarianism, as history records.

The only deterrent to arbitrary rule is a willing, informed and able opposition.  All agree that this position is one that prepares us for the worst case scenario.  I argue that worst case is, historically speaking, just around the corner at any time.

 

While I agree mostly with this poster, I feel it necessary to clarify my interpretation of rights as enumerated in the Constitution.  Not only is the 2nd a fundamental right existing before government and having responsible use of this right, all other rights listed in the Constitution also mandate responsible use of those rights.  The 2nd because of media pc and elitist interpretations of it, is more targeted as being not condusive to society's welfare.  However, the truth is that society is more endangered without this recognition of individual right to bear arms.  It has nothing at all to do with militia as understood today.  The militia is composed and indentified by federal law to include the State Militias and UNORGANIZED MILITIA COMPOSED OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALLY.  The recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller recognized the individual citizens right to keep and bear arms under FEDERAL LAW.  States may independently enact more stringent laws within its jurisdiction as long as these laws do not interfere with application under the 14th Amendment, which unfortunately, I believe does conflict.  These legal interpretations have not yet been decided by the High Court, yet I'm of the opinion that no State may conflict with the individual right to arms under uniform application of the 14th.  I fear that with the liberal Congress and extremely liberal president elect, our firearms rights are going to be a primary target for the immediate future.  It is up to us, the dedicated and committed firearms owners to ensure that this right stays intact by whatever means necessary to prevent government tyranny.

[skarke]

Deltecs, you are spot on with your analysis.  My point is that, irrespective of Supreme Court opinion, a failed government (failed in its responsiveness to the vote, or will of the people) is anathema to liberty.  The point that I am attempting to present is as follows: we have a responsibility and duty as the private militia (original intent) to maintain the ability to rebel when responsiveness to democracy fails.

The opinion of our Supreme Court is moot in the face of totalitarianism.

I greatly appreciate this forum.

[catfishfiend]

The idea behind armed citizens is that people have only small arms, rifles, shotguns, maybe machine guns. These weapons have limited reach and power so that other citizens and the police can overpower another citizen gone berserk. Bombs, missiles etc are so destructive that we would have a serious problem if anyone wanted to misuse such weapons.

That is my answer to the classic argument of "2nd Amendment guarantees even nuclear bombs, so we have to draw the line somewhere so let's ban rifles and pistols."

say again?  an armed citizen is an armed citizen.  never is any restriction made pertaining to what we can or can not posess.  citizens gone berserk???  look to capitol hill.  there's your citizens gone berserk... people with any history of misusing any weapon with the intent to harm the innocent should not be on the streets in the first place, let alone breathing.

[SHOOTALL]

if someone in the know would post it might be interesting to see the time line where restrictions were placed into law with reguard to ownership of weapons and the rush by Democrats and others to empower govt. as they go hand and hand .

[Graybeard]

Making no attempt to be complete but it all began in 1934 with the National Firearms Act I believe it was called. This is when the very first restrictions were placed on what one could own and set up taxes on the ownership of fully automatic guns and certain short barrel rifles and shotguns. It was the beginning of the end of gun ownership in the US.

Fast forward to GCA68 when it really began to warm up for the gun grabbers. Until then guns could be mail ordered and shipped directly to the purchaser by seller. This was a major stepping stone for the gun grabbers.

Klinton's assault weapons ban and several other minor restrictions have been added to the books since GCA68 and lots of cities, counties and states have added their own.

But in reality the various bills passed as part and parcel of the Patriot Act perhaps the most inappropriately name set of laws ever passed have now just about sealed the fate of gun ownership in the US. This broad set of laws gives federal authorities power to do pretty much anything they want to do to us just by saying "oh by the way this is a state of emergency" and by so doing they can take all of your Constitutionally guranteed rights from you and can even put you in prison indefinitely without possibility of bail or even notifying your relatives you are there. No right of phone call with this one. It is the most dangerous thing the government has done to date and most folks welcomed it with open arms thinking it might "make them safe".

We are now poised at the brink of where Germany was not long after Hitler was elected. We just elected our own Hitler. Bent over and kiss your ass goodbye cuz folks come Jan. 20 the ride is about to get real interesting.

[SHOOTALL]

wasn't some law passed in 37 or 33 ?
thanks for reply

[Graybeard]

I "think" it was '39 but whichever year it was in the 30s when NFA began it all. OK I just checked it was really 1934 so I changed my original comment for new date.