Are Democrats finally starting to get it...?

[Brickboy240]

As I read it, the Second Ammendment was put in place...and given the prominence as the 2nd, not the 5th or 6th Ammendment, because of it's importance to the framers.

They knew damn well that an armed populance was the best deterrent to keeping govt. in check and as a balance against possible tyranny. This can be seen all over the globe today. Overbearing govts. that do not allow their citizens to own firearms can be oppressive and often do what they want to their populance. Why not? Its not like they can fight back. From Cuba to China to the Balkans...examples are everywhere.

Do you think that Hitler would have had such an easy time rounding up the Jewish people, if they all freely owned firearms and fought back? Sure, maybe a rifle or shotgun here and there were no match for a Tiger tank, but it would have been mighty discouraging to the Nazi regeime and they might have given up. The few instances of Jews actually taking up arms and fighting back were surprisingly effective and the soldiers were shocked and defeated. Yes, they knew damn well that taking away arms from the Jews was paramount to having absolute power over them.

Josef Stalin was not about to let average Russian citizens own firearms, either. For the same reasons.

Weren't the first skirmishes fought in the Revolutionary War over the Brits coming to relieve colonists of their arms? I believe so. The colonists KNEW that if their guns were gone, the British govt. could do to them whatever they wish.

This can be proven by the quotes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Samuel Adams and others that founded this country. Their quotes...if they're believed to be accurate...spell out in no uncertain terms, the importance of the general, law-abiding public to freely own arms. Nowhere in their writings is the mention of hunting.

As I can gather to the best of my ability (now...I am a red-stater, public educated hayseed gentile, seen as ignorant by the elitists in the northwest...so forgive me if I have it wrong), the Second Ammendment was definately about preventing tyranny in government and self protection from criminals. How could one glean anything else but this from reading their words?

Todays politicians bring up hunting and I cannot see how its related, other than firearms are used in many types of hunting. Are they irnorant on the Constitution or do I have it wrong?

Here is an early article from my favorite columnist, Dr. Walter Williams that goes into detail on this issue. I woudl love to know how he has this wrong: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...s/00/arms.html

Thats my answer...sorry it took so long to reply.

- Brickboy240

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

As I read it, the Second Ammendment was put in place...and given the prominence as the 2nd, not the 5th or 6th Ammendment, because of it's importance to the framers.

This is the first time I have ever heard that the Bill of Rights were prioritized. The only response I have for this is either it's true or it isn't. I don't pretend to know. However what is a higher priority to one person (now or then) can be completely different to the next person. To go over each of the amendments could develop into a debate on the relative importance of each and every one of them. A silly exercise IMO. To me, they are all of equal importance. Some "more equal than others" on any given day to any given person.

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

now...I am a red-stater, public educated hayseed gentile, seen as ignorant by the elitists in the northwest...so forgive me if I have it wrong),

How did I know you would put this into your post? What about being the offspring of (relatively) poor Swedish immigrants? Who among us is a descendant of the passengers on the Mayflower?. Really Brickboy, as you would say "come on now!".

This humble approach is BS and you know it.

Clinton was a "hayseed" from Hope, Arkansas. Reagan a "hayseed" from Tampico, Illinois. Jimmy Carter from Plains, Georgia. Gerald Ford, Omaha. Nixon, Yorba Linda, Ca.. LBJ, somewhere out of the dust in Gillespie County, Texas. Ike, another card carrying "hayseed" out of the booming metropolis of Denison, Texas. Truman, like LBJ from another rural county (Barton County, Missouri) but no city or even town name on his birth certificate. Those are the Presidents in my lifetime who were NOT named Kennedy and Bush. All "hayseeds" by your definition. And they all got to run the show to the extent any one American can.

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Here is an early article from my favorite columnist, Dr. Walter Williams that goes into detail on this issue. .....

Thats my answer...sorry it took so long to reply.

- Brickboy240

I read the column. Invoking Clinton's name in the first sentence sort of tipped off where it was going. Just more opinions. No surprises. Nothing new. Certainly nothing that would convince anyone that the Second Amendment is about giving a guarantee to anyone the right to own and carry a firearm in peace-time and as individuals with no alliance whatsoever to any organized militia or any organized law enforcement agency.


Do I want to be allowed to own and carry a gun as a private citizen? Yes. Do I want to be guaranteed that right? Yes. But do I believe I am guaranteed that right by the Second Amendment? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I'm not qualified to say.

Those who ARE qualified...those who get to interpret the Constitution on behalf of the rest of us seem to disagree with your contentions. As someone once said on this forum....you can scream your head off about the Second Amendment all you want but it won't help one little bit as they cuff you and stuff you in the back of a police car for exercising your "rights" without jumping through all the hoops required to give you the right to carry a gun.

If the Second Amendment is truly about giving the people the right to bear arms to protect themselves from an oppressive government, then why are we restricted across the board from owning weapons of war?

The Americans in 1776 were pretty much already a nation before they signed the Declaration of Independence. They just had to make a clean break. Get their sovereignty recognized by the rest of the world. They had their own factories to make cannons and muskets and whatever else the state of the art was at the time in "arms". (A whole 'nother very obvious argument about what "arms" were 240 years ago as compared to today....an argument for another time).

The framers of the Constitution were revolutionaries. I wonder what someone like XD40Fun or Captain Ray, (or even the very moderate Brickboy ) would think of any American today who wanted to arm himself or herself for the express purpose of protection against our government. True patriots or traitors?

Is XD40Fun just undercover in Ohio while his friends and family are back home in the mountains of Idaho? Is the Unibomber one of his sources of "news"? Did he leave his heart in Ruby Ridge? Is Timothy McVeigh a true martyr? The new and improved Joe McCarthy?

When I have the time I will take Frenchie's advice and try and read up on the Federalist Papers. That would make sense as a source from which I may be able to learn what the dead guys were thinking. I am certainly willing to learn. I am clearly lost when it comes to understanding what the Second Amendment really is about. There are just too many contradictions in our law for me to have a clear understanding. Even better punctuation would help me. But the punctuation is what it is.

When I see people write (or have bumper stickers) "What part of 'Shall not be infringed' don't you understand" I have to believe that they are the ones who have taken a meaning on faith alone. Faith can be a very good thing, but it isn't the law. (It can also be a very bad thing......depends on your perspective...Al Qaeda and the Taliban for example).

The law can be a good thing too. But not always. That's why in a place like America, laws can be changed. Even the Constitution is not carved in stone. We've seen it changed. We've even seen it changed and then "un-changed" (Prohibition).

Again, I am NOT saying that you are wrong. I am only saying that while your argument is easy to agree with by those who want to, it is equally as easy to disagree with by those who want to.

This is one of the topics that fits perfectly into "Debating 101". Anyone should be able to argue either side of this issue. Because it's just so easy. And apparently it hasn't yet been proved one way or the other, so the debate can go on and on. Sort of like the existence of God or Jesus.

Of course emotions make it impossible for some to argue against their beliefs. That's a real problem. Those who are too emotional to ever see the other size of a coin are doomed to be wrong even when they are right.

We see proof of that here virtually every single day.

Fred,
D.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by Delija

How did I know you would put this into your post? What about being the offspring of (relatively) poor Swedish immigrants? Who among us is a descendant of the passengers on the Mayflower?. Really Brickboy, as you would say "come on now!".

This humble approach is BS and you know it.

D.

Originally Posted by Delija

When I have the time I will take Frenchie's advice and try and read up on the Federalist Papers. That would make sense as a source from which I may be able to learn what the dead guys were thinking. I am certainly willing to learn. I am clearly lost when it comes to understanding what the Second Amendment really is about. There are just too many contradictions in our law for me to have a clear understanding. Even better punctuation would help me. But the punctuation is what it is.
D.

"This humble approach is BS and you know it."




Tom

[Brickboy240]

So...all of those founders that Dr. Williams quotes from...nothing in there would lead you to believe that the Second Ammendment was NOT about hunting? Thats what I was getting at.

Everyone here brought up what politicians were saying and how they all dragged hunting into their statements. I believe that if these words from our founders, clearly left out hunting as a reason for allowing citizens to own arms. From what I can glean, it seems as though the founders distrusted an all-powerful, central govt. and that having private individuals freely own arms was a sort of check on the power. If I am wrong about this...well...you've got some convincing to do.

I also seriously doubt that gun bans like we see in San Francisco, Chicago or other locales are things the founders would approve of. I don't see the ownership of guns only by police and military as something they would support as well.

Most common sense pro-gun people, myself included, would agree that nobody should be able to own a grenade launcher or tank or missiles. Thats an argument most anti-gunners always bring up but its an extreme view and really, I know of very very few that believe this wholeheartedly.

I also believe that most pro-gunners really do want background checks and restrictions on felons owning firearms or those under 21.

Do I believe that every Democrat is anti-gun? Not really. There are many Republicans that would gladly sell out our gun rights if it was politically convenient. Many politicians on both side of the aisle will vote on or pass anti-gun legislation not because they really believe in it, but because it looks good or because powerful forces in their area dictate that they do so. Powerful forces that just don't like guns.

Are people like Ted Kenedy or even Chucky Schumer REALLY anti-gun? Who knows, but they will vote anti-gun and appear anti-gun and say anti-gun sayings and soundbites, because their voting block demands it. They might not really give a fig about whether or not you and I own guns at all and vote and act this way, becvause it allows them to continue their way of life.

- Brickboy240

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

So...all of those founders that Dr. Williams quotes from...nothing in there would lead you to believe that the Second Ammendment was NOT about hunting? Thats what I was getting at.

I agree. Nothing about hunting was ever a consideration for those who wrote the 2nd Amendment, or the Constitution. It seems like a non issue. If it helps to soften the hard-line anti gunners, fine. If not, nothing lost. If you are all of a sudden expecting politicians not to play games, how come?

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

From what I can glean, it seems as though the founders distrusted an all-powerful, central govt. and that having private individuals freely own arms was a sort of check on the power. If I am wrong about this...well...you've got some convincing to do.

I don't think you are wrong. I just don't see how you can put together with "it seems as though the founders distrusted an all-powerful, central govt. and that having private individuals freely own arms was a sort of check on the power". together with "nobody should be able to own a grenade launcher or tank or missiles".

Somewhere we have to go with what fits. What is real. If every man woman and child in the US were armed with 50 hand guns and 50 legal rifles of their choosing, would that stop an armed suppression of any civilian uprising (think Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1955).

The Jews who fought back in the Warsaw ghetto against the Nazis fought small arms against small arms. So while their efforts were not only valiant, but successful, they were really just lucky for a while.

But the lesson of Warsaw is not lost. I grew up hearing "Next year in Jerusalem" and "Never again". The Jerusalem call was a part of Passover for at least a thousand years. That it was resolved in our lifetimes was amazing, but pure chance no matter how you look at it (miracle of us being born at the right time, or the miracle of the Arab world misjudging the IDF so badly in 1967). The "Never again" is of course a result of the holocaust. I don't know of a single Jew who would not fight to the death before allowing themselves to be taken away as they were in Europe in Hitler's day. The Jews in Germany mistakenly considered themselves Germans before they considered themselves Jews. I have a friend from Odessa. He emigrated in the early 70s. When I met him I asked him if he considered himself a Russian or a Ukrainian. He told me neither; he was a Jew. (He is a Jew in the secular sense only).

We Jews in America do consider ourselves Americans first. But if a Hitler came to power in America today, it wouldn't go the way it did in Germany. Perhaps you've heard about "KRISTALLNACHT" (Chrystal Night). If not, look it up. It was the Nazi's trial run to see how far they could go. Really an incredible event. (Sort of like the gasoline shortage in Colorado in 1973). Seriously, anyone who is not aware of the "Chrystal Night" should be.

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

"This humble approach is BS and you know it."

Another informative and well thought out post. Thanks for playing. Be sure to come back soon.

Peace,
D.

[Brickboy240]

Yes, I have read about the "night of the broken glass" as it was called. there is a lesson in it for everyone. Since I was only in 3rd grade in 1973 and have not lived in Colorado, I am not familiar with the gas shortage, but can guess what happened.

These examples make it hard to totally discount the NRA and other's "slippery slope" arguments entirely (I am not an NRA member, BTW). History has shown in various ways that the slippery slope IS an effective way to introduce a populance to something a little at a time, that it would never go for, if introduced as a whole package.

This is what the oil companies, along with OPEC are doing to the US consumer as of recent - basically, seeing what they can get away with. The slippery slope, if you wish. Otherwise, how else can we explain the "all of a sudden" rise in gas prices and the drop off every fall...it happens every damn year. Surely, over time, somebody at the oil companies would clue in and prepare for the so-called "shortages" that they SAY happens every year and the prices would somwhat stabilize, instead of spiking up in the summer and going back down in the winter.

Every year it swings higher and higher. They blame it on the same old stuff and throw in convenient scapegoats like weather disasters. I can remember when 2 dollars a gallon was a horrible thing - now everyone would consider that a comfortable thing and keep buying Hummers and Hemis.

The real reason the oil compaines do this is because if they set the gas prices at 3 bucks a gallon all year all of a sudden, they would be real consequences that might actually affect thier livlihood. Instead, we bitch all summer and pay the extra, while they rip us for a few months and continue to drive our gas guzzlers for the rest of the year. The oil companies get their profits and we get no real alternatives and a few hybrid offers that are only a tip of the hat to the greenies and not real alternatives that might hurt the oil companies and their self-created "shortages." Vicious circle of sorts, I'd say.

I didn't mean to get off topic..but theres a connection there...somewhere.

I think!

- Brickboy240

[Frenchy]

Slightly off topic Delija, but do you belong to the JPFO?

http://www.jpfo.org/

[Mike TRT]

some above had made some valid points on the topic......much has changed in 240 years, not every citizen has the "right" to firearms.... if anybody dissagrees, are you kidding? felons, mental patients etc etc... I cant see that being of debate.

as far as the hunting issue goes, I think it wasnt put into the 2nd for the reason that most citizens owned rifles for hunting, as many not living directly in the cities actually hunted their food and the Gvmnt probably didnt see that changing so quicly with a zillion cookie cutter suburbs poping up all over and this was before 80% of the world population wanted to live here instead of their home nations.......I dont think they had the foresight to see what this nation has become, with all the crime, prisons, idiots and the like.

Personally I have no problems with the Federal Gun Laws, like the waiting period (we deal with too many domestic crimes and hot head reactions, like road rage) where a "cooling off" period isnt a bad thing. whats 3 days? plan ahead and buy your guns in advance of whatever there wanted for. And if you cant wait the 3 days, go kill thy neighbor with a brick, I mean, put a little effort in that killing........ kidding

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Yes, I have read about the "night of the broken glass" as it was called. there is a lesson in it for everyone. Since I was only in 3rd grade in 1973 and have not lived in Colorado, I am not familiar with the gas shortage, but can guess what happened.

Yeah, your guess would be correct. It was only in the Boulder and Denver areas.

It really did seem like a trial run. A few months later it became the same all over the country. The politicians blamed it on OPEC, but we saw the news film of tankers anchored off the coast of New Jersey filled with crude. In 1977 the same thing happened all over. You may remember that one.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Slightly off topic Delija, but do you belong to the JPFO?

http://www.jpfo.org/

Not a member (yet?)...I only became aware of the organization recently when someone posted a link to it here on XD Talk (could have been you?). I will look more closely when I have the time (AFTER reading up on the Federalist Papers). Frenchy, you are becoming my librarian/professor...what's my next reading assignment? "How to win friends and influence people"?



Tsumukikiatu (Comanche),
D.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Delija

Yeah, your guess would be correct. It was only in the Boulder and Denver areas.

It really did seem like a trial run. A few months later it became the same all over the country. The politicians blamed it on OPEC, but we saw the news film of tankers anchored off the coast of New Jersey filled with crude. In 1977 the same thing happened all over. You may remember that one.

Not a member (yet?)...I only became aware of the organization recently when someone posted a link to it here on XD Talk (could have been you?). I will look more closely when I have the time (AFTER reading up on the Federalist Papers). Frenchy, you are becoming my librarian/professor...what's my next reading assignment? "How to win friends and influence people"?



Tsumukikiatu (Comanche),
D.

That particular publication didn't help me a bit!