A Democrat View on Gun Ownership...

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by hacker15

Anyone who thinks they can stop the AG with anything our government has left us with in the way of arms has his/her head screwed on backward. When Aunt Janet came knocking on the door, what did those folks at the Branch have to stop her? AK47s, a few M16 wannabes? Come on, folks - those guys were using TANKS. Back in the day when everyone was armed alike (as in smoothbore musket), and it took a team of horses and a week to get a cannon up to a farmhouse, we might have had a chance against a tyrannical government agency. Today, we're outgunned, outmanned and outmucled from the getgo. Guns today help us protect ourselves, our family members, and our property from other priviate citizens (the "bad guys") and anyone who thinks they can stand against the power of the fed, state, or any local LE agency is simply fooling themselves. I don't have guns to protect myself from my government - I still believe I'm a part of that government.

I don't think anyone is talking about it actually happening or even a need for it. Just a "what if".

[CyberOtaku]

I don't think a successful armed rebellion/revolution would really be all that impossible so long as enough people are united against government tyranny. Consider the current U.S. population estimated at 299,102,661 people, 1% of that is 2,991,027 which is over half a million more people than the total number of troops in the entire U.S. military. Even one quarter of a percent of the U.S. population (747,757) would provide a substantial force to start a revolution. Over the years the government has earned quite a bit of public mistrust so I expect that as time passes more people would join or become sympathetic to the revolutionaries.

I also seriously doubt that everyone in the military would be so willing to betray their countrymen and the very ideology the nation was founded on. I expect rebel forces would utilize captured military armor units and equipment as well. Nor would the rebels fight fair, history has shown that conventional military forces tend to lose a great deal of effectiveness against guerilla tactics.

Could enough people unite to defy government oppression? I would bet yes. Are you willing to die for the freedoms you enjoy? Are you willing to risk your family? That is what all of our founding fathers put on the line and that is the price of freedom, one that has not been paid in quite a long time.
The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. -Thomas Jefferson

Is present day America willing to sacrifice for freedom and liberty? If not they do not deserve it, IMHO. Either way those of us that would risk everything will die free.

[Neomet]

So lets assume we can prevail over Lord Vader and the Death Star, that 1% of the population attacking the government would be perceived by the rest of America as a good idea, that the nation's armed forces, whose sworn duty is to defend America from enemys, foreign and domestic, is willing to face courtmartial and treason charges for not putting down this revolt, and that after we capture those M1 tanks and F-16s that we suddenly learn how to actually use and maintain them.

OK, assuming all of that what is going to be bad enough to get those 1% of the people to attempt to overturn their government? This country is based on a system of checks and balances. Nobody is going to start shipping yuppies off to forced labor camps. If Bush goes Idi Amin on us and starts eating his opponents I am sure that the Democrats could probably swing 10 or 11 Republicans over to the dark side and have him impeached.

All kidding aside, the level of evil that has to exist in order to take up arms against the most democratic, free country in the world is far above the crap we have to deal with involving what types of guns we can own. If you don't believe that then you believe not in democracy, but in anarchy.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Neomet

So lets assume we can prevail over Lord Vader and the Death Star, that 1% of the population attacking the government would be perceived by the rest of America as a good idea, that the nation's armed forces, whose sworn duty is to defend America from enemys, foreign and domestic, is willing to face courtmartial and treason charges for not putting down this revolt, and that after we capture those M1 tanks and F-16s that we suddenly learn how to actually use and maintain them.

OK, assuming all of that what is going to be bad enough to get those 1% of the people to attempt to overturn their government? This country is based on a system of checks and balances. Nobody is going to start shipping yuppies off to forced labor camps. If Bush goes Idi Amin on us and starts eating his opponents I am sure that the Democrats could probably swing 10 or 11 Republicans over to the dark side and have him impeached.

All kidding aside, the level of evil that has to exist in order to take up arms against the most democratic, free country in the world is far above the crap we have to deal with involving what types of guns we can own. If you don't believe that then you believe not in democracy, but in anarchy.

can't disagree with that.

[one-eyed-fatman]

I don't see us having to take out our government. They're perfectly capable of doing it themself's.

[Scrondar]

I too am another gun totin' Democrat, and while I am left of center on some issues, I am most certainly right of it on others. Frankly, I think anyone who proclaims to be just one or the other is kidding themselves; the world just ain't that black and white. Since I have become enamored of shooting, many of my family and friends give me sidelong glances and have probably made several wrong assumptions. Hence, I no longer mention guns or shooting in social gatherings. Emotions (on both sides) run too high on the issue, and facts get quickly obscured by what is at the bottom of it - fear.

The other night my spouse let me know in no uncertain terms she did not want firearms in the house. Instead of just taking a stand, I tried to get her to explain exactly why she felt so strongly. I won't bore you with the back and forth, but after I calmly (well, as calm as I can be) explained how meticulous I am about keeping ammo away from pistol when not at the range, she acknowledged that safety wasn't here concern. All she could say was she could not feel comfortable with guns in the house. The compromise became my taking all ammo and guns to the basement. It probably sounds condescending, but I hope one day to help her see beyond her fear and understand that guns in the house is not a bad thing.

Didn't mean to digress here, but this thread seemed a good place to share this.

[CyberOtaku]

Originally Posted by Neomet

All kidding aside, the level of evil that has to exist in order to take up arms against the most democratic, free country in the world is far above the crap we have to deal with involving what types of guns we can own. If you don't believe that then you believe not in democracy, but in anarchy.

Yes, revolution is the last line of defense to protect freedom, but it is also a guarantees that the government abides by the the Constitution. If the citizens have no means of resisting the government, what would prevent them from repealing teh Constitution?

Restrictions on types of weapons people are allowed to own, however, are not trivial matters. Banning certain firearms is a clear infringment of the right to arms. The 2nd ammendment refers to a well regulated Militia. The authors of the Constitution were specifically saying that the citizens should own, maintain, and be proficient with military grade firearms. Obviously, the reason goes back the right to revolution and guarantee agains tyranny.

[Neomet]

Cy, I think we are still going to disagree on this one. I believe that the inherent structure of the government, with the balances of power being held between the President, the Congress and the Judiciary prevent the type of singularly inspired oppression you are speaking about here. I think that the fundamental premise that the American form of government can produce Stalinesque examples of tyranny is unfounded. Who exactly is it that would repeal the Constitution? My somewhat limited knowledge of Constitutional law is that there is no entity that has that power. Amendments can be added, but there is quite a drawn out process for this which involves individual citizens voting on any such amendment.

I agree that the attempts to restrict private citizens rights to own most arms are serious infringements of the 2d. But to be honest, this somewhat suits my purposes and desires. I like owning my rifles and handguns and have only limited reservations about others doing the same. Do I think Joey down the block should own his own collection of M136 AT4 anti-tank missiles? Not really, as he is still pretty miffed that I haven't given him his lawnmower back yet. Still, if I believe in the 2nd, where does it limit me to just possessing small arms?
Anyway, back on point here.... I do not trivialize these infringements. They are big deals. They are not, however, big enough deals that I am going to take up arms against the United States. I will fight these attacks by the mechanisms set forth in our Constitution and within the framework of our laws. I will vote against anyone who wants to stick their nose into my business. I will support lobbying groups that represent my interests.

I'm curious, we often talk in these generalities of being willing to take up arms against our own country for "freedom", or "liberty". These are truly noble concepts, but what specifically would happen for you to literally load up your weapons and decide to march on Washington, or your State capitol, or city hall with the intent of killing other Americans?

Sorry for the long post. It 2:15 and I'm riding the end of an espresso evening.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

"If you do not want Democrats to "grab guns" from you, take a moment and teach them about guns, show them that the guns are NOT the problem, but the people who get their hands on them."

You are joking right? You cannot be THAT naive.

The only thing that works to preserve our 2A rights is the ballot box. The gun-grabbing Democrats fight our 2A rights to WIN VOTES.

Someone pulled the XDFunny doll's string again? YAWN!!!!

Originally Posted by mgeoffriau

Next time I run into Sarah Brady at the grocery store, I'll invite her to go shooting with me.

Hmmm. Thought she was a Republican. Just like Guilianni, Schwartzenegger, Bloomberg, etc.

Peace,
D.

[jeff221]

Originally Posted by Neomet

Cy, I think we are still going to disagree on this one. I believe that the inherent structure of the government, with the balances of power being held between the President, the Congress and the Judiciary prevent the type of singularly inspired oppression you are speaking about here. I think that the fundamental premise that the American form of government can produce Stalinesque examples of tyranny is unfounded. Who exactly is it that would repeal the Constitution? My somewhat limited knowledge of Constitutional law is that there is no entity that has that power. Amendments can be added, but there is quite a drawn out process for this which involves individual citizens voting on any such amendment.

I agree that the attempts to restrict private citizens rights to own most arms are serious infringements of the 2d. But to be honest, this somewhat suits my purposes and desires. I like owning my rifles and handguns and have only limited reservations about others doing the same. Do I think Joey down the block should own his own collection of M136 AT4 anti-tank missiles? Not really, as he is still pretty miffed that I haven't given him his lawnmower back yet. Still, if I believe in the 2nd, where does it limit me to just possessing small arms?
Anyway, back on point here.... I do not trivialize these infringements. They are big deals. They are not, however, big enough deals that I am going to take up arms against the United States. I will fight these attacks by the mechanisms set forth in our Constitution and within the framework of our laws. I will vote against anyone who wants to stick their nose into my business. I will support lobbying groups that represent my interests.

I'm curious, we often talk in these generalities of being willing to take up arms against our own country for "freedom", or "liberty". These are truly noble concepts, but what specifically would happen for you to literally load up your weapons and decide to march on Washington, or your State capitol, or city hall with the intent of killing other Americans?

Sorry for the long post. It 2:15 and I'm riding the end of an espresso evening.

Times, they are a changing... When that document was written the majority of people had long rifles and used them for hunting. So, when written that americans had the right to bare arms the framers of the constituion could not even IMAGINE a fully automatic assult rifle that you could store under your bed and take out an entire neighborhood with if you went beresk one day.... Or, I'd think that 2nd ammendment would have been worded a little different... That's just my opinioun...

They have adjusted the freedom of speech so that the freedom isn't used to inflict harm or make the public unsafe (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre) and, in my opinoun, that's all they are trying to do now. They may be misguilded and uninformed about firearms, and as such are doing what THEY believe is best.