The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written by a Congress, that was
composed to a man of those who had successfully revolted through force of
arms, against a government they thought unjust.
The Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights for that matter, was
written in reaction to things that had happened since their revolution.
Several of the States had tried to impress unjust taxes, and collect them
from members of the Continental Army who had been unable to farm or work and
earn enough money to pay taxes since they were in the field with the army.
They had successfully organized, and fought off the agents of the state
through the force of arms.
The British, in response to our armed insurgency had passed the Gun Powder
Act, and the Weapons Act, and enforced them in their territories to prevent
any further revolutions. Both acts, carried a death penalty, and in the
case of the Weapons Act, the definition of weapon was left to the discretion
of the ranking British officer on the scene. Those found guilty by a
military tribunal, could be executed on the scene.
The intent of the Second Amendment is clear if you look at it in historical
perspective: It was written by a group of men who had successfully revolted
against an unjust government, and felt that it was not only a right of the
populace, but a duty, to over throw an unjust government. They decided that
since the States, and the Federal government, were going to have armed
forces, (police and "militias"), that the citizenry should also be armed, to
a level that they could successfully revolt if the need should ever arise.
The licensing of gun owners would be counter to that goal. Because, an
unjust, or corrupt government would then know exactly the information it
would require to disarm the populace, and control it by force of arms.
If you saw the movie RED DAWN, which is about a Soviet invasion of the
USA in Montana, there is a scene in the early part of the movie where
the Cuban adviser to the Soviet commander instructs someone to go to the
sporting goods store and get the firearms permit applications. This was
so they could confiscate all the firearms in town.
When did sporting goods stores in Montana start stocking firearms
permit applications? Around here if you need a permit for something
you go to the police station or town hall.
The bound book is more likely to be useful.
Hay it's a movie. Since when has Hollywood gotten anything right. The
point I was trying to make is that where there is paperwork for firearms
there is the easy source of who has what and where do they live.
Well, lots of ya'll voted for the party that wants to abrogate the second
amendment and now you are surprised that they might actually do what they
Anybody who believed that bilge from the candidate exhorting his disciples
to get in peoples' faces and tell them that He believed in the second
amendment should really ask themselves what the @#$% they were thinking.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Just in case you have not already deduced this, I am not antigun, but would
like there to be fewer around, and certainly not in the "wrong" hands.
I am pro freedom of expression and also for other freedoms, unless they
adversely affect others' well-being and liberties. That means, I don't
care if you play your radio loudly when you are alone and have your
environs sound-proofed, but I object against woodpeckers driving around
busy and quiet neighborhoods with their radios full blast and the windows
I have no idea why you would be against a state being organized to protect
the whole community, not only via military defense but also in economic
ways. That does not mean robbing Peter to pay lazy Paul, but to distribute
I can't think of any law abiding citizen who wants guns in the hands of
criminals. However, taking guns away from law abiding citizens (or
restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain guns) does
nothing to prevent people who are breaking the law from breaking another
law. What those restrictions do is provide a criminal-friendly environment
in which your typical lawbreaker has free reign to do pretty much what they
please with society as long as they run away fast enough not to get caught
when Johnny-Law shows up.
In the US, it is firmly established by law and court decision that the
police do not have an obligation to protect *you*, only to protect society
as a whole. That means that if you are robbed or a victim of any other
violent crime, the police are obligated to investigate and attempt to catch
the perpetrator in order to stop him from harming anyone else -- if they
didn't get to you in time, it's tragic, but not an indication of failure on
their part. For myself, I would like to at least have the option of being
able to stop or keep the perps at bay before they can harm my family or
myself. Waving a golf-club in the air doesn't do that for me.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
You problem is that you make sense. Sense that doesn't fit the play-
book of those who want to keep people scared and un-armed.
All they want is your taxes so they can build big war machines so they
can pillage other nations for their resources and yet another crop of
peasants to take taxes from.
Keep your eye on the ball...follow the money. The rest is window
dressing and bullshit.
The whole glorified advert of 'Freedom' has completely lost its
meaning. We know we want it, but we don't know what it is anymore.
Who, in the western world is really free? All you have to do is take
one step out-of-synch with the 'mantra-of-the-day' and you're
immediately outcast. Nobody wants you to make a blend of what is right
from either political party. They want to keep us apart. The division
is what is important. It is what keeps us electing the opposite party
at opposite times. It is what makes us feel we have actually
accomplished something in the name of democracy, while in fact we have
played into the hands of those who want to keep us divided.
The only thing that Obama has to offer is that he is not Bush. And all
Bush did, was soften up your nation, and squeezed whatever liquidity
there was and handed it over to those who allowed him to play
president for 8 years.
You've been had.
What I see, is that piece of black & white film footage of that
nuclear bomb test. It shows a house getting pushed by a shockwave. a
momentary moment of recovery, then the back-draft bends the whole mess
back and blows it to smithereens before the heatwave hits it and
completely disintegrates it.
You have had 7 years of shockwave. Now a momentary breather/ a bit of
artificial bliss.... brace yourself... the back-draft is coming.
Meanwhile, pay your taxes and hand in your guns.
We all would. Gun control of any sort is not the mechanism to achieve
this. Decriminalizing drugs (so as to empty the prisons of non violent
offenders who did nothing more than sell "contraband") thereby leaving
room for the violent and evil actors in society would be a step in the
right direction. Similarly, we need to cease making excuses for evil
action. We do not need to "understand" the criminal or have "empathy"
for them, or even act "compassionately." We need to separate those who
do evil from the rest of civil society. Doing so would markedly reduce
the level of gun violence since people inclined to do this would end
up in jail much sooner and for much longer than they do today.
Unfortunately, one of the durable cultural norms we've had put upon us
by the intellectual Left is a fundamental denial that evil even exists
... unless, of course, they're drooling on and on about those who do
not share their idiotic worldview.
I am too - for *all* citizens, not just the putative poor, downtrodden,
professional victims, and whiners (i.e. The base of the Democratic
Agreed. That's why I oppose wealth redistribution, most regulatory
actitivty, and government involvement in the private sector.
Agreed. Try getting the politically correct bozos in your community
to actually enforce the noise ordinances. These people think
Kaye West is an "artist" ...
But therein lies the problem. The state organizing to protect
"economic ways" *always* involves robbing Peter to pay Paul (lazy or
otherwise). Government produces nothing. Its only weapon is that of
legal and/or physical force. The state should exist only to preserve
and expand liberty up to the boundaries you describe: Keeping people
maximally free until/unless their actions or threat of action deprives
their fellow citizen of _their_ liberties.
It is one thing to take a citizen's money to, say, defend the borders
of the nation, run the courts, and otherwise generally defend
everyone's liberty. This is a case of *common* benefit. But, for
instance, taking money from one citizen and then funding the
healthcare of another citizen with it is simply stealing. One citizen
benefits *at the expense* of another. It's immoral and should be
roundly condemned by all decent people. Nonetheless, you'll find all
manner of selfish citizens that defend exactly this sort of thing.
Notably, you'll find a few here on the 'Wreck that are just _outraged_
when their defense of stealing of this sort is aired publicly - They
much prefer to tell themselves it is "noble" or even "charity" all the
time while hiring the thugs of government to pay their own bills with
Other People's Money.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Tim has absolutely no interest in distributing opportunity equally.
(something he calls collectivism). He is very much in support of people
keeping whatever they can take and everybody else can go screw themselves.
He also feels that Medicare should be supported solely by donation and
anybody receiving such health assistance should be living at the poverty
line before they'd qualify for that health care.
In other words, Tim is an asshole who has one primary concern and that is
himself. His frequent statement "Why should I have to pay?" is his mantra
and is all one needs to know about Tim to know who and what he is.
Even if his rants sounded remotely well thought out, he only comes to
the bait on non-woodworking issues that he feels somehow threatens his
hip pocket. Let me summarize his woodworking contributions with a list
That's why he's on my banned list. I know how to get him to post more
drivel and vitriol, but I never bother reading them so he blathers in
vain. I've gotten so I can pretty much guarantee he will hit the reply
button just by who responds and how much they yank his chain.
But frankly, folks, just as I counseled around election time; if you
want him to go away, ignore him. He posted a query on 19 December that
went utterly unanswered by anyone for a month. No replies means no
I freely acknowledge my own transgression in posting the response
earlier and I apologize (but it was just too good a shot to pass up).
Now I am in ignore mode: 100% for him, around 85% for a couple of
other kool-aid drinking limboob losers who nevertheless occasionally
have something wood to say. I still don't read or respond to them,
I encourage all to join in.
(PS don't bother to tell me what he says in his response to this,
which is almost guaranteed to appear soon--it's mind over matter; I
don't mind because he doesn't matter).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.