Emergency: Politicians Call for End of 1st & 2nd Amendments

Government Tyranny

So, Cal, you believe that the 2nd amendment addresses that one of the 'reasons' we have the 'right to bear arms' is to keep a tyrannical government in check?

I'm not Cal, but you sure put your finger on the point, even if you stated it poorly. The Constitution doesn't give us anything. It simply enumerates rights we have from God.

Examine the events surrounding the 18th and 19th of April, 1775. It was a tyrannical government attempting to disarm the citizenry that precipitated that running fight. From that set of circumstances, as well as others, came the activities of 1776.

By now, we just call each other names. Circumstances such as the Ruby Ridge massacre SHOULD have prompted a civil uprising. Government agents shot a 14-year-old kid in the back and killed a woman holding an infant by shooting through a door.

And then came Waco.

KS
 
I'm not Cal, but you sure put your finger on the point, even if you stated it poorly. The Constitution doesn't give us anything. It simply enumerates rights we have from God.

Examine the events surrounding the 18th and 19th of April, 1775. It was a tyrannical government attempting to disarm the citizenry that precipitated that running fight. From that set of circumstances, as well as others, came the activities of 1776.

By now, we just call each other names. Circumstances such as the Ruby Ridge massacre SHOULD have prompted a civil uprising. Government agents shot a 14-year-old kid in the back and killed a woman holding an infant by shooting through a door.

And then came Waco.

KS

Ever look into the laws that came to being after Ruby Ridge and Waco KS? Laws that restrict how federal agencies can use lethal force - and how they approach events such as those two since those laws went into effect? They did prompt an uprising - in the halls of congress, not in the hands of citizens. Isn't that the better solution?

But, back to the question - you believe that the 2nd amendment allows for the armed insurrection of the people against the government? That weapon control laws are unconstitutional?
 
Cammerfe just made an excellent point.
The Constitution doesn't "give" us any rights, it simply protects them from the government.

And the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect our freedoms and security, period. From individuals and, in the absolute, hypothetical, extreme, worst case scenario that could include the actions tyrannical governments who are no longer limited by the constitution.

However, despite your effort to characterize it as so, that doesn't mean that violence is ever presented of defended as some kind of reasonable, political device. You don't debate with a firearm waving in the air. The threat of violence isn't presented as a way of influencing policy. We have a functioning republic, so long as all players are reasonably honest about their intentions, we can use reason and debate and battle in the realm of ideas. Any violence jeopardizes it.

So, does the 2nd amendment "allow for armed insurrection."
No. The 2nd amendment is simply to prevent the government, regardless of when or who controls it, from preventing citizens from keeping and baring arms. It has nothing to do with "allowing" armed insurrections. It does not "allow" insurrection at all.

Are weapon control laws unconstitutional?
I think some of them are but the question is so broad that it's essentially without meaning.
 
Friendly Firearms

Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns:

How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

Does the Tucson, Ariz., massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him. Look at the 1991 slaughter in Killeen, Texas, where 23 people died in a restaurant while a patron's handgun, thanks to a dumb law, was left outside in her car. Look at the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people died because under the university's naïve policy, nobody in the invaded classrooms was allowed to carry a firearm. Guns save lives. So the argument goes.
Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits. The legislature is considering two bills to expand this right, and as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training to politicians and their staff. The bill is tentatively titled the Giffords-Zimmerman Act in honor of the wounded congresswoman and her slain aide. "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim," argues the state's top pro-gun legislator. Beyond Arizona, at least two members of Congress say they'll bring guns while traveling their districts.
The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

_______________________________________________________________

So there was an armed civilian near by.
 
The least a revolver has is 6 rounds so maybe 8 rounds.
A lot of revolvers have as few as 5 rounds, and some as many as 8. ;)

A clip that doesn't stick out of the end could be a rule.
So they would make the grip longer and/or wider. The Springfield XDm holds 19+1 of 9mm; the FN Five-seveN holds 20+1 of 5.7x28.

People love their guns like a guilty pleasure.
It makes them feel powerful.
I love my guns like a fire extinguisher.
It makes me feel safe.
 
'...beating your wife...'???

Cal, that's VERY well said.

Foxy, a couple of points---
There should have been no need for more laws AFTER RR and Waco. If not for the arrogance of the govt. agents involved, they wouldn't have dreamed of killing people as was done. The background shows that, as was said in a govt. memo, the charges against Weaver were 'bullsh it'. They were designed to coerce cooperation to further govt. schemes.

Non-violence is, when possible, always the better solution.

And Foxy, asking your question, above, in a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' format is the sort of 'stunt' that should be beneath you. It doesn't further constructive dialogue.

And it should make you feel silly when you're caught at it.;)

KS
 
]How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

I was nearly hit by a truck walking my dog when I was stepping off a curb.
But, before I took that step, I looked both ways and paused when I saw the truck coming my way.

"Almost." The guy ran out and in a split second recognized the situation and DID NOT even draw his weapon, yet the anti-gun media is trying to present this as a dangerous close-call.

What we have here is a good citizen who sprung into action, made the right decisions. And they are taking advantage with a man who is relating the gravity of the situation he was presented with.

"We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting." Why not? Guns aren't a new thing, infact, they've been around for a long time, yet there are no widespread accounts to warrant such a fear.

Just like Florida was going to turn into Dodge City (which isn't like the real Dodge City either) once they passed the stand your ground law a few years ago. It never happened. The anti-gun activists lied about the sentiment of the bill and they lied about the inevitable outcome.

The anti-gun hysterics are engaged in sensational lies and misrepresentation in order to scare people into making policy decisions.

What also isn't mentioned is what would have happened if this shooter had been able to defend himself from the crowd and was able to continue on his shooting rampage. What if he was going to continue down the street, or intended to walk into the grocery store and continue his rampage.

In that case, Zimmermand may well have been able to save a dozen or more lives.
 
Preparation

What is this family had been responsible,trained firearm owners?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vor-Dr-William-Petit-talks-Oprah-Winfrey.html

If I'm 'going somewhere', I'll have a chopped Kimber .45 with me and and a pair of eight round spare mags. And I always have a Kahr PM9 as back-up. But reading this enforces, to me, that even if I'm just sitting watching TV, the Kahr should be in its Meco holster in my pocket. Not prepared is NOT PREPARED.

KS
 
Non-violence is, when possible, always the better solution.

And Foxy, asking your question, above, in a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' format is the sort of 'stunt' that should be beneath you. It doesn't further constructive dialogue.

And it should make you feel silly when you're caught at it.;)

KS
Nope - I was attempting to show we all draw lines - even with gun control. Frog mentioned earlier that 'don't get him started' regarding the current carry law, or lack thereof, in Arizona. Gun control....

KS, I would imagine you draw the line as well, Cal would, almost all of us draw a line when it comes to 'bearing arms'. Even though you won't state your 'line' - I am sure you have one.

Differing yes - but who is to say 'my line is correct'? The 2nd Amendment doesn't draw a single line - 'right to bear arms', however, the US has drawn the line many times - and continues to do so. How does society create a reasonable line?
 
One Definition of a Conservative

Odd - in the interview Dr Petit never mentioned 'what if I was armed'. He has a list of 'what if's' but never adds that one.

I feel so badly for him that I sat with a big lump in my throat after reading the article offered above with his statements in it. But two thoughts come to mind, raised by your question. One is that he simply can't bear to contemplate that if he'd simply conducted himself differently, he might have saved the day. The other is that he may be the sort of liberal twit who would rather lose his family than sully his person with some nasty firearm.

On a parallel, it's been said that one definition of a conservative position is the one taken by a liberal that's just been mugged.

KS
 
The other is that he may be the sort of liberal twit who would rather lose his family than sully his person with some nasty firearm.

Isn't there another possibility - there are people, who no matter what, could not take another life...

And I am sure there are 'conservative twits' who also don't have firearms, and have no plans to ever own a firearm. Just because you might be 'anti gun control' doesn't mean that you 'need' to own a firearm.
 
. Circumstances such as the Ruby Ridge massacre SHOULD have prompted a civil uprising. Government agents shot a 14-year-old kid in the back and killed a woman holding an infant by shooting through a door.

And then came Waco.

KS

All with a Democrat as president and Janet Reno as AJ. Imagine that.
 
And folks, stop calling it a "clip". Semi auto pistols take magazines. Certain rifles take clips, such as the M1:

istockphoto_615755_m1_garand_clips.jpg


I remember a certain firearms instructor in the academy who would call you a few choice names for mixing the two.
 
Responsibility

Isn't there another possibility - there are people, who no matter what, could not take another life...

I came into my Dad's house one afternoon, and as I commonly did at the time, I laid my .45 up on the mantel. My Dad, who started me as a hunter and bought my first guns for me, said, "Why do you always carry that?"

I replied, flippantly, "Because it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!" (I was an inner-city Detroit landlord at the time---not too many years after the last riots.)

He very seriously said, "I'd rather be killed than to take another's life!"

I responded, "If you really feel that way, I'd not try to change your mind. But I'd be deprived of a father in that case. And what if you needed to defend Mom, or one of my daughters?"

He got real quiet for a few moments and then said, "I guess I never really thought it through".

ONE of the reasons I carry, and have taken training, is that I believe we are 'our brother's keeper'.

KS
 
I came into my Dad's house one afternoon, and as I commonly did at the time, I laid my .45 up on the mantel. My Dad, who started me as a hunter and bought my first guns for me, said, "Why do you always carry that?"

I replied, flippantly, "Because it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!" (I was an inner-city Detroit landlord at the time---not too many years after the last riots.)

He very seriously said, "I'd rather be killed than to take another's life!"

I responded, "If you really feel that way, I'd not try to change your mind. But I'd be deprived of a father in that case. And what if you needed to defend Mom, or one of my daughters?"

He got real quiet for a few moments and then said, "I guess I never really thought it through".

ONE of the reasons I carry, and have taken training, is that I believe we are 'our brother's keeper'.

KS

The question isn't really whether or not he re-thought it, but if he ever 'had to', could he? I can't imagine being in the situation that Petit was in, but, if he didn't list gunning down the men who invaded his home as his 'what ifs' I have my doubts that he 'could'. I don't fault him for that - I don't think less of him for that - he perhaps couldn't consciously kill another person. I would imagine many people think they could, but when it came to pulling the trigger, there would be some hesitation, or perhaps just a totally inability to do so.

Why are you 'your brother's keeper' - that seems like an odd choice of words from a conservative.
 
And folks, stop calling it a "clip". Semi auto pistols take magazines.

Potatoe, Potato. Six of one half dozen of the other. :blah: :blah: :blah:.

Firearm "experts" frown upon the use of the word "clip" to refer to a spring loaded detachable box magazine.

People who are under live fire and need fresh ammo call it a "clip". It's a lot clearer than "mag" when you yell out for one because you ran all of yours empty. Think of the phonetic alphabet. Once you understand why it has specific words for every letter, you'll understand why "clip" is easier than "mag".

Either way. I'll still call it a "clip". I'll let the "experts" call it a "Magazine".
 
The Problem For Liberals Is That They Run Out Of Other People's Money

The question isn't really whether or not he re-thought it, but if he ever 'had to', could he? I can't imagine being in the situation that Petit was in, but, if he didn't list gunning down the men who invaded his home as his 'what ifs' I have my doubts that he 'could'. I don't fault him for that - I don't think less of him for that - he perhaps couldn't consciously kill another person. I would imagine many people think they could, but when it came to pulling the trigger, there would be some hesitation, or perhaps just a totally inability to do so.

Why are you 'your brother's keeper' - that seems like an odd choice of words from a conservative.

I don't agree with you about the 'question'. It was never about his 'if---could', but his raising the subject in the first place. To tell the truth, I'm sure he would have hesitated, and 'he who hesitates is lost'. But Dad and I were philosophizing, not preparing for imminence.

I've gone through some training to cut down on the hesitation that's built into all of us by society. And I surely DON'T ADVOCATE that everybody should go armed.

I believe in the concept of 'The Good Samaritan'. And though I'm, philosophically, far more of a Libertarian, I believe in many Conservative ways of thought. Just call me a Realist. My degree in Sociology has not made me a bleeding heart.

That you profess amazement at the idea of a conservative caring about others is probably a measure of your own disconnect.


Frog, I, too, often call a box magazine a clip. But I know it's inaccurate. And my own very infrequent use of 'ain't' is from choice as well, and not from ignorance. There IS a difference!

KS
 
I believe in the concept of 'The Good Samaritan'. And though I'm, philosophically, far more of a Libertarian, I believe in many Conservative ways of thought. Just call me a Realist. My degree in Sociology has not made me a bleeding heart.

That you profess amazement at the idea of a conservative caring about others is probably a measure of your own disconnect.

Good Samaritan is one thing - "my brother's keeper" has a whole different meaning.

When Cain answered God "Am I my brother's keeper?" - these words have come to define people's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers."

So, it sounds like you wish to accept responsibility for the welfare of others. "I am my brother's keeper" It is part of what many Christians and Jews use to further the cause of social justice - a long list of 'reasonings in the Bible' for that concept. We are responsible for the welfare of others - and be it through charity, the church, and yes, through government, we should promote that ideal. (Note - I am defining, not embracing).

It was just odd to see that from you KS - I think you care about others, I wasn't questioning that, but the idea of social justice seems to more than a bit removed from your concepts.

That is why I asked 'why', there wasn't any accusation there - it was because when I have seen 'we are our brother's keepers' it is almost always used in conjunction with promoting social justice.
 
'Social Justice'

When 'Social Justice' is used in a forum of this type, it's almost always a sort of shorthand for 'I'm going to give you something, and I'm going to take it out of someone else's pocket. Aren't I wonderful? Here, let me pat you on your lower-class head and I'll wait while you tell me how appreciative and grateful you are.'

I believe in the nuances of '...do unto others...' and am willing to be of help if I can. And not just philosophically, but on a practical basis.

To go back to the original motivation for this set of discussions, if I'd been in that political gathering in Arizona, and been in the right place, perhaps I could have done some saving. Be assured that I'm willing. And have at least some small degree of ability.

KS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The decision to help other people is one that the individual makes.
Charity and sacrifice are personal decisions. These decisions are not to be made by people like foxpaws and then enforced by government at gun point.

I don't know what Petit's internal dialog is like. I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't wish he'd had the opportunity to kill those predators. If he or his wife only had something in his possession that would have equalized the situation, enabled him to protect their two daughters from being savagely raped,tortured, and burned. If only such a tool existed.....


The guilt he must feel is unimaginable. The natural responsibility to protect his family he must still have must be devastating. My heart goes out to the guy.

Even the individual who says I'd rather be killed then face the responsibility of taking a life USUALLY responds differently when that threat is directed at someone else they love.

Unfortunately, I suspect Petit is also the victim of a sub-culture that emasculated him.

Petit may have expressed such sentiment as the one above and never seen the need for a gun. Discussing firearms may likely have just been inappropriate in his circles, such crude, ugly, violent things. The mention of such things probably included a joke about Nascar and George W Bush. Anyone who would bother to buy or train with them, not to mention CARRY ONE to the grocery store must be a paranoid gun-nut just waiting for the opportunity to play cowboy.

And those disgusting monsters that invaded his home could always be reasoned with. Just give them the money. Do what they want. Cooperate. Maybe they'll just go away.

But they didn't.
 
Social justice is a nebulous concept that can (and often is) redefined as necessary to deceive, distract or to aggrandize.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect Petit is also the victim of a sub-culture that emasculated him.

Why do you believe that the man has been emasculated? Because he didn't own a firearm, he wasn't 'manly'?

Wow Cal - what a narrow definition you have of being a 'man'. I would imagine that Dr Petit was an extremely good man.

Petit may have expressed such sentiment as the one above and never seen the need for a gun. Discussing firearms may likely have just been inappropriate in his circles, such crude, ugly, violent things. The mention of such things probably included a joke about Nascar and George W Bush. Anyone who would bother to buy or train with them, not to mention CARRY ONE to the grocery store must be a paranoid gun-nut just waiting for the opportunity to play cowboy.

What circles do you believe Petit belonged to - do you have some sort of source for your accusation - or are you just projecting here Cal.....

Here we have a classic example of reframing the debate. There is absolutely nothing within the original article that would indicate Petit's political leanings, but Cal would like you to think that he is just a namby-pampy, gun hating, leaf licking liberal.

Why would you do that Cal?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top