Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Ducimus]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.



I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

I agree with the right to bear arms however if that right keeps the government in check then how come we have the Patriot Act which largely violates many of our rights?
People have lots of guns here yes but rarely do they if you threaten this right I'll stop you with my right to bear arms.

It seems to me that no matter what laws or documents a nations has they can be trampled upon and under the correct guise no one will try to stop it.

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, i think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.



To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, I think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important(in keeping the government in check) yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

[Armistead]

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.

So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2nd Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.In all reality only handfuls of people here and there would actually really fight and of course die.I am not trying to talk smack about anyone on this forum but I know that the vast majority of people that own guns if they became banned would do as they where told simple truth do you really think the guy that plays around with his bump fire stock equipped AK47 or AR15
is willing to die or go to prison to keep it? Hell no he'll take buy back money and buy himself an ATV or something.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2n Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.

For the most part I agree, but history has also taught us a disarmed populance can fall prey to a radical government or Dictator. We may think that would never happen in the US, but we never can know for sure, so many feel an armed public is a tool that keeps our government in check.

There have been many cases of people fighting back against the govt, of course these are deemed criminals. We had a family here that refused to turn their land over to the govt claiming eminent domain, land that had been theirs for generations. They lost most of their savings trying to fight it in court, but lost. The entire family armed themselves and made it clear they would fight to the death to keep their land. Our city later decided it would build the road for the new shopping center where first proposed. Sure, something like this seldom works, if the city really wanted it, they would've took it, but this stirred up enough roar that they bowed out.

Heck, there were numerous people enraged enough at bankers getting rich when the economy failed, many stating they should be shot for making millions off the people, the reason most CEO's have numerous body guards.

I don't propose violence, but the people have in the past had to take up arms to defend themselves against out of control govt, it's how our nation was born.

The bigger concern is do you want your right to protect yourself or do you want to rely on government.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

Second Amendment will always be important. As for complacency, two give a couple general examples

- McDonalds made me fat. Really? How about you eat fewer Big Macs. Nope, not the fat slobs fault. Its McDonalds.

- more to the point, It's the police's job to protect me. Umm sure, maybe if they get there in time. However, according to the supreme cout they have no duty to protect, and odds are by the time they show up, it will be too late. There are people who seriously think calling the cops will save them. It won't.


Now, how people are, in reference to standing up or laying down, will vary depending on where they live. San Francisco? Los Angeles, New York City? Given the political demographics of these areas, they will probably roll over and take whatever the government says without challenge. Conversely, if you go to somewhere not along the west coast or the North Eastern portion of the US, you'll find people who will tell the government to get stuffed. Case in point, in Utah, every sheriff in the state except one signed this letter:

https://news.washeriff.net/open-lett...-barack-obama/

As for my disenfranchisement. I never bothered to vote to support either party because I think they're all puppets. They are full of crap, and they'll say or do anything to get into office and keep it. They want the power, and the prestige, and they aren't after the peoples best interests. So i never bothered to participate in that dog and pony show. I figured why bother? The result is the same either way. I figured, the real power in our government isn't in the voting booth, but the trail of money. Follow the money, you'll find the real power in our government.

That said this AWB issue has changed my views somewhat. I used to be more of a centrist that probably leaned to the left. However, i now find that while on many views i'm still the centrist, i lean A LOT more to the right. Particuarly where rights on concerned. I also find that ideas that once struck me as thoughts of crackpot right wing nutjobs, while still hard to swallow, i now find plausible.

Since this crap started i've Joined and donated money to the NRA. (cause like i said, in our government, money is power). I've written both my senators and my representative. Not that i think it was necessary (Utah is pro gun), but because my sense of urgency demanded that i do something. The erosion of our rights must stop. Now. Everyone has a button, or a line you do not cross, and the mine is when it hits my home directly, and my ability to defend it. I love my wife, my home, and the life were building together. In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by August

Order they'll be taken:

Assault Weapons (semi-autos)
Saturday night specials (handguns)
Sniper Rifles (anything that can mount a scope)
Trench Sweepers (shotguns)

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?

Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen. And the best thing wouldn't be just to hand my guns over for that very reason. That's why this is such a hot issue right now. That's why people are making a lot of noise over this, this is our petition.

Now about our rights being attacked (this applies to all of them not just the 2A). They won't just take it completely away at the outset. Our rights will be eroded over time. Look at the Patriot Act and the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over...

It is never a better thing to give in to the government just because they say so.

...and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

And if that didn't work? We would already have given up the most effective weapons.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

As the unifringed right has never existed how can it be eroded?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Is that why blacks and non free white men were not allowed guns?

Lets get right down to basics.
Should a convicted violent felon be allowed to buy a nuke?


@HundertzehnGustav

Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.

Indeed, and by that measure the only actual trolling in this topic was the original post which you altered.