I don't even own a gun, and I don't want any one to take it!!

For the love of all things holy, have you lost your minds. You want gun control in a time of a lawless government. WTF have you all gone totally mad and lost the big picture.

Our Constitution recommends a well armed citizenry. Why??? For the reasons that we are faced with right now. A president that wants to be king. A legislature that has been bought and sold. And a judiciary that has been stacked.

What the hell is the matter with you folks??

Are we rolling over for fascism??

Are we afraid Blackwater is coming for us all??

I have to admit, it is pretty scarey, to think they would come after our neighborhoods but, what if they did??

Handy in a "time of crisis"...

thats what it was called in the Vietnam war

It hurts like a bitch to shoot, but man, what a BANG!

I've got a Mossberg 500, with an 18" barrel, collapsible stock, pistol grip and side-saddle.

Great home-defense weapon.

I'm with EnviroBat - It does have one hell of a kick.

I alway cringe at that last little secod of trigger squeeze. BOOM! If you've ever seen the movie "Training Day", Denzel Washington had one. They called it "The Bitch"... kinda eerie.

it's a great reason for a healthy respect of the 2nd A.

I like the fact I can if I want to and will fight til hell freezes over to keep that right, personally I choose to not have any though but thats just me.

to add: after reading reply #5 I realize for the stated reasons it is my responsibility to own one, just in case

When guns are outlawed, only conservatives will have guns.(for the most part) Is that a desirable circumstance?
But you can change that now, one person at a time. By the time theyre outlawed it will be too late.
And its not a liberal government I'm apprehensive of here.
I'm a Vietnam veteran too--don't forget: you never outgrow your need for ammo.

Then I realized why it was written into the Constitution.

My gun count has incereased dramtically coinciding with complete republican control.

really, how is the citizenry going to rise up to the tyrants with guns, when the tyrants have bombs, tanks, jets and helicopters, and even nukes.

or the Afghanis, or the Vietnamese, or our Founding Fathers.

All of them were able to fight off the greatest armies of their days with next to nothing.

An armed citizenry is an advantage against a tyrannical despot. You don't engage him directly.

--IMM

In an insurgency situation, you make opportunistic attacks. There are lots of scoped, bolt-action hunting rifles (aka sniper rifles) in the US, so sniping would be a common resistance tactic. Anytime the oppressing forces rolled through neighborhoods, they would get shot from many directions and the snipers would run, hide and strike again later. Whenever troops went to arrest a dissident they would be gambling with their lives, hoping that the arrestee didn't have firearms at home and the will to fight back. After enough of this, the oppressors wouldn't dare go out in public outside armored vehicles, and morale would probably be at near-suicidal levels. If there's a viable resistance, it will also be more likely for members of the military and police to join the rebels en masse, supplying their weapons and knowledge.

If the population was not armed, on the other hand, the result of any conflict with the oppressors would be a foregone conclusion and defections within the oppressing force would be far less likely.

and went to roadside bombs. They've gotten much more sophisticated at that too.

IEDs are a major portion of their strategy, but the sniping also seems to be effective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

I heard they captured someone suspected of being Juba, but the sniping has gone on. It's worth noting that the Iraqis have a lot more assault rifles than rifles suitable for sniping, whereas the US has tons of hunting rifles and people who know how to use them, so it's likely that an American insurgency would involve more snipers.

it involves soldiers on the ground enforcing curfews and searching out dissidents. Yes those soldiers would be better armed, and no civillians would not be able to effectively fight their armored vehicls. But so what? All the footsoldiers would know that they better stay inside that armor because there are millions of people looking to "pop a cap" in them, people that are just waiting, posing as scared, compliant citizens until an opening presents itself...ya, an armed population makes a huge difference in terms of the feasibility of permanent martial law.

Signed,

An East Coast Big City Liberal who doesn't own a gun. But would.

to signifcantly change the laws so I don't see anychange and thus what I think doesn't really matter.

However, I do think that those wanting no change at all should at least admit that as a society we are saying that the "cost" interms of lives is acceptable in order to maintain the status quo per gun laws.

I think we'll be much more successful if we act to change society.

I respect you so much. You have been here for so long.

I got to tell ya brother, we cannot acquiesce to any further gun control. Even if we can't protect ourselves from our heavy handed government. At least we will be able to secure our homes from intrusion, if it gets that bad.

\

of the accounts of different countries that have let themselves be disarmed in the name of peace only to find themselves oppressed and unable to defend themselves against the very people who were in authority, what makes people think that taking my gun away will make them safe??

Pitchforks just don't cut it.

Like you, I don't own a gun but they'll have to rip my RIGHT to own one out of my dead cold hand. Assuming this maniacal cabal hasn't prompted me to buy one already.

K&R

:kick:

I own guns and always will. The Day the Democrats ban guns is the day I'm no longer a Democrat. But I don't have any real fear of Democrats doing it.

I am a gun owner who supports reasonable gun control.I supported the assault weapons ban for instance./ All my guns are legally purchased, and registered (comes with the background check)

But whats even more noticeable here is how the media is trying to fan the flames of the gun control debate. No one else seems to be saying much, its all from people like Mattthews, OReilly, Scarborough. Controversy sells.

I think every liberal should own a gun--gun rights are for us too. Otherwise, I think for the most part that when guns are oulawed, only conservatives will have guns. Not a happy outlook.

-- "The rich invest in gold,... the poor invest in lead."

Not "citizenry".

The armed citizenry was the pre-constitutional, the post-contitutional, and the ONLY recognized Constitutional Militia ("Miltia of the several States").

It's debatable at best whether that definition applies today.

The full phrase is "well-regulated militia". Does the entire gun-owning population of the US seem like a coherent, well-regulated entity to you?

with the federal National Guard. IF the Congress kept to the requirments of the Constitution - there would indeed be institutions of "well armed and well trained" citizenry, instead of the "select Militia" they created along with the Guard.

The plausability is questionable of course, and was questioned even then (Hamilton - a STRONG "powerful govt" proponent), but that is what the intention was - it let the people maintain a power they would not/did not consent to give to the govt.

"...A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed--thats an absolutely definitive statement. The issue of the militia is only explanatory to that, the clearly definitive statement remains: The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Compare to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Another very definitive statement.

I have always felt that gun rights should apply only to the arms available to the populace when written: basically muzzleloaders and single shot pistols. Our founding forefathers hadn't a clue about automatic weapons with 30 round magazines. And so Americans should be aloowed to buy and carry as many single shot muzzleloaders that they want--thats what the Constitution says.

But as nobody will ever accept that definition, I go with the commonly accepted version and own guns of modern manufacture.

Only to the communication tools available to the populace when the Bill of Rights was written: basically spoken words and bulky printing presses. Our founding forefathers hadn't a clue about blog postings that can be easily published and read by millions. And so Americans should be allowed to buy and use as many three-ton printing presses as they want--that's what the Constitution says.

will abuse its people. Some argue that the Jews, who trusted their govt and so didn't flinch when Hitler et. al. took advantage of gun bans to disarm them, didn't resist because they had no idea what was coming, they had no reason to expect they would be persecuted as they were. Its a VERY depressing...reality to see helpless victims increasingly targeted and abused - murdered in the end as a disgusting and sick "final solution".

WE HAVE the adavantage of history, of KNOWING what a tyrannical govt is capable of - WE MUST learn from it - and never forget. "Those who trade liberty for an illusion of safety will have neither." To give the govt exclusive control of the power of arms gives them exclusive control of WE THE PEOPLE. Our founders knew this, and over the past 225years we have indeed seen the consolidation of ever more power in the central govt, and ever more power usurped from the people. The anti-federalists warned very explicitly of how it will happen - how a tyrant's favorite - the huge standing army - will be built on the remains of the unarmed citizen militias. Bush already completed that transition with the Warner Act.

Is there a timeline for tyranny? We seem to be about right on schedule.

the Constitution does not give each citizen the right to be a walking army of one. Free speech does not cover yelling fire in a crowded auditorium. Let's use some common sense here.

The Constitution speaks of three equal branches of government. When that is restored, then we can get down to nitty gritty about which guns should be allowed and which should not.

for the illegal act you COMMIT, not the one you MIGHT. Unalienable rights should only be disabled via due process.

Another example - I am not denied a video camera because I MIGHT make kiddie porn.

I do not see a practicle use for the average citizen to have enough weaponry to mow down 30 people or more at a clip.

but you're right, I don't see the "need" issue. I know people who ran down to the local Walmart to buy AK47's when the assault weapon ban expired just because they could.

The bottom line is I don't agree with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment. I doesn't make any sense.

1) the right protected is an individual one - a derivative of the unalienable right to self-defense.

2) it is a primary reason to the importance of the Militias - where the PEOPLE were responsible for protecting their own lives, and their own liberties & freedom. How could they do so effectively if they weren't armed at least on par with those they would be fighting? And, if fighting a tyrant of the govt, if that tyrant/govt could easily disarm them? They would be rendered ineffective.

It makes perfect sense the PEOPLE protect THEIR liberties, THEY are the source of power, and have the most at stake.


As for semi-auto rifle bans, yes - MANY people buy them exactly BECAUSE a new law is proposed (or one expired), it doesn't matter such bans have no positive effect on crime rates. Those who want such weapons are protected, for the most part, to have them.

the American people will never be as well armed as their government. The government's military force now has tanks, helicopters, jets, bombs, etc.

The other problem is we don't have militias anymore. Something close to it would be the National Guard.

Even if it was conceivable that the people could rise up against the "tyrant", they aren't going to do it as a ragtag mob of insurgents with a gun in each hand. A militia is a trained military force.

The Constitution does not provide for each citizen to be an army of one, which is what the NRA suggests.

The National Guard would also be useless as the govt will just cut off their arms; a well armed and well-trained people - arming themselves as was expected and recognized constitutionally - would help prevent this.

How effective they would be? We probably will never know as the portions of the Consitution on this matter have been abandoned, and hopefully we will never need to find out how what is left will fair!

the use of private paramilitary firms such as Blackwater, who are technically private citizens themselves. They were heavily used in New Orleans for example. It's definitely a very different world than the Founding Fathers ever could have imagined.

Walmart sells Kalashnikov rifles? Imported from the former USSR, or what? Fully automatic weapons haven't been legal since 1986, and real AK47s are collectors items here in the states, neither Walmart nor any other large chain keeps them in stock.

But to answer the real point of your post, I'll reiterate something I have written a few times on DU: It would make me very nervous if the Bush WH controlled all the rifles in America, and martial law is ALOT more feasible of an undertaking for a government if their population cannot effectively kill their footsoldiers. That is one reason to keep guns that are effective in firefights legal.

The other is that you should not assume the government will always fulfill its responsiblity to protect you; if "the worst" should happen and our govt. collapsed or just stopped caring and anarchy reigned would you still abhor gun ownership, or would you want one to protect yourself?

so maybe it wasn't that particular model, but yes, in Virginia military assault type weapons are available at Walmart.

I never said I abhor guns, I support the right to own guns for hunting and personal protection, but I do support restrictions on purchasing certain types of weapons and ammunition. For instance, I don't believe any yahoo should be able to sell guns out of the back of his truck.

All this talk about wanting to have guns cause you cant stop the government when they come to get you yada yada yada

is just utter garbage im sorry to say.

Some bunch of novices with some hunting rifles and pistols against a serious military force are a pile of corpses im sorry to say.

This talk about having guns to fight off the government is the reason there is a problem in the first place. You might as
well start ranting about your "cold dead hand" and join the nra and be done with it.

If you are that paranoid that you think your government is seriously gunna come an get you, even this terrible joke for a US government, i
think you should think about moving countries. Either that or seeking pschiatric help....

trouble (although Iraq shows what is possible), & IF a tyrant was willing to go to that extreme where he KNOWS he is fighting & killing millions of WE the people willing to die for their rights; fear of what could happen with a usurption of power is also a strong intent/deterent of the armed militias.

Anyway, I would still rather die fighting then be executed, or become a slave.

the iragis dont stand a chance, wink

That is a bunch of citizens fighting each other and the foreign occupiers.

They did exactly what you claim to be impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

"impossible" things happen all the time. We're 300 million strong. Do you really think they can take us all?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2811889&mesg_id=2811889

Good post, hang a left.

K&R

:kick:

If it ever comes to it, most of the gun nuts are gonna be on George Bush's side.

Remember that bush's biggest base is a bunch of white rich guys in business suits. There is a myth that his biggest base is poor Southerners, but that's a myth that the corporate guys perpetuate to insulate themselves from criticism and keep America divided.

How tough do you think a gang of Karl Roves would be? :7

As for our Army fighting its own citizenry, somehow I don't think that will happen. They are really disillusioned already.

The RW fears the gun nuts, they are better at providing sound bites that play on the fears of those who fear someone is going to confiscate their guns. They have created the mind set that gun control will lead to confiscation. Every-time these horrible tragedies occur the RW GOP demagogues know all they have to do is sit back and allow the call for gun control to work to their advantage.

Personally I think they should be a little more regulated so that any budding psychopath can't just walk in with a driver's licence and pick up a cocealable weapon or military assault weapon.

You really think out little shotguns would stop us from an invasion from the US military? Oh I don't think so.

That's what STATE militias are supposed to be for, not individual gun owners, they would always be shot for brandishing any weapon to any kind of law enforcement or military.

Guns will never protect our freedom from out of control government -- never have and never will.

If someone started stalking me or something.

my point is that the federal govt and the military will always be stronger no matter how armed a single individual is.

the idea that we have to have a gun to prevent our govt from overtaking us is a bit silly.

No thanks - I will take my chances armed rather then unarmed.

against the SS?

:rofl: nothing funny about genocide. just the idea that guns would have prevented the genocide.

A look at what was POSSIBLE via the armed Warsaw uprising or not.

You don't think +/-80 MILLION armed Americans might have a little more say in what happens to them, then if they were unarmed?

Some things are worth fighting for - like life, liberty, etc..

that certainly wasn't the case in Germany, I doubt it would be the case here.

It's silly to think that the American citizenry could prevail against the U.S. Army with mere guns, that's just not happening.

You do know that the first thing they did to the citizens of New Orleans during the evacuation was disarm them, don't you? Not a peep from the NRA about that.

Katrine is EXACTLY why we DO NOT want the govt to register guns, as then they know just who has them - and illegally try to take them - right when they are needed most.

You are right about fighting the govt on the same side though - a revolution here would be like Iraq - a civil war as the country is so divided. But ANY leader willing to become a tyrant must also be willing to kill millions of we the people who SHOULD oppose him, the army included. WOuld they be so willing to destroy their fellow citizens? I hope not! (nor am I advocating revolution AT ALL)

I don't understand, they overturned the confiscation after the fact, so what, what difference did that make to the people after the fact who were forceably removed from their homes? Did they all get their guns back?

What difference does a registry make in a time of crisis?

They aren't sitting there checking databases, they'll know you have a gun if they see you holding one, that's for sure.

Unprotetced and on their own.

The idea is to keep confiscations from happening in the 1st place, as several states have indeed passed laws against doing this - THAT is part of the results of what the NRA did; AND to help make sure it is unlawful to start grabbing them at any time, including after the next event. (riots, disasters, etc.)

As for those weapons grabbed? Some discussion required as to how many have been returned - I have no idea.

I'm just not buying into your argument that a registry will make it easier for the government to show up and take your weapon. If, as you say, that's now illegal, than how would that follow?

have registration clauses (in a couple states) too. "You can keep 'em - but we want to know what they are". Once the govt has this info, then they pass another law banning ALL guns (of that type), and now anyone who registered is screwed. This is unconsitutional/illegal - but they do it anyway.

There is NO other reson for registration - no safety reason has been shown, no "crime reduction" effect, no "ease in solving crimes".

History shows registration tyically leads to confiscation - and shows why it is called Gun "control."

a VERY BIG thorn is the traffic of illegal guns - ability of criminals to get arms. Unfortunately those who might mean well in fighting that issue, are usually the same ones who want ALL guns - which gun ownwers know and take personal. Besides, do far even honest attempts to control illegal guns have had no positive effect on crime rates - and have only affected the lawful. DC and their nation-leading crime rates being a prime example.

the jewish resistance was nothing to laugh at.

The Constitution gives the right to bear arms to fend off foreign invaders. It does not give the right to bear arms against the government. That is what Impeachment and the system of Checks-and-Balances is for. However, the system is broken when one fascist party controls all 3 branches of gov't... this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but not with guns.

it only enumerates and protects it from all infringement.

It also provides for the President to have the power to call forth the armed Militias to suppress insurrections - and unlawful combinations - that - go figure - try to deny the citizens rights enumerated in the constitution!

We still have a system of Government that does not need violent revolution. I would think the 06 elections proved that.

We have a VERY GOOD chance of controlling all 3 branches of government in less than 2 years.

INSTEAD OF PARANOID THE GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT TO GET YOU POSTS, HOW ABOUT WORKING TO CHANGE OUR GOVERNMENT FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM???

www.dnc.org
www.dscc.org
www.dccc.org

DONATE. VOLUNTEER. GET INVOLVED.

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson

I would bet anything that the GOP is praying to Jesus that gun control bills are being drafted by the Democratic controlled congress. Republicans would like to go back to their districts and talk about protecting the 2nd amendment instead of answering questions about Iraq.
In addition, I think one lesson we can learn from New Orleans, is that if the shit comes down, we may be on our own. So, in that light, it's a good idea to meet your neighbors, learn some skills, and have whatever tools you think you need.