Posted on 11/05/2003 6:01:43 AM PST by Donaeus
You mean: If the government liberals would stop trying...
The thrust of this has nothing to do with the materials guns are made of, how they look, the number of rounds they fire, reducing crime or whatever they're pinning it to today.
I see what you mean. You view this issue like the abortion supporters viewed the PBA. Though you have significant reason to view this as a step to ban all guns, the issue would not even make it to the floor unless the Democrats had a majority and then you would have total out of control (armed) riots in Washington. You can't dissallow proper gun security legislation just for political reasons. National Security comes first. Without that, there are no rights.
Guns that can't be detected can't be taken away.
and every criminal out there is thinking the same thing.
Self defense is an inalienable human right no matter how many laws Congress passes to relieve us of it.
When Congress votes to take away that right and the Supreme Court upholds it, give me a call and I'll meet you in Washington.
I was using that in an accomodative sense because this feeling exists on both sides of the aisle. I'm not trying to say all politicians are for this because there are definitely those that are not. I appreciate the ones who are trying to uphold the Constitution.
I see what you mean. You view this issue like the abortion supporters viewed the PBA. Though you have significant reason to view this as a step to ban all guns, the issue would not even make it to the floor unless the Democrats had a majority and then you would have total out of control (armed) riots in Washington. You can't dissallow proper gun security legislation just for political reasons. National Security comes first. Without that, there are no rights.
My view does not come from my own opinion but from commentary directly from Sara Brady and Handgun Control Inc., Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, et al. Every one of these individuals has stated in no uncertain terms their ultimate objective is to remove all guns from the hands of the people. It needs a Democrat majority to pass like they needed a majority to shut down Bush's judicial nominations? I don't put anything past them especially with so many RINOs running around. We have plenty of proper gun security laws on the books, 10,000+, that don't ban guns. However, they are absolutely useless when not enforced. Prosecuting the actual criminals with sentences that stick would do a great deal for improving National Security without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
Guns that can't be detected can't be taken away.
and every criminal out there is thinking the same thing.
I reaffirm the need to encourage an armed citizenry. The more guns that might be pointing back at criminals, the less bold they become in targeting the public. Few criminals who think you may have a gun are going to choose you as a target. They always choose the path of least resistance and they hope the path of least danger. John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime shows that persons who do not own or carry weapons get the benefit of those who are owners/carriers of concealed arms. If you were in a fast food restaurant with 30 other people and an armed criminal came in and tried to take hostages with even one of those patrons armed how successful do you think the plot would be? What if 15 of those individuals were armed? If more people owned/carried it wouldn't matter if every gun was plastic because the significant reduction in a criminal's chance of finding unarmed victims would make them less likely to perpetrate crimes that caused interaction with possibly armed individuals. As Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society." In spite of all laws, and even if there are never plastic guns, criminals will always have guns because they're criminals.
When Congress votes to take away that right and the Supreme Court upholds it, give me a call and I'll meet you in Washington.
They're eroding our rights incrementally in the state and federal legislatures and judiciaries every day. There will never be an overt move to deny our rights because then there would be an outright rebellion. It works like a frog in a pot on the stove, when you first put the frog in there is no heat on. Slowly over time heat is applied and then increased until the frog is boiled to death. He is lulled into complacency because the changes in his environment are so subtle he isn't aware of them.
The threat against our "leaders" arises from their usurpation of power that the Constitution never granted them. The limited government that was envisioned by our Founders would attract very little attention from anyone.
If our Founders were alive today and told that the government was taking half of people's earnings, they would be making plans.
You mean like the usurpation of power given to Bush to attack Iraq?
The limited government that was envisioned by our Founders would attract very little attention from anyone.
The limited government that was envisioned by our Founders would put America in disarray and chaos in today's times.
If our Founders were alive today and told that the government was taking half of people's earnings, they would be making plans.
If Madison and Jay had any idea that people today would be so corrupt to use their rights to conduct criminal acts, we wouldn't have any rights at all.
National Security huh? I think the founders had a couple of things to say about that.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
And then there is the law of the land, which also speaks to "national security"
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security o a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". U.S. Constitution, Amendment II, Bill of Rights, effective Dec. 15, 1791.
Once upon a time, Congressmen and other office holders went armed, let them do so again or continue to do so. Let them have a reasonable number of guards and other security. Fine. But they may not infringe on the right of the people. Congresscritters and even Presidents are replaceable. Their security is no more valuable in the long run than yours or mine. The Republic will (HAS!) gone on after their loss, if the worst should happen.
Your reasoning would ban common hunting rifles. One guy with a scoped .300 Win Mag Bolt action, or even an old 30-06 from 1900, could do as much damage as one guy who manges to get into a building with a "plastic" gun, only he'd do it from a rooftop or window, maybe several blocks away. Remember the last President to be assasinated what (supposedly) done in with a WW-II POS, Italian bolt action with a really scuddy scope mounted on it. A couple of others where done in with small, and relatively weak, handguns. After Lincoln was assinated, there was no hugh and cry to ban "saturday night specials".
Fortunately Rep. Burgess (R) is conservative and most of his votes are in favor true national security and individual rights.
I find myself assuming that you are being sarcastic. The alternative is to believe that you think our Founders were unfamiliar with criminality. The Bill of Rights is loaded with constraints on government action against criminality because the tendency of government is to respect no boundaries to their power.
Anti-gunners are unconvincing, in part, because they are unable to articulate a principle of gun ownership which maintains any rights at all. The Demoncrat Presidential candidates are struggling now to find a non-existant middle ground which somehow involves "hunting". Invariably, they are armed with their "Columbine specials" because the public is unaware of how much damage was done there using shotguns.
They wouldn't dare to be seen using a scoped rifle to take deer because the anti-gunners would have a cow that there was any justification for owning a "sniper rifle".
Well, when you have a Necessary and Proper clause in the Constitution, there are no boundaries.
So what's all the paranoia about? Or is millimeter-wave technology just a bunch of sensationalistic hokum cooked up by the National Geographic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.