Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

San Francisco Voters Pass Gun Ban

Recommended Posts

KTVU: SAN FRANCISCO -- Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting on Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.

Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Only two other major U.S. cities -- Washington and Chicago -- have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.

Can anyone say: Easy Targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Amendment II

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.


Why the hell was this passed? Gun laws piss me off more than a good deal going on in the world.

There are many things that should knock some sense into those idiots.

1. Only the lawfull will follow this law. Criminals will have easier targets now.

2. You also have a right to defend yourself, and it makes it hard to fight a firearm with only a knife.

3. Guns were actually meant for defense against the government. This is to prevent the government from being too dominant.

As with the military recruiters: If the kids in the High Schools aren't smart enough to research everything thier recruiter is saying, then they deserve the eight years of hell they got. It's simple, there is a contract you sign. READ IT, everything that is there will and must happen, whereas everything outside of it should just be forgotten.

Hell, this makes me want to wear my shirt reading: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." maybe I should add after that "like San Fransisco."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Feel naked without that illusion of security a gun gives you ?

Pertinent insight about the cozyness of the society you live in, at least how you and a few others seem to perceive it

You know what Nomad. When you were attacked that day, and those men handed you a gun (that you failed to use anyway), and protected you. I think that THEY shouldn't have had guns, and that way, we would have let nature take it's course.

Sick and tired of people working to take care of those on wellfare, and then those on wellfare spit in our faces telling us they are opressed and missunderstood.

Sick and tired of the strong protecting the weak, and then the weak spitting back at us, saying they don't need our protection, and as a matter of fact, we shouldn't even be able to protect ourselfs against the criminals (or rather we can, but with both hands tied behind our back).

Lets just put it this way Nomad. If those men with GUNS weren't there to protect you that day, then we wouldn't have to deal with you here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

[...] and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

Does that make anyone else fairly angry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah. Very. Mostly because of what it says about how they view the military. These guys are protecting their butts, and this is a slap in the face of our soldiers.

Nomad - your gloating is rather silly. I've already told you that many places in the U.S. are infected with the scourge of Socialism already. This is nothing new for San Francisco. They don't call it the left coast for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Oh, yeah. Very. Mostly because of what it says about how they view the military. These guys are protecting their butts, and this is a slap in the face of our soldiers.

Exactly. Its disrespectful to the men and women loosing their lives overseas. While I don't always agree with the tactics that military recuiters use to convince people to sign up, they're part of the defense of our country.

Nomad, this is a direct violation of the morals that this country was founded on. You may think that its only because we're "violent" but thats complete crap. Freedom, true freedom, only happens when the people still have the ability take arms and revolt against the government. Socialism is not true freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The NRA has already taken this to court, and it WILL be overturned.

The law is BLATANLTY unconstitutional in both California and the United States.

THe people in San Francisco are idiots, Soback excluded of course.

Soback, sell the fricking house and move up here to Washington, we could use more conservatives, California is a lost cause, we can still get Washington back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remeber when we had the discussion about Democracy versus Republic?

This is a perfect example of the difference. A democratic referendum in a pure democracy would be law. In a Republic such as ours, idiot measures like this that blatantly usurp the constitution are shot down regardless of their popularity.

Before anyone gives me that "will of the people" melarchy, think about this: This referendum could have said something like "Muslims will be banned from city schools", or "Segregation will be re-instituted in San Francisco". Sometimes, what the people want is irrelevant to what is constitutional and what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just be honest about original intent and what is feasible in modern society.

If the government chose to come down on the public, no amount of arms would be a defense. Your handgun or rifle is no match for military hardware. So while the intent of the right to bear arms is true and should be upheld, it would not make much of a difference if the government chooses to defend itself against a public uprising with the full brunt of our own armed forces.

Which brings me to this question. Since so many of you have military backgrounds, how would you react if still enlisted and asked by our gov't to defend this country against a popular revolt? Would you take up arms against the citizens of this country? It would seem to me that it would contradict heavily with your strong support of the publics right to bear arms. Would you defend the constitution and desert your post or defend the government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Let's just be honest about original intent and what is feasible in modern society.

I hear what you're saying. But consider that the prevalence of private ownership was only intended to give a government with thoughts of turning to tyranny pause. Understanding that the populace is armed, and enforcement of unconstitutional power grabs and abridgement of God-given freedoms will not just be meekly accepted should be enough to prevent acts of blatant agression against the people of the U.S. Call it keeping them "honest", although honesty in the strictest sense is a dubious concept in government.

quote:

how would you react if still enlisted and asked by our gov't to defend this country against a popular revolt?

Well, you wouldn't be asked - you'd be told. And at that moment, everyone in the military would have to make a choice. Depending on the circumstances, there would be those who sided with the federal government, and those who would side with the rebels.

A perfect example would be if the looting in New Orleans had gotten significantly more out of hand and began spreading (similar to the situation in France), and the military had been sent in to restore order "by any means necessary". I would tend to think that the vast majority of military personnel would carry out their assigned duties. But who can say?

[ 11-10-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Prez ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

I hear what you're saying. But consider that the prevalence of private ownership was only intended to give a government with thoughts of turning to tyranny pause. Understanding that the populace is armed, and enforcement of unconstitutional power grabs and abridgement of God-given freedoms will not just be meekly accepted should be enough to prevent acts of blatant agression against the people of the U.S. Call it keeping them "honest", although honesty in the strictest sense is a dubious concept in government.

Well, in my mind the only way a government would be turned from tyranny is if the public revolted. Surely they would continue down whatever path they chose until the public revolted against it. I don't think the mere threat of the public being armed keeps them honest or would prevent them from doing what they believed was in the best interest. of preserving this country.

Now you could say it would never come to that because we have a democratically elected government, and if that's the case it brings into question the reasoning behind the right to bear arms in the first place.

Does anyone believe that it's enough of a check to keep the government "honest" when they know full well they could crush any dissent with little effort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

I hear what you're saying. But consider that the prevalence of private ownership was only intended to give a government with thoughts of turning to tyranny pause. Understanding that the populace is armed, and enforcement of unconstitutional power grabs and abridgement of God-given freedoms will not just be meekly accepted should be enough to prevent acts of blatant agression against the people of the U.S. Call it keeping them "honest", although honesty in the strictest sense is a dubious concept in government.

Well, in my mind the only way a government would be turned from tyranny is if the public revolted. Surely they would continue down whatever path they chose until the public revolted against it. I don't think the mere threat of the public being armed keeps them honest or would prevent them from doing what they believed was in the best interest. of preserving this country.

Now you could say it would never come to that because we have a democratically elected government, and if that's the case it brings into question the reasoning behind the right to bear arms in the first place.

Does anyone believe that it's enough of a check to keep the government "honest" when they know full well they could crush any dissent with little effort?


You see Grizzle, that's what happens when you don't know the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. The government is EXPLICITLY forbidden from using the military on it's own citizens. But because, I would even go as far as to say the MAJORITY of US citizens don't know the roots of their own country, they are allowing all these abuses to take place.

Now tell me why you think this law was put in there? Also, WHY do you think the words "peoples right to bear arms should NOT be infringed upon". Can you put the two together?

"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 be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

---Which means if the cop pulls you over, and asks you to look through your car, you SHOULD ask him on what basis and WHAT they are searching for. If he says drugs, or illicit substances, ect...you can say yes, HOWEVER if you have a gun, and he finds it, he CAN NOT charge you with illegal possesion because he wasn't searching for it in the first place.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

Now tell me how they HELL do they get away with a million dollars or more bail? Or $10,000 or more fines? They have thrown away our constitution decades ago.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/...ocs/billeng.htm

""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.ÔÇôThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,ÔÇôThat 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyc...entry/DeclarInd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to show you how abusive out government has become, and to prove to you that they spit in our faces every day while betting on the ignorance of US citizens, here:

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."

---Violated every single day, and every single hour.

"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another."

---Same with this one.

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. "

---Go ahead and try to get those statements.

"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. "

---Why do you think they abolished the gold standard, ILLEGALLY by the way. Because there's NO WAY that they would be able to pay for their spending if they had to back it up by silver or gold. Our corrupt government is draining this countrys strenght like the cancer that it is.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

---And who would have known, the writings for patents is RIGHT there in our constitution.

"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. "

---What form of government? Does it say democratic? Lets read it together, "...A REPUBLICAN form of government"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...n.overview.html

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

---Still thinking about this one. To me it seems like it's saying they can't make a law that will take away the first and given rights of the people. Which would mean that just by this statement ALONE, San Francisco has violated the bill of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is always a hotly conteseted issue, and it's easy to get swept up in the rhetoric that is prevalent on BOTH sides.

Myself, I like to defer to the Constitution's writers, men for whom I have boundless respect. They were visionaries of the highest order, and they constructed a document unlike anything before it or since.

As far as what the Constitution is - it is NOT a guideline in the sense that you can consult it by convenience; rather, it is the yardstick by which every law passed and every action taken by our government is checked. It's brevity is its greatest strength, making it simple and definitive, and understandable by ALL people, not just those well-versed in legalese and political babble.

Tools of violence are certainly unpalatable items to spread throughout a peace-loving society, as I believe America essentially is. It is squirmy stuff to be confronted daily by people who are seemingly obsessed with objects whose sole purpose is to violently end lives. This I certainly understand. But human nature being what it is, the ownership of firearms is not a priviledge, but a right for all who reside in America. It isn't like driving, for which there ARE no constitutional priviledges. It is specifically addressed in a document which otherwise is only written to dictate what government is ALLOWED to do.

The "obsession" is to the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, not to guns themselves. As Madison wrote, the 2nd Amendment is what ensures the rest of the Constitution is upheld.

quote:

Therefore, as long a Constitution is in harmony with what the majority wants, it's ok. But if not, then it's degenerative Constitutional Fundamentalism.

No. This is why we are a REPUBLIC. What the majority wants is secondary to what is written in the Constitution. You are thinking of a "Democracy". You know, two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right

and since hand guns fall under ARMS category, they have NO RIGHT to single them out and deny citizens it's ownership.

Reason I am pointing that out, is because in some places they argued that they do not deny peoples right to bear arms, they just don't want to allow them to have hand guns, but they can own riffles all they want. Last time I checked, hand gun is considered a FIRE ARM.

As far as guns only purpose is object of violence, I beg to differ. I could make the same argument for a baseball bat in that case.

A baseball bats purpose is to hit things. You can either enjoy it hitting balls, or you can turn it into an object of violence and hit people (like some criminals have done). I don't see baseball bats being outlawed. Nor golf clubs, nor knifes, nor even pencils for that matter. You can turn pretty much anything into an object of violence, which leads me to the conclusion that an OBJECT is not inherently for the purpose of violence, a PERSON and how he USES it, IS.

And to prove my point, I use a gun at the range. It's a recreational activity. Like a sport. I can ALSO use a gun for hunting. Also a recreational activity. It is ALSO however, an efficient self defense tool.

So by the same token, you can ban fishing sticks, because I can sure turn it into an object of violence and beat someone to death with it, although protecting yourself with it can be kinda tough.

So, since I am sane, rational human being of good moral character, I use those tools for my own enjoyment and in a manner that does not conflict with safety of others.

Liberals however, the suicidal mazohists that they are, not only willingly give up their rights, their freedoms, and their safety to the government and the criminals, but they want to pass laws, encroaching on other peoples freedoms, other peoples rights, and other peoples right to defend themselfs. That's what pisses me off the most. They can do whatever they want with their lives, I however, DO NOT want them to dictate the same standards for MY life, and my rights to self defense, or my choice of a recreational activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure when the American Constitution was frist created, the hardware gap between civilians and military personnel wasn't as large as it it now.

Also, Republics and Democracies are often lumped together and then refered to as "Democracy" by the media and public as they are rather similar.

Soback:

That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Well, I'm sure when the American Constitution was frist created, the hardware gap between civilians and military personnel wasn't as large as it it now.

Also, Republics and Democracies are often lumped together and then refered to as "Democracy" by the media and public as they are rather similar.

Soback:

That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise).

First: It does NOT matter how big that hardware gap is, it has ZERO relevance on hand guns rifles and their operation. We are not talking about parking a tank in your garage or buying an operational fighter jet, which by the way is LEGAL in the US, as long as the armaments are rendered useless. Because just like guns, fighters jets are of GREAT entertainment and recreational value, and you can own one starting at as little as $300,000.

Second: Just by you saying "rather similar" shows how much you know the democratic form of government and a republican form of government. It's like saying that an apple is similar to an orange. The only thing that they have in common is both being fruit and both being somewhat round. Same with democracy and republic, they are both representative, and they are both a form of government. People who use these terms interchangeably just highlight their ignorance and because their lack of knowledge in that case is obviously lacking, so is then the relevance, validity and weight in their statements. It's like a guy who points at a moped, and the first words out of his mouth are "This motorcycle is great, it has 900cc engine....." He has lost me on the second word, because from then on, everything out of his mouth is bs based on his ignorance of the subject at hand.

Third: A primary use of a firearm was for HUNTING. In a way, just like the fishing rod, to OBTAIN FOOD. They were inefficient as offensive and defensive weapons due to poor accuracy, heavy maintenance requirements, long re-load times, and the difficulty of obtaining (it took MONTHS to build even ONE).

As time went by, guns have evolved, and became usefull as a self defense, recreational (not practice, remember hunting, yes, hunting is called RECREATION, and so is shooting at the range, people don't do it just for practice they actually have FUN doing it), and yes, even offense TOOLS.

But like I said, I can turn a baseball bat into an offensive weapon, or a knife.

How about arguing that knifes should be outlawed? Arent they designed to kill? But like anything else, they have other uses too. Just like guns do. Self defense, hunting, and recreation being the MAIN ones. But with liberals perverted minds, everything is turned on it's edge. And their main failure, is udnerstanding the simple truth of GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If someone wants to kill you, they can do it with anything, a baseball bat, a knife or even a pencil.

[ 11-10-2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Soback:

That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise).

Well, I could convert one to a cigarette lighter (ooo there's that other nasty bane to society), use one to crack open nuts if I didn't have a nut cracker handy or use one as a weight on my fishing line if I ran out of proper weights. There are so many uses one can put a fire arm to other than your stated uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

First: It does NOT matter how big that hardware gap is, it has ZERO relevance on hand guns rifles and their operation. We are not talking about parking a tank in your garage or buying an operational fighter jet, which by the way is LEGAL in the US, as long as the armaments are rendered useless. Because just like guns, fighters jets are of GREAT entertainment and recreational value, and you can own one starting at as little as $300,000.

The hardware gap part was in responce to Grizzel's post about the ineffectiveness of the people in order to defend themselves if the goverment decided to use its military against its people (assuming the military personnel went along with it).

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Second: Just by you saying "rather similar" shows how much you know the democratic form of government and a republican form of government. It's like saying that an apple is similar to an orange. The only thing that they have in common is both being fruit and both being somewhat round. Same with democracy and republic, they are both representative, and they are both a form of government. People who use these terms interchangeably just highlight their ignorance and because their lack of knowledge in that case is obviously lacking, so is then the relevance, validity and weight in their statements. It's like a guy who points at a moped, and the first words out of his mouth are "This motorcycle is great, it has 900cc engine....." He has lost me on the second word, because from then on, everything out of his mouth is bs based on his ignorance of the subject at hand.

The "rather silly" point was directed towards your firearms post. But the main similarities is that both a democracy and republic have a vote of some form or another, often for their leaders. Which I guess is similiarity enough for them to be merged into the same word.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Third: A primary use of a firearm was for HUNTING. In a way, just like the fishing rod, to OBTAIN FOOD. They were inefficient as offensive and defensive weapons due to poor accuracy, heavy maintenance requirements, long re-load times, and the difficulty of obtaining (it took MONTHS to build even ONE). As time went by, they guns have evolved, and because usefull as a self defense, recreation (not practice, remember hunting, yes, hunting is called RECREATION, and so is shooting at the range, people don't do it just for practice they actually have FUN doing it), and yes, even offense.

Eh, they might of originally been used for hunting, but that sure isn't what their latter developement was turned into, nor what the firearms on the market were originally developed for.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

But like I said, I can turn a baseball bat into an offensive weapon, or a knife.

How about arguing that knifes should be outlawed? Arent they designed to kill? But like anything else, they have other uses too. Just like guns do. Self defense, hunting, and recreation being the MAIN ones. But with liberals perverted minds, everything is turned on it's edge.

See, that arguement is silly as then you would have to outlaw everything. The other arguement in the other direction is silly as well, as then you would have to legalise everything. Heck, both arguements for and against gun use arn't really based on much fact. But given that your goverment has an unalterable law, the answer to gun bans should be rather obvious (In the U.S. at least).

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Well, I could convert one to a cigarette lighter (ooo there's that other nasty bane to society), use one to crack open nuts if I didn't have a nut cracker handy or use one as a weight on my fishing line if I ran out of proper weights. There are so many uses one can put a fire arm to other than your stated uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even need to justify other uses for guns. A SINGLE use as a self defense weapon is the best one for an average joe.

I would rather defend myself with a gun that bare knuckles or a knife, anyday.

If you want to suffer concussions, lacerations, or a cracked skull because a criminal went after you with a beseball bat or a knife, it's your choice. Don't force YOUR lack of initiative, or lack of skillful use, or whatever other excuse you can come up with on me. It's as simple as that.

You anti-gun people are like vegans who want to force their disgust for meat upon everyone else. Don't want to learn to use a gun? Don't. Don't want to own a gun? You don't have to. DO NOT however think that just because YOU are "alergic" to them, then your neighbor should be too. Or just because you think that YOU are incompetent at handling one, or keeping it from your kids, that your neighbor is too. Or for that matter that if YOU should hide under your bed and call 911 when the window in your house shatters, your neighbor should be too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say that I supported the gun bans? I said that both agruments on either side of the debate are flawed and I thought that it was rather obvious in my implying that gun bans in the United States shouldn't exsist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

You see Grizzle, that's what happens when you don't know the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. The government is EXPLICITLY forbidden from using the military on it's own citizens.

Oh really? Where is this explicitly stated? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant implied, but even then you're wrong because this is what it explicitly states...

US Constitution Section 8:15 The Congress shall have the power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Let me square you up...

The framers granted the congress (a civilian body) the power to enact war and use the military, not the President. Maybe this is what you interpreted incorrectly.

And before you get your panties in a bunch, go back and read my first post where I explicitly stated ...So while the intent of the right to bear arms is true and should be upheld..., then explain to me once again what causes you to go off on these tirades without having clearly read or understood my posts.

Next time, before you decide to go into a rage and vomit words all over these threads in an effort to prove your point, take a deep breath, read the posts twice and for all of our sakes stop ASSUMING so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like a juicy guns debate to liven up the evening!

When I am on the opposite side of a debate of a person who is clearly intelligent and well-read, like my friends Grizzle, Nomad, and Aperson, I think that to maintain objectivity in a discussion I have to try to put myself in their shoes and try to get a perspective on what their stance is and why it might be that way. I find that I can tailor my argument towards a specific person that way, and try to strike a chord with them on the basis of familiarity.

Needless to say, it is a little tough when people from other countries are concerned, seeing as how, while I'm fairly well-traveled, I never really stayed anywhere outside of the U.S. long enough to learn about different cultures. So, I'll try to give some perspective from my end to help others not from here understand the conservative position. Grizzle, your welcome to stay too!

**CLIMBS UP ON SOAP BOX***

What makes the U.S. unique is that, in drawing up the Constitution, the Founders understood what made other countries either fail or become inhospitable to a large portion of its populace, having just fled from an oppressive regime themselves.

They used this understanding coupled with the very basic understanding of the human condition that ANYONE, no matter how noble and honest, is inheritantly flawed and thus corruptible. To counter this, the government was framed specifically to limit the damage any one corrupt individual or body of individual could do. Furthermore, the Founders, understanding the fallibility of man, declared that our system was to be based on the idea that God, not man, was the final arbiter of what rights a human being could or could not enjoy. These were and still are the whole foundation of our system, the reason for checks and balances, the reason for unalienable rights, etc. Government is not the final word and it is no better than the people it is comprised of; that is, we the people.

That the Constitution is not a list of what the government CAN'T do, but is instead a (quite short) list of what it can, exemplifies these principles. The second amendment is just another of the checks and balances built in to our system.

That there is a technological and material availability gap between the military and the 'militia' (us) is irrelevant. The principal of the right to resist tyranny is non-dependant on feasibility, and the 2nd amendment serves to solidify the power people hold and maintain to defend themselves from ALL threats, be they incognito foreign fighters (terrorists) or the armies of corrupt statesmen.

A look at U.S. history reveals that the delta between the mighty British war machine and the inept rustics of the colonies in the 18th century is not so much less than the one that might exist today should a similar situation arise here in the states.

**CLIMBS DOWN OFF SOAP BOX****

Sorry for the long post, and thanks for listening...uh...reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post Prez.

But (you didn't think I'd stop there did you?), while the framers of the constitution were brilliant indeed, they unfortunately didn't have gift of future sight.

Let's get some terminology out of the way first. The militia referred to in the constitution is not simply the rag tag Minute Men who fought in the revolutionary war. Congress was given power over a "well regulated" militia which in addition to ordinary citizens is known today as the National Guard.

The framers were sharp enough to dictate that the US Military should not exceed the capability of the populace to overcome them, but they did this by restricting the *number* of men the US Military could have. They never questioned or considered the technological advances in military hardware.

I support the 2nd ammendment. I wouldn't dare suggest the citizens have to lay down their arms because the framers of the constitution were right.

But rather than argue the point on ideological grounds we need to be realistic about it in the sense that regardless of what the constitution states, if the National Guard comes kicking down your door, and you resist, you're sol.

So despite the noble efforts of our fore fathers, technology and the National Defence Act of 1916 which formalized the National Guard, has to a large extent relegated the concepts of an armed civilian population moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×