frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago
I'm not a member, not even a gun owner, and perhaps surpring to many of you, I'm not for banning most guns. I do question the wisdom of allowing certain weapons for hunting and personal protection, but that's a different discussion.

Am I wrong to believe that many gun owners and supporters of the right to bear arms also have in mind the idea that the government becoming a threat to "our way of life" is another huge reason to allow gun ownership by private citizens? If true, then what has caught my attention is the NRA spokesman's input into the national discussion on the heels of the recent tragedy. He calls for armed guards in schools because the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. Wow.

So many thoughts come to mind, I will try to limit them.

Exactly who gets to decide if you or I qualify as one of the good guys? By definition...the government, no?
Is he assuming these officers of security will be new positions filled by local/state police? Military personnel?
Isn't this just a step removed from armed security personnel on every street corner keeping us "safe"?
Isn't that the way you always pictured life in places like N Korea and unwilling states forced into the old USSR? Nazi Germany and the coutries they occupied?

I admit to ignorance about most things related to guns and the NRA, but how can rank and file NRA members not be calling for his resignation?
ZRX1200
13 years ago
What do those countries you listed have (had) in common? Hmmmmm.

Shall not be infringed.
Well armed militia.

Not a "hunting" or "protection" issue. It is a right to bloody revolution and a right to dispel tyranny.





Wayne Lapelier (sp) suggestion was for veterans (who need work) to do this. I don't care for alot of what he has said and done but in this case I'm fine with it.
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

What do those countries you listed have (had) in common? Hmmmmm.

Shall not be infringed.
Well armed militia.

Not a "hunting" or "protection" issue. It is a right to bloody revolution and a right to dispel tyranny.





Wayne Lapelier (sp) suggestion was for veterans (who need work) to do this. I don't care for alot of what he has said and done but in this case I'm fine with it.

ZRX1200 wrote:


I listed those countries because of what they have in common. Why would NRA open the door to that type of safety/security governmental power? Unless I am totally misunderstanding the idea.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
What do they have in common?

Think about it, not solely what you said above....



Where do you think were headed?
SMGBobbyScott
13 years ago
The role of the "officer" is a protective one...therefore a person who's role is protection (i.e. a police officer) is rightfully the one to perform those services. As for the "armed personnel on every street" comment, there are already "community policing" standards that suggest ratios of police per thousand to maintain minimal levels of crime so we aren't very far from that already. I think that the compromise between freedom and safety is always there...where you fall on that continuum is the only question.
DrMaddVibe
13 years ago

Am I wrong to believe that many gun owners and supporters of the right to bear arms also have in mind the idea that the government becoming a threat to "our way of life" is another huge reason to allow gun ownership by private citizens?

frankj1 wrote:




Yes, you are wrong.

There's a reason why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there. They lived under tyranny. They wanted states to wield power. They feared what the Federal government could become.

They wanted a citizenry armed with the same weapons it's army had so if we were attacked by enemies (foreign AND domestic) we could thwart them.

You choose not to have a gun, but you have a right to own one.

This folly of blaming a weapon for the death of anyone is absurd and stupid. Evil people use a gun to kill people. Sometimes in circumstances of war, people are merely defending their nation, carrying out orders or are under attack and it's kill or be killed. I don't know of a single soldier that wanted to kill.

This nation the way it's going on a power grab is on its way to become a fascist state. We're allowing it to crumble and it starts by surrendering our rights as US citizens. Never in a million years did our Founding Fathers see us dumbing down to the state we're in now. They couldn't imagine walking backwards to tyranny. They wanted the individual to be able to protect himself from it.
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

Yes, you are wrong.

There's a reason why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there. They lived under tyranny. They wanted states to wield power. They feared what the Federal government could become.


They wanted a citizenry armed with the same weapons it's army had so if we were attacked by enemies (foreign AND domestic) we could thwart them.

You choose not to have a gun, but you have a right to own one.

This folly of blaming a weapon for the death of anyone is absurd and stupid. Evil people use a gun to kill people. Sometimes in circumstances of war, people are merely defending their nation, carrying out orders or are under attack and it's kill or be killed. I don't know of a single soldier that wanted to kill.

This nation the way it's going on a power grab is on its way to become a fascist state. We're allowing it to crumble and it starts by surrendering our rights as US citizens. Never in a million years did our Founding Fathers see us dumbing down to the state we're in now. They couldn't imagine walking backwards to tyranny. They wanted the individual to be able to protect himself from it.

DrMaddVibe wrote:


reread my words...you are actually saying I correctly understand the fear of potential government as enemy of freedom!
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

The role of the "officer" is a protective one...therefore a person who's role is protection (i.e. a police officer) is rightfully the one to perform those services. As for the "armed personnel on every street" comment, there are already "community policing" standards that suggest ratios of police per thousand to maintain minimal levels of crime so we aren't very far from that already. I think that the compromise between freedom and safety is always there...where you fall on that continuum is the only question.

SMGBobbyScott wrote:


I'm trying to figure out why the NRA spokesperson would seemingly advocate for what sounds like opening the door to tipping the balance you describe. I happen to agree with you. But I would have assumed NRA would not want to ask for this form of safety. It sounds a little like the safety that was enjoyed in the USSR. A lot more military/police presence, trading freeom for security.
DadZilla3
13 years ago

Not a "hunting" or "protection" issue. It is a right to bloody revolution and a right to dispel tyranny.

ZRX1200 wrote:



As a matter of history, a few opinions regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams



http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html 
SMGBobbyScott
13 years ago

I'm trying to figure out why the NRA spokesperson would seemingly advocate for what sounds like opening the door to tipping the balance you describe. I happen to agree with you. But I would have assumed NRA would not want to ask for this form of safety. It sounds a little like the safety that was enjoyed in the USSR. A lot more military/police presence, trading freedom for security.

frankj1 wrote:



Well, it is a government run facility so it isn't a big stretch to provide government security...
ZRX1200
13 years ago
I am the militia
chemyst
13 years ago
Thank you DrMV and DadZ.

The sheeple don't want to know.
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

I am the militia

ZRX1200 wrote:


I understand that. That's exactly the source of my confusion. I don't think I am hearing that position in this NRA statement. I hear them saying the government should be providing more armed protection in public settings. Does that not worry you?

Posters are talking about the right to bear arms. That's not what I am asking about. I'm asking about this recent statement. It seems contrary to what you consistently state.
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

Well, it is a government run facility so it isn't a big stretch to provide government security...

SMGBobbyScott wrote:


again, I agree. but isn't a large part of NRA and 2nd ammendment advocates' raison d'etre protection FROM the government? If so, why propose that government should place employees in schools, and then who knows where next, to provide "safety"? It just seems countrary to their purpose. We don't trust you, please protect us.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
I think the NRA is a **** organization.

This was deflection hoping the "assault" ban doesn't happen. I think they believe its a medium point.

I personally prefer what my local congressman Dennis Richardson (Central Point, OR) suggested (and was MISQUOTED ON).

Training and CC arming two school officials is alright by me.
Whistlebritches
13 years ago

I'm not a member, not even a gun owner, and perhaps surpring to many of you, I'm not for banning most guns. I do question the wisdom of allowing certain weapons for hunting and personal protection, but that's a different discussion.

Am I wrong to believe that many gun owners and supporters of the right to bear arms also have in mind the idea that the government becoming a threat to "our way of life" is another huge reason to allow gun ownership by private citizens? If true, then what has caught my attention is the NRA spokesman's input into the national discussion on the heels of the recent tragedy. He calls for armed guards in schools because the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. Wow.

So many thoughts come to mind, I will try to limit them.

Exactly who gets to decide if you or I qualify as one of the good guys? By definition...the government, no?
Is he assuming these officers of security will be new positions filled by local/state police? Military personnel?
Isn't this just a step removed from armed security personnel on every street corner keeping us "safe"?
Isn't that the way you always pictured life in places like N Korea and unwilling states forced into the old USSR? Nazi Germany and the coutries they occupied?

I admit to ignorance about most things related to guns and the NRA, but how can rank and file NRA members not be calling for his resignation?

frankj1 wrote:




I suggest a trip to Israel.....while there swing by a local school.More than likely you'll see at least 1 teacher outside with his or her students.Identify whats slung over her or his shoulder and then check back wit me.

IMHO it's about time we realized that there are people in this world that will harm children for no apparent reason.Yet we go after guns......FUQQING STUPIDITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.A mad man needs no gun to do the harm.....but a well armed staff could thwart their efforts along with expediting them to that special place in hell.


Ron
dpnewell
13 years ago
Frank, the ideal response would be what Israel did, which Ron and others already commented on. Israel schools where being attacked by terrorists. Israeli children where being slaughtered. How did Israel respond? Did they outlaw guns? Of course not. Did they put military or police in the schools? They didn’t have the resources for that. So what did they do? They allowed teachers to arm themselves to protect the children. They allowed armed parents to volunteer their time to guard the schools and protect their own children. Once the terrorists found out that the schools where now being protected by armed parents and teachers, they realized that schools where no longer a desirable target and stopped their attacks.

Armed teachers and armed parents are the answer, not security guards, but if anyone even suggested such, the bed wetters would pee their pants. Liberal educators and the media has done a very good job of brainwashing folks into believing that guns are evil, even when used to save and protect lives. That all non-military/non-police gun owners are so inapt, that they would end up shooting children. That citizens can’t protect themselves, only professionals can. Total BS, but believed by a good number of folks. Just look how the media and antis fought against allowing pilots to be armed. They told us that the pilots would either end up shooting passengers, shoot down their own planes, or be too inapt to provide any real protection. Haven’t heard of an armed pilot shooting up or shooting down a plane yet. They must be carrying defective guns. Also haven’t heard of anyone trying to hi-jack a plane since pilots started to arm themselves.

Considering the responses to the Aurora movie theater thread, I’m expecting the bed wetters to attack me pretty good. If you don’t remember that thread, folks argued that it was better for an armed citizen not to try and stop the attacker. The lunitic was shooting folks left and right, but in their minds, it was better to allow him to continue killing, then the “possible” chance of an armed citizen hitting a bystander in his attempt to stop the killing. Further proof of the brainwashing of Amercia.
ZRX1200
13 years ago
Teachers "care for the children" (some)


Some in Oregon carry WITHIN THE STATE LAW but outsise their employment contract at risk of termination to do whats right. EVERY CC instructor has offered free CC class for any teacher.
rfenst
13 years ago

Teachers "care for the children" (some)


Some in Oregon carry WITHIN THE STATE LAW but outsise their employment contract at risk of termination to do whats right. EVERY CC instructor has offered free CC class for any teacher.

ZRX1200 wrote:



I can't remember a time while my children have been in school when there has not been an armed cop guard at every school whenever students were present.
Users browsing this topic