Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Here is how I would do it if I was a power hungry evil government stooge

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2010, 02:10 AM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
The Constitution is an imperfect document. You can stubbornly insist that it's perfect all you want, but not even the Founding Fathers thought so. That's why they added the Bill of Rights.

But why change the Second Amendment when we've had so much success with it so far, right?
The Constitution is the Highest Law of the Land.
As is the Second amendment.

You can choose to obey it,or you can choose to continue making idiotic arguments that make you look stupid.

By the way,the Bill of Rights was not added because of the imperfections of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was adopted to counter the expansion of federal power regarding the adoption of the Constitution over our original government-the Articles of Confederacy.
This was not a blanket admission of 'imperfection' of the Constitution by the founders,but a struggle between two groups of founders with differing opinions on the direction the new country should take-the 'Federalists' and the 'Anti-Federalists'.

But then,you would know that if you bothered actually reading history instead of making yourself look ignorant by repeating baseless arguments and half truths.

I challenge you to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and the Articles of the Confederacy and we'll continue this discussion when you understand things a bit better.

Then we can discuss why the Second Amendment is so important,what it means,and what it takes to actually LAWFULLY amend the Constitution to change the law.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-20-2010 at 02:15 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:16 AM   #42
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KalashnikovJosh View Post
Historical fact-the Nazis and many other forms of government,including the Soviet Union,Red Chinese,and Khmer Rouge first used gun control laws to disarm their citizenry,placing them entirely at the mercy of what was to come next.
Just like France, Spain, the UK, Sweden, and other modern totalitarian states, right?

Quote:
If that doesn't scare you,or if you think that Nazi 'gun control' laws are as laudable as architecture-you need to seek professional help.
You're kidding, right? That's what you think the words I wrote meant? The professional help you need is called remedial reading.

Anyway, when you wake up from your Manichean day-dream of self-serving "facts" and made-up "history," shoot me a message. The world is a much more complex place than you seem to realize. You might be satisfied to snuggle up to your teddy-bear Founding Fathers and security-blanket Constitution, but the real world is a grown-up world, where you have to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is a "Nazi" or "Communist" or whatever convenient and whimsical label you've chosen this week.
__________________
luke1249 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 02:30 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
Just like France, Spain, the UK, Sweden, and other modern totalitarian states, right?



You're kidding, right? That's what you think the words I wrote meant? The professional help you need is called remedial reading.

Anyway, when you wake up from your Manichean day-dream of self-serving "facts" and made-up "history," shoot me a message. The world is a much more complex place than you seem to realize. You might be satisfied to snuggle up to your teddy-bear Founding Fathers and security-blanket Constitution, but the real world is a grown-up world, where you have to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is a "Nazi" or "Communist" or whatever convenient and whimsical label you've chosen this week.
Your missing the point entirely.

The Wiemar gun control laws were utilized to first establish a government monopoly on the use of force lawfully,then in stepped Hitler.Hitler expounded on 'gun control' to further disarm his victims,proving it was one of his most effective tools in carrying out the 'final solution'.
It NOT a question of "'gun control' begets democide",but a matter of fact that 'gun control' FACILITATES MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT THROUGH A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE.

Do you understand the difference,or should I break out the Crayolas?

I do have a lovely movie you can watch that might help explain a thing or two-

(Really,all hostility to your 'opinion' aside -FAIR WARNING- this movie is GRAPHIC,as it depicts the consequences of what happens when a dictator assumes total power of the use of force.)


By the way,the last part of your post here is totally baseless and ridiculous.

I wont stoop so low as to dignify it with a response,except to say-grow up.I'm not calling anyone a nazi or a commie just because they support gun control.You can be totally naive and believe that gun control is a good thing.Then you learn the truth.And THEN I get to call you names.

In the REAL 'grown up world'-history has shown that 'gun control' is a very dangerous concept which places people at the mercy of their governments and at the mercy of criminals (big difference THAT is)-and despite you believing this to be fearmongering hatespeech or whatever-I would rather trust the use of force to my fellow Americans as the Founders of this Republic intended than chance allowing a monopoly on the use of force by government,which has enabled dictator after dictator in the last century to murder hundreds of millions of people.

Gun control is a failed policy because it attempts to place the blame for violence on inanimate objects and has as a policy been readily abused by those who would seek to establish a monopoly on the use of force to further their own agendas.

This has,in numerous cases, resulted in mass murder by the very governments which institute these laws.

'Gun control' offers no real benefit to society measured in the reduction of the rate of violent crime,and its WELL DOCUMENTED FAILURE to provide any real benefits are at the cost of violation of the ability of the individual citizen to use arms in self defense and the violation of property rights that accompany government demand of control over such valuable property as arms-and in the absolute worst cases it has been historically proven to be factually instrumental in the consolidation of force by despotic tyrants that have murdered millions.


Oh,and by the way-Nazi stood for 'national socialist party'.
Adolph Hitler himself chose the red in the Nazi flag to appeal to communists......in my book-its all the same deal,oligarchical governments that want total control favor 'gun control'.

If a dictator tried his stuff in any of those 'gun free utopias' you mentioned -which incidentally are anything BUT,with helpless people made easy prey for predators by government laws that disarm them,yet another INJUSTICE of 'gun control'- he wouldn't have much of a hard time doing it.

Even after a few decades of 'gun control' here in America-I would dare one to try that crap here.

THAT is the meaning of the Second Amendment.

That the POWER OF THE USE OF FORCE RESIDES NOT WITH GOVERNMENT,BUT WITH THE PEOPLE!

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

You see,I dont 'snuggle up' to my 'teddy bear founders'-I take heart to the fact that a tyrant will not do so well in a country that the common man might have the power to defy tyranny.

God bless America.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-21-2010 at 07:31 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 04:31 AM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Kimber45's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
The Constitution is an imperfect document. You can stubbornly insist that it's perfect all you want, but not even the Founding Fathers thought so. That's why they added the Bill of Rights.

But why change the Second Amendment when we've had so much success with it so far, right?
The Constitution is an imperfect document. LOL! What are you a constitutional lawyer or something? Maybe you would prefer the communist manifesto? The Bill of Rights was added to affirm the rights laid out in the constitution, sort of a clarification for people who have problems understanding the simple words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And yet we have states and jurisdictions and even our capital Washington DC that say the constitution is a living document and just an old piece of paper, ignore it, the people will sit on their fat lazy asses, write letters, send faxes and e-mails but they will never do anything to take back these God given rights. Revolution? LOL! Too many arm chair pacifist. An imperfect document? Than write something better, please.

And who said anything about changing the 2nd Amendment? Did I miss something?
__________________
Kimber45 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:37 AM   #45
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimber45 View Post
And who said anything about changing the 2nd Amendment? Did I miss something?
Hes arguing to get rid of it and replace it with a new amendment comprised of the last half- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part.

Because he believes it to be 'broken' and that the pre-amble makes it "ambiguous".

I can sympathize with his plight,but not cater to his assertions that the Second Amendment -as it is- is ineffective in asserting the limitation on the authority of government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The pre-amble does not place restrictions on the whole.

Its that simple.

Perhaps this will help-

How The Courts Are Using The Second Amendment Against Us

Quote:
"It should be noted that the Amendment has two parts: (1) an observation, or perhaps a cautionary note ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and (2) a command or legal requirement ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"). The language of the first clause appears to impose no legal requirement or restriction on the federal government, Only the second clause indicates a right that the government cannot infringe."
Quote:
There is only one legitimate reason for the courts to refer to a preamble when interpreting a law or right, and that’s when the law or right in question is vague and the preamble is needed for clarification. However, a preamble is always secondary and can never supplant the right or law in question. A preamble is, "A preface, an introduction or explanation of what is to follow: That clause at the head of acts of congress or other legislatures which explains the reasons why the act is made. Preambles are also frequently put in contracts, to explain the motives of the contracting parties. A preamble is said to be the key of a statute, to open the minds of the makers as to the mischief's which they are to be remedied, and the objects which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statutes. It cannot amount, by implication, to enlarge [or "infringe"] what is expressly given." The Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon.
Quote:
Cases in point: "The body of the act may even be restrained by the preamble, when no inconsistency or contradiction results, ...where the intention of the Legislature is clearly expressed in the [body], the preamble shall not restrain it, although it be of much narrower import." A Treatise on the Rules Which Govern the Interpretation and of Statutory and Constitutional Law, Theodore Sedgwick. 1857, pg. 55.
Quote:
Justice Joseph Story wrote in Rules of Interpretation, "Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation. It is only when there is some ambiguity or doubt arising from other sources that interpretation has its proper office." Story also said that a preamble "...is properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacted part, [but] "...never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government. It can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the source of any implied power..."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Quote:
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread. (thats why I so stubbornly refuse to abandon one of these "Founding Amendments".Even tho there is some logic to the argument that in these 'modern times' when people cant be bothered to know what a pre-amble is,it might be best to remove the first 13 words of the Second.The first 10 Amendments,if ever repealed or changed IN ANY WAY,would -and have,as is shown with the deliberate misinterpretations of the Second Amendment by the courts- damage the Republic beyond measure.)

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
So.

Do we now understand the meaning of what a pre-amble is?
It is NOT law.The law is what follows the pre-amble.

The actual working law is :

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Are the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" plainly clear?

I believe so.

The 'milita' pre-amble holds no limitation nor exaggeration to the body of the law which follows and which imposes limitation of government power -that the government may make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

As the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution,whose Supremacy Clause declares that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land,above ALL OTHER LAW-the language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is part of that Supreme Law.
Any regulation,prohibition,or OTHER INFRINGEMENT is Constitutionally illegal.

Hence yet again I draw the conclusion-

'Gun control';being a burden on the liberty of the citizen to keep and to bear arms,and enacted by a government expressly prohibited the authority over this particular issue by the Constitution of The United States of America,Bill of Rights,Article The Second-
is blatantly illegal in this nation.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 05-20-2010 at 06:12 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:41 AM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
There is very little gun control in this country compared to most places (except Somalia, maybe), so it's hard to argue that it's a failure. In Europe, where there is actual gun control, there are very, very few gun homicides compared to the US (which is off the charts).

I think it's pretty self-evident that clamping down on the supply of guns in the country is a good way to prevent gun-related violence. If no guns are available, people can't shoot each other. Will a few still succeed in getting guns? Yes, but the overall numbers will be drastically reduced. As I said, look at most European countries.

That doesn't mean I support more gun control in the US, however. Taking all the guns out of circulation would be one way to limit gun violence, but there are other ways, ways which don't deprive law-abiding people of means for defending themselves.

It's like the 'war' on drugs. Instead of treatment programs and education, the government is locking up millions of people for doing something that does no harm to others. You want to talk dismal failures? There's one right there.

To control gun violence you have to look at the causes. Poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, lack of hope. It's very similar to drug abuse. 'Controlling' drugs hasn't worked -- legalizing them, taxing them, regulating them, and spending that money on anti-drug education would be a hundred times more effective. Same thing with gun-violence. Look at who's doing the killing, find out why, and fix that problem. No need to take away the guns.
Yeah but in England they do have a problem with knife crime. I think you would agree that if i cut your juglar with a butcher knife that you would be just as dead as if I shot you threw the heart with a 20 gauge shotgun.

In Europe, they have more stabbings than anything else. I read somewhere that in Luxemborg, I believe it was, where access to guns are limited, street gangs and criminals use machetes and hand saws as the weapons of choice.
__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 05:48 AM   #47
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

I can honestly say that if all guns disappeared out of the city of Detroit tonight and were gone by sunup, that violent crime still would be around. I think gun crime would be replaced with knife crime or baseball bat crime. So instead of shootings, we would see more stabbings and bludgeonings with baseball bats or crowbars.

Guns dont cause crimes. I mean look at prisons. The same guys who would probably carry guns on the streets are deprived of them in the joint. So what do they carry...homemade knives, shanks, and razor blades. Gun control is not the answer.

Ask Chicago.

__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 09:30 AM   #48
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
There is very little gun control in this country compared to most places (except Somalia, maybe), so it's hard to argue that it's a failure. In Europe, where there is actual gun control, there are very, very few gun homicides compared to the US (which is off the charts).
A couple points. First, ours is the only constitution in the world expressly acknowledging individuals have a right to own arms, so arguably any gun control laws violate 2A. There are two mechanisms for modifying the Constitution and if 2A is considered undesirable by enough people, they should take steps to eliminate it.

Second, you need to check your stats. Since Australia banned firearms, firearm-related crimes have risen significantly. Just 12 months after the new laws banning all semi-autos and pump shotguns went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 percent, and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Whether these were all committed with illegal firearms is moot; the good guys had no way to defend themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
I think it's pretty self-evident that clamping down on the supply of guns in the country is a good way to prevent gun-related violence. If no guns are available, people can't shoot each other. Will a few still succeed in getting guns? Yes, but the overall numbers will be drastically reduced. As I said, look at most European countries.
This makes my blood boil. This tripe is the same crap spewed by the Brady Bunch. It is factually wrong -- prohibition does not work. Statistics bear out the fact that in locales where gun control laws are stricter, crime rates are higher and where gun control laws are more lax, crime rates are lower.

Does it really need to be said, on this of all forums, that "clamping down on the supply of guns" will disarm those not inclined to commit crimes thus depriving themselves of a fundamental natural right to defend themselves, their families, their property, wealth and liberty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
That doesn't mean I support more gun control in the US, however. Taking all the guns out of circulation would be one way to limit gun violence, but there are other ways, ways which don't deprive law-abiding people of means for defending themselves.

It's like the 'war' on drugs. Instead of treatment programs and education, the government is locking up millions of people for doing something that does no harm to others. You want to talk dismal failures? There's one right there.
So in spite of their best efforts, countless pieces of legislation and over $14 trillion dollars spend on the war on drugs, it hasn't worked? Prohibition never works.

The Federal government is not specifically tasked with telling us what we may or may not ingest. The 10th amendment caps the power of government, limiting it to the specific powers enumerated in the constitution. All Federal laws regarding drugs are illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
To control gun violence you have to look at the causes. Poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, lack of hope. It's very similar to drug abuse. 'Controlling' drugs hasn't worked -- legalizing them, taxing them, regulating them, and spending that money on anti-drug education would be a hundred times more effective. Same thing with gun-violence. Look at who's doing the killing, find out why, and fix that problem. No need to take away the guns.
How about executing criminals who commit rape, murder, arson, robbery or burglary instead? Recidivism rates always go to 0.

Sorry, but I don't buy the poor/uneducated/unemployed/hopeless argument. Many of my ancestors fell into that category but none ever committed crimes. Instead, they worked their asses off and improved their lot in life.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 09:37 AM   #49
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
The problem is with the ambiguous wording of the Second Amendment. It's got the words "well-regulated" in it, so it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that people are going to interpret the language as involving regulation one way or another.
Ah, you hit upon something very important and that not a lot of people understand.

The word "regulate" as used back in 1787 means to ensure things worked well together. When you regulated a mechanical clock or watch, you made sure the gear train was correct, properly lubricated and not damaged in any way so that the time would be kept correctly.

Regulate did NOT mean to oversee in an authoritarian fashion. That bastardization of the word came about as a result of government corrupting the meaning of the word precisely by overseeing things in an authoritarian fashion.

A "well-regulated militia" is one where the militia members know each other well, know their strengths and weaknesses, have practiced together often, and the commander knows those under him well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luke1249 View Post
It's a broken amendment. It's an amendment for chrissakes. It wasn't even in the Constitution to begin with.
It's not broken. It's extremely well-worded.

Many states would not ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. Read up on your history.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:53 AM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2056 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

Some of you already know how I feel about the Second Amendment and our rights, that being said I have to agree with bkt and KalashnikovJosh.

And to the person who says that our government is to powerful to fight on the battlefields I say that is because you have already lost without even a fight. Like the little boy who gives up and lets the bullies beat him because they are bigger and more of them him. If you are unwilling to fight because they are bigger then you then I sure don't need you along side of me nor do I have a use for you after the fact except maybe picking cotton.

A lot of this has already been discussed

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/do-you-really-support-second-amendment-25340/

To anyone who thinks banning guns will stop the killings of innocent people you really need to look at the world in the 20th century, with some place around 150,000,000 humans exterminated in genocide with no ability to defend themselves because of gun control. That's right 150,000,000 people in the world died in the 20th century because they were not allowed to own guns to fight off these mass murders.

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Who's Hungry? Shihan The Club House 3 03-09-2010 04:11 PM
Hungry Glock? mdw104 Glock Forum 6 12-07-2008 05:16 PM