Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Founding Fathers Speak on Firearms

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 12:52 PM
Original message
The Founding Fathers Speak on Firearms
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 12:55 PM by GreenStormCloud

http://www.savetheguns.com/quotes.htm

First, a quote from before the FFs.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if so dear to the enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.
Criminologist Cesare Beccaria On Crimes and Punishments (1764)


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

That sounds a lot like "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776


"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams


"The said Constitution be never 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 of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788


"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;..."
James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789


"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788


"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)


"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry


"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1


"Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms."
Tench Coxe (1755-1824)


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson, delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.


"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

OK, Blackstone isn't one of our FFs, but his legal commentaries are still a standard reference in legal theory.

"And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled,... ...to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense."
Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780)
Source: Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 17th edition, 1966, Vol. 1., Chap.1).


AND CONTINUING AFTER THE FFs:

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people."
Saint George Tucker (1752-1827) Lawyer, Judge and Professor On Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D


"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature...
Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D


"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic,...
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833


"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment (Second Amendment) may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
William Rawle (1759-1836) American Lawyer A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-26 (2d ed. 1829)


Those quotes have been a select few. There are many more, but that is sufficient for one post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. The link didn't seem to have those quotes
so can't comment on that, but, gotta love the page introduction:

"Now that we are forced by the American people to endure another anti-gun presidential administration, along with a Democrat-dominated U.S. Congress, it's now more important that ever to get involved in the fight. Ninety five (95) of every one hundred (100) American gun owners are not members of the National Rifle Association."

So, the whole site is geared to making sure Democrats are voted out of office and the front page has at least 3 links out of what, 5 asking people to join the NRA? :woohoo: We don't even need an opposition party when we have DUer's doing all their work for them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. There is an entire NRA "5th column" here at DU...
...that is happy to pass along the propaganda, come hell or high water (or, given the climate change views of NRA-backed candidates, both!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The NRA also backs Democratic Party candidates if they are gun-friendly.
Do you have any comment on the FF quotes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Ah, so they also back Blue Dogs!
...on rare occasion, to give you 5th columnists "cover...!"

As for the FF, weren't those the same guys with the prescient comments on slavery?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. The NRA is single-issue.
They take no stance at all on other things, and are not blue, red, or yellow, or any other color of dog. They will back a militant socialist if he is pro-gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
95. You should check your facts first
The NRA backed Harry Reid here in Nevada because of his pro-2A stance. Not exactly a Blue Dog...

Gee - doesn't it suck to not carry out research BEFORE you start typing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #95
130. The same NRA supporting one of Reid's Republican opponents?
That one?

http://newledger.com/2010/03/lowden-picks-up-key-endors... /

Gee -- doesn't it suck not to carry out research BEFORE you start typing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #130
137. I did, Villager
That's how I knew that the NRA endorses candidates based on 2A views only. However, based on what I have read from you, you appear to be consumed with a fear of guns that prevents you from rationally discussing the subject, let alone research it in any depth.
C'mon back when you are ready to debate instead of speaking in fallacies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
128. Not Blue Dogs. I've volunteered for a few NRA-friendly Dems.
Two who are pro-gay-marriage, and one who's a pro-choice Catholic. You know, rights-positive people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
129. Bill Richardson is a "blue dog"?
Seeing as how he got an A rating from the NRA-PVF...

You need to cast your gaze beyond the Mississippi sometime; there are rather a lot of Dems in the western half of the country who get at least passing grades from the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. advocating for civil rights is not "propaganda"
the NRA tends to support pro RKBA candidates, REGARDLESS of party

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. I'm proud to be part of that 5th column.
I vote Democrat, and I'm a member of the NRA. I read my endorsement lists when they are published. Fortunately, since I started voting Democratic (2006) I have always had Democrats with high NRA scorecards to choose from for my candidates.

If being a member of that 5th column means I can promote firearm ownership within Democratic circles, I'm proud to be part of that column.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
75. You might be interested to learn that 36% of Democrats have a gun in their home ...
according to the Gallup Poll.





Considering that a large number of Democrats live in states or areas not friendly to firearm ownership, this is impressive.

Why do members of different parties own firearms?



Note: charts from:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-a...

It's easy to understand why you read a lot of posts here in the Gungeon that are pro RKBA.

These charts from a survey conducted by the Gallup Poll on October 9, 2009 shows support for gun control is at an all time low.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-su...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
104. "There is an entire anti-rights "5th column" here at DU..."
There, I fixed it for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
113. There is an entire Jim Crow chorus at DU...
that is happy to pass along the laws of the Old South, now that the cackling bird has moved north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I only looked at the list of quote of the FFs, not at the rest of the site.
My only concern is with the quotes of the FFs. Do you deny that any of the quotes are accurate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I am sorry you are not more discerning
"I only looked at the list of quote of the FFs, not at the rest of the site."

I really have no interest in discerning if any of your quotes are accurate or not when the source matter is in such contrast to the expressed rules of DU.

I support the 2nd Ammendment but I first follow the rules of DU and make sure I'm not working to overthrough the only party that will protect the rest of the BoR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. So what the FFs said doesn't matter to you, only the secondary source. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. not a bit, there really isn't anything there that isn't available elsewhere
It's a shame the source had to be so tainted when the same info is available on less biased sites. Essentially, the O.P. is a load of crap becasue of it and if I were you I would suck it up and edit or ask for a lock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. The quotes are still those of the FFs.
Unfortunately, such lists of FF quotes on guns are found only on pro-gun sites. Unfortunately, much of the Democratic Party has yielded defense of this civil right to the Republicans. If the rest of our party would drop the anti-gun stance, then the Republicans would lose this issue.

Remember that it was Ann Richard's opposition to concealed-carry that cost her re-election and gave us Gov. Bush, who used it as a stepping-stone to become Pres. Bush.

It is time for the Democratic Party to drop its opposition to guns.

Before some one calls me a closet RW, I have also posted in opposition to the forever-war in Afghanistan, in favor of National Health Care, and other basic issues. I am pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay-rights, anti-war-on-drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
47. I'm not questioning your credentials
I am only asking is a handful of quotes worth throwing the Democratic Party under the bus? If you think they are then I believe we have some irreconcilable differences in our belief structures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. No, but an effort to change the Democratic Party from the inside is worthwhile.
And we have lost elections of guns. The AWB was a major reason we took the beating we did in 1994.

And Richard's vetoes of concealed carry gave us Bush.

Gore lost TN over the gun vote. If he had been pro-gun he would have carried TN and FL would not have mattered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. I agree the Demo party can use some change from the inside
butI remain baffled that you think using a radically anti Demo site can have any affect on those on the Dem side that already don't agree with you.

Posting pro-right winger shit totally obscures your message and puts you in the position of defending your credentials instead of discussing the validity of the statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. There are no Democatic sites with such a list.
Since we started this exchange I have googled (Founding Fathers gun quotes) and all lists have been by strongly pro-gun sites. Because the Democratic party has such a strong history of being anti-gun, the pro-gun sites are almost uniformly anti-Democratic party.

There are some pro-gun sites that are also Democratic, such as our A2D site, but I didn't find such a list on them.

If anything, that should demonstrate the need for the party to quit being anti-gun. Fortunately, an increasing share of the party is moving away from the anti-gun stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. first google link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
67. From that same site:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

Obama's Anti-gun Record
Barack Obama supports handgun registration and licensing...

I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree. I do not object to the lawful use and ownership of firearms, but I do think it is entirely it appropriate for the state to monitor it. Too many of these guns end up in the hands of criminals even though they were originally purchased by people who did not have a felony. I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training.
--- http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2007/12 /
and more...
The package closes the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card loopholes which resulted in the shooting out in Melrose Park. We're eliminating 17 specific assault weapons. There is no reason why anybody should need an assault weapon to protect themselves or their family,' Obama said. 'We're limiting handgun sales to one a month. We're calling for handgun registration. It's very hard right now to track whether or not a felon has turned in his weapons or if he has a FOID card because we don't know how many weapons he has purchased.
--- http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2007/12 /
Opposes civilian concealed carry


I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.
--- Mendell, David, "From Promise to Power" (2007), p. 251.

I am not in favor of concealed weapons. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.
--- Pittsburg Tribune-Review (April 2, 2008).
backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.
--- http://www.icadp.org/page236.html (Citing David Mendel, Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004)

Opposes possession of most semi-automatic rifles

Obama has stated the government needs to permanently reinstate an "assault weapons" ban.
(Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence, Associated Press and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html )
(McCain voted against the 1994 crime bill that contained an "assault weapons" ban .)

Voted for a federal ban on most military surplus ammo

Voted in 2005 to classify all Full Metal Jacket ammo in the following calibers as armor-piercing (since they are capable both of being fired from a handgun and of penetrating Kevlar bullet-resistant vests):

223 Remington
308 Winchester
Soviet 7.62x39
Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Opposes protecting firearms manufacturers from lawsuits due to the misuse of their products.

In July, 2005 Obama voted against S. 397 that passed by a wide margin (65-31) and became law in October, 2005. This act prohibits "civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others."

Probably supports local handgun bans

The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
--- http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/34 / (Citing James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07).
(See http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller for background on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, before the Supreme Court, that will decide the constitutionality of a civilian handgun ban in Washington, D.C.)
Opposed the nomination of Supreme Court justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Recent Supreme Court justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. were instrumental to a favorable Second Amendment ruling in the Heller case mentioned above. Obama voted against the nomination of Roberts and Alito. (McCain voted for the nomination of both justices.) (Roberts' roll call vote, Alito's roll call vote)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Yes, those are legitimate citiations - It's called GunCite, correct?
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 03:39 PM by Wickerman
If you can't see the difference between linking to a site that offers opinion that all Dems need voted out in the direct face of the person who comes there to read quotes and linking to a site that is a collection of citations and that had not a single mention of Democrat or Liberal on the page linked to then you are really trying harder to pick nits than to consider that your O.P. was gravely flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. I have already admitted that I didn't see that sentence.
In fact, since it was in the advertising section, I though it was an ad, and didn't read any of the ads. The list of quotes appeared to be the longest with references to where the quote could be found, so it was the one I used.

So, do you want to discuss what the FFs said, or just complain about the source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. No, I already agreed that most of what was atttibuted to the founders
as accurate - though not all on the page was indeed from Founders.

I continue to argue the point because I asked you to either edit or ask for a lock and you did neither and insisted there was no other source for your quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. No, I said there was no Democratic-friendly source.
There is no source that is friendly toward the Democratic Party that is also pro-gun and also has such a list. Some hide it better than others. The list that I saw looked like the best list, and I didn't notice the sentence in the top left because I thought it was an advertisement. I usually ignore the paid ads on a site.

I choose that list because it had some quotes from will before the constitution, dating back to Aristotle, and some quotes from Machiavelli, that I planned to use in a different thread. For those quotes, I will try to find another reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. 4th Google Link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. 5th
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. 8th
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQ...

I'm not having near the problem that you had.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. The SAF is more radical than the NRA.
They were founded by people who though the NRA wasn't adamant enough in supporting gun owner's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Yet there is no political affiliation on the page I mentioned nor is there
anything on the homepage.

This really isn't hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
133. Try doing some research, instead of going by what is or is not on the page
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 01:05 PM by Euromutt
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with its sister organization, the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) are the pro-gun equivalent of the Violence Policy Center, in that they essentially consist of two people, to wit Alan Gottlieb and, to a lesser extent, Dave Workman.

Together, they wrote a book titled These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns, and that should tell you enough right there. I was actually a contributor to SAF for a year, but I got fed up with the incessant whinging about Democrats this and liberals that in every fricking e-mail that come renewal time, this liberal Democrat (i.e. me) told them he wasn't interested in renewing his contribution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #133
134. thanks for your concern, but a bit beyond the scope of the issue at hand
the original point of this thread is that the OP posted to a page with overt cries to remove Dems from office. He refused to make any edits saying there weren't any sites out there that didn't do the same. I simply pointed out several sites that said what he wanted that didn't spew anti-Dem crap right off the front page or the linked page.

Sorry you had a bad experience with the site. I am sure that they are every bit as assholish as you describe; the pages I linked to are clean, however. A single link to a clean page doesn't require me to know the history of a site, all their extraneous publications, or, even the owner's first born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. All the lists I found were from strongly pro-gun sites.
I googled (founding fathers gun quotes)and found several lists, all from non-liberal sites. Face it, our party is mostly anti-gun. If we would drop that part of our platform, we could hurt the Republicans greatly.

It was Democrats who killed the recent chance for DC to get both a vote in congress and gun-rights at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. When the secondary source is implying that the only way to save
the (non-threatened) guns is to vote against the Democratic party?

Yes.

The NRA is NOT non-political, it is NOT single-issue, and it IS a RW front group, and it has been for at least 40 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So you decline to discuss the FFs.
Please show where the NRA has taken a stand on any other issue than guns.

Of course the NRA is political, and highly so. They campaign strongly for or against candidates, but the do so strictly on that candidates rating on guns, and nothing else.

Unfortunately, many in our party are anti-gun-rights. For example, the platform called for a permanent AWB. Obama stated that he was against concealed-carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Did the NRA speak out against the seizure of guns in NO?
When Republicans were confiscating guns, did the NRA suggest to its membership that they go armed to Republican political rallies to make a statement about their gun rights?

Didn't think so.

You are being used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. It was Democrats that confiscated the guns.
The order came from Nagin and his Chief of Police. Both were Democrats. Yes, the NRA did get involved in the lawsuits to stop it and in lobbying for the later legislation that outlawed such an act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Nagin was only a 'democrat' to get elected - he had been a long-time
republican prior to running for mayor. And they didn't protest the seizures - they joined the lawsuit AFTER they realized it could be blamed on the Democrats. The seizures were stopped long before the NRA ever opened it's mouth.

You are being played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. He was a D when elected.
You have no special insight into the NRA's reasoning. You have already been proven wrong when you said they did nothing. You are simply making a baseless accusations.

The seizures did stop quickly.

Hurricane Katrina hit on August 28th, 2005. NRA filed for a restraining order on Sept 23, 2005. That isn't foot dragging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #39
114. "You are being played." Take a look at the DNC Platform...
and review the policy on the so-called "assault weapons ban." If you back it, then perhaps you are being played by the NRA.

Nagin: not a true Scotsman, hey?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. They sure did!
Did the NRA speak out against the seizure of guns in NO?

Absolutely! In fact, I'm pretty sure they sponsored lawsuits regarding that fiasco!

Yup, here it is:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=11...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. others beat me to it. n/t
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 02:40 PM by X_Digger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
132. I believe they did.
I am 99 percent positive I saw videos on their site having a coronary over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. I agree.
So, the whole site is geared to making sure Democrats are voted out of office and the front page has at least 3 links out of what, 5 asking people to join the NRA?

The web site is clearly an anti-Democrat web site.

The quotes provided are over 200 years old. Surely they could have been cited from somewhere else?

Seriously, pro-firearms folks. You do yourself no favors here by linking to anti-Democratic sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nice try. We had NO police force at the time. Join a "well-regulated militia." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The FFs were clear. Ordinary citizens were to have guns. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Just not relevant to contemporary times.
I've no problem with folks owning rifles, it's handguns that are the scourge of the city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. civil rights are ALWAYS relevant
handguns are not the "scourge" of the city

scumbag criminals are.

lots of handguns and a right to carry in my city (seattle).

rather low homicide rate, too

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Completely relevant.
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
occidentis telum _est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands")
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson
(He was quoting Locke)

And the Constitution is still the basis of all of our law. The 2nd is still part of it.

Handguns are often used to prevent crimes. My wife has saved herself from being murdered because she had a gun on her when she needed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
57. "Just not relevant to contemporary times."
Then neither is the rest of the Constitution, right? After all, the entire thing was written over 200 years ago, and could have no applications today...

:crazy: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
105. Then disarm criminals and prevent felons from owning firearms. Oh, wait. They already do that.
I own a handgun. I'm a law-abiding citizen. Please explain why I should have my 2nd Amendment rights taken away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
32. We have no well-regulated militias at this time. What then?
The well-regulated militias of the founders' day no longer exist.

No doubt the founders foresaw this, which is why the second amendment enumerates the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not militias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. So where does it say that criminals or those with criminal records
shouldn't have "arms" too? and where does it say "arms" should be limited to the "state of the art" for the times? At the time, there were no handguns-did the FF intend for anything that the future brought in the way of weapons also be lawfully carried by anyone at all, regardless of infirmity, mental or physical? Where are the limitations listed by the founders-many of which the gun-lovers don't insist upon today? When a hand-held laser is invented will the NRA and others insist that everyone has the right to carry one of those too? Some gun enthusiasts read all kinds of things into the FF's words that simply are not there. Guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
55. You expect a senior-citizen to fight against ayoung mugger?
I will freely admit that I can't fight against a street criminal. That's why I am armed.

My wife is only 4" 10". Do you expect her to fight against a young male violent felon?

She came close to being murdered a few years ago, but because she had a gun on her, the attacker ran away before he could actually start the attack.

The laser is too hypothetical. I choose to discuss what we have now - firearms. I do have a laser on one of my handguns for aiming.

BTW - Handguns most certainly did exist at the time. They were quite common.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
69. It does not have to say those things.
So where does it say that criminals or those with criminal records shouldn't have "arms" too? and where does it say "arms" should be limited to the "state of the art" for the times?
It does not have to. When an individual commits a crime they forfeit their rights. It is law 101. We are all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do you think that a criminal sitting in a prison is experiencing a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? No they are not. When they were convicted by a jury of their peers, they forfeited those rights.

As for arms being state of the art, it has to do with availability, functionality and common sense. It is implied that one would bear arms of the era that they live in. Basically, what good would lets say a flintlock do me when I go hunting or need to defend myself? In todays age and time, parts and ammunition for a 200+ year old weapon are quite difficult to come by. Not to mention, with the advancement of the technology, why would I not want to hunt or defend myself with a modern (safer, more accurate, serviceable, etc) weapon? What is the practicality of using a firearm for self defense that does not work well in the rain? How safe were the old flintlocks? Not very.

You see in my eyes I would agree with Al Gore that the Constitution is a living document that we as a democratic society continually grow and evolve with it. That it is broad and flexible to interpretation by a modern society. You see the words of our constitution and founding fathers should (in my eyes) not be set in stone as gospel for all of our society to be constrained by. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to restrain the government, not the people. So because the Constitution, the BOR or the words of our founding fathers do not define exactly what is allowed, it should not be taken as to restrain the rights of the people (see the 9th amendment).

As for your last statement Guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight. You are just flame baiting, however I would agree to the 2nd half of your statement. They are indeed made for those that cannot fight. Thank you very much for providing a point that most of us Pro-Gun Rights folks have been saying around here for a long time. Guns are devices made for those of us who CAN'T fight.
Follow the link below That cowardly bitch. Right? She should have gone Bruce Lee on his ass Right?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...

For me, I know I cannot fight. Not very good at it, at all. In fact with my bad back, I would never stand a chance to be good at fighting for the rest of my life, no matter how hard and long I work at it. That does not mean that I am a coward. It means that I have a bad back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
84. You said:
"When an individual commits a crime they forfeit their rights. It is law 101."

Not true. Once they "pay their debt to society" they have rights again. No where does it say in the Second Amendment anything about infirm people or people with criminal histories being restricted from carrying weapons. About the only restriction in there is the part that seems to imply an "organized militia" as the reason for arming people. That one gets ignored or re-interpreted to mean "anybody at all" to many gun groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. Depends on the crime.
For example, because sex-offenders have such an extremely high repeat rate, some of them, especially child-abuse sex offenders, are tracked the rest of their lives. Some crimes should mean permanent loss of some rights. Others should be able to get their rights back after a reasonable time in society. And different rights should come back at different rates. Gun ownership should be among the last rights restored for violent felons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Dude!!
You keep beating me to the punch.

Stoopid slow iPhone...
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #87
101. I have to correct you there
Available data indicates that sex offenders, on average, don't have a very high reoffense rate at all. On average. There is a hard core of offenders who are considered at high risk of reoffense, but they form about 5% of total offenders. Of the ~17,000 registered sex offenders in Georgia, around 100 (~0.6%) are classed as "predators" (who suffer a compulsion to commit sex crimes). The majority (around 2/3) of people classed as sex offenders are at low to no risk of reoffense.

However, in the case of many, particularly child molesters, discouraging recidivism does require making it unequivocally clear to them that their actions are morally wrong and socially unacceptable. Just about the worst thing you can do is catch a molester and then not punish them, because that sends a message that what they did isn't really wrong (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Look no further than the scandal surrounding the Catholic church to see what I mean.

But in general, burglars are at much higher risk of reoffense; UK Home Office rearrest data indicated that almost 80% of convicted burglars were arrested within two years of release, against fewer than 20% of those convicted for sexual offenses against children (and bear in mind that burglars aren't subject to the levels of monitoring that sex offenders are).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #101
124. Interesting. I accept the correction. Thanks. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
90. Not true...
"Not true. Once they "pay their debt to society" they have rights again."
If a convicted violent offender has finished their jail time, they DO NOT have their rights again. Yes they went to jail, however they do not have the right to purchase, own or posses a firearm. So no, they do not have their rights again. They can be denied employment for the exact same reason. Similarly, how is it legal to make sex offenders register even after they have "paid their debt" to society? Why do we still restrict their rights to come and go as they please, their employment, etc...? Because it is legal and it is Constitutional.

"No where does it say in the Second Amendment anything about infirm people or people with criminal histories being restricted from carrying weapons." By "infirm" I am assuming you mean those with a mental defect and not those who are lacking strength and vitality because of sickness or age. It does not have to. We the People have decided that these individuals have no right to the possession of a firearm, we wrote it into law, and those laws do not violate the Constitution.

"About the only restriction in there is the part that seems to imply an "organized militia" as the reason for arming people."
It DOES NOT say "organized militia". It DOES say "Well regulated". The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained". Not government oversight and restrictions. Look at the Minutemen for a little reference. This interpretation is not by the NRA or any other "gun-group" but by our lawmakers and our judicial branch.

Also, what about the part that goes: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Simple... "the people" are ALL of us. The exact same "We the People" mentioned in that other shitty document I'm sure you hate that we mailed to some asshole king.

Sorry, if my typing is all over the place... iPhone-ing it from a bus right now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #84
97. In the 18th century, the punishment for most felonies was death
Of course, there were fewer offenses that were considered felonies at the time. But my point is that persons convicted of felonies at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment tended to cease to be members of "the people" in a very final sense, through banishment or execution.

And the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is not the raison d'tre of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," but rather, why it is in the interest of the government not to infringe upon that right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #84
112. Also... I said a whole lot more than one sentence... Care to comment on the rest? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
74. All rights are presupposed, except when removed by due process.
Certain rights are removed for criminals while incarcerated (fourth amendment, etc), others are strictly limited (portions of the first amendment). Society has decided in some jurisdictions that other rights are forever removed from them (voting, bearing arms).

Regarding handguns.. yes, handguns existed then. Flintlock pistols, for example. Even multi-shot versions (see pepper-box pistols).

There were even multi-shot repeating rifles with *gasp* detachable magazines. See Girandoni repeating rifle.

Guns are devices that give those less physically able (the elderly, the infirm, the small) a chance at defending themselves against larger, younger, more physically fit attackers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
106. "Guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight."
How ignorant.

Should a woman be forced to fist-fight a criminal that might have a foot and hundred pounds on her?

"At the time, there were no handguns"

Wow! You have lost all creditability. Ever crack a history book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
109. Do you think victims of criminal aggression owe their assailants a "fair" fight?
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 08:02 PM by Euromutt
How else to explain your assertion that "guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight"? Speaking for myself, I am not a violent person; I don't pick fights, I don't ask to be assaulted, mugged, burgled or otherwise become the victim of a violent crime. If someone threatens me, or my family, with violence, it will not be because of provocation on my part. From my perspective, that means I have absolutely zero obligation to fight on the aggressor's terms. Indeed, the aggressor will almost certainly proceed with the assault only because he thinks he an advantage over me--in initiative (by catching me unawares), weaponry (e.g. he has a knife and expects me to be unarmed) or skill at hand-to-hand fighting--which is itself hardly indicative of great courage on his part. What is cowardly about seeking to negate through technology the advantage such an opponent possesses?

A major reason firearms became popular was that they allowed a peasant or townsperson with a modicum of combat training to negate the advantage held by a professional thug (like a knight or samurai) with a lifetime of training, and kitted out with expensive weapons, armor and a horse funded by taxing the people who actually had to work for a living (and therefore didn't have the time or money to develop their martial skills). What is cowardly about refusing to fight with one hand tied behind your back when the other guy has no intention of doing so?

At the time, there were no handguns <...>

Handguns had been around for well over 250 years by then. Matchlock pistols were fairly rare, but with the introduction of the wheellock in the early 16th century, handguns started becoming practical, and they really took off with the snaphaunce and the flintlock in the early 17th century. Cavalry whose primary armament was a brace of pistols were standard during the English civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. He won't answer...(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #111
121. You might be wrong
In that "he" might in fact be a "she." It's just that, in my twelve years on the internet and my seven years in the United States, I've come across more female than male vegans, but more importantly, I think that women are more prepared to speak deprecatingly of their drinking habits than men. Thus, a handle like "veganlush" strikes me as more likely being a woman. But I could be wrong there.

Where I think you're correct is that I won't get a reply. Funny how those who are so quick to label others as cowards are so... hesitant to deal with (here's that phrase again) awkward questions. Where gun control advocates are concerned, the courage of convictions seems to run very thin indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
115. My word, this stuff again...
Where does it say in the 1st Amendment that you can't accuse "veganlush" of being a child-molester and a puppy-eater?

Where does it say in the 1st Amendment that "press" should be limited to the "state of the art" for the times? Are you using a press?

"At the time there were no handguns." Handguns have been around since the late 1300s. Do you really need a link?

As for "intent" of the Founding Fathers: they damned well knew technological advances were coming. (Do you really think Franklin would be opposed to the Internet?)

You seem to concede that the FFs were in fact reasonable about "infirmities, mental or physical." That they were. That's why people who have criminal records, or are adjudicated as mentally incompetent, cannot legally purchase a gun. Try it. The NICS test is for just that purpose.

"Guns are cowardly devices made for people who can't fight." I'm sure this is a variation on past (now banned) references to anatomy. I would only point out that guns are neither cowardly nor courageous. They are tools. You don't seem to recognize the difference between the motivations of human action and inanimate objects. But that is quite typical of hard-line prohibitionists. They cannot/must not/will not separate the two because to do so would "disarm" them of the desire and ability to morally condemn millions of people by simply waving around an object.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. we ARE the founding fathers of our generation
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 01:29 PM by sui generis
Kudos to the original founding fathers, but they were men of their times and forgot to outlaw slavery, among a host of other oversights.

It always amuses me when we dredge up the "founding fathers" like they're demi-gods and the Final Authority. WE are the final authority, and they're dead. We're the ones who have to justify what we vote for, and then vote, and those justifications had better be relevant to the 21st century more so than to the 18th century.

Besides, I look like total hell in a powdered wig guys, although I'm sure some of you would probably look better in one.

:P

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. The didn't "forget", the were divided on the issue.
Many of the Northern FFs were strongly anti-slavery. John Adams founded an anti-slavery society. Franklin was against it. But to have a successful revolution they needed the Southern colonies, so they had to put up with slavery and leave it for a future generation. But they were united about guns.

They wrote the Constitution, and the 2nd is still part of it. If you don't like it, try to get it changed. Any 13 states can block ratification of an amendment, so your changes of getting the 2nd removed are extremely slim, like zero.

Yes, we are the FFs of our times, and you may wish to notice that gun-rights are expanding rapidly. Look at the number of states that are "shall-issue" on concealed carry. 40 of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. I'm trying to get the 2nd amendment removed?
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 02:09 PM by sui generis
really?

That's news to me. Anyway, my commentary is not really about gun laws so much as about quoting the founding fathers, because even the supreme court is split on whether the constitution as written by the founding fathers was MEANT to be a literal description of our country or one that is subject to interpretation in context of the times.

Now about that preposterous implication - I really do support responsible gun ownership. I also don't think concealed carry is always the same thing as responsible gun ownership. I don't have to buy all of it just because I bought some of it.

If you walk into my business and I in any way notice you have a gun or any other form of weapon, I will frog march your shiny happy ass out the nearest exit and keep you from returning, and you can wipe your ass with the constitution for all I care.

The constitution is not a document that is supposed to take away MY right to live and work in a gun free environment if I'm the boss, and if you work for me and don't like it, get a job somewhere else. It's in the employment agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. You should politely ask them to leave.
Laying hands on them would be unwise as it would be you initiating the physical violence to which they could defend against.

It is your right, which I support, to have a restriction against guns on your property.

It is my right to carry concealed (with permit)anywhere guns are not prohibited.

I do not consider the Constitution to be toilet paper. Neither should you.

The interpretation of the Constitution is a combination of original-intent and current-context. To go too far in either direction is go err.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. yes I would politely ask them to leave
but if some yahoo that was not supportive of work area restrictions started belly-achin' and brandishing, my hands are a whole lot faster than anyone who believes a gun alone is defense enough, and if I'm not close enough to be fast enough, and some dude is brandishing, that fool will not be a licensed carrier before the end the day.

I prefer open carry in Texas anyway. It lets us know who the truly paranoid are, at the grocery store or daycare pickup. In fact I'd prefer if concealed were illegal in favor of open.

Clearly I am making liberal use of hyberbole in my ravings :P but seriously we have some unreasonable people who are life-obsessed with firearms, and that's not normal.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Since brandishing is both illegal, stupid, wrong, and unsafe, ...
you should take whatever action you feel is appropriate.

You would never know I was carrying. Concealed means concealed.

Open carry has some advantages. I would prefer both be legal, but that you would have to have a shall-issue permit for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
59. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...
but Open Carry is currently illegal (in public) in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #42
79. Funnily enough, TX doesn't have open carry (of handguns). n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. right on! an agnostic amen to you for a post well posted!..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #16
116. Sorry, wrong again...
"we ARE the founding fathers of our generation."

No "we" aren't. We have a Constitution written by the FFs.

If you want to "found" something, then propose a new Constitution. THEN you will be a Founding Father/Mother. Keep your power dry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. people from long ago said lots of things that don't really apply

today as they may have then. If, as Saint George Tucker said, "the right of self defense is the first law of nature.." and if you can interpret "self defense" as just everybody grabbing every cowardly weapon that man invents, Why can't some of us interpret "self defense" as fighting against the production and dissemination of these destructive bravery replacements in the first place?






"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence (sic) is the first law of nature...
Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. If someone is trying to kill you, won't you fight to stay alive? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. of course, but couldn't "fighting to stay alive"
manifest itself in long term ways as well as short term? Couldn't limiting the number of people running around with deadly weapons be considered self defense?

Why are we trying to "rein in" loose nukes, instead of just making sure everyone has access to loose nukes of their own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Your nuke analogy is silly.
It seems that all of the gun-control advocates want to bring up nukes. If a mugger is coming at me, a nuke would be of no use. We are talking about individual humans with guns, not nation-states, which is a completely separate thing.

It is impossible to stop individuals from having deadly weapons, since there are more things than guns that are deadly. But a gun puts me, a senior citizen, on a much closer to even footing against an assailant that anything else does.

Deadly defense applies to immediate, imminent threats. To kill on a far future threat would be a pre-emptive attack. A far future threat has a much lower order of probability than an attack-in-progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. "to kill on a far future threat" ? you misread my post...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. ok, forget nukes, what about a hand-held laser?
..when one is invented, should everyone have one or not? By the reasoning that the gun-promoters glean from the Founding Fathers, why not? A laser that could kill with ultra accuracy from an almost unlimited distance will exist someday. The gun-promoters logic, based on their interpretation of the FF's, would allow everyone, stable or not, criminal or not, to have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Sorry, but I don't think it will be invented.
There are some basic physical problems with it.

Nor would it be a practical weapon, even if could be made. If you shot at an opponent who had a three-cornered inside reflector you would kill yourself. If your laser was red, shooting at a gun in red clothes would not be very effective, but you would fry a guy in green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. No, it's a do-able weapon, no doubt.
....and it will render gun-rights groups obsolete...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. You have some major problems to overcome.
Power source. Takes lots of power for a strong laser, especially multiple shots. How will that fit in a gun handle?

Beam divergence. Laser beams actually spread out fairly fast. As they spread they lose intensity.

Color of target. That effects the target's absorbtion of the beams' energy.

Shineness of the target. Same problem as above. May even cause the beam to bounce back at the shooter.

Heat sink of target. Some materials are excellent heat insulators and don't heat up quickly.

Air distortion. As it goes through the air it will bend and flicker at longer distances. Have you ever seen the heat waves on a hot day?

Weather. I wouldn't want to shoot one in a heavy rain, or a fog.

For the foreseeable future, hand held laser guns are the stuff of science-fiction writers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. I remember when my parents were impressed with VHS
..when they were young going to a movie theater was how you saw a movie. Imagine going back in time and telling them that someday, within their lifetimes, you could send a movie of yourself across the world in seconds from a phone that has no cord and goes everywhere with you. Or that detectives could tell you who in the world was in a house because they left behind a couple of skin cells. Imagine what they would have said about possible impediments to the vision of the future presented to them.

Cars will run on electricity and/or hydrogen, not fossil fuels. Weapons that heave lead projectiles will also become a thing of the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. Different area of physics.
In my list of problems with laser I also left out a big one:

Heat dissipation. No device is 100% efficient. Some energy is going to be wasted at the discharge site. With a handgun there is a big muzzle blast. With a laser, even with 99% efficiency, there would still be considerable heat in the gun itself that would have to be bled off. In other words, you shoot the gun and it would instantly be too hot to hold, if you are using a power setting that could do the same damage to a human as a bullet from a 9mm.

Current efficiency is about 18%.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. But they also said lots of things that DO really apply.
people from long ago said lots of things that don't really apply today as they may have then. If, as Saint George Tucker said, "the right of self defense is the first law of nature.." and if you can interpret "self defense" as just everybody grabbing every cowardly weapon that man invents, Why can't some of us interpret "self defense" as fighting against the production and dissemination of these destructive bravery replacements in the first place?

The founders also said lots of things that DO still apply today.

The fact of the matter is the fundamental nature of mankind has not changed for all of recorded history: Man is driven by his desires, and history is replete, right up to today, with examples of men who were unable to hold their desires in check and visited violence on his fellow man to satisfy his desires.

Whether with a stone, club, sword, or firearm, there have always been men willing to use violence against his fellow man to sate his greed. The founders knew this, and this is why they wanted the people to be armed, so as to have the means to resist such oppression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. right now, in these times, the cowardly, push-button..
..remote-control way to kill another person is the handgun. Just as email and cellphones have replaced the pony express and telegraphs, lasers or some such will replace current lead projectile-heaving devices of today. When that day arrives, and it can't be far in coming, the great personal arms race will be at a crossroads.

Do you run out and get the new ultra-accurate-from-nearly-unlimited-distance device like everyone else, or do you secretly hope that the powers that be restrict these, against your own interpretation of the Second Amendment, and stick with your lead projectiles?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. That is an /excellent/ question.
I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and I have devoted much thought to exactly the question you propose:

What happens when the technology for infantry small arms advances beyond projectile weapons? Suppose, for example, some kind of "ray gun" becomes the next modern infantry small arm?

To my view, the intent of the second amendment was to insure that the people were armed with the same small arms as appropriate to contemporary infantry forces. This is because the writings of the founders indicate that the intent was clearly to have the people be able to replace, or at least counter, federal infantry forces. In order to do this they would need to be equipped with functionally similar small arms.

So in my opinion, should there be some advancement in small arms weaponry, it would be completely appropriate for these weapons to also be in the hands of the civilian population.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. So it is cowardly for a senior-citizen to use a gun against a young mugger?
My wife, a few years ago, saved herself from being murdered because she had a gun on her.

She was already a senior-citizen, and only 4'-9". Do you really expect her to try to fist fight against a young male violent felon?

I am a senior, and I know I can't win a fight against a 20ish thug.

You can call us all the names you want to, but we refuse to be easy victims. There is a reason why the first revolvers were also called "equalizers".

I am not going to bother discussing hypothetical lasers as guns. I do however like the laser sight on my pistol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #58
80. They don't really think that one through, do they?
Sounds good in the ten seconds it takes to type it.. when confronted with the implications, though? Not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
66. I think you are confusing the word "cowardly"...
with the word "efficient".

And judging by the repetion, you are doing it on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #66
103. Damn straight
It may seem paradoxical, but I actually keep firearms for self- and home defense because I'm a fairly peaceful guy. I'm not interested in spending many hours a week developing and maintaining hand-to-hand combat skills to a sufficiently high degree to be able to reliably incapacitate an assailant. Crudely put, I'd rather spend time with my 4 year-old than learning to beat people up.

As I've said before on this forum, if somebody threatens or attempts to inflict violence on me without provocation on my part, I have absolutely no moral obligation to fight on his terms, to give him a "fair" fight. And frankly, if you think that makes me a coward, your moral code is severely fucked up (not to mention "objectively pro-aggressor," to paraphrase George Orwell).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #66
119. I think someone is getting off. You know... steamy under the silk, an' all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #46
78. I'm sure many criminals would totally agree with you ..
that armed victims are cowards and should have to fight fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #78
89. the incidents where carrying a weapon actually saves the day
Edited on Thu Apr-22-10 04:37 PM by veganlush
are so rare, and certainly don't outweigh the problems associated with the proliferation of guns in society. Statistically speaking, there are many other better ways to protect yourself from far more likely occurrences ranging from health issues to safety to crime prevention to political activism. Most of the gun-toting that occurs for the purpose of self protection really amounts to hyper-immunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #89
96. Defensive gun uses outnumber gun crimes.
According to the DOJ (Clinton's DOJ, mind you), surveys found ~1.5M defensive gun uses. More than the same number of gun crimes that were committed that year. Funny thing? Most of those defensive uses don't actually involve firing the gun.

Admittedly that was when crime was at its highest (ca 1992-3), and no study of DGUs has been done recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #89
98. please present some statistics to back your statements up ...
I'm interested.

Most people who legally carry concealed are not the type of people to go looking for trouble and in fact go out of their way to avoid it. Many practice situational awareness, and being alert to their surroundings, just leave if something doesn't seem right. Statistically the number of times that concealed weapons are used to deter a violent attack or to stop a crime in progress should be very low. It can and does happen as many stories discussed in the Gungeon illustrate. The fact that some citizens are armed may serve to deter muggings and street attacks as criminals fear armed citizens far more than cops. It may change the nature of crime in the areas where it is permitted.

I personally have carried a firearm concealed for more than fifteen years and fortunately I never had to draw the weapon for self defense.

There was only one time when I thought that I might have to, as I found myself in in a liquor store at 11 pm with two suspicious characters who acted like they were considering robbing it. Both were acting nervous and one was rushing madly around the store for no good reason.

If a robbery had occurred and it had appeared the bad guys were only after money, I wouldn't have drawn the weapon.

As it was, one of the guys asked me to check out first saying that he had forgot his wallet. I politely refused, saying I was in no hurry. He eyed me and I eyed him. I had my hand in my front pocket on a snub nosed .38 revolver. He walked out to his car and got his wallet, paid for his purchase and the two guys left.

I talked to the clerk for a while, bought my cigars and headed off to work and got there 10 minutes late. All is well that ends well. I was the shift supervisor so I didn't get any shit.

I've had a fire extinguisher in my house for 40 years and only had to use it one time on a electrical fire on a pool filter outside my home. I probably will never have to use one again, but I have one ten feet from where I'm typing.

I intend to keep carrying a firearm. There is a very, very small chance that I might need it tomorrow or sometime in the next ten or twenty years.

To me it's like winning the Florida lotto. I realize that I have no chance at ever winning the big prize but I still buy one ticket for each draw. If I don't have a ticket, I have ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning. I carry a firearm not because I live in constant fear, but because I am proficient with one and if there was a need to legally defend my life or the life of some other individual, I would feel like a total fool if I had left it behind.

And I might end up a dead fool because I wasn't carrying my concealed weapon. (I would have a hard time living that down wherever I ended up).



or




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #98
125. I have used my car fire extinguisher twice.
First time I stopped a grass fire when it was just starting, before it became a brush fire and threatened homes. Probably the fire department would have been able to handle it in time.

Second time a car burst into flames in front of me. I kept the flames suppressed while the driver got her baby out of the back seat baby seat. I feel pretty good about that one.

The point is that you never know what is about to happen. So with my gun I am prepared if sudden violence comes my way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. And before anyone pulls the "you can't hold up a 7-11 with fire extinguisher" response...
... let me point out that criminals use guns in every country on the planet, regardless of local gun laws. There is no correlation between the number of firearms in entering the civilian market (aka "gun proliferation" if you're inclined to use such loaded terminology) and the number of violent crimes committed using firearms. We can see that in crime statistics of the past forty years in the United States alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
118. A person confined to a chair who uses a gun in self-defense is a "coward?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
123. I guess the Green River Killer is a hero in your book
Yep, Gary Ridgway; convicted of 48 murders, confessed to another 23, probably killed at least another twenty, for a total of 90+ murders. Oh sure, they were all lone women, whom he got to a secluded spot before killing them, but since he strangled every single one, most using nothing but personal force, I guess that makes him less of a coward in your book than anyone who would contemplate using a firearm in defense of him-/herself and his/her loved ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
117. Your notion of self-defense is some yee-HAH sophistry...
"Why can't some of us interpret 'self defense' as fighting against the production and dissemination of these destructive bravery replacements in the first place?"

Go ahead. No one's stopping you. Just don't expect many folks to go along with your hot-wired "logic." BTW, how would you "fight" for your 'self defense'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
26. Yet another anti-Democrat, anti-Obama website linked to in the Gungeon.
Wonderful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Yet another gun-control advocate who refuses to discuss the FFs.
FYI - They did write the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
110. One of these years, you may learn what an "argumentum ad hominem" is
Then again, perhaps not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
120. And you prefer the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center? Thought so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
29. Quaint and obsolete. With today's technology, a gunman can shoot dozens in minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. He could then too. There was a repeating rifle back then.
Perhaps you should learn more abut guns. Lewis & Clark took it on their expedition.

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005...

The gun was described in the journal of a traveler (Thomas Rodney) on the Ohio river who met Lewis, and saw it demonstrated.

Visited Captain Lewess barge. He shewed us his air gun which fired 22 times at one charge. He shewed us the mode of charging her and then loaded with 12 balls which he intended to fire one at a time; but she by some means lost the whole charge of air at the first fire. He charged her again and then she fired twice. He then found the cause and in some measure prevented the airs escaping, and then she fired seven times; but when in perfect order she fires 22 times in a minute. All the balls are put at once into a short side barrel and are then droped into the chamber of the gun one at a time by moving a spring; and when the triger is pulled just so much air escapes out of the air bag which forms the britch of the gun as serves for one ball. It is a curious peice of workmanship not easily discribed and therefore I omit attempting it.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Lewis & Clark are one thing. J6P is another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
82. Why? What is the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Usually J6P means "Joe 6 Pack".
What Shares means is anybodies' guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
93. That was my point...
Of course they did not have 6 packs back then. But....
"On July 4, 1805, the party finished the portage and, to celebrate Independence Day, consumed the last of their 120 gallons of alcohol and danced into the night."

Again, they were not some super humans because they were working for the governement. They were still just some dudes named Bill and Meri who went exploring for their boss.

120 gallons... Sweet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #93
122. And they had an ND
With that very air gun , the day they were to leave IIRC .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. To do what? Repel Indian attacks? Under claim of a constitutional right no less?
Please. Let's keep it real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. You said that today's technology allow a gunman to shoot dozens in minutes.
I merely pointed out that the technology to do that already existed back then.

I carry my gun to defend against street crime, so I don't need dozens of shots. Most self-defense gunfights involve three or less shots. Just in case I am in a really bad situation, I carry a spare magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. Dude!!!
Again... C'mon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #86
92. I am keeping it real.
What if I need to repel an attack at 3am from the Indians or Whites, Hispanics, Blacks or whomever wants to split my head open for the sheer fun of it all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #92
102. We turn again to the example of Fannie Lou Hamer...
...who let it be known she kept a shotgun in "every corner of the bedroom," to which she credited the fact that nobody ever tried to burn a cross on her lawn, or worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #86
100. The "wild west" was much safer than some cities are today ...
Indians and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
107. Your point?
Oh, wait. You don't do those.

Or logic or fact...etc...etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
135. He can do a lot better than that.
Without a gun.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
83. I will be back tomorrow. Work night shift. Time to go to bed. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
99. I played the night shift game for more than 30 years ...
I'm retired now, but my sleep is still screwed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #99
126. I am retired too, but still have a job to supplement the retirement.
The job is eazy. Sit in a booth and read, watch DVDs, occasionally hand out or collect a time ticket from a driver who wants to park. Check to see if ticket is validated, if not collect fee. Go back to movie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. Your job is a lot less stressful than the one I had. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #126
136.  My "retirement" is only working 8 hours a day. And not getting shot at. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-10 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
108. The FFs were on the money about this issue.
Sane people realize they have the right to defend themselves and bear arms.

That's why certain.....groups....will always be tilting at windmills and chuckled at when they depart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC