Actual Armed Citizens

[flacaltenn]

Dave:

Because of the relative success of the states in passing CCW laws, and the constant improvement in Insta-Check processing, and the attention of enforcement of mandatory sentencing for criminal firearm use, there are very few gun laws pending at the Fed level. However, there is one H.R. 45 that would essentially require registration of every gun with the Feds. THis is a red-herring that is DOA.. Guess we've won and all is well with the world. Whatcha bitchin' about?

MerryLander: I finally made it to WashPost "investigation". Don't have time to read it all now, but I will.. And YES, there is no current law that requires Federal paperwork on every gun that is "missing" from a dealer's inventory. Using a gun for parts or breaking into pieces for salvage is not a crime. Nor should it require a 4 page disclosure that is under penalty of prison time and $10,000. If you disagree --- propose the legislation.. But don't claim REPs or ole FlaCalTenn is blocking you from doing so..

Frankly, I'm tired of reading all the BS about what the wonderful founders thought and wrote as if they were themselves each gods. The most important ideal the founders built into our government and constitution was that things CHANGE and the constitution must be a living document that can also change. The 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT. It could be repealed. It could be modified. That, IMO, is no accident. Certainly the founders couldn't imagine automatic weapons, much less Blackhawk helicopters, nerve gas, or nuclear bombs. But they DID imagine that the world would be a different place in 50, 100, 200 years and built the idea that every generation has to interpret and mold the basic principles in the constitution to fit the times. Quotes about how flintlocks and muskets fit into 18th century politics when the enemy had to get across the Atlantic ocean in square-rigged SAILBOATS are fucking meaningless in today's world. Get a grip. "Strict constructionists," and all you who quote chapter and verse about a time in which a guy with the best weapon available would be lucky to give you a flesh wound from 100 feet away should grow up and look around a little bit. Sheesh.

Whoa.. JonL.. Accusing ME of drama and embellishment? Listen, what I know is that there is a clause in the original Constitution that ENCOURAGED privateering to keep the oceans safe. Called Letters of Marque/Reprisal -- ask the Lord of the Sea to explain this. But that didn't LEGITIMIZE normal citizens into owning state of the art (1790 style) battleships with multiple cannon and assaulting features --- It REWARDED the practice!

Ok -- so today we only have Halliburton and Private Security style privateers. No battleship owning, nuclear carrying citizens with a grudge. And I've already told you -- the NRA membership doesn't want to OWN howitzers and machine guns, they just want to rent them! Except for my neighbor, a Civil War enactor that has access to multiple WORKING cannons. Are we done with the flights of fancy here? Or is it really about restricting my weapon choice to a revolver and a single-shot bolt action?

It's clear that what was TIMELESS in the founder's message, was that liberties WOULD ALWAYS be under attack and that force of arms was to be reserved as a just last resort to tyranny.

Anyway -- got a question.. If you're so worried about the irrelevence of the that rusty ole Constitution gettin in da way of everything you desire ----- What about the technology and tactics that the GOVT now possessing to INFRINGE on your other rights?

I'm talking about military style policing using Thermal Imaging helicopters to infringe on your 4th amendment? Looking right thru your dam walls. Or your PANTS at the airport. Hows cum all you protectors of "sane" levels of firepower don't seem to get rattled when the tech advantage of 200 years is USED AGAINST you by the govt? Legally, they are attacking almost every other amendment with the advancements that have occurred since the document was written. Can I get even a whiff of concern for THAT? If I do -- then we can chat rationally about accounting for technology gaps in the Federal Constitution..

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Ok -- so today we only have Halliburton and Private Security style privateers. No battleship owning, nuclear carrying citizens with a grudge. And I've already told you -- the NRA membership doesn't want to OWN howitzers and machine guns, they just want to rent them! Except for my neighbor, a Civil War enactor that has access to multiple WORKING cannons. Are we done with the flights of fancy here? Or is it really about restricting my weapon choice to a revolver and a single-shot bolt action?

So we are to abdicate the decisions on what weaponry is acceptable to own to the NRA? Let them set the rules? We clearly need some sensible regulation on what armaments should be allowed and what should not. That you seem to agree basically says the 2nd amendment and it's blanket statement (I'm not going to look up the wording) about the right to keep arms "shall not be abridged" is FOS. YOU even want to abridge those rights to some extent. Now we're just arguing about the extent and who should set the rules.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

It's clear that what was TIMELESS in the founder's message, was that liberties WOULD ALWAYS be under attack and that force of arms was to be reserved as a just last resort to tyranny.

An armed revolution in the US is extremely unlikely to be successful. The argument about the force of arms as a hedge against tyranny may have made sense in the 18th century, even all the way up through much of the 20th century. Not anymore. It's now a ridiculous argument, and if it's the basis of the 2nd amendment it ought to be repealed and replaced with something that makes sense in today's world.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Anyway -- got a question.. If you're so worried about the irrelevence of the that rusty ole Constitution gettin in da way of everything you desire ----- What about the technology and tactics that the GOVT now possessing to INFRINGE on your other rights?

I'm talking about military style policing using Thermal Imaging helicopters to infringe on your 4th amendment? Looking right thru your dam walls. Or your PANTS at the airport. Hows cum all you protectors of "sane" levels of firepower don't seem to get rattled when the tech advantage of 200 years is USED AGAINST you by the govt? Legally, they are attacking almost every other amendment with the advancements that have occurred since the document was written. Can I get even a whiff of concern for THAT? If I do -- then we can chat rationally about accounting for technology gaps in the Federal Constitution..

Don't misrepresent what I've said. I think the Constitution is a remarkably prescient document because it has many layers through which it can be molded to suit the times. The irrelevance is in taking particular examples of 18th century thought and applying them as if they fit today's world with no adjustment. The ideas on militias and slavery, for example, aren't particularly relevant any longer IMO.

And I am EXTREMELY concerned about the government's intrusion into our civil liberties. I think most "leftists" or "liberals" are. It's strange because the right has always held up the ACLU as being communists or something, and the right, when in power, have generally been the ones to trample the rights in the constitution, but suddenly the right is painting the left as somehow being in favor of big-brotherism. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Although I am quite distressed that Obama has sought to extend the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," It was, after all, a Bush creation. Obama is, unfortunately, not the radical leftist the right pretends him to be.

[flacaltenn]

Don't be so quick to dismiss the "repeal of tyranny" argument JonL:

An armed revolution in the US is extremely unlikely to be successful. The argument about the force of arms as a hedge against tyranny may have made sense in the 18th century, even all the way up through much of the 20th century. Not anymore. It's now a ridiculous argument, and if it's the basis of the 2nd amendment it ought to be repealed and replaced with something that makes sense in today's world.

DOn't buy that at all JonL: Do you remember the Wash, DC sniper and his boy stooge who took the city hostage for a week or two with a beat up car trunk sniper nest and a bolt action rifle? For a larger example, look at Iraq. We CLEARLY have vastly superior military power in that region. WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? Is it because the insurgents have so much firepower?

Don't misrepresent what I've said. I think the Constitution is a remarkably prescient document because it has many layers through which it can be molded to suit the times. The irrelevance is in taking particular examples of 18th century thought and applying them as if they fit today's world with no adjustment. The ideas on militias and slavery, for example, aren't particularly relevant any longer IMO.

Those two examples were both fixed (with a very high price for slavery) a long time ago. We lost the argument about a standing army. Although there are many times (Libya) where I'd like to disarm the Feds. But congrats on recognizing the special gift of our Constitution. It's a hard job to convince an educated and armed America that the Founding Fathers were FOS.

And I am EXTREMELY concerned about the government's intrusion into our civil liberties. I think most "leftists" or "liberals" are. It's strange because the right has always held up the ACLU as being communists or something, and the right, when in power, have generally been the ones to trample the rights in the constitution, but suddenly the right is painting the left as somehow being in favor of big-brotherism. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Although I am quite distressed that Obama has sought to extend the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," It was, after all, a Bush creation. Obama is, unfortunately, not the radical leftist the right pretends him to be.

Both parties are incompent when defending "all other rights reserved to the states and people". You and I might completely agree on the basic principles of a new traditional Liberal party some day. If that was ALLOWED by existing laws. But it's not. The decks are stacked against political competition. I do disagree in that PROGRESSIVES (read that socialist leaning DEMS) are behind the VAST majority of nanny state proposals. Either from a standpoint of being repelled by the concept of capitalism and free markets, or because of "social justice" ideals of redistribution. They have a much lower view of individual capabilities to cope and thrive and DO view most folks as being victims of a system that needs govt intervention in EVERY aspect.

I don't need to check their voter registration. You just know. The principals of the schools who have MinuteMan murals who have painted over the patriot's muskets, (one in Mass several years ago replaced the musket with a broom) -- Trust me JonL -- these guys are all leftists.. In one fell swoop, rewriting history, pushing their agenda, treating the kids like they are idiots incapable of dealing with reality. Ripping white guys out of the textbooks, replacing HUck Finn with urban gang stories. NO WONDER there's push-back from the religious right. Sometime you ought to consider just WHO'S doing the pushing and WHO's doing the resistance to the pushing.

It's not shades of grey out there bud. You MAY have to eventually pick a side..

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

We CLEARLY have vastly superior military power in that region. WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? Is it because the insurgents have so much firepower?

No. It's because we're trying to force things upon a populace that they don't particularly desire and are practicing Manifest Destiny on a planetary scale.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

It's a hard job to convince an educated and armed America that the Founding Fathers were FOS.

Not if they can read: as the Founding Fathers weren't particularly fond of American Indians or black folks. (Well, beyond Jefferson...)

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

NO WONDER there's push-back from the religious right.

The religious right has ALWAYS been crazy. (My ancestors LOVED the religious reeducation camps!)

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

It's not shades of grey out there bud. You MAY have to eventually pick a side..

Long since done. The enemy is right wing, radical, might-makes-right types at the barrel of a gun.

Know any?

[flacaltenn]

Zeke:

No. It's because we're trying to force things upon a populace that they don't particularly desire and are practicing Manifest Destiny on a planetary scale.

Thanks for helping me make the point to JonL. Insurections are usually pretty powerful when the insurgents are on their own land.. And firepower may eventually win -- but patience and committment also count.

Can't help you with that "white devil" problem. I don't think any of the Founder's were "right-wing". I'm sure the outcome would have been much better if only we waited for the Brits, the French, or the Spanish to negotiate terms with your elders.. - before we revolted.

But don't target me pal.. I'm not right-wing either. The pain and suffering CONTINUES to this day for your folks, largely because the govt is STILL stealing stuff from you. (Can you say Indian Lands Trust Fund?)

So why would you be so enamored of the side that wants even BIGGER insincere incompetent govt?

Actually Zeke -- I take back that last question.. Both choices stink. Let's go have a beer..

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Don't be so quick to dismiss the "repeal of tyranny" argument JonL:



DOn't buy that at all JonL: Do you remember the Wash, DC sniper and his boy stooge who took the city hostage for a week or two with a beat up car trunk sniper nest and a bolt action rifle? For a larger example, look at Iraq. We CLEARLY have vastly superior military power in that region. WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? Is it because the insurgents have so much firepower?


Those two examples were both fixed (with a very high price for slavery) a long time ago. We lost the argument about a standing army. Although there are many times (Libya) where I'd like to disarm the Feds. But congrats on recognizing the special gift of our Constitution. It's a hard job to convince an educated and armed America that the Founding Fathers were FOS.



Both parties are incompent when defending "all other rights reserved to the states and people". You and I might completely agree on the basic principles of a new traditional Liberal party some day. If that was ALLOWED by existing laws. But it's not. The decks are stacked against political competition. I do disagree in that PROGRESSIVES (read that socialist leaning DEMS) are behind the VAST majority of nanny state proposals. Either from a standpoint of being repelled by the concept of capitalism and free markets, or because of "social justice" ideals of redistribution. They have a much lower view of individual capabilities to cope and thrive and DO view most folks as being victims of a system that needs govt intervention in EVERY aspect.

I don't need to check their voter registration. You just know. The principals of the schools who have MinuteMan murals who have painted over the patriot's muskets, (one in Mass several years ago replaced the musket with a broom) -- Trust me JonL -- these guys are all leftists.. In one fell swoop, rewriting history, pushing their agenda, treating the kids like they are idiots incapable of dealing with reality. Ripping white guys out of the textbooks, replacing HUck Finn with urban gang stories. NO WONDER there's push-back from the religious right. Sometime you ought to consider just WHO'S doing the pushing and WHO's doing the resistance to the pushing.

It's not shades of grey out there bud. You MAY have to eventually pick a side..

You certainly paint with a broad brush, and that brush wants to obliterate anything in the collective interest. The corporate state is not my idea of freedom.

Regards,

D-Ray

[flacaltenn]

D-Ray:

There ARE collective interests. And that would be fascinating to explore. But most of those interests can be served WITHOUT removing options from folks by govt mandate.

But there are also realities and limitations on power that are required. The corporate meddling you despise actually only gets worse -- the more power the govt assumes to favor ATT or Verizon by regulation.

Q. - What is the political system where business is privately owned, but totally regulated by a central govt power?
A. - I know the answer and I don't want to go near it..

And there are also priorities.. I would like to see the Feds masterfully fulfill their PRIMARY duties first. Like being responsible enough to write a budget -- even if one of the current clowns is pulling his pants down on Twitter.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

D-Ray:

There ARE collective interests. And that would be fascinating to explore. But most of those interests can be served WITHOUT removing options from folks by govt mandate.

But there are also realities and limitations on power that are required. The corporate meddling you despise actually only gets worse -- the more power the govt assumes to favor ATT or Verizon by regulation.

Q. - What is the political system where business is privately owned, but totally regulated by a central govt power?
A. - I know the answer and I don't want to go near it..

And there are also priorities.. I would like to see the Feds masterfully fulfill their PRIMARY duties first. Like being responsible enough to write a budget -- even if one of the current clowns is pulling his pants down on Twitter.

I know, I know....It's called Social Democracy. Look around you, there are Social Democratic nations less than a quarter our size, giving us some strong competition in the market place. Own a Japanese or German brand car? Heck, my car has an American name, but it's built by union labor----in Canada. Ever sit back and enjoy a nice French wine, or flown somewhere in an Airbus? Why are so many American manufacturers losing business to these people? Seriously, think about it, they can even come HERE and run a business better than our own companies can, with American labor, on our own turf and under the same government regulations.

Why is that do you suppose?

(Could it be that the penny wise and dollar foolish, self serving and corrupt way American managers do things is utterly destructive? Or, maybe it's because they (Our competitor nations.) spare no expense making sure their children get a high quality education, so that they turn out the best engineers and scientists? I tend to think it's a little of both.)

Dave

[merrylander]

Save your breath Dave, ol flack sees the world through his own personal filter.

[piece-itpete]

By just about any measure the US is wildly successful. I wonder why the left has to make it out to be a failure. Political reasons?

People want power. The government has vast monopoly power. The Constitution is supposed to limit their ability to grow it. Want 'free' healthcare? Do it at the state level. Why does the left feel like the must force everyone to do what they think?

Pete