Florida State Seminoles

[sardis]

Stupid for who?

Occupying Wyoming would be like trying to occupy Afghanistan, at least from a topography standpoint.

[sardis]

The CNN/Morgan interview shows the left's frustration with not being able to really admit publically what they want to do, and that is to ban handguns. They know, politically, it would be a killer for them, but it is becoming more difficult for them to suppress.

[hedge]

It wouldn't affect me at all if the 2nd amendment was repealed and all guns except hunting rifles were banned. Hell, it wouldn't even affect me if all hunting rifles were banned. I don't think it would much affect anybody, any more than, say, banning all motor vehicles that could go faster than 75 mph or any such other thing that some people like to do (own and shoot guns in this case) and that others don't care a whit about. It's really a non-issue for me, which is why I doubt any truly restrictive gun laws will ever get on the books. The people who really care about it are the gun owners, there are a few who get outraged when there's a mass shooting (but don't really give a shit about urban gun violence b/c it's gang and drug related and those people deserve to die, anyway, blahblahblah), but that's very short-lived, and then I think there's alot of people like me who just don't really give a shit, it's not like I'm going to expend any effort to ban guns in any way, even though if they were banned, I wouldn't care at all and I don't think the world would change much at all except alot of gun owners widdle feeling would be hurt and their asses chapped and we'd see alot of hot air about "rights" and stuff "enshrined" in the constitution, as if the constitution can't be changed and "rights" granted and taken away, which is what happened in the first place.

[sardis]

I am not a gun owner, but I like checks and balances. As long as ATF, FBI and police have automatic weapons, I want the law abiding public to also have these weapons.

Fairness Doctrine, Patriot Act, Hate Speech. Many folks, including myself are very concerned about government limiting freedoms, lately. If the President does an executive order on gun restrictions and bypasses the normal constitutional legislative means of overriding amendments, I am buying the most advanced weapon I can get so I can defend my rights if need be.

[Fifer]

The 2nd Amedment was created so that the ultimate power lay in the hands of the people and that a criminal government could not sieze control from an unarmed public. Download the movie Schindler's List and see what happens to the unarmed who cannot defend themselves from a criminal government.

I think we will be seeing more definace of Federal control from states in the future. The next clash will come with health care reform. As a lifelong student of the American Civil War I shudder to think what will happen if and when the Federal government goes into financial default. ( And it will if something doesn't change and soon) Should that happen, and I pray it does not, look for the in place, financially sound, state governments to sieze control of the nation. What will happen from there, God only knows, but the America we have known all our lives will be very different.

[eCat]

you should care though - because if they can make an argument that the second amendment is no longer valid, then what is to stop them going after freedom of religion to go after the growing Islamic population to counter terrorism, or freedom of speech to control internet blogs that support whistle blowers, or even MSNBC or Fox News? There will be no shortage of Americans who would support those actions in their belief its truly for the greater good of this country. They'll justify by saying things like the founding fathers never envisioned America under attack by suicide bomding extremists or the internet allowing instant information to be granted to millions of people worldwide - just like they are saying Americans were never meant to have an AR-15 assualt rife.

Even if you don't agree with the second amendment, its part of the foundation of this country - and altering it isn't just a slippery slope to open up more gun control, its a slippery slope to go after more rights afforded to citizens in our constitution.

If that sounds crazy or far fetched, just think about what we do now to justify our security against terrorism - the Patriot allows the warrantless wire tapping of citizens, we've redefined what torture is - now doing what we tried the Japanese for as war crimes in WWII, and we now routinely bypass due process and right to speedy trial for anyone labeled an "enemy combatant" even though we are not at war with a specific country or resident citizenship.

we should be viligant against any form of government that thinks it can alter our liberties in times of crisis because once you give them up, you will never get them back.

[hedge]

In that case, I'll move to California...

[hedge]

"Even if you don't agree with the second amendment, its part of the foundation of this country - and altering it isn't just a slippery slope to open up more gun control, its a slippery slope to go after more rights afforded to citizens in our constitution."

I do agree with the second amendment, but I agree even more in the idea that the constitution can be changed to accord with the will of the people. It's not easy to change the constitution and it's not meant to be. A simple majority doesn't get it. It has to be overwhelming public sentiment and will. And that's more important that any particular idea that seemed like a good one at the time to some rich white dudes 250 years ago who came up with it. And they knew that, which is why they made it clear that the constitution could be changed. It's not the Ten Commandments and they didn't want it to be.

Just b/c something is in the constitution doesn't mean it's "right" forever and ever and never to be questioned or changed. Sometimes it gets changed for the worse (IMO, anyway), such as Prohibition. But then that got repealed. But the president nor the congress can alter the constitution, only the people can. That is the real cornerstone of the American culture and way of life, that the power to make the rules ultimately lies with the people, not the government. The government - at least theoretically - derives its power from the people. If you don't like a politician, you can vote him out. If you don't like a law, you can change it (or vote for the person who will change it). All I'm saying is, if a vast majority of the PEOPLE in this country decide that they don't think citizens should own guns or have free speech or whatever, that's the way it's going to be. If somebody doesn't like it, they can leave. But just b/c Thomas Jefferson or any of the others thought a rule or law or amendment was a good idea doesn't mean that anyone today needs to agree with it. Those guys weren't Moses and they weren't God. The Constitution can be changed...

[sardis]

I am ok with that; however, the restrictions are not going through that process. Executive order to put restrictions on guns smells of tyranny.

[Bklyn]

Jesus, Fifer, get off the ledge.

Also, Ha-fucking-ha, that if only the Jews had some Colt six shooters, the ovens wouldn't have worked. Yeah.

I think hedge has it totally right. The Left isn't that concerned about guns with the fervor that the Right keeps claiming they are. It just doesn't bear out in real life. Most people in the country, red or blue, don't care tremendously about gun ownership rights (or the threat of losing it) enough for it to crack a Top Ten list. The only time it comes up is in these tragedies, then it dies down. The only people I see crowing non-stop about the government taking away "our guns" are people on the Right. It works out well for the arms industry. They get flooded with orders when the paranoid (Right) start screaming.

Also, if the Federal Government goes into default any "soon" it will be because of a few extremists on the Right. And if that magical, mystical day does happen, and it leads to a snapping of the threads that bind this Republic, those financially sound state governments would be a list of about 3 and I think they'd all be blue.

Either way, that scenario is about as plausible as the Soviets deciding to invade America via parachute drop in the strategically vital state of Colorado.

[Owlman]

The 2nd Amedment was created so that the ultimate power lay in the hands of the people and that a criminal government could not sieze control from an unarmed public. Download the movie Schindler's List and see what happens to the unarmed who cannot defend themselves from a criminal government.

That's only true if you ignore the whole 1st clause of the second amendment. Of course, that second amendment is there and so is article 2 putting the President in control of those same militias.

As long as ATF, FBI and police have automatic weapons, I want the law abiding public to also have these weapons.

The ATF and FBI are federal and the police is state. If your argument is that you have a right to defend yourself from the federal govt, then automatic weapons are not enough. They'll just drone your ass and your family. Or tank, or many other weapons that the feds have that you don't have. If you want the same weapons as the police because of the patriot act, that's also federal. Why do you need it against the states?

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

I do not believe the first clause of the second amendment is limiting. Rather, it is an explanatory example. For example, imagine our forefathers had envisioned automobiles and saw fit to protect them and had an amendment that read like this:

The freedom to easily cross state lines being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and own cars, shall not be infringed.

I do not read that as it being mandatory that I cross state lines to have the right to buy a car. Just that the first clause explains one of the many reasons for such an amendment.

I also do not believe that the second amendment only gives rights to the people in service to the President (or government). If that had been the attempt, the second clause of the 2nd amendment would have probably read ",the right of the militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If it were just for people under Federal command, it would be the only amendment of the original Bill of Rights where the authors were granting a right to the President or Federal Government. The rest, I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX all granted rights only to citizens, and X granted rights only to citizens and individual states. It would seem to me the Feds granting power to themselves in the second, and to citizens in the rest would be odd.



----


I also disagree that a group of rebels without the tanks and Black Hawks being unable to mount a resistance. We saw that they were in Korea, in Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan.

[eCat]

I"m not sure where you keep going with that spacer given that when they talk about a militia, its clear they aren't talking about a professional standing army.

[sardis]

The 2nd Amedment was created so that the ultimate power lay in the hands of the people and that a criminal government could not sieze control from an unarmed public. Download the movie Schindler's List and see what happens to the unarmed who cannot defend themselves from a criminal government.

That's only true if you ignore the whole 1st clause of the second amendment. Of course, that second amendment is there and so is article 2 putting the President in control of those same militias.

As long as ATF, FBI and police have automatic weapons, I want the law abiding public to also have these weapons.

The ATF and FBI are federal and the police is state. If your argument is that you have a right to defend yourself from the federal govt, then automatic weapons are not enough. They'll just drone your ass and your family. Or tank, or many other weapons that the feds have that you don't have. If you want the same weapons as the police because of the patriot act, that's also federal. Why do you need it against the states?

If that's your interpretation, then you wouldn't need an amendment for that. An amendment that spelled out the rights of the President to control the militias?

It is clear from the writings of those who enacted the amendment of its purpose. Both federalists and anti-federalists agreed as to the public being armed to defend against government tyrrany. The disagreement was over whether the government should sponsor an army through the militia system. I know liberals don't like the 2nd amendment and think it is outdated, but if you want to get rid of it you have to do it through the legislature, not through some bogus interpretation or executive order.

[eCat]

A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.

The group, named Citadel, intends to purchase 2,000 to 3,000 acres for the project in western Idaho. The community will comprise of 3,500 to 7,000 families of patriotic Americans who "voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of Rightful Liberty."

According to the Citadel website, Rightful Liberty means that "neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors' business, that neighbors live and let live."

Citadel explains that residents in the community will be bound by the following:

Patriotism
Pride in American Exceptionalism
Our proud history of Liberty as defined by our Founding Fathers, and
Physical preparedness to survive and prevail in the face of natural catastrophes --such as Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina -- or man-made catastrophes such as a power grid failure or economic collapse.

Residents should also agree that being "prepared for the emergencies of life and being proficient with the American icon of Liberty -- the Rifle -- are prudent measures."

Some of the benefits of the Citadel community include a safe, well-prepared, patriotic community where children will be educated in school, not indoctrinated.

The community will be protected by a perimeter wall that will be inaccessible to "tourists." Each neighborhood within the community will have lower walls, dividing the town into defensible sections.

[sardis]

I prefer to keep my fight in the city streets of Charlotte using the other citizens as human shields. Being out in the middle of nowhere makes you an easy target.

[Bklyn]

That Citadel shit is hilarious. I love it.

Sounds a little Communist-esque, ironically.

[eCat]

if that was going to happen anywhere in the United States, it would be Idaho. They wouldn't even bother to secede there because it would mean they'd have to actually talk to the government.

[Jungle Rat]

Im actually looking out the window waiting for Paul Revere the 9th to drive by in his Prius screaming, "THE CHINKS ARE COMING!!! THE CHINKS ARE COMING!!!"

[hedge]

"If your argument is that you have a right to defend yourself from the federal govt, then automatic weapons are not enough."

It's enough to make them have to think about it before they come barreling into people's homes. They already do barrel into people's homes on the thin premise that possession of drugs gives the government the "right" to force their way into citizens' homes, sometimes using deadly force, which is also "OK" if they even merely suspect the citizen has drugs, if they kill somebody's dog or even the home owner and it turns out their info was bad or that the person just didn't have drugs, whoops, our bad, sorry about that.

And yet most people are fine with that, most people think that if a person has marijuana in their home, it's OK for the government agents, who are paid and armed with guns and bullets by our tax money, to destroy whatever private property they think necessary to get into somebody private residence, shoot their dogs or anybody else who happens to be there and then confiscate the private property of these people and use the money to pay themselves and buy more guns and bullets for themselves so they can continue to do more of the same. I'm sure many of those agents have fun doing their "jobs". I find it disgusting that many (and probably a majority) of americans have absolutely no problem with the scenario I just described. It is as egregious and blatant example of government violation of civil rights as I can imagine, the drugs laws themselves and everything that follows from them. But nobody gives a shit, even many people who claim to be anti-government and pro- personal liberty...