Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns Supreme Court could take guns case

So, what happened to the guy with bear arms?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

As in:
The right to Bear Arms,
be they Black, Brown or Grizzly.
or
You go ahead and put on that sleeveless tee;
everyone has a right to bare arms.

I haven't finished searching or transcribed it yet, but I recently ran across some Jefferson authorship in which he proposed that all Virginian males of militia age should be armed with one new rifle at the expense of the government, in an effort to assure that liberty would be defended properly.

This does not surprise me; Jefferson had a fairly expansive view of what it meant for the state to provide for the general welfare, which even included publicly funded schools that all could attend irrespective of their family's financial status.

I'll post more after doing a bit more collating and organising.

With that clarification, I completely disagree, and neither logic nor history supports that construction, in my view.

Francis Volpe's article is pretty much the standard boilerplate that one hears from those who seek to eliminate or severely restrict the private ownership and use of firearms, a knight -- comments that routinely go unexamined by those who make them because they are usually used only among like-minded people who relish those private or exclusive times when they can congregate and let their inner fascist run wild without fear of contradiction. Oh well, whatever floats their frog.:-)

There is one sentence though that he used that always brings a smile of resignation to me at the thought of the lack of thought that permeates much of our society. See if you can see the illogic -- even stupidity -- that is expressed in his use of this sentence:


If nothing else, these people can be extremely entertaining, no?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

As a card-carryling Liberal who does not believe in outlawing handguns, no matter what Rush Limbaugh declares that I believe, I do find the above argument spurious.

While the image of armed citizens shooting from the ramparts is a popular image and sells a lot of T-Shits, Consider the fact that they would be shooting at a trained, heavily armed military, with armor and air support. the reality makes that image ludicrous.

Next, consider the circumstances under which such actions would occur.

Considering how right-wing our government has become, and how right-wing our military commanders are, 90% of the Second Amendment "radicals" would be cheering on the military because whatever reason the White House gave for sending int he troops would be in line with wishes of the "Second-Amendmenters".

For example, how many of your gun owners out there would stand, with guns drawn, if the US Army rolled a tank through Washington, DC and started firing on the headquarters of the ACLU? Or Planned Parenthood? Or the Democratic national Committee?

George W. Bush is not going to start rounding up the FoxNews team staff, but perhaps that of NPR. Can we count on you standing at those doors, shooting back at those M-16's?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff would likely be leading the charge to rid America of such Treasonous people. The declaration "we defend those who disagree with us" is limited to 4th or July speeches and nothing more. Just ask Ann Coulter: One of the greatest heros to our Conservative (military) Leadership.

For my part, Americans, who have not been convicted of some crime, or under some other judgement (mental impirment, ... we can reasonably debate which ones and how severly) should be able to own guns both because such "routine" ownership is, I believe, constitutinally protected and because "rounding them up" would not work anyway.

That is, I believe, good enough.

As do I -- to an extent -- and that is why I would never use it as argument.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Thanks.

And I'm still waiting to hear from a "Second Amendmenter" who is ready to stand, shoulder-to-shoulder with the ACLU, to stop the bush Administration's wiretaping whomever they please, with only token notifications of anyone, let alone a judge.

Certainly the ACLU has been deficient in defending the Second Amendment as zealously as it has the others, but when defending freedom, waiting for "the other guy" to go first is a sure road to no rights at all. So how about it my Second Amendment friends?

Remember this fameous quotation:

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
~Pastor Martin Niemoller

Well, I am not sure what it is you mean by "Second Amendmenter", or how you would "hear" from them. I am not even sure it is a question that could be properly addressed as phrased. I think a better question would be, "Why are those who give lip-service to protecting some rights so eager to strip others of their right to the private ownership and use of firearms?"
Yours,
Issodhos

When they came for me,
I popped a cap in their ass.