Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,685
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.

Look at the vocal outrage of any touching of the first 10. You'll see the same kind of rabid defense. The 2nd is number two for a reason. It's the second most important right behind the 1st.

No that's really not why it's #2. There is no order of importance for the bill of rights, or any provision of the Constitution.

I have seen many threads about attacks on the bill of rights here, in particular the 1st and the 4th. I can't remember anyone proclaiming their willingness to fight to the death or plot a revolution against the government based on violations of these.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.

Look at the vocal outrage of any touching of the first 10. You'll see the same kind of rabid defense. The 2nd is number two for a reason. It's the second most important right behind the 1st.

No that's really not why it's #2. There is no order of importance for the bill of rights, or any provision of the Constitution.

I have seen many threads about attacks on the bill of rights here, in particular the 1st and the 4th. I can't remember anyone proclaiming their willingness to fight to the death or plot a revolution against the government based on violations of these.

The founding fathers wrote that their intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to defend yourself against the federal government should it get too tyrannical. It's not like you can use the 1st amendment, or any other amendment, and throw verbal barbs against a tyrant and get anywhere.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,685
136
Originally posted by: GeezerMan

The founding fathers wrote that their intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to defend yourself against the federal government should it get too tyrannical. It's not like you can use the 1st amendment, or any other amendment, and throw verbal barbs against a tyrant and get anywhere.

Right. This isn't like a Mega-Man game though, where you have to use the power of the amendment to defend itself. This still doesn't explain why one amendment's violation seems to spark so much more desire for battle/revolution/etc.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: GeezerMan

The founding fathers wrote that their intent of the 2nd amendment is to be able to defend yourself against the federal government should it get too tyrannical. It's not like you can use the 1st amendment, or any other amendment, and throw verbal barbs against a tyrant and get anywhere.

Right. This isn't like a Mega-Man game though, where you have to use the power of the amendment to defend itself. This still doesn't explain why one amendment's violation seems to spark so much more desire for battle/revolution/etc.

Well, probably because many think that taking away the guns means ( or an incremental taking away ) the federal government is becoming a dictatorship.
The 2nd amendment defends all of the Bill of Rights.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,685
136
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Right. This isn't like a Mega-Man game though, where you have to use the power of the amendment to defend itself. This still doesn't explain why one amendment's violation seems to spark so much more desire for battle/revolution/etc.

Well, probably because many think that taking away the guns means ( or an incremental taking away ) the federal government is becoming a dictatorship

My only point is that I find it interesting that they don't view the government increasing its search and seizure powers in the same way.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I always find the noble proclamations of armed revolt, promises of a fight to the death against the government, etc in these threads interesting. I never see any other amendments get this kind of rabid defense.

Look at the vocal outrage of any touching of the first 10. You'll see the same kind of rabid defense. The 2nd is number two for a reason. It's the second most important right behind the 1st.

No that's really not why it's #2. There is no order of importance for the bill of rights, or any provision of the Constitution.

I have seen many threads about attacks on the bill of rights here, in particular the 1st and the 4th. I can't remember anyone proclaiming their willingness to fight to the death or plot a revolution against the government based on violations of these.

Just kind of speculating here, but most violations of the 1st or 4th are typically individual cases or very small groups... not broad sweeping violations that would have direct and immediate impact on large segments of the population like this might have.

As for armed revolt, one has to consider the source, but a little surprised to see this openly discussed in a somewhat mainstream (or at least national) media outlet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...RY1vZk&feature=related
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,685
136
Originally posted by: BuckNaked

Just kind of speculating here, but most violations of the 1st or 4th are typically individual cases or very small groups... not broad sweeping violations that would have direct and immediate impact on large segments of the population like this might have.

As for armed revolt, one has to consider the source, but a little surprised to see this openly discussed in a somewhat mainstream (or at least national) media outlet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...RY1vZk&feature=related

I'm not that surprised, there was similar talk about armed revolt when Clinton was elected. There are left wing crazies and there are right wing crazies, but it would seem that the right wing crazies tend to be better armed and more interested in some sort of renewed civil war. Oh, and of course that was Fox News.

As for your ideas on why people would freak out, they make sense on a level. Maybe since the people on here don't see the government's violations of the 1st and 4th amendments as directly impacting them (as they never do until... well... they do and its too late), they don't get as up in arms about it.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


That said, i do keep my G3, my 870 and my Sig. 226 at home, with the active parts locked up in a gun safe and the non active parts in showcase which is good enough for keeping the weapons in even if they had their active parts in them.

Why is it that you feel the need to take your guns home?? What could you possibly need them there for????

:p

 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: BuckNaked

Just kind of speculating here, but most violations of the 1st or 4th are typically individual cases or very small groups... not broad sweeping violations that would have direct and immediate impact on large segments of the population like this might have.

As for armed revolt, one has to consider the source, but a little surprised to see this openly discussed in a somewhat mainstream (or at least national) media outlet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...RY1vZk&feature=related

I'm not that surprised, there was similar talk about armed revolt when Clinton was elected. There are left wing crazies and there are right wing crazies, but it would seem that the right wing crazies tend to be better armed and more interested in some sort of renewed civil war. Oh, and of course that was Fox News.

As for your ideas on why people would freak out, they make sense on a level. Maybe since the people on here don't see the government's violations of the 1st and 4th amendments as directly impacting them (as they never do until... well... they do and its too late), they don't get as up in arms about it.

left wing crazies just don't go online and advertise their weapons as much
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

You know what you sound like? Religious zealots. Here it is WRITTEN and so it shall be for all time. Please use your brains. Your constitution was written by ordinary men, not gods, and it can all be reinterpreted or rewritten or further ammended at any time without any holy smiting of any sort. Whether this should be done or not is a different debate - one which can be had calmly and without threats of violence.

You also sound like (and there's no way to say this kindly) a couple of blowhards, especially you palehorse, becasue you say you would rise up against *any* true threat to your rights - several of them have already been not only threatened but completely taken away! Since the patriot act you no longer have the right to a free trial, or any protection from search and seizure of your property, guns included!
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: Turin39789
left wing crazies just don't go online and advertise their weapons as much

Yea we keep our revolutionary groups quiet. Underground. Under that building over there actually. Dammit now I've said too much! PIERRE! HIDE THE BERETS!

*sound of hurried movement of hats*
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

Good to hear. I wonder how most of the armed forces would feel about urban exercises in small towns?
According to their clueless mayor, it's not a confiscation of guns, just a practice drill of going in and out of private homes. Reminds me of my youth, right before I had sex. " Oh baby, it's not really doing it. I just want to put it in for a few seconds"

Link


February 24, 2009

Iowa Guard ends urban war exercise amid outcry

By WILLIAM PETROSKI
bpetroski@dmreg.com

The Iowa Army National Guard has dropped plans for urban warfare training in the western Iowa town of Arcadia after being deluged by nearly 100 e-mails and phone calls from gun-rights advocates nationwide.

The four-day event in April would have involved between 90 and 100 combat troops arriving in the Carroll County community in a convoy with a Blackhawk military helicopter flying overhead.

Troops would have gone door to door, asking the town's 443 residents about a suspected arms dealer and conducting searches of homes if property owners volunteered in advance to cooperate.

There was no opposition to the Guard's plans from city leaders. But gun-rights advocates were outraged, and news about the exercise became a hot topic nationally on radio talk shows and the Internet.

Arcadia Mayor Oran Kohorst said Monday he was disappointed the exercise had been canceled. He said he had not heard of a single objection from residents, and he said the City Council supported it. At least two guardsmen live in Arcadia, and many residents either have served in the military or have family members who have served in the armed forces, he said.

"This was completely blown out of proportion," Kohorst said. "They were going to come through and meet with the townspeople and just practice going in and out of their homes. They were never, ever going to confiscate guns or anything like that."

Talk show host Alex Jones of Austin, Texas, whose syndicated radio program is carried on about 60 stations, said he had received phone calls on and off the air from people in Arcadia and nearby towns who objected to the plans.

He said he believes oil companies, in concert with central banks, are creating a worldwide economic crisis to set up a world government.

"This is part of an acclimation for martial law," Jones said of the National Guard's plans.

Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa Guard's public affairs officer, said Monday that some urban warfare training will still be conducted, but it will be held at the armory in Carroll instead of in Arcadia.

Rather than holding a large company-sized exercise, the training will be in small groups at the platoon and squad level.

He said Guard officials changed their plans not because of the protests, but because the unit ? Company A, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry ? has recently installed new leadership at the company and battalion level. Smaller unit training would be more beneficial, he said.

Company A is an infantry unit that served in Afghanistan for 13 months in 2004 and 2005, and it is expected to receive orders to return overseas within the next 24 months, Hapgood said.

One tactic used by infantry units is known as cordon and search. It involves creating layers of security in an area and then searching for weapons caches, explosive devices and bomb-making materials, and people of interest.

Hapgood said he considered the surge of e-mails and phone calls as a protest from outside of Iowa.

"We have been doing training in our communities for decades, so this is very routine business for us," Hapgood said. "We were quite surprised when we received e-mails from out of state criticizing the event. We have a responsibility to have our men and women ready to go into combat, and we are not going to change that."

Many of the e-mails were hostile, even threatening, Hapgood said.

One e-mail from a Texas resident said, "I am appalled the Iowa National Guard does not know what the Constitution of the United States says. ... How dare you?"

A man who described himself as a "Nevada citizen" wrote that it was good the exercise was called off: "It is possible that there would have been some dead Iowa Guardsmen."

Arcadia City Clerk Nancy Schmitz said she had 14 messages when she arrived at work Monday. All were apparently from listeners of Jones' show, she said.

"They all basically left the same message; they talked about it being like the Nazis and having the troops coming into our homes and confiscating weapons. It was very different from what was actually going to take place," Schmitz said.

She added she supported the training, calling it "a good opportunity to help out the troops."

Are you a moron or just play one on AT?

property owners volunteered in advance to cooperate

Also this was a training exercise because they are going to be deployed and do just this sort of thing. I swear some times people get WAY too trigger happy about the military.

BTW, this is a local thing for me and it was all over the news and such. However, it all stemmed from a very poorly worded press release by the Guard. They didn't mention it was specific training for duty they were going to be on nor did they say they were using the local town due to saving money as they would have had to travel a pretty good distance to the training facility. But anyway, as usual some people only hear what they want to hear.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

You know what you sound like? Religious zealots. Here it is WRITTEN and so it shall be for all time. Please use your brains. Your constitution was written by ordinary men, not gods, and it can all be reinterpreted or rewritten or further ammended at any time without any holy smiting of any sort. Whether this should be done or not is a different debate - one which can be had calmly and without threats of violence.

You also sound like (and there's no way to say this kindly) a couple of blowhards, especially you palehorse, becasue you say you would rise up against *any* true threat to your rights - several of them have already been not only threatened but completely taken away! Since the patriot act you no longer have the right to a free trial, or any protection from search and seizure of your property, guns included!

Hey look another foreigner jumping in to a US Constitution issue. It's hilarious...
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look another foreigner jumping in to a US Constitution issue. It's hilarious...

Since your legal system and bill of rights is almost entirely based on ours that doesn't really make sense. Unless you're saying you don't respect the opinions of foriegners full stop. In which case you're a fool.

Besides I wasn't even talking to you.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

Good to hear. I wonder how most of the armed forces would feel about urban exercises in small towns?
According to their clueless mayor, it's not a confiscation of guns, just a practice drill of going in and out of private homes. Reminds me of my youth, right before I had sex. " Oh baby, it's not really doing it. I just want to put it in for a few seconds"

Link


February 24, 2009

Iowa Guard ends urban war exercise amid outcry

By WILLIAM PETROSKI
bpetroski@dmreg.com

The Iowa Army National Guard has dropped plans for urban warfare training in the western Iowa town of Arcadia after being deluged by nearly 100 e-mails and phone calls from gun-rights advocates nationwide.

The four-day event in April would have involved between 90 and 100 combat troops arriving in the Carroll County community in a convoy with a Blackhawk military helicopter flying overhead.

Troops would have gone door to door, asking the town's 443 residents about a suspected arms dealer and conducting searches of homes if property owners volunteered in advance to cooperate.

There was no opposition to the Guard's plans from city leaders. But gun-rights advocates were outraged, and news about the exercise became a hot topic nationally on radio talk shows and the Internet.

Arcadia Mayor Oran Kohorst said Monday he was disappointed the exercise had been canceled. He said he had not heard of a single objection from residents, and he said the City Council supported it. At least two guardsmen live in Arcadia, and many residents either have served in the military or have family members who have served in the armed forces, he said.

"This was completely blown out of proportion," Kohorst said. "They were going to come through and meet with the townspeople and just practice going in and out of their homes. They were never, ever going to confiscate guns or anything like that."

Talk show host Alex Jones of Austin, Texas, whose syndicated radio program is carried on about 60 stations, said he had received phone calls on and off the air from people in Arcadia and nearby towns who objected to the plans.

He said he believes oil companies, in concert with central banks, are creating a worldwide economic crisis to set up a world government.

"This is part of an acclimation for martial law," Jones said of the National Guard's plans.

Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa Guard's public affairs officer, said Monday that some urban warfare training will still be conducted, but it will be held at the armory in Carroll instead of in Arcadia.

Rather than holding a large company-sized exercise, the training will be in small groups at the platoon and squad level.

He said Guard officials changed their plans not because of the protests, but because the unit ? Company A, 1st Battalion, 168th Infantry ? has recently installed new leadership at the company and battalion level. Smaller unit training would be more beneficial, he said.

Company A is an infantry unit that served in Afghanistan for 13 months in 2004 and 2005, and it is expected to receive orders to return overseas within the next 24 months, Hapgood said.

One tactic used by infantry units is known as cordon and search. It involves creating layers of security in an area and then searching for weapons caches, explosive devices and bomb-making materials, and people of interest.

Hapgood said he considered the surge of e-mails and phone calls as a protest from outside of Iowa.

"We have been doing training in our communities for decades, so this is very routine business for us," Hapgood said. "We were quite surprised when we received e-mails from out of state criticizing the event. We have a responsibility to have our men and women ready to go into combat, and we are not going to change that."

Many of the e-mails were hostile, even threatening, Hapgood said.

One e-mail from a Texas resident said, "I am appalled the Iowa National Guard does not know what the Constitution of the United States says. ... How dare you?"

A man who described himself as a "Nevada citizen" wrote that it was good the exercise was called off: "It is possible that there would have been some dead Iowa Guardsmen."

Arcadia City Clerk Nancy Schmitz said she had 14 messages when she arrived at work Monday. All were apparently from listeners of Jones' show, she said.

"They all basically left the same message; they talked about it being like the Nazis and having the troops coming into our homes and confiscating weapons. It was very different from what was actually going to take place," Schmitz said.

She added she supported the training, calling it "a good opportunity to help out the troops."

Are you a moron or just play one on AT?

property owners volunteered in advance to cooperate

Also this was a training exercise because they are going to be deployed and do just this sort of thing. I swear some times people get WAY too trigger happy about the military.

BTW, this is a local thing for me and it was all over the news and such. However, it all stemmed from a very poorly worded press release by the Guard. They didn't mention it was specific training for duty they were going to be on nor did they say they were using the local town due to saving money as they would have had to travel a pretty good distance to the training facility. But anyway, as usual some people only hear what they want to hear.

"Train as you fight." I've been to Afghanistan twice, let me tell you that the houses don't look ANYTHING like small town Iowa, USA!

Besides, they have MOUT sites for this type of thing. I agree that they weren't going in and looking for illegal activity, taking guns, etc., they probably genuinely had honest intentions (the Guard). But this exercise LOOKS like training, designed by some group in a dark corner of the Pentagon, who only know each other by first names, to allow the military to practice an offense against the citizens of the US population during a crisis such as Katrina (or other more nefarious crises such as quelling a populist uprising). At least that's how a conspiracy theorist would see it. And I wouldn't much like it either.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?

They used the same argument before passing concealed carry laws in many states. That it would be the wild west out there. The wild west never came.

Link
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?

Think about it. Literally everyone? Obviously if you give a fool a weapon he's going to do something foolish with it. I'm sure a quick search of the news sites will turn up all manner of idiots shooting themselves or others in the foot, using their weapon as a pointing device in public, etc. I read a story a while ago about a guy who shot at a snake in a park but missed and killed a baby. He should never have been handling a firearm, or indeed, any heavy machinery at all.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: conehead433
Everyone should carry a weapon so we can stop these lunatics who want to do bodily harm to innocents minding their own business.

What if the result were to cause road rage and similar killings to skyrocket, where the killer gets away, while saving far fewer lives from the occassional nut mass killer?

Do you have proof of this correlation?

Why yes, I have bookfulss of documentation to prove that my hypothetical for discussing a principle is, indeed, the factual situation.

Next up: what if we found a way to power spacecraft with a thimblefull of water - and the proof that we can, since I asked!

Note: I am not trying to resolve the question here of what would happen. I'm asking how he would react if that were the result - would he abandon the policy or not?
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
There is no perfect society. So if a guy misuses the first amendment, and screams fire in a crowded movie house, killing people in a panic to get out,
I guess we should ban all speech.

Install a police state and I guarantee a drop in crime and gun accidents. The misuse of guns will happen. What price in freedom are you willing to pay in order to drop gun crime?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,834
10,970
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Atheus
Pretend you're a quiet liberal city dweller who enjoys reading and classical music. This man now appears to be insane. Would you want him heavily armed and roaming the streets?

Funny you should say that, since I'm a liberal academic who both listens to and plays classical music. I also defend my rights using any means necessary.
:thumbsup:
This issue has nothing to do with political affiliation, general ideological beliefs, or other political tendencies -- this is not a left or right issue.

Support for every amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be universal.

Even as a sworn member of the U.S. military, I'd be the first to resign and take up arms against the government if they ever truly threaten our citizens' inalienable rights. After all, I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Come after my guns, and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands...

You know what you sound like? Religious zealots. Here it is WRITTEN and so it shall be for all time. Please use your brains. Your constitution was written by ordinary men, not gods, and it can all be reinterpreted or rewritten or further ammended at any time without any holy smiting of any sort. Whether this should be done or not is a different debate - one which can be had calmly and without threats of violence.

You also sound like (and there's no way to say this kindly) a couple of blowhards, especially you palehorse, becasue you say you would rise up against *any* true threat to your rights - several of them have already been not only threatened but completely taken away! Since the patriot act you no longer have the right to a free trial, or any protection from search and seizure of your property, guns included!

Hey look another foreigner jumping in to a US Constitution issue. It's hilarious...

Whats funny is that its your constitution and your only defense to a critique of it is 'OMG your a foreigner WTF'. Its your founding document you should be able to do more than that. :roll:

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Whats funny is that its your constitution and your only defense to a critique of it is 'OMG your a foreigner WTF'. Its your founding document you should be able to do more than that. :roll:


I have no wish to get into a Constitutional debate with a foreigner when they come across like that or think that it can be "reinterpreted". It's meaning is solid and the only way to change it is through Amendments - not "interpretation".
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,834
10,970
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Whats funny is that its your constitution and your only defense to a critique of it is 'OMG your a foreigner WTF'. Its your founding document you should be able to do more than that. :roll:


I have no wish to get into a Constitutional debate with a foreigner when they come across like that or think that it can be "reinterpreted". It's meaning is solid and the only way to change it is through Amendments - not "interpretation".

What difference does it make where they come from?

 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Whats funny is that its your constitution and your only defense to a critique of it is 'OMG your a foreigner WTF'. Its your founding document you should be able to do more than that. :roll:


I have no wish to get into a Constitutional debate with a foreigner when they come across like that or think that it can be "reinterpreted". It's meaning is solid and the only way to change it is through Amendments - not "interpretation".

Governments 'reinterpret' documents all the time. The geneva convention comes to mind. I'm not saying it's right in this case I'm just saying it can and does happen.