we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty,
~Patrick Henry~ Speech to the Virginia Convention at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 25, 1775[/quote]
The “holy cause of liberty”.
Do you know where I see the problem?
Nothing, absolutely nothing is sacred anymore. “Right and Wrong” is what you make it, 'The Constitution is what you make it" " God is what you make it" “Value is what you make it and reinforce”.
Vice is virtue and virtue is a commodity to get what you want from others.
I doubt that most people would read this speech and be able to relate let alone resonate with the values he is talking about.
Their core is hollow. And without integrity there is no solidity.
Without solidity there can be no platform for the exercise of courage.
And without the exercise of courage there can be no hope for transformation.
And without transformation there can be no liberation.
It is important to remember that not all of the Colonists were on board with the Revolutionaries. At no time during the war were there any more than 3% of the total population of the U.S. actively engaged in warfare.
We won (in part) because we had the best weapons and the best tactics, not because of our numbers.
EDIT: I should also note that they were actively supported by roughly another 10%. ~20% supported the cause, but barely lifted a finger. One third did nothing, supported nothing, just blew in the breeze, and the final third actually supported the king. So there were, at one point, more Americans fighting FOR the king than against him.
Sound about like our current situation? How much have things really changed since then?
Also: DO NOT buy in to the forced perception that everyone is against Constitutionality, or that anyone who is prepared to fight to regain Liberty is a nut. This deception is two-fold, because it influences gullible, malleable people to believe it, and it also influences you to perceive that everyone is gullible and malleable enough to believe it.
Talk to the people around you. Get them away from the crowd and get to know what their point of view really is (and do not ever tell anyone else what they say). I think you’ll find that more people support the Constitution than not, but they may never admit it in public because of the aforementioned perceived perception.
You know the worst thing about this? It nullifies some of the advantage the law-abiding citizen has in protecting his home and family. It gives criminals a good resource for choosing which houses to burglarize. Also, if there’s a house they really want to grab something from, and the owner is on the list, they are more apt to be armed and take violent action toward any resistance they meet.
[/quote]
Bwahahaha!
The only appropriate response to this betrayal of law-abiding gun owners has been made;
First I just want to question the ownership of certain types of guns. Regardless of the argument as to what currently falls under the category of legally own able assault rifles in the US. Of the plethora of guns available for purchase I am confident that many serve no practical purpose other than to engage a large number of other well armed people in some form of paramilitary action.
These types of weapons didn’t exist at the time of our constitutions founding and thus even in regards to the 2nd amendment, I believe the ownership of such weapons needs more discussion. If we can all agree that a civilian should not have an automatic or burst fire enabled weapon, then I believe there are a number of other currently legal weapons we can all agree should be removed from the pool of available firearms. The way to accomplish such an action is a much more involved and hard question.
Beyond that, I would like to know how much money is being allocated to weapons control or detection. Surely more advances have been made that could boost law enforcement response time or safely disable or deter armed assailants. Perhaps there could be automated safety systems which can one day be made affordable in schools and public venues that would help ensure the impossibility of gun violence on our unarmed population.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
First I just want to question the ownership of certain types of guns. Regardless of the argument as to what currently falls under the category of legally own able assault rifles in the US. Of the plethora of guns available for purchase I am confident that many serve no practical purpose other than to engage a large number of other well armed people in some form of paramilitary action. [/quote]
Given the state of the world at the current moment, do you think it wise or unwise to be sufficiently armed and proficient as to serve a purpose other than ‘collateral’?
Correct. These weapons were not around. The musket was the technology of the time, and the U.S. citizens had the best muskets that could be manufactured at the time (which the British authorities tried to take away). Today’s technology is different, thus the meaning of the phrase “well armed” has changed. A person with a musket is no longer “well armed”.
Who says that select-fire weapons should be kept out of civilian hands? They are legal to buy and own in most states, but the cost is prohibitive.
Accomplish what? Drawing that line? Or enforcing it?
[quote]Beyond that, I would like to know how much money is being allocated to weapons control or detection. Surely more advances have been made that could boost law enforcement response time or safely disable or deter armed assailants. Perhaps there could be automated safety systems which can one day be made affordable in schools and public venues that would help ensure the impossibility of gun violence on our unarmed population.
[/quote]
Here’s the easy solution; DON’T HAVE AN UNARMED POPULATION!!
Predators prey on the weak and defenseless. Don’t be weak and defenseless. When predators are forced to attempt attack on the strong and armed, they get killed.
Voila! Greatly reduced number of predators, just by allowing people to defend themselves unhindered.
Most of these questions have already been answered earlier in this thread, if you’d care to read through it. I have no qualms answering your questions, it would just save you some time. Especially if you watch the vids that have been posted.
The vast majority of people are unarmed when in public and even if they are armed, they are not walking around with rifles. Why do I have to escalate my ability to rapidly kill an individual just because some asshole can go through his moms closet, pull out a high powered semi-automatic rifle and mow down 20 people before the police can arrive.
It doesn’t make sense. We became part of a civilized society so we don’t have to take measures like this. I should not have to be as well armed as our military or police force to defend myself. We pay taxes so these institutions can protect us. Not so I can worry about who I shouldn’t piss off because they may blow a gasket and pull a gun on me.
We already don’t have an unarmed population… what you are suggesting is that more people stay armed in public. How many more conflicts will turn into to shot outs? People are impulsive and tensions rise greatly when people are known to or likely to be carrying weapons.
If you think it is better to live like its the wild west and the only person that can protect you is you that’s great. It would be a step backwards for us to encourage this line of reasoning and would increase the number of fatal conflicts. If you can honestly tell me you would not be afraid or nervous to live in a place were every stranger around you was carrying a fire arm just because you had one too, your either insane, an idiot, or you have spent to much time in a war-zone where this is the norm.
Everyone having a gun all the time is clearly not a solution and we all know it won’t happen. Just the same as we know the government isn’t going to turn around tomorrow and raid every house in America to remove all of our guns. All I am saying is, we can consider removing guns that serve no purpose other than to kill lots of people very quickly.
Everyone having a gun all the time is clearly not a solution and we all know it won’t happen. Just the same as we know the government isn’t going to turn around tomorrow and raid every house in America to remove all of our guns. All I am saying is, we can consider removing guns that serve no purpose other than to kill lots of people very quickly.[/quote]
We don’t all agree that full auto/burst should be banned or restricted.
The problem with gun control is the metric for what is considered ‘guns that server no purpose other than to kill lots of people very quickly’ keeps changing. First, it was full auto. Next, the AWB (aka Scary Black Gun Ban). Now the talk is about semi-auto rifles. So no, there can be no compromise because people like you won’t be satisfied till every firearm is banned (or severely restricted). Unless you have a proposition that shows both statistically and logically that no further gun control is necessary, there can be no negotiation.
FWIW, I don’t think arming everyone is the answer either.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
The vast majority of people are unarmed when in public and even if they are armed, they are not walking around with rifles. Why do I have to escalate my ability to rapidly kill an individual just because some asshole can go through his moms closet, pull out a high powered semi-automatic rifle and mow down 20 people before the police can arrive.
It doesn’t make sense. We became part of a civilized society so we don’t have to take measures like this. I should not have to be as well armed as our military or police force to defend myself. We pay taxes so these institutions can protect us. Not so I can worry about who I shouldn’t piss off because they may blow a gasket and pull a gun on me.
We already don’t have an unarmed population… what you are suggesting is that more people stay armed in public. How many more conflicts will turn into to shot outs? People are impulsive and tensions rise greatly when people are known to or likely to be carrying weapons.
If you think it is better to live like its the wild west and the only person that can protect you is you that’s great. It would be a step backwards for us to encourage this line of reasoning and would increase the number of fatal conflicts. If you can honestly tell me you would not be afraid or nervous to live in a place were every stranger around you was carrying a fire arm just because you had one too, your either insane, an idiot, or you have spent to much time in a war-zone where this is the norm.
Everyone having a gun all the time is clearly not a solution and we all know it won’t happen. Just the same as we know the government isn’t going to turn around tomorrow and raid every house in America to remove all of our guns. All I am saying is, we can consider removing guns that serve no purpose other than to kill lots of people very quickly.[/quote]
I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but the sobering fact is that instant, armed resistance is the only thing that has ever been proven to stop criminal action.
The statistics stack up in favor of an armed citizenry, plain and simple.
The term fits the agenda. It is capable of being molded into whatever meaning they want it to have. It started as a weapon with select-fire capability, and now it is a semi-auto with a 30rd mag. Next it will be any semi-auto.