(http://patriotshop.us/images/DSC_0005.jpg)
I’ve often thought about putting such a sign in my front yard, but in this neighborhood, a big block Ford engine hanging from a tree on a large chain means the same thing, and is more easily understood by the “folks.” :lol:
Steve Featherkile said:
Mike,The Second Amendment exists to protect self from external threat, and from unreasonable attack by government. It does not give me the right to attack “guys on oil rigs, or loggers, or break into local government meetings and shoot people who passed laws I objected to(sic).” Yes, I took some editorial liberties with the quote.
Note that the actions denoted by Mike are those of attack, not of defense. It does make a difference. If I were to do those things, I would expect to face at SWAT Team at the very least, and so would the Greenpeace guys.
I too would expect SWAT teams, and it always puzzles me how private ownership of guns is supposed to be a defense against a government which can muster SWAT teams
I’m sure the British were just as puzzled over that dilemma when they sent in their “SWAT” teams…
mike omalley said:Steve Featherkile said:
Mike,The Second Amendment exists to protect self from external threat, and from unreasonable attack by government. It does not give me the right to attack “guys on oil rigs, or loggers, or break into local government meetings and shoot people who passed laws I objected to(sic).” Yes, I took some editorial liberties with the quote.
Note that the actions denoted by Mike are those of attack, not of defense. It does make a difference. If I were to do those things, I would expect to face at SWAT Team at the very least, and so would the Greenpeace guys.
You need to see the context, in which Ric was defending the right of gun owners to object with violence, or the threat of violence, to laws they don’t like.I too would expect SWAT teams, and it always puzzles me how private ownership of guns is supposed to be a defense against a government which can muster SWAT teams
mike omalley said:
You need to see the context, in which Ric was defending the right of gun owners to object with violence, or the threat of violence, to laws they don't like.I too would expect SWAT teams, and it always puzzles me how private ownership of guns is supposed to be a defense against a government which can muster SWAT teams
You make it sound like their is something wrong with objection to laws made by an arrogant government. My point is that if a person is pushed hard enough they will revolt, even if it means loosing their own life in that revolution. All arrogant government officials need to realize that even members of the military or Swat Teams will eventually revolt and not support a government if or when the government goes to far. It is not violence, but the threat of it, that should be every lawmakers fear as they govern. May you nor I or any of our families ever have to take up arms against those in power, but may they always fear that we might.
You said - “it always puzzles me how private ownership of guns is supposed to be a defense against a government”
It concerns me that there are people that feel the same as you. I blame our public education system for creating generations of that type of thinking. I’m sure arrogant government officials appreciate it. Maybe you just live to close to the beltway.
Ric
I have zero problem with objecting to laws made by an arrogant government. I’m not sure why you are consistently determined to see government as some kind of constant enemy. There are lots of things about my govt. I don’t like, lots of things I object to, but I see those things as artifacts of compromise, and necessary because I live in a society with people who don’t share my views. For example, I detest helmet and seat belt laws. But I live in a society with people who think they’re necessary. I disagree with those people, and wish they hadn’t managed to pass the laws, but they did. Why should I hate government for that? It’s expressing the will of many of my fellow citizens; the logical conclusion is that I’d have to hate people who disagree with me. I don’t. A republic necessitates compromise, so that you and I, who agree on hardly anything, can both get along.
I thought the invasion of Iraq was a horrible idea, a tragic needless, arrogant mistake. But I never hated government for making this huge blunder. Lots of my fellow Americans seemed to think it was a good idea. So I resigned myself to holding a minority opinion.
On the balance, despite the many things about govt. I dislike, it mostly does me good. It provides and orderly lawful, framework for business, it keeps the peace (remarkably well since 1865), and it balances divergent political interests so that I never get everything I want, but I generally get some of what I want.
The constant virulent hatred of govt. that gets expressed here would make more sense if it came from a country where govt. has failed, but here we are in one of the world’s biggest, most prosperous,most dynamic, most free countries in the world, while people in this forum talk about the govt. as if this was some kind of 3d world kleptocracy.
I don’t really want govt. to be afraid of me. To tell you the truth, I don’t want anyone to be afraid of me. It’s not the way I want to conduct myself. I want my govt. to respect me and my rights. If it doesn’t I want to try under law to change it. If that doesn’t work? I’d try to form a political organization large enough to get what I want.The idea that I would go to a city council meeting and they would listen to me because they were afraid I might bring a gun and shoot the place up is morally repugnant. It’s bullying and intimidation instead of reason and compromise.
As I said, I’m not opposed to gun ownership, not at all: I enjoy shooting and the ocassional deer or water bird hunt.
It’s just that the private ownership of firearms was NEVER intended to protect sportsmen like you mike. It’s intent was and still is to protect us, citizens of the USA, from a tyrannical, out of control government.
If you want to do some reading on your own, research why the American Colonies felt it was necessary to declare independence from Jolly Ole England and King George. Start with the Declaration of Independence and read the grievances expressed ther. Then compare those grievances with what is happening today. Very similar complaints.
David Hill said:
It's just that the private ownership of firearms was NEVER intended to protect sportsmen like you mike. It's intent was and still is to protect us, citizens of the USA, from a tyrannical, out of control government.If you want to do some reading on your own, research why the American Colonies felt it was necessary to declare independence from Jolly Ole England and King George. Start with the Declaration of Independence and read the grievances expressed ther. Then compare those grievances with what is happening today. Very similar complaints.
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Well that’s a matter of opinion, which laws are good and necessary
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Bush did this to California, with the EPA regs
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
not appplicable
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
not applicable
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
not applicable
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
not applicable
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
hard to tell what this one means
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
not applicable
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
not applicable–judges are either elected or appointed to limited terms
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Ok, maybe this one
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
not applicable
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
Not applicable
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
not applicable, unless you want to count international law in overseas trade
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
the army? The national guard?
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Mock trial? I think not appplicable
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
nope
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
nope
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
nope
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
nope
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
nope
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
maybe, except the alterations were done by rule of law and in a republic
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
nope–not in all cases whatsoever, and legislatures have not been suspended
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
nope
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
nope
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
Blackwater security?
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
nope
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
nope
Doesn’t seem all that similar
The days of armed uprising being a threat in this country are long since passed, for a few reasons.
First, as the native Americans found out 100+ years ago, eventually you get outgunned. How many guns does the average gun owner actually own? (4, according to one source.) How many guns does the military have? Yes, there have been the odd fanatical “compounds” which are armed to the teeth against a ground assault. That’s all well and good for situations like Waco where it’s just a small percentage of the occupants that are viewed as combatants, and the world is watching to make sure no women or children get hurt. If you’ve got a rebellion where a whole community is joined together in an armed uprising against the government, women and children become acceptable collateral damage. You need look no farther than Iraq to see this playing out every day. The insurgency has been somewhat successful when the rules of engagement restrict the tactics available to the military. Change the ROE, as happened in many of the town cleanouts, and the game changes. I don’t care how many AK-47s you have, the cruise missile’s gonna win. I’m fairly certain that the right to own an ICBM isn’t covered by the 2nd Amendment.
More important than that, there are far more effective tactics available to us. Megabytes are the new bullets. Regardless of whether you like the outcome of this past election, you cannot deny the efficacy of the internet in producing the results. Grassroots efforts to make a statement are far more effective today than they have ever been. You don’t need a printing press anymore, you just need Twitter.
If a government wanted to oppress the population, they wouldn’t do it by taking their guns away, they’d do it by limiting or monitoring their internet access. You want to talk “threat to liberty,” e-mail and internet fora like this are darned simple to intercept and read. Don’t think for a second that “Big Brother” isn’t already watching that. As I said in an earlier post, a gun registry is pretty far down on the list of databases the government really cares about. Knowing who has guns legally isn’t near as valuable as knowing who’s prone to use them–registered or not–for ulterior purposes.
There are plenty of rational reasons for owning a gun. Defending yourself against the government? Probably wouldn’t top my list.
Later,
K
mike omalley said:David Hill said:
It's just that the private ownership of firearms was NEVER intended to protect sportsmen like you mike. It's intent was and still is to protect us, citizens of the USA, from a tyrannical, out of control government.If you want to do some reading on your own, research why the American Colonies felt it was necessary to declare independence from Jolly Ole England and King George. Start with the Declaration of Independence and read the grievances expressed ther. Then compare those grievances with what is happening today. Very similar complaints.
Ok, I’ll do that. Here’s the list of complaints against King George. Maybe you can point ones are going on today? Substitute “congress” for “he”"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Well that’s a matter of opinion, which laws are good and necessary
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Bush did this to California, with the EPA regs
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
not appplicable
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
not applicable
Quote:
. . He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.not applicable
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
not applicable
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
hard to tell what this one means
Quote:
. . He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.not applicable
Possible application to today’s activist judges and failure to reply to numerous “petitions for redress”.
.
.
Quote:
. . He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.not applicable–judges are either elected or appointed to limited terms
Aren’t presidential appointments are for life, i.e. SCOTUS?.
.
.
Quote:
. . He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.Ok, maybe this one
Good catch. IRS, BATFE, FBI, DHS, EPA, OSHA, DEP, ACF, BLM, SSA, DOE, etc, etc, etc.
.
.
Quote:
. . He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.not applicable
Definitely applicable. The united States were never supposed to have a standing Army. That was one of the main concerns of the colonists. States’ militias were to protect and defend except in time of war, as declared by Congress.
.
.
Quote:
. . He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.Not applicable
.
.
Quote:
. . He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:not applicable, unless you want to count international law in overseas trade
.
.
Quote:
. . For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:the army? The national guard?
.
.
Quote:
. . For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:Mock trial? I think not appplicable
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
nope
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
nope
Is that your final answer? This one is too easy. You may want to try again.
.
.
Quote:
. . For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:nope
Quote:
. . For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:nope
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
nope
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
maybe, except the alterations were done by rule of law and in a republic
.
.
Quote:
. . For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.nope–not in all cases whatsoever, and legislatures have not been suspended
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
nope
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
nope
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
Blackwater security?
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
nope
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
nope
Doesn’t seem all that similar
Interesting discussion!
Kevin nails it
Mike,
I always enjoy your knowledge and the debate. In many instances, I think you would find we agree on more than you may think we do. Many times it is just the differences that become the debate. Our biggest seperation seems to center around our opinions of government. My interpretation is that you see more good in most of the government than I do. I spent 20 years in the Coast Guard and saw how that worked and that is follwed with now almost 20 years working with the US Army Corps of Engineers and that is an experience in itself. I am just constantly remind of the corruption (that may come from the state I live in) and that it is almost always achieved by mandate and/or the lowest bidder. What’s the famous quote?
We’re from the Government and we’re here to help you.
I just found this RELATED article TODAY:
Fairbanks group will bare arms to support gun rights
Second Amendment Task Force schedules ‘open carry’ days
By Tim Mowry
Published Friday, February 20, 2009
FAIRBANKS — A growing group of Fairbanks gun rights activists will show their support for the Second Amendment today by openly carrying guns.
“We’re going to have an open carry day,” Schaeffer Cox, unofficial leader of the Second Amendment Task Force, said Thursday.
Members of the task force, which he called a “movement” more than a group or organization, will be displaying their firearms openly across Alaska’s second largest city on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays for the next two weeks, Cox said.
“There’s a social stigma that only cops and robbers have guns,” Cox said. “The truth is everybody is packing but nobody knows it because we keep it concealed.”
Cox said he expects about 500 gun owners in and around Fairbanks to participate.
The full article is here.
Open carry of handguns here in Pennsylvania is not only legal but often exercised. I have carried a 9mm Browning Hi-Power in a level two retention holster on numerous occasions shopping or dining out.
And in case you were thinking about keeping a missile in the house…
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov-sltouis-news-090219-missile-basement.3225d9e2.html
(We ran the story in today’s 6pm newscast, and I just had to post it here. )
Later,
K
This is what non-U.S. citizens do not understand about our self reliant heritage. Sovereignty does not lie in a king or government, but with our citizens and we in turn assign certain soverign powers to our country/states and the Federal government.
This is an excellent quote attributed to Noah Webster, a devout Christian and author of our first dictionary, a very intelligent man that sums up the reason the Second Amendment was written. It is philosophically 180 degrees off the claim that 2A was about a government controlled armed army of men.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 10 October 1787 (second only to the Federalist Papers in influencing ratification of the united States Constitution)
What level of fantasy is this?
Can you point out to me the groaning weight of oppression under which you operate? The US is a remarkably free, remarkably prosperous, remarkably orderly and functional society, and you are writing as if you think you’re living in Feudalism. It’s fantasy
You don’t like paying taxes. Neither do I. But really, to dress up your unhappiness about paying taxes in this kind of heroic millenial fantasy seems silly to me. But if you want to imagine yourself standing off Abrams tanks with a deer rifle, be my guest
We are free because of our sovereignty and our ability to protect that liberty. But we are losing our freedoms as the Federal gov’mint slowly, and now within the past 3 years, more rapidly strips us slowly as the proverbial “boiled frog”.
Congress continues to ignore the limits placed on it by the Constitution and in so doing is depriving We The People of our sovereignty. But the blame is with us. We continue to vote these dingbats into office without properly vetting them or looking at their records in office. Often we take the easy main line and vote for “the lessor of two evils” which is still a vote for evil. The two “big box” parties have so little difference in their philosophies. They are taking us to the same destination only on different tracks (train analogies). They see the Constitution as a rubber document that can be stretched to fit whatever form they want it to fit.
We can share some of that blame with the education system and main stream media (NYT, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, etc) that has been pumping our citizens with lies and half truths in our children’s textbooks and with opinions disguised as solid news reporting.
P.S. Tanks can be captured and turned to point the other way. I was a qualified tank driver and could still run a citizen owned tank or an Abrams. I do not foresee US troops firing on US citizens.
