Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

1,100 Green Berets Signed for


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,340 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:00 PM

Quote

The Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP) called our attention to a 2,929-word letter signed by  more than 1,000 Green Berets in support of protecting the Second Amendment and explaining why “all Americans should be concerned” about doing so themselves.

The letter was originally posted on the website Professional Soldiers, a forum that Military.com explained is operated by retired Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Jeff Hinton. Military.com also noted that the 1,100 signatories were not officially named due to the nature of their careers, but the letter notes all are current or former Special Forces members.

“Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society,” the letter by “Team Sergeant” reads.
The letter goes on to clarify a few points in the gun control debate. One of which is the misconception about “assault weapons,” for which many have proposed bans. The letter explains, as TheBlaze did in a previous article, that the term “assault” to describe rifles or other guns — especially semi-automatic ones — is often misplaced.
Under the letter’s definition of what an “assault” weapon is, the government has already “banned or heavily restricted” their sale. And an AR-15, for example, is not considered an “assault rifle.”
The letter takes a look at another popular vocabulary word of this gun debate: high-capacity magazine.

“As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines,” the letter reads. “Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such ‘high capacity magazines’ would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are ‘in common use’.”
They also point out in the Columbine shootings, gunman Eric Harris used a firearm in compliance with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that used 10-round capacity magazines.
“[...] Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath.”
The letter states that it is “politically expedient” to pass more gun control laws in light of recent events in the name of protecting children, but “is the problem really guns?” That’s the million dollar question isn’t it?
The letter goes on to discuss the intent and restrictions of the Second Amendment, court decisions involving firearm control and the unintended consequences of strict gun control laws. In the middle of the letter is the group’s general thesis:


So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?
The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

“Team Sergeant” then goes on to list their recommendations to create a safer society that protects the Second Amendment but “will require patience and diligence to realize an effect.”
Here’s the full letter:

Continued... http://www.theblaze....-2nd-amendment/


Poster Gummug just posted a video about the Battle of Athens, TN in another thread last night. It was new to himself, myself and I'm sure plenty others. Coincidentally I stumbled on this article today. Not sure if this is how he heard about it but I have decided to attach it to this thread due to the absolute relevance of the OP article.


EDIT: Sorry, didn't notice this didn't post as I intended...Fixed

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 30 January 2013 - 09:57 PM.

Posted Image

#2    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,256 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:06 PM

What I don't get: Nobody is threatening the 2nd, why all this hype?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#3    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,340 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

Screw it. I am posting the rest of the letter due to the great info about common misconceptions about guns and Assault rifles.

Quote

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world.

In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’
The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….” “The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.
On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind? The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.


Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 30 January 2013 - 09:26 PM.

Posted Image

#4    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,581 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

What I don't get: Nobody is threatening the 2nd, why all this hype?
lol, that is the point, YOU don't get it. but it doesn't mean this is how it is. you really think you see things beter than americans in america???

RESIDENT TROLL.

#5    Child of Bast

Child of Bast

    Queen of the UM Asylum

  • Member
  • 4,965 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • The Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
    Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers.But I'll tell you a secret: all the best people are."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

We always seem to think we know better than everyone else, so why not?

'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde

#6    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,457 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

What I don't get: Nobody is threatening the 2nd, why all this hype?
Q I think that the anti gun crowd would gladly take away my right to own firearms.  That is a given and it would be incredible dishonest to say otherwise.  Starting from that premise one need only look at the nature of the struggle and of the danger of allowing precedent to be set in the laws of the land.  So every time, without fail, that a challenge of any kind is made against the right to own firearms, the supporters of the second amendment are going to get their backs up.  If a group of citizens in this country decided to begin chipping away at the first amendment there would be such a hue and cry that it would seem the world was ending - and there SHOULD be such a clamor.  But if we as a society will be sanguine about the right to spew any kind of violence filled rot out on movie screens and TV then we had better be just as willing to accept that human minds ARE affected by such stuff and guns are merely the tools those troubled people use to express themselves.  The vast majority of gun owners will never even threaten anyone with one, let alone actually shoot anyone.  As you look at the rights that have been eroded over the past decade can you seriously believe that the government will not try to disarm us if an opportunity came along?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#7    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,256 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

They make much more sense than what one expects, and while everybody is just pointing out the second amendment.

And what anybody who knows District of Colombia VS Heller will fast point out, they are wrong in that the government cannot limit certain types of weapons:

Quote


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56

Source

So, I am afraid that nice, but besides the point being discussed a6t this time.

Now whether a ban on ARs is but a band-aid to soothe down some alerted parents is a different story. It will not make any difference anyway.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#8    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:27 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

What I don't get: Nobody is threatening the 2nd, why all this hype?

The concern is over the precedent gun laws that will effectively do nothing to stop crime(but will inhibit legal citizens) will make.  Guns cannot be banned outright.  It won't happen.  What can happen is decades and decades of small chips at gun rights that may eventually lead to the loss of gun right at some future date.


#9    Child of Bast

Child of Bast

    Queen of the UM Asylum

  • Member
  • 4,965 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • The Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
    Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers.But I'll tell you a secret: all the best people are."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postand then, on 30 January 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Q I think that the anti gun crowd would gladly take away my right to own firearms.  That is a given and it would be incredible dishonest to say otherwise.  

I guess I am incredibly dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.

'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde

#10    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,256 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postand then, on 30 January 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Q I think that the anti gun crowd would gladly take away my right to own firearms.  That is a given and it would be incredible dishonest to say otherwise.  Starting from that premise one need only look at the nature of the struggle and of the danger of allowing precedent to be set in the laws of the land.  So every time, without fail, that a challenge of any kind is made against the right to own firearms, the supporters of the second amendment are going to get their backs up.  If a group of citizens in this country decided to begin chipping away at the first amendment there would be such a hue and cry that it would seem the world was ending - and there SHOULD be such a clamor.  But if we as a society will be sanguine about the right to spew any kind of violence filled rot out on movie screens and TV then we had better be just as willing to accept that human minds ARE affected by such stuff and guns are merely the tools those troubled people use to express themselves.  The vast majority of gun owners will never even threaten anyone with one, let alone actually shoot anyone.  As you look at the rights that have been eroded over the past decade can you seriously believe that the government will not try to disarm us if an opportunity came along?

That there are some nobody doubts, but that is not what the discussion is about at this point, not even near to that. And they are hardly mainstream enough to get any of their wet dreams fulfilled... unless of course inaction leads to more fatalities.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#11    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,256 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:30 PM

View PostWickian, on 30 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

The concern is over the precedent gun laws that will effectively do nothing to stop crime(but will inhibit legal citizens) will make.  Guns cannot be banned outright.  It won't happen.  What can happen is decades and decades of small chips at gun rights that may eventually lead to the loss of gun right at some future date.

I doubt that very much. As long as the USA is not as densely populated as Japan there will always be good reasons to own a gun, and as long as there is a good reason gun ownership will not be inhibited.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#12    aztek

aztek

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,581 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:31 PM

another wet dream and delusion, that new laws\mesures will lead to less fatalities. which is also has been proven wrong over and over again.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#13    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

I doubt that very much. As long as the USA is not as densely populated as Japan there will always be good reasons to own a gun, and as long as there is a good reason gun ownership will not be inhibited.
Whether it can be done or not I don't know, but that's what the concern is as far as I know.


#14    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,340 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:42 PM

Phew... Now that I've read the entire letter it seems these fellas have worded and clarified every talking point that we've been using as good or better than anything. In other words, great job explaining the situation.

View Postquestionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

What I don't get: Nobody is threatening the 2nd, why all this hype?

Near as I can figure I think there has been a realization about just how uneducated and misinformed so many of us are concerning constitutional principals. Don't look at this from a paranoia perspective but more as an educational one. Even as emotions are rampant, you can't deny that conversing and learning about all things constitution is a bad thing, unless you are against people being informed. Though our opinions differ I take you as one who appreciates information. For as much bad info there is as much good info being spread throughout this forum and this country but at least it isn't just a one sided conversation.

Posted Image

#15    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,256 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:46 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 30 January 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

Phew... Now that I've read the entire letter it seems these fellas have worded and clarified every talking point that we've been using as good or better than anything. In other words, great job explaining the situation.



Near as I can figure I think there has been a realization about just how uneducated and misinformed so many of us are concerning constitutional principals. Don't look at this from a paranoia perspective but more as an educational one. Even as emotions are rampant, you can't deny that conversing and learning about all things constitution is a bad thing, unless you are against people being informed. Though our opinions differ I take you as one who appreciates information. For as much bad info there is as much good info being spread throughout this forum and this country but at least it isn't just a one sided conversation.

I would really love that people would have more informed opinions... but I agree with you, better they do care even if the theme is not current than they do not.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users