Simple & unpleasant truths
ps...@aurora.alaska.edu
For all those of you who support the gun ban, here's a simple and unpleasant
truth: The reason that people were given the right to bear arms by the Second
Amendment is so that they might be able to defend themselves against the
government, and if necessary, destroy it, if it should become too tyrannical.
Period. You think the Brady Bill will solve crime? Not hardly. Forgive my
ignorance, but I didn't think that gang members, robbers, etc. went down to the
gun store and bought their weapons; I was under the impression that they got
them through illegal, and hence unregulated, channels. Banning assault
weapons? That's REAL good. Besides the fact that all that did was make every
single privately-owned assault weapon disappear, what imbecile actually thinks
that that will stop someone from getting one if they really want it?
As to the police who whine about getting killed on the streets, here's
another simple and unpleasant truth: I'm sorry, but that is what you are PAID
to do. You are paid to go out and get your head blown off if society requires
you to do so. If you don't like that, then obviously you don't belong in the
police force. I'm sorry that you chose to become a police officer, but that was
YOUR decision. I really don't feel like having my civil rights abridged to
make your job easier.
Trouble Man
<ps...@aurora.alaska.edu> wrote:
>
> For all those of you who support the gun ban, here's a simple and unpleasant
>truth: The reason that people were given the right to bear arms by the Second
>Amendment is so that they might be able to defend themselves against the
>government, and if necessary, destroy it, if it should become too tyrannical.
>Period. You think the Brady Bill will solve crime? Not hardly. Forgive my
>gun store and bought their weapons; I was under the impression that they got
>them through illegal, and hence unregulated, channels. Banning assault
>weapons? That's REAL good. Besides the fact that all that did was make every
>single privately-owned assault weapon disappear, what imbecile actually thinks
>that that will stop someone from getting one if they really want it?
>
> As to the police who whine about getting killed on the streets, here's
>another simple and unpleasant truth: I'm sorry, but that is what you are PAID
>to do. You are paid to go out and get your head blown off if society requires
>you to do so. If you don't like that, then obviously you don't belong in the
>YOUR decision. I really don't feel like having my civil rights abridged to
>make your job easier.
Where does it say police are PAID to get killed in their contract? They are
PAID to keep the peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is a tragedy for those that feel,| TROUBLE MAN
and a comedy for those that think. | el...@iastate.edu
-Horace Walpole |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Roger Adams
>From: ps...@aurora.alaska.edu
>Subject: Simple & unpleasant truths
>Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 19:59:23 GMT
> As to the police who whine about getting killed on the streets, here's
>another simple and unpleasant truth: I'm sorry, but that is what you are PAID
>to do. You are paid to go out and get your head blown off if society requires
>you to do so. If you don't like that, then obviously you don't belong in the
>police force. I'm sorry that you chose to become a police officer, but that was
>YOUR decision. I really don't feel like having my civil rights abridged to
>make your job easier.
No wonder we have such a hard time trying to keep our rights when idiots like
you start spouting your intelligence. Thanks a lot you really ought to join
handgun control or one of those idiot groups since we don't need your help on
our side of the issue. Our police are trying to do a very difficult job and
what they need is a justice system that backs them up not some idiot telling
them that they are paid to die.
Roger
Josh J Fielek
>In article <1994May12...@aurora.alaska.edu> ps...@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>
>>truth: The reason that people were given the right to bear arms by the Second
>>Amendment is so that they might be able to defend themselves against the
>>government, and if necessary, destroy it, if it should become too tyrannical.
>
>situations that prompted the Second Amendment?
Hooboy!
I _love_ history!
Okay - I do not remember the exact date, but one evening in 1775 or
thereabouts, a British contingent snuck into the Williamburg Armory
and took all the powder, and the private weapons of many of the colonists.
This theft of the arms of the community was a strong incitement to the
establishment of the Second Amendment. It also prompted the citizens
of Williamsburg to keep a decent supply of powder at home.
Note that the reason for the armory was for the storage of powder, to
keep the homes safe from an accident that is no longer a threat with
modern ammunition. Of course, the Armory also stored cannon and sword,
along with some of the colonists' weapons.
Jefferson was not to far away when this theft of arms occurred. It is
to my understanding that Patrick Henry was very influential from this
point on as the British began to act in the tyrannical manner he had
predicted.
On an aside - I am building a house within twenty miles of
Williamburg, where the armory still stands. I can check the exact date
if you wish.
As for the other colonies - South Carolina, Charleston in particular,
was raided at night several times by British Soldiers seeking arms.
For that matter, so were Boston, Philadelphia, and several other major
cities.
J. Fielek
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Joshua J. Fielek DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#969
Inter-National Research Institute 1986 VF1000R 1984 XL250R
j...@speedy.inri.com 1982 CM450E 1975 RD350
"Whip it. Whip it Good." - Devo 1988 EX500 198X Aero 80
J.L. Millar
>In article <1994May12...@aurora.alaska.edu> ps...@aurora.alaska.edu
writes:>>
>>truth: The reason that people were given the right to bear arms by the Second
>>Amendment is so that they might be able to defend themselves against the
>>government, and if necessary, destroy it, if it should become too tyrannical.
>I support your viewpoint, but I wonder if you can cite examples of
>situations that prompted the Second Amendment?
Here's my take on it.
The Second Amendment begins "A well armed militia being essential..."
(This is paraphrase - I don't normally carry a copy of the U.S. Constitution
around with me, being Canadian and all.)
I think what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind was this:
1. We just about got our asses whupped by the world's biggest standing army
(England at the time).
2. We don't want to be like the English and keep a huge standing army. It's
too expensive and we're too small a nation. We'll keep a militia
(citizen volunteer) army instead.
3. To have a militia ready to go at a moment's notice, we'll make sure the
volunteers have the right to keep arms in their homes and the right to
use them in defense of the Union. (Remember the Minutemen - They were
militia, and got their names from the quickness with which they prepared
for battle.)
The right to keep and bear arms was originally intended to ensure a large,
well armed militia in lieu of a standing army, not carte blance for
citizens to own and use any firearm they desire. To some, this may be an
interpretation of history, but I base my view on the writings of American
histrians like Shelby Foote.
That said, I think what's happened to the Second Amendment is a travesty. A
simple amendment meant to ensure an adequate defense in case of war has been
perverted by many, especially the NRA, into a sickening excuse some people
use to justify carrying concealed handguns, use large-bore, high powered
military rifles for "sport," or keep heavy, teflon-coated hypervelocity
body armor-piercing ammunition for "home defense."
What a shame.
Now, THAT said, it's still the law of the land. The Second Amendment has
come to mean a different thing than it meant originally and, though one
may disagree with that interpretation, one still must change it in one
of four ways:
1. Amendment, as the Democrats are trying to do by passing
a bill through Congress.
2. Plebescite. Put it to a public vote: Change the law or not?
3. Rebellion. Ignore the law and take matters into your own hands.
4. Revolution. Overthrow the keepers of the Law.
My $.02
>thanks,
>Jeff
You're welcome,
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Millar |
University of Waterloo | Hooked on Phonics worked for me!
jmi...@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca |
Mark O. Wilson
|The right to keep and bear arms was originally intended to ensure a large,
|well armed militia in lieu of a standing army, not carte blance for
|citizens to own and use any firearm they desire. To some, this may be an
|interpretation of history, but I base my view on the writings of American
|histrians like Shelby Foote.
If he wrote that, he is not a historian, but rather a revisionist.
Try reading the writings of the men who wrote the damn thing. They disagree
with you 100%.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
JCowart
: In article <1994May12...@aurora.alaska.edu> ps...@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
: >
: > For all those of you who support the gun ban, here's a simple and unpleasant
: >truth: The reason that people were given the right to bear arms by the Second
: >Amendment is so that they might be able to defend themselves against the
: >government, and if necessary, destroy it, if it should become too tyrannical.
: I support your viewpoint, but I wonder if you can cite examples of
: situations that prompted the Second Amendment?
: thanks,
: Jeff
How about the original US Revolution? If I remember correctly,
the people decided that they needed to defend themselves against
the government (Britian) and what started out as an attempt
to establish for themselves the rights of Englishmen ended
up in a new country. It took more than just their guns,
but it did take their guns to accomplish that.
jtis...@news.delphi.com
>In <JMILLAR.2...@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> JMI...@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (J.L. Millar) writes:
>|The right to keep and bear arms was originally intended to ensure a large,
>|well armed militia in lieu of a standing army, not carte blance for
>If he wrote that, he is not a historian, but rather a revisionist.
>Try reading the writings of the men who wrote the damn thing. They disagree
>with you 100%.
[sig deleted]
Yeah, but those guys aren't too informed of current events, being as
dead as they've been for sooooooo long.
The 2nd Amendment is an example of how pretty but ambiguous writing can
cause huge controversy down the road, and what a lousy attorney Jefferson
would be if he were still alive and writing LEGAL POETRY like that today.
There seems to be two theories behind the "right to keep a well-regulated
militia" thing in the 2nd Amendment:
1. We have the right to keep an army, navy, marines, boy scouts, etc. to
protect ourselves from crazy godless Indian tribes, English guys with
big furry hats, and any other dirty foreigners who invade American
states, American territories, lands adjacent to American territories,
lands adjacent to foreign states who are our allies, foreign states who
are our allies because they don't like the English (or the communists,
drug lords, war lords, Traci Lords, etc etc...).
2. It means that we, ordinary citizens, (as opposed to strange, WIERD
citizens) have the right to pack heat to overtake the government if
it becomes too tyrannical. Thus we have the constitutional right to
attack the government and overthrow it, if need be. I have a feeling
that this is what he meant but I can't be sure until I ask him, and
he's already dead. (I'm too lazy to read his stuff so shaddup!)
If it means we have the right to keep an army, like #1 above, then
the amendment is unnecessary in the political climate of this century.
The military will never be legislated out of existence, because it has
such an entrenched bureaucracy. Even the Senate Appropriations Committee
has trouble telling it which of its toys are going to be too expensive.
But as this seems to be the "gun-control-nut-theory" that doesn't sway
most gun-nuts, I won't comment further on it. I'm not sure if it's even
true (see remarks about fluffy writing above).
If it means ordinary citizens can bear arms to protect themselves
from a powerful government, then it is also a joke. Armed revolts
against the government were first tried in the 1790's (Shays' rebellion)
and most notably in the 1860's (Civil War). Not to mention last year
(Waco, Texas.) They have never been successful, although you might argue
that we should at least have the RIGHT to be able to try to overthrow the
government if we want to. I sure as hell want to! But even if I had a
million guns, I wouldn't be dumb enough to try. The government has just
gotten too large to overthrow with the ease that the colonists overthrew
a remote, distracted, and dispersed English monarchy, twenty-two decades
ago. An amendment which says I have the right to keep a gun so that I'm
"as powerful as the government" doesn't do me much good if I'm subject
to an audit by the IRS, which, by the way, is taxing much more heavily
than poor King George ever did!
And with the amount of drive-bys, domestic shootings, accidental shootings,
suicides, and disgruntled postal workers running around today, the Second
Amendment doesn't seem to be a real amendment safeguarding real freedoms
(like the First Amendment, which everyone generally agrees is a pretty
cool amendment, even those who think it only applies to speech and
religion that they agree with), than a costly historical oddity in need
of fixing. (You know, like those old laws that say you can't tie an
alligator to a fire hydrant.) The 2nd Amendment has been GHOULISHLY
kept on its respirator by outraged types who have invested in $700 toys
and STILL have some money left in their checking account to send to
a particular lobbyist group, led by and for people who are SCARED
GREEN of having ILLEGAL $700 toys, and who have used the inherent
ambiguity in 18th century prose to keep their toys "safe"-n-legal.
And this is besides the point, but I'll say it anyway... I always hear
that waiting checks, cool off periods, blah blah blah, only target
"honest citizens" and not criminals. (Ever meet anyone you thought was
an "honest citizen"? Pseesh! :^P Even I lie through my teeth almost
every day.) Because EVERYONE knows that these laws only target honest
citizens, and not criminals who get their guns by illegal means, right?
BUT a major source of guns for the criminal community is honest citizens
selling their old, unwanted guns at yard sales, pawn shops, quite legally.
You don't have to be a gun dealer to legally sell a gun. If you own a
gun, you can legally sell it to any shmoe, with no cooling off period,
no background check, no NOTHING, except cold hard cash, since you aren't
a volume distributor of firearms. The only restriction is the tax on the
sale. And if they don't buy them from you, they steal them from you.
Plus, not all criminals get their guns "through criminal venues". Colin
Fergueson was a law-abiding honest citizen who passed a background check.
Bought his gun and took it to the Long Island Railroad. (I personally
like the Kalid Muhammad version: "God said, get on the train, Colin!")
Now if we didn't have such a tyrannical government, everyone on the train
would have been armed, right? They could have crouched behind their
chairs and shot him, unless he shot back, or was only wounded, then you
shoot him again if nobody's in the way, bullets flying all over the train.
I think I'll drive to work, thank you.
The Second Amendment was really an amendment written for the 18th century
when, face it, the population was roughly what it was in _The_Stand_
by Stephen King, and you didn't need many converts behind you to
overthrow a government. If there ever was an amendment which deserved
repealing, besides the 18th, it's this one. It was written in a time
when constitutions were considered things you keep around for fifty or
so years until you get tired of them, at which time you crumple them up
and write new constitutions. (Like what they did with the Articles of
Confederation, which they got sick of in just two years.) Sure, you had
to write all the laws over again if you did that, but before the
Lawyer Age, that wasn't as hard- there weren't many laws to be rewritten.
Let me ask you though, if you have your gun, uhh, when's your revolution?
Jason Tiscione
jtis...@delphi.com
The above represent my opinions.
U41...@uicvm.uic.edu
in particular to say about it. The above number 1) however although
often given as an explaination of the 2nd Amendment makes no sense. Why
would the founding fathers have safeguarded the right of the federal
government to keep an army when the 2nd Amendment only limited the
federal government at the time. Underr this reading the Constitution would
say that the federal government can simply not have an army, but it can't
stop itself from having an army, a rather find distinction if its a
distinction at all. A more reasonable alternative (in addition to the
obvious the people can bear arms one you gave as 2)) is that the militias
were thought of as state militias who should be able to overthrow the
federal government if it became tyrannical. Remember both that the 2nd
Amendment did not prevent the States from regulating weapons, and that
the biggest difference between the Articles of Confederation and the
Constitution was the added power given to the federal government with its
increased threat of tyranny. (There was a popular theory at the time that
only small governments could avoid tyranny.
> Lon
Lloyd R. Parker
Lloyd R. Parker
: federal government at the time. Underr this reading the Constitution would
: say that the federal government can simply not have an army, but it can't
: stop itself from having an army, a rather find distinction if its a
: distinction at all. A more reasonable alternative (in addition to the
: obvious the people can bear arms one you gave as 2)) is that the militias
: were thought of as state militias who should be able to overthrow the
: federal government if it became tyrannical. Remember both that the 2nd
: Amendment did not prevent the States from regulating weapons, and that
: the biggest difference between the Articles of Confederation and the
: Constitution was the added power given to the federal government with its
: increased threat of tyranny. (There was a popular theory at the time that
: only small governments could avoid tyranny.
Then why does the Constitution specifically say the militia can be
called out to suppress insurrections? It's silly to say the
militia is for the purpose of overthrowing the gov't if necessary
(something the Const. doesn't say) when the Const. says the militia
is for putting down revolts!
U41...@uicvm.uic.edu
the militia to supress insurrections as you say, while I still maintain
that it makes no sense for the federal government to protect its power
from itself. What sense can be made of this? Article II sec 2 refers to
the militia as the militia of the states, which when called forth (by
Congress) comes under the command of the President. What this implies
is that under normal conditions the regulating of the militia will be done
by the States, not the federal government. If what the Second Amendment is
protecting is the right of the States to rebel against the federal government
then it is reasonable to suppose that in the case of such a rebellion, when
the Congress calls them up they will not go (as happened with the army of
Virginia and of the various Southern states at the time of the Civil War.
To avoid such a war one thing the federal government would have been well
advised to try would have been to disarm the southern militias before the
rebellion, but on this reading, this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment
forbids.
Lon
Keith Braunwalder
: JTIS...@DELPHI.COM (jtis...@news.delphi.com) wrote:
< tripe spewed by Jason deleted >
: Good, reasoned post, Jason! Most logical.
Truly !? You 2 Komrades are a hoot. Waco was in armed insurrection, eh ?
You're faith in the government is astounding and reflects your obvious
immaturity ("I don't have time to read Jefferson's writing", etc). How can
anyone agree with an obviously uneducated opinion ?
Keith