Damn ExTank…
I hereby propose that ExTank be Renamed:
PATTON
And that all future posts be on a flag background. With the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in the background.
Those were two strong, clear posts. They certainly go a long way towards defing the pro-Bill of Right side of the debate.
Damn ExTank…
I hereby propose that ExTank be Renamed:
PATTON
And that all future posts be on a flag background. With the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in the background.
I am now considering going to the Bush VP thread and nominating you for VP
Those were two strong, clear posts. They certainly go a long way towards defing the pro-Bill of Right side of the debate.
Not enough experience to be a VP, but maybe a speech writer.
All issues are connected; there is no separation.
ExTank
Joe_Cool wrote:
Then again, the right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms, are not the same as the right to build arms or the right to buy arms – neither of which are protected at the Federal level.
That’s tantamount to saying that you have the right to vote, but actually entering the polling place and actually punching the ballot are not protected on the Federal level.
The fact is, I DO have the right to buy or build whatever The Constitution says I have the right to keep or bear. That was the original intention of the signers of The Constitution. Anything else would be infringement.
Yes, I see where this is headed…All of those infringements are indeed unconstitutional. But since they remain unchallenged, they stay on the books de facto. If the gun control lobby ends up pushing it too far though, they may very well be surprised with the outcome.
voltaire wrote:
Then I suggest you take up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban with the Supreme Court. The law bans the sale (and, therefore, the purchase) of any “assault weapon” built after September 13, 1994 – and such a weapon would clearly be the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would carry.
Good luck fighting this law on second-amendment grounds. You’re gonna need it.
Freedom: while I certainly appreciate the sentiment, please don’t ever compare me to that butchering sycophant again.
Majors George S. Patton, Jr. and Dwight D. Eisenhower, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, opened fire on and burned out over 15,000 destitute Veterans on July 28, 1932.
These men, most with their families and children as they were homeless, were seeking the same relief as other destitute people, and peaceably demonstrating for early payment or partial payment of their promised bonus for service overseas in WWI.
They even proposed a “Transfer Compromise” in which their bonus certificates, redeemable in 1945, could be purchased by individuals with the werewithal and time to wait for the money.
Roosevelt, the New Deal Socialist, ordered Federal Troops to open fire and burn them out.
Citizens, Veterans, women and children alike, all as destitute and poor as most everyone else in America at the time, were attacked with Tanks, Cavalry and Infantry, and then had their make-shift shelters burned to the ground, with many of them still trapped inside.
It made Waco and Ruby (actually Caribou) Ridge look like exercises in restraint.
Makes me wonder what Clinton might do if ever the Persian Gulf Veterans marched on the Capitol to demand action on Gulf War Syndrome.
ExTank
And what would be really scary about that scenario is: Gulf War Syndrome probably isn’t a real disease anyway!
I never claimed it was, Tracer.
Bolding mine.
ExTank
As I said above, once gun control laws are taken too far there is a distinct possibility of a considerable backlash.
I agree with all of the reasonable laws and restrictions on guns and weapons. I don’t think anyone wants people running around with all the same weapons that are available to the military. I really only care about weapons for self-defense, hunting, or recreation. When it comes to fighting tyranny and all that, it’s more about the sheer number of people than the weapons, although all the weapons for self-defense, hunting, and recreation don’t hurt. 
But once it all goes to far, and it likely will, I think the Supreme Court will save The Constitution from the over-bearing gun control lobby.
And as I said, the Supreme Court won’t be able to do jack-piddley about laws restricting the manufacture or sale/transfer of firearms, because the 2nd amendment only protects your right to keep arms and your right to bear arms. Any case citations to the contraty?
Er, I meant: Any case citations to the contrary?
Tracer: Nah, the case law is pretty thin and so ambiguous that both sides of the debate routinely cite the same rulings as being supportive of their positions.
Check out the excellent article:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The State of the Debate.
I don’t think that our current crop of Justices (Thomas, Souter and Paglia, in particular) will allow too much parsing of verbage as an end-run around their rulings; but Congress can always come back with Gun Control (New and Improved, with 25% More!) before their rulings have hit the press, and the whole process starts all over again.
Kinda what FDR did with his alphabet agencies in the '30s.
People talk about ammending the Constitution? Possibly allowing Judicial Review (with veto power) to the Supreme Court prior to a Bill being signed into Law?
That way all three branches are equal, and our Government really gets nothing done except in time of National Emergency.
ExTank
“My kind of Government!”
I’ve seen it reported in various newspapers that one of the main reasons for the reduction in gun crime is not the locking up of offenders but mostly the change in demographics.
Now ,not being one to trust the media ,I’m sure someone here could shed some light on it.
How many times have I heard it said that hunting rifles cannot stand up to the modern army? Too many.
If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government and the people were to rise up, I could quickly arm myself with millitary equipment including humvees, APC’s, and high explosives (land mines, M1 shells, and patriot warheads.)
Now, how do you think I’ll get this! First, I go to the local nation guard armory and take the vehicles. Then I drive not even 10 miles down Agency Street to the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and take the explosives. I am now armed enough to take on the US army. Better yet, I could deny them the means of manufacturing their ammunition. If I was really pissy, I’d drive up to Rock Island and take over Arsenal Island.
Now that I have weapons, ammunition, and vehichles, I sink a few barges in the mighty Mississippi, blow up a few bridges across it and I’ve severed transportation. I drive into Illinois and hit the BNSF rail yards in Galesburg.
When idiots make the comment that the populus cannot stand against a modern army, just think about how much infrastructure (civillian and millitary) is in your area.
PS - sorry if this is off of the curent subject.
“If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government”
Is this really a concern? I’ve seen the idea mentioned several times in these debates, and I’m wondering if people really do feel that such a thing is likely to actually happen.
Don’t those who have the power and influence to initiate a take-over already pretty much have what they want without taking such a risk?
Peace,
mangeorge
danielnsmith:
I hope by “patriot warheads” you weren’t talking about Patriot missiles. Those sorry birds didn’t hit a single Scud during the whole Persian Gulf war.
Sorry, I re-posted this question as a seperate topic in this, the GD. I decided it was off-topic. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Now that’s what I call exercising your 2nd ammendment rights.
Sorry, I let this go for three days, but what can I say. I’m weak.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, This thread seems to have split. I posted my reply to this in the new thread, located Here.
I’m interested in your opinions, so swing on by and let me know.
Joe Cool