Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

History teaches us to not disarm

February 14, 2013

To the editor: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(71)

ProdigalSon

Mar-07-13 5:56 PM

I'm not sure what you think the SCOTUS does. I can direct you to a ruling they recently made concerning this very topic:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 [2008].

Issue

What rights are protected by the Second Amendment?

Holding and Rule [Scalia]

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.

The opposition in that case, Washington D.C., had the same premise you do. The SCOTUS disagreed with them and overturned their unconstitutional gun ban. That hasn't been lost on the 2A supporters here.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Mar-07-13 2:41 PM

Prod, last time I checked SCOTUS bases their decisions of original intent on the contents of the constitution, not "Common Sense" or "The Neccesity of Taking Up Arms".

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-06-13 11:56 AM

"Most of us would rather concentrate on improving the quality of our lives instead of wasting time living in fear and worrying about the next Armageddon. ~h75

hartman. Come out of the fog. You're sitting in a 6 seater life raft with a bad leak sporting the name Collectivism, while the USS Constitution, with Libertarians at the helm, is bearing down on you hard. Call your legislators and ask them why they can't support gun ban bills. It's got a lot more to do with what they'll face at the polls than what Ruger or Colt thinks.

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-06-13 11:47 AM

"Eliminate the billions spent by the gun industry and their lobbyists and we would have better legislation."~h75, the artful dodger

Uhm, right, so that the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence", who are the picture of individual liberty, can show us the way to peace, love and a victim rich society? The pseudoscience studies funded by The Joyce Foundation are objective?

You're partially right h75, I don't share YOUR understanding of politics. I'm a tad more jaded and a lot less naive.

6 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-06-13 11:35 AM

"Prod, you're quoting statements that were applicable 240 years ago..."~SELyonCo

It appears the application still applies, at least according to the SCOTUS, that determines interpretation of original intent, as evidenced in their 2008 rulings in Heller v. D.C. and MacDonald v. Chicago.

I think where your premise unravels is in it's Marxist foundation. Pick up a copy of The American Spectator and see if you can't become a little more main stream.

5 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-06-13 11:01 AM

"Our MN legislators are not supporting your contentions. Gun bills here died a quick death, with a DFL majority applying CPR. The plug was pulled by your own people."

For someone who claims to know so much about modern warfare, you sure don't know much about modern politics Prod. Current gun laws have NOTHING to do with good judgement, wisdom or common sense. They have everything to do with money. Eliminate the billions spent by the gun industry and their lobbyists and we would have better legislation. You have every right to live in your make believe world but don't expect anyone to join you. Most of us would rather concentrate on improving the quality of our lives instead of wasting time living in fear and worrying about the next Armageddon. But hey, you can be sure that when the U.S. Govt. decides to attack its citizens, we'll make sure you get the credit for being the first to have warned us.

15 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-06-13 10:53 AM

That 7 mil figure I used for concealed carry permits is not an accurate figure. We have 8 states with Constitutional Carry, [no permit or license required]. Those states represent over 14 million people. 13 more states have bills in their legislatures to become Constitutional Carry states.

We may not duel, but when the blacks declared war on the Koreans during the '92 L.A. riots, the Koreans defended life and property with their own guns. The US Supreme Courts have held we have no expectation of protection from any government entity against anything. Kind of nullifies your contention, doesn't it? Yes, I do think the SCOTUS trumps SELyonCo.

6 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-06-13 10:34 AM

SELyonCo, your "society has changed" rhetoric sounds compelling, but is it supported by any facts?

This "changed society" has OVER 7 million concealed carry permits among us. Over the past 4 months, gun purchase background checks have been over a million each month, a 30% increase over a year ago. The numbers would be higher, but supply can't match demand. Hardly evidence of a society that subscribes to your picture of what YOU think we've evolved to. You seem to assume all have got on board with your collectivism [for the good of the many, we must do away with the rights of the individual. Our MN legislators are not supporting your contentions. Gun bills here died a quick death, with a DFL majority applying CPR. The plug was pulled by your own people.

Nice presentation with nothing to support it, I'll give it a 4 / 10.

6 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Mar-06-13 8:51 AM

Prod, you're quoting statements that were applicable 240 years ago. A lot has changed in 2 1/2 centuries. We no longer settle disputes with duels, or take the law into our own hands with posses. We have a constitution that defines a peaceful means to alter our form of government, and a military force sworn to uphold that constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. A military force with a superiority over any other force the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Roman empire. Patriotic quotes from Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson are all well and good, but the situation to which they applied no longer exists.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-05-13 9:46 PM

Once upon a time the British shot down unarmed people on the Boston Streets. The colonists had the right to be armed under English common law, but in the "name of safety", confiscation was ordered, bringing us to April 19, 1775 and the shot heard round the world. It wasn't about a tea tax.

Our issue, boiled down, isn't about magazine capacity. It's about collective rights vs individual rights. Our Socialists cry "the people have the right to be safe" [collective], the others assert their [individual] right to self defense.

7 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-05-13 8:33 PM

"Talk like that is what fuels the calls to disarm."~SELyonCo

Talk like what? Like this?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands." Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

"They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." Patrick Henry

6 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-05-13 8:29 PM

"Talk like that is what fuels the calls to disarm."~SELyonCo

Talk like what? Like this?

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Samuel Adams

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." John Adams

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

6 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-05-13 8:23 PM

Get a message to your people SELyonCo..

"I have as much reservation about targeting their house as they have about targeting mine."

I won't be taking any offensive actions. I won't ignore any possible defensive ones.

6 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Mar-05-13 8:54 AM

Prodigal, I sincerely hope your comments are simply for shock effect, & that you do not seriously advocate domestic terrorism as a course of action to effect change.

Targeting government employees? Repeats of OK City? Talk like that is what fuels the calls to disarm.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Really

Mar-03-13 9:36 PM

AL, you know a thing or two about underwear don't you. You did vote for a guy who wears a magic pair after all.

17 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-02-13 8:52 AM

"Prod, you clearly have no idea how modern warfare works."~ SELyonCo

Goat herders in Afghanistan don't understand how modern warfare works either. With 60 y.o. AK 47's and 100 y.o. Mosin Nagant rifles, they cost our efforts billions in $$ and thousands of lives. We're no closer to "victory" than when we started. We have Drones. They have IED's made of pesticides, spark plugs and washing machine timers.

Five repeats of the OK City bombing and the people needed to force our compliance won't show up for work.

Put 300 million firearms in the hands of the Chinese, we'd see a different government there. If we give up ours, we'll see a different government here.

Chris Dorner put thousands of cops under their beds for 10 days. 20 like him'll bring total chaos.

None of this is lost on those that know we have 300 million guns.

8 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Mar-01-13 10:25 AM

"Prod, you clearly have no idea how modern warfare works."~ SELyonCo

Maybe. Enlighten me. While you do that, maybe I can school you a bit on the 2A. The whole purpose of the 2A is to provide such a multiplicity of arming scenarios, most of them anonymous, that the government would forever fear the people. It isn't necessary to take the battle to their field, you simply use the FOIA to find out where any government employee earning over 6K a year lives. I have as much reservation about targeting their house as they have about targeting mine.

10 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Feb-27-13 5:59 PM

Wow! I knew that was a drone flying over my house spying on me! Thank goodness prod has confirmed my paranoid suspicions. Area 51 will soon be revealed as a government cover-up and then of course will come the war of the worlds against the martians. We should all be allowed to have our own atomic weapons I suppose, right prod?

20 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-26-13 9:35 AM

"....it shows an incredible lack of trust in our constitutional system of government."~SELyonCo

Make no mistake, I trust the constitutional system. It's worked for 224 years. It's a blueprint for freedom and liberty.

I don't trust those who wish to redesign our constitutional system. You know, the kind that would suspend the 2A so they could stifle the 1A and protect the New Order by doing away with the 4A......

10 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Feb-26-13 8:22 AM

Prod, you clearly have no idea how modern warfare works. You won't be a 1000 yds from the drone operator; you'll be a 1000 miles. Yes, the British had superior tactics for fighting traditional armies, but as you point out the American forces weren't traditional. Tactics aside, though, the average Britsh soldier wasn't armed any better than an American militiaman. That is no longer the case.

What is more disturbing about this whole "we need guns to fight the government" argument is that it shows an incredible lack of trust in our constitutional system of government. The framers of the constitution went to great lengths to provide the people with non-violent means of changing their government and eliminate the need for future revolutions.

20 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-25-13 8:25 PM

SELyonCo, Hodge's letter refers to history...to gain perspective. Those who fought the Revolutionary War were by no means a political majority here...they had opposition from within AND from the British. The British forces they faced were superior in all ways, using state of the art "linear tactics", unlimited resources.... We beat 'em with guerrilla warfare. Nuttin' fancy.

Now days, a citizen may not last long against a drone armed with hellfire missiles.

Those who direct the drones may not fare well when dispatched from a thousand yards away by .300 Win Mag. Anyone that plans on letting the opposition set the ground rules has a bad strategy, technology ain't a one way street.

Your claim kinda reminds me of a little boy whistling real loud as he walks by the cemetery.

12 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Feb-25-13 1:41 PM

So far WBL947 is the only one to address Mr. Hodges absurd assertion that we need these weapons to fight the government. I say absurd because, as WBL947 stated, all the assault rifles in the country still aren't going to be enough to over-throw the government. No civil uprising in this country will succeed without the military backing it. Bushmasters cannot defeat tanks, bombers, precision artillery, guns that shoot around corners, etc.

When the 2nd amend. was drafted military & civilians had the same weapons. That isn't the case anymore. Bottom line is that the 2nd amend. is out-dated & needs to be replaced by something that reflects the reality of the 21st century.

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Feb-25-13 11:54 AM

And here I thought the real problems were criminals with guns and mentally ill people being allowed to buy and own guns.

I see Obama got very poor marks today for his admin's almost complete lack of prosecuting folks breaking existing gun purchase laws - and now he wants more laws to not enforce?

4 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Feb-24-13 7:06 PM

Yes, like some lawmakers willing to take a stand and offer up those bills. The very real problem are the gun groups and lobbyists.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-21-13 6:58 PM

Hearings began in the Senate today for the gun control bills. NO "ASSAULT WEAPONS / MAGAZINE BILLS. The support just isn't there. The big push now is "universal background checks". And some bills that would allow the police to arbitrarily determine who they can grab guns from.

Too bad this time and effort isn't directed at effective solutions to a very real problem.

11 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 71 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web