Constitution is being twisted, like you are doing. Civic responsibilty, gone by the wayside. Knee-jerk, feelgood, rights swiping legislation is not the answer....
Last edited by NJCardFan; 02-12-2013 at 01:27 PM.
Second, Britain's attempts to disarm the colonists after the passage of the Coercive Acts (or Intolerable Acts, as they were known here), precipitated the Revolutionary War. The mission of the British forces at Lexington and Concord was the confiscation of the militia arms, but this was the tip of the iceberg. The Crown had successfully confiscated gunpowder stores from colonists in Massachusetts and Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Incident), and had banned the importation of powder and arms in 1774. This was why the Second Amendment was of such critical importance to the founders. They knew that any tyrannical ruler would seek to disarm the populace and enforce decrees by force of arms. This was also the source of the opposition to standing armies.
And, you are wrong. We cannot use the kind of force that you are describing against foreign enemies without massive civil unrest here. The Iraq and Afghan wars have been marked by tremendous restraint by US troops and extremely restrictive rules of engagement. Any government that tried to bring that to bear against Americans would have to be a utterly without scruples, constraints or conscience. A tyrannical government that would use the kind of force that you are suggesting would not suddenly crop up overnight. It would have to impose its will incrementally, and would have to gradually disarm us, muzzle us and erode our liberties. It couldn't confiscate our property outright, at first, but it could bully property owners to give up claims "for the common good", or force them to give up equity to government cronies (just look at Chrysler's bondholders for an example of how that works). It couldn't end free speech overnight, but it could restrict licenses for broadcast, impose content restrictions and regulate alternative media until it had sufficient control to make the final elimination of dissent a matter of a minor tweak to an existing apparatus (notice the attempts to regulate the internet, or impose "fairness doctrines"?). It can't confiscate every gun in the country, but it can severely restrict the importation and manufacture of guns, and force through laws which make legal gun ownership expensive and difficult, and which viciously penalize minor infractions. This is the lesson of history. It's how the British people went from the freest people in the world to their current state, in which any self-defense against a criminal can land the victim of the crime in jail, and in which thugs roam freely, with no fear of meeting superior force. Britain's present is the future that you want for us. No thanks.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
I wanna know what our Libtard gun grabber...umm...that's you PeterS...thinks is the limit at which guns have been regulated enough?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|