National Reciprocity

[louiethelump]

Fortunately, we do not live in a Democracy; but a Republic.

   

   This needs to be understood BEFORE any discussion of the Constitution can take place with any intelligence.

[lohman446]

Why do state laws trump the second amendment?

   

   Because our government is left to check itself.  The bill of rights and the Constitution are meant to impose limits on the government at both the state and federal levels.  Unfortunately our check and balance system is not perfect and judges are beholden to others through the poltical process.  It keeps the checks and balances from being truly strong.  

   

   Let me put it another way.  Lets say you and I have a disagreement on a contract and you get to select and pay the arbitrator who is going to settle the disagreement.  Are all of those arbitrators going to be neutral?  Are you going to seek out a neutral one or one who, at least in theory, agrees with you?  

   

   Here is a very simple statement I will make:  any law that runs counter to the bill of rights should be thrown out.  I accept that as a valid premise.  It does not mean they are.  

   

   Allowing the will of the majority to rule without the checks and balances of a strong constitution and laws protecting the rights of the few results in bread and cirus politics (google it - it is also referenced as bread and games).

   

   Why am I upset that the federal government wants to be involved?  Because I think it will ultimately lead to less gun rights and more blatant violations of the second amendment.  Saying something will happen is far different than from passing judgement of right or just on it

[jestus]

Bud,

   

   I work at an employee owned lumber yard. The arrangement is called an ESOP (Employee Stock Option Plan). We are not union. I am on my computer at home, late in the evening, sometimes in the wee hours. At my age I don't sleep much. As Vincent Gardenia said to Cher in "Moonstruck", "Sleep...It'sa too much like death." ) I live only 5 blocks from work so I come home for lunch. Is there any more "esplainin'" you require?  BTW, who appointed you hall monitor?

   

   Louie,  

   

   As I said in an earlier post, the U.S. has been spreading the idea of "democracy" around the world for decades. What kind of story is that, when we ourselves, are a republic?  

   

   Lohman, et al,

   

   You've got a lot of laws to weed through.  Humans are not infallible and that's why there are three branches of government to maintain the checks and balances. And that, as the pendulum of public and court opinion swings from left to right and back again, it crosses the middle twice and the middle is what guides our course over the long term. (Imagine a sine wave)

   

   Currently there is extreme polarity in this country and we are not going to get anywhere when we as a people are at odds like this. It's happening in Congress and it's happening on the street and where does that lead?  Nowhere. We need common ground. Let's make some instead of shredding 236 years of history to pieces.

   

   This forum reminds me of my first school dance. No dancing. Everyone was too afraid to cross the gym from the boys' side to the girls' side (and vice versa). But I did. I walked up to this big, tall, shy girl, named Marjorie and asked her to dance. I was 4'-10" and she was a skyscraper. We were as different as night and day but we broke the ice and we danced and that is what it was all about.  

   

   I entered this forum to discuss a variety of topics and instead I get lambasted from all sides because I think liberally. I was verbally insulted here after my very first post. Is this the kind of public persona you want to represent your deeply thought out solutions, if you really have any? And certain folks here seem to have me canned and put on a shelf labeled dumb---. So, if you all just want to stew in your own sauce why bother even talking to each other? Your minds are made up. Obviously, you've solved all the country's and world's problems already so what are you waiting for?  Do you need a support group? What really do you think will happen if we all keep bickering and making blanket judgements? Nothing. Big money will be making those choices for you while you're busy calling me a liberal know-it-all. Because we all know how important it is to label someone because it really changes things, right?

   

   While you keep bad mouthing me as a liberal (whatever you think that means) and as I keep turning the other cheek (I have four like everyone else ) the movers and shakers in this country are calmly turning the wheels in their favor.

   

   Super PAC's are making the everyman vote a JOKE. Think tanks are coining phrases to make us all feel comfy and self-righteous while they herd us where they want. Take for instance "Citizens United" . WTF is that? It's not about citizens. It's about corporate money influencing politics in anonymity. Nice label. Makes you think they are on the side of John Q. Public. NOT.

   

   Who do you work for? What have you done today to help your neighbor? How have you contributed to a better world today? It doesn't have to be a big thing, maybe you helped someone push start their car, or put them at ease about their late sprouting vegetable garden or drove somebody to a doctor appointment.  

   

   Unless, of course, they were a liberal, right?

[RogueTS1]

Wait a minute Jestus; what is wrong with owning machine guns? I own several............. I don't see that to be unreasonable or odd as insinuated. Surely you do not see that as wrong do you?

[jestus]

Roguets1,

   

   Nothing is wrong with owning a machine gun unless you are intent on damaging the general public or using it to make a point over a discrepancy in the family checking account. )

   

   But if you start collecting rocket launchers and land mines, I might start to worry about possible ulterior motives.

   

   Were you a "Gunney" in the service? What do you do now, or still?

   

   My point was about "anyone", with a criminal history or mental health problem, being allowed access to such power, is a slippery slope. That was in answer to the premise that gun ownership does not denote criminal or amoral intent. But where do you draw the line? "Here little boy, take this loaded gun and go play." Obviously a line to be drawn there, right? What then is society's responsibility to itself? Where does it draw the line between rights and risk? A contemplative subject, is all.

[dracothered]

The slippery sloop is when you start writing laws that restrict law abiding citizen their rights to own a fire arm they choose to buy.

   

   At one point you could go to any local hardware store and buy Thompson Machine guns and sticks of Dynamite without the blink of an eye.  

   

   So along comes prohibition and the crime goes up because you couldn't legally get a drink. Thompson Machine guns dynamite and many more things get regulated. You can't cut your shot gun barrel down under 18" or you are breaking the law.  

   

   Much of the evil that gets pinned on guns and many of the other things is due to the government over regulating things and has many coming from the liberal side of it. So when you say you are liberal in thinking you will get pinned with the opinion that you are the type that caused much of the regulating.

[jestus]

As the saying goes, "Guns don't kill people. People do." The problem then, is how to stop people from using guns to kill people. Do you stop the guns or the people? Or do you ignore the issue? Or stop both guns and people? Or just have a free for all, with mob justice? Vigilantes? Or let nature take it's course? Do we think we are all cowboys and are gonna draw down on a guy who holds up a liquor store or sprays a mall with lead? By then it's too late.

   

   Granted the gun laws we have are too numerous, too confusing, overlapping and many are totally ineffective. But living in a Republic (as many here have insisted on pointing out) decisions like this are made on our behalf, not by popular vote. So the few decide in favor of the safety of the many.

   

   If you have a solution, I and many others would like to know it.

   

   What is a society supposed to do for it's citizens? We don't all need to go squirrel hunting anymore. There's not enough game or open space to allow for everyone to walk around with a hunting rifle on their shoulder anymore, as someone here romantically pined about our past. Nor is there a need.  

   

   To feed our population we need vast food supply infrastructures. And with population density as it is, hunting in the confines of a city would be ridiculous.

   

   Cities themselves create social anxieties that lead to frustration and violence. Why add fuel to the fire? De-intensifying cities might be a consideration. What? Birth control? Move to the suburbs?

   

   If it was just man, gun and nature, that's one thing, but now we have very complicated social constructs and cultural evolution. Many Europeans think our proclivity for guns is ludicrous. I enjoy shooting guns and own a few, but I don't know as we "need" them in our society as much as we" want" them.

   

   I think there's a certain 'blood lust" in everyman that makes him want to be the defender, the protector, the provider. In today's society with women working and no bears to kill, well, perhaps we all feel somehow emasculated by the civility of society. That's why we turn to the exciting news on TV and watch "Justified" (Yeah! ) And every time some one of the 300 million people in this country uses a gun for defense or violence we are all over the incident as if it happened in our living room (well, it does...on the TV news!) It gives us a reason to feed the "Y" chromosome.

   

   I know I am prey to all that I have posted above. If you aren't prey to the same then you are lying to yourself.

   

   I was reading about bomber pilots and flyers in WWII. When interviewed decades later they admitted that war time was the most exciting time of their lives. Not just exciting, but groin achingly exciting. Maybe that's why we always seem to be at war with someone???

   

   How do we satisfy our need to be the strong man. I don't mean some pansy psychoanalytical bull pucky about guns and groins. What I mean is social recognition of man and manhood. The man can't even go out and bring home enough bacon anymore. Commonly, the spouse works as well. What are we missing?

   

   A Rite of Passage. We used to have the draft. No need anymore. But yes there is a need. national service of some kind for all boys (and girls) as they come of age (18). Boot camp followed by required service to society. A connection to society and a recognition of accountability.

   

   While we are at it what ever happened to  the Mason's and Key Club? Hunting clubs, skeet, etc. What about a smoker or men's club? Really. It's okay for men and women to socialize but women have book clubs and sewing circles and coffee with the girls, ...activities where men are not really welcome.

   

   Where's the guy things? There has to be social circles for men. Not just sitting' on the back porch havin' a smoke and a drink. I think society needs to bring back the man with a formal recognition.

   

   I've been in the local VFW with a retired military friend. We go and have a couple of beers and chew the fat. It could be a good gathering place, but it's really a rather pathetic venue. Sad.

   

   Sorry to be so long winded, but I hope this has been worthy of thought.  It is somewhat related to national carry rights...

[Uncle_Lee]

Most leberials ARE long winded.

   And don't say much either.

[lohman446]

The right to arm oneself was never protected and included in the Constitution due to the need for hunting for putting food on the table.  I suggest you read the historical papers surrounding the Constitution for understanding it.  

   

   The Constitution was meant to limit the role of the government on both a state and federal level.  It was meant to limit what the federal government could force on the states and limit what the states could force on the citizens.  

   

   The people in the cities can live however they want to.  They do not have the right to restict my autonomy based on some utilitarian argument that is only needed in the cities.  I believe it tantamount that a person be able to take care of their own basic needs (they can elect not to).  Those in the cities who cannot have, based on that inability, given up some of THEIR autonomy.  They need not take mine because they do not understand freedom requires responsibility and ability.  

   

   When you start placing the wants (I used the word wants) of society over the rights of the individual you have violated the moral principle of autonomy.  You then begin to make utilitarian arguments that insist on helping society as a whole rather than respecting individuals as autonomous.  History tells us a society that allows this ultimaty crumbles.  I can give you recent examples but one such argument would be "the people need entertained, let's toss a few slaves to the lions".

[bud]

Jestus,

   

    I guess I can't count on your vote to be hall monitor.

   With you being on the computer during working hours, and then when it's lunch time [your time] you have to get off it. Just sounded like  an AFL CIO employee.

[dracothered]

Jestus, I believe many of those clubs have gone bye bye because of the over regulating and liberal thinking people. They regulated out the places you could have your gun clubs and all of that. Sorry to say I don't think you are a true liberal, but you are liberal enough that you drive many crazy with your ideas. You own guns so that make you a farther right liberal than most.

[chopprs]

I think Uncle Lee and Bud have hit the nail on the head.....

   On another note, there is a town Meeting here where I live tonight, I AM GOING!

   I live out in the country with a small by comparison piece of property at 14 acres. I used to have another 151 but sold it as I did not use it. Apparently down in the city some idiot was shooting in his back yard so the local Libs have proposed a law that allows for no discharge of firearms at all within the Town limits. There are already laws that prohibit the discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a structure, which this idiot was already in violation of. Why we need ANOTHER, MORE RESTRICTIVE LAW is beyond me. Most of my neighbors have hundreds of acres on which they and their friends hunt. This would instantly become illegal. It is my understanding that literally hundreds of people are going to show up...in a room that holds only fifty chairs. It should be interesting!

[ikoiko]

Chopprs

   Please post outcome of the meeting.

[redhawk4]

It sounds like the old chestnut of, people aren't obeying this law so we'll make another, which if enacted, will be obeyed only by the people who were abiding by the original law. The result, great inconvenience and further restrictions for law abiding folks while stupid still isn't fixed.

[jestus]

Lohman,

   When our forebears roamed the countryside with their muskets on their shoulders it was primarily for food. They also were able to fend off occasional threats from Native Americans. The 2nd Amendment comes from the need to structure, promote, honor (pick an adjective) a public militia to assist the formal military. If we had a system of Home Guard, as in Switzerland, that would solve a lot of our issues and problems with definition. It would give each and every citizen the proper training and "rite of passage" necessary in a society to signify adulthood and all the responsibility that comes with it. It would also put a gun in every home with someone that knows how to use it.

   

   Personally, though, I am tiring of you putting words in my mouth and then running off full steam on something I didn't say. Stick to the text or be accused of blustering, sir.  

   

   As to the hunting remark I was referring to something another poster said about shooting a few squirrels for dinner. Our former primary need for firearms was to collect food, not defense. Just look out the window in the fall and you'll see hundreds of trucks with rifles in the back window. They aren't out defending families, they are hunting for food.

   

   As to current needs, I have no problem with sane, law-abiding citizens owning guns for self defense, hunting, target practice, collecting, or competition. I have no problems with sane, law-abiding citizens utilizing CCW.  

   

   We've changed in 236 years, we've evolved. If your whole being revolves around the need to own and carry a gun, I am sorry for your small sense of life's picture. You already have the right to own and carry. If your state does not allow that then you have a state problem not a federal problem. Your state is violating your  

   Constitutional rights. Take it up with them.  

   

   But we have evolved. If you want to keep your rifle well oiled for the next conflict on our soil (it's been 150 years since the last one), you are free and welcome to in my book. But technology has far surpassed any ground wars and I doubt a small team of homeowners would stand a chance against trained guerrilla fighters of any invading (or domestic) army.  

   

   The Constitution was written before repeating rifles, long range artillery, electronic surveillance, telephones, Face Time or man in space...and before vaccines, x-rays, college trained doctors, modern anesthesia, or a myriad number of other things.

   

   In the face of all that, my five shot revolver seems picayune and really infinitesimal in importance compared to the great strides in man's growth and potential.

   

   I am sorry you are that self-absorbed to not see a greater world outside of your right to bear arms (a right you still have, BTW).

[dracothered]

Jestus, I hate to inform you, but it has been about 67 years since the last conflict on our soil. Have you not heard the Japanese did land on the island off of Alaska which is US soil and we had to fight them back and force them to leave. Also there has been college trained doctors well before the Constitution was ever written or the New World known about by the Europeans. Plus the 2nd Amendment isn't about a Militia, it is about giving the citizens the means to over turn a government if it over steps its bounds as the English did.

   

   Also your thoughts on joe average and his buddies not being able to fight off a high tech military just take a look at what has happened over the modern history of warfare with guns and you will see high tech isn't always top gun.

[louiethelump]

According to history, Japan considered a full scale invasion of the USA in WWII, and it was decided against as they were aware of an armed population and a "rifle behind every blade of grass" as the Japanese commander supposedly put it.  (I was not there)

   

   That is a strong argument for the use of weapons by the general poplulation.

   

   As a side note but related to the discussion, are you aware of the organization called "Every Jew a .22"?   This is an organized group encouraging the Jewish people to arm themselves as a form or resistance in the event of future attempts at holocaust.  

   

   50 or 60 million armed citizens defending their homes is not a force to be underestimated.  This is the reason that oppressive regimes disarm the public FIRST.  This is NOT to prevent hunting.

[RogueTS1]

I see; ok was just a little concerned and just checking on your meaning.  

   

   My personal thoughts I would rather be responsible for myself and my charges when the crazy with a gun shows up. I would rather take matters for me and mine into my own hands than have the government make edicts to supposedly protect me.

[chopprs]

...went to the meeting tonight. 162 people opposed showed up including the New York State NRA rep. ....one in favor! She was a PIZZED OFF BIATCH that had a bullet hole in her kitchen window. Apparently some kid with a .22 shot her house so the local Democrats saw fit to propose a new law that pretty much outlawed any gun play in a town of 16,456 people. Typical Liberal CRAP! One person wants a law to fit them and they could care less who they offend. She continually interrupted speakers with her rhetoric and was told by the Chairman to stop or she would be removed. Person after person, including local Legislature and other officials spoke as to the ridiculousness of the proposition.......then....one little old Farmer stood up and asked by what right the local Town Board had to change State and Federal law......that was the end of it!

[22man]

JPFO video(pro-gun Jews):

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#!

[jestus]

Bud,

   

   The only computer I use at work is work related; orders, invoices, inventory and the like. I enjoin in forum discussions on my own time, sometimes during my lunch with a sandwich in my hand (does slow down the typing though).  But I gotta stop the lunchtime online discussions, 'cause, though they are lots of fun,  I can't be late getting back to work. )

   

   I have a buddy that works for UPS. It pays well, but he earns every penny. The company rules are severe. He hates the company and the union, but realizes w/o the union the employees would be further nutted down. His back is worn out his knees are going but he's not in a position to quit (why quit a job in this economy?). So, unions somehow still hold back the weight of slave-driving corporations, but in other cases unions are just middleman corporations ...argh! The employee almost becomes a pawn in the power play between corporation and union. Certainly unions had their day in the early part of the 20th century, but now, unchecked, the whole association of union/corporation has spiraled upward and created a juggernaut. Yet, they still protect employees. So, there's a need for balance, but the growth (and possible corruption) of union power... egads! Can't we all just get along? )  Apparently not when money or power is involved...

   

   Now, the union mill workers in our town are an example of unions gone awry. They are a spoiled bunch of little boys.  We've had a couple of former millworkers try working in our store but they were disappointed they didn't get a pay raise after 30 days. They spent so much time complaining and saying, "that's not my job", we were glad when they quit. They were making more work for everyone else. Of course,  all  this is anecdotal and may represent only a small perspective of the big picture in either scenario.  

   

   That said, worker's rights need protection and a union can help with that. It's the "above and beyond" that a union does, that makes people despise them.

   

   Fortunately, I work for a local company that was owned by a couple. When they wanted to retire they sold the business to the 70+ employees (ESOP). Nine years now as an ESOP. I've just passed my 14th year of employment with them. What makes it work is that what you put in, you get out. Hard work really does pay off. We've stayed viable, though the belt is tight, through this slump. And we're in the building industry, no less! I think our advantage is that we are small enough to stay light on our feet and adaptive. Small business "rules" in my book!

[jestus]

Chopprs,

   

   Glad the meeting turned out well.  

   

   I live in a small city of ~18,000. It is the county seat with a total county population of ~100,000. No firearms are to be discharged in city limits, though I shot a nuisance crow out of a tree at ~100yds once, about 30 years ago, and no one said anything, And another fellow shot a cougar that was perched on a limb above his chicken coop. He got his picture in the paper with the cougar, but no fine. (No one took a picture of me and the crow.) We did have a drive-by a few years ago. Some hooligans shot up an RV parked in front of a guy's house. It was occupied at the time (I don't think the shooter's knew that). No new laws or ordinances came of any of that. Of course, today's atmosphere is a bit more edgy perhaps, since 9/11.

   

   In the county, you can shoot on your land if you have ten acres or more (in one spot). I think that is pretty reasonable for hunting, plinking and neighbor safety purposes. There has been difficulty in locating a formal, open, public shooting range, however. NIMBY's for one, and concerns about lead deposits in water tables another. Here in Washington we do have beautiful rivers and salmon etc. God's country, really.

   

   There are two local skeet ranges, a bird hunting reserve, an indoor small caliber range, an archery range and then there's the  law enforcement range out at the Waste Transfer Station (formerly known as "the dump"). Kinda fun to be dropping off yard waste and hear some of the firepower ripping over there. I've noticed a few bursts that weren't rapid single fire...Of course, besides local LEO's, there's now dozens of Border Patrol and Homeland Security agents stationed out here now. We rate, ay?  

   

   Mostly we find old gravel pits to do our shooting in. They are getting harder to find as the housing pushes further into the foothills. But that has stopped now since the housing bubble burst. A double edged sword, since I work in the building industry.  

   

   We are careful to police our brass, avoid using glass as targets and clean up our target debris after our sessions. Leave a mess and someone's gonna get pissed.

   

   But, Life is good.

[dracothered]

Here you all go...

   

   

[jestus]

Louie & Dracothered (BTW, Drac, what's the source of your nom de plume? Louie's is self explanatory )

   

   Thanks for the correction on the occupation of the Aleutians. The Japs may have well attacked the moon as that place. There's still a note in one of the buildings at Adak that says, "Will the last person to leave Adak, please turn out the lights." Nice place. Maybe we should have let them take it. They could build computers there using our technology while freezing their butts off. )

   

   The Russians tried to coerce the Native populations up there in the 18th and 19th centuries. Trappers and fur trade people. At least one or two forced the natives to paddle them in their baidarkas all the way down the coast, I think as far as San Francisco. Their efforts didn't take hold though. Rough territory, competition for furs from Hudson Bay Co., the Brits, and the Americans, plus warring with the Aleuts and Tlingits finally proved a losing proposition for the Russians. They were glad to sell it to us in 1867. Too bad they didn't know about the gold and oil there... Unforgiving environment up there, raw and yet beautiful.

[dracothered]

If you are meaning my user name then if you break it down you will see what it means.

   

   dracothered = draco the red

   

   Draco = the Latin word for dragon

   

   So you get The Red Dragon

[jestus]

Dracothered,

   

   Bennie was a positive thinker, "Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight." He sounds like a hippie motivational speaker )

   

   And he was a man of reason and peace:

   "All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones. When will Mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their Differences by Arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the Cast of a Dye, it would be better than by Fighting and destroying each other."

   

   and,

   

   "There never was a good war or a bad peace."

   

   You will also note that your quote says, "In a republic the individual is protected from the majority" Interesting then that corporations have recently been ruled as persons/individuals and are thus protected from the rest of us.  

   

   Who's taking control of this country while we squabble over the fence? Big corporations. Just think about it is all I'm suggesting.

   

   And thanks for the wolf/lamb quote. Remember, Teddie R. said, "Walk quietly and carry a big stick." (or a little .22 in your pocket )

[dracothered]

A corporation has always been an umbrella of protection for the individuals that run it. I don't agree with the idea that it is a person/individual.

   

   Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

[lohman446]

Jestus:

   

   You missed the first paragraph.

   

   The right of the people to keep and bear arms was a protected right for a reason, and that reason was not putting food on the table or native American invasion.  

   

   The reason was that the people had just used those arms to throw off a government that they felt was no longer representative of them.  

   

   The historical documents of the time will give you a better idea what well regulated meant - it had to do with well provisioned.  

   

   The fact of the matter is the purpose of the second amendment was to assure that the people were always allowed to be armed because our forefathers had the sense to know that an armed populace was vital to prevent abuse of power.  

   

   My whole being does not revolve around the right to carry a gun.  My sense of morality derives, at least primarly, from the concept of the principle of autonomy.  As such this document that acts to protect individual autonomy from the government is important to me.  If we have evolved to where it needs updated and changed there is a formal method for doing so that is not an appointed judge "reinterperting" it outside of its original intent.  

   

   Your arguments are utilitarian in nature (the good of society, we don't NEED) and are ignoring the entire purpose of protecting individual rights in that document.  The fact that you want to use those arguments to ignore the Constitution alarms me.  

   

   Utilitarian societies have always failed in the past and generally committed great atrocities while doing so.  

   

   You will will forgive me (or not) if I reject utilitarian arguments in regards to ignoring the Constitution

[lohman446]

*IF* the purpose of the second amendment was, as you argue, about external threats and lifestyle then the right to keep and bear arms and the desires of the government would have aligned.  There would have been no purpose to add it to a document intended to limit the power of the government.

[dracothered]

Has anyone here ever wondered why there has been no attempt at a full scale invasion of the US in any of the World wars except for the Alaskan islands (Also why pick there). The reason is the populace is well armed and most know how to use what they have. The only other attacks that have happened are terrorist attacks which isn't full scale invasion.  

   

   Even our own government knows the only way is through restriction and disarming. If you follow the one link above about the Jewish group they even have proof that many of the current gun control acts are patterned after Nazi Germany's gun control acts. Now is that what you call the good for Americans???

[dracothered]

here is the link from above

   

   JPFO video(pro-gun Jews):

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8DIB7T2eQ&feature=player_embedded#!

[heyjoe]

Japan attacked the Aleutian Island of Attu as a diversion attempt from their coming attack on Midway.

[louiethelump]

Just for the Jestus know it all:  (first sign of ignorance in the claim to knowledge)

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   LOUIE THE LUMP  (6/15/99-11/24/09)

   

   

   

   

   

[redhawk4]

I don't know if Japan ever had the capability to realistically consider invading the main body of the USA, that would be pretty difficult with the amount of sea in between to make an effective landing that would have given a strong enough foothold and bee adequately supplied to not have been quickly repelled.

   

   However from a tactical viewpoint, millions of well armed citizens in addition to your military forces would make the reality of taking a country over very costly for any enemy and make the stoic sentements of Winston Churchill a reality in deed  

   

   "....... we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

   

   It's good to recall that the King had to order Churchill not to go on the D day landings because he was to valuable to his country to risk him being killed at that stage of the war - so they were not empty words when he made that statement, he would personally have been fighting until the end. I don't think we have any such leaders any more, they'd in the main be quickly suing for a peace that saved their and their family's skins and to •••• with the rest of us. The more I've learned about Churchill during WWII the better I understand why my Father held him in such high esteem and why as very young children we were gathered around a Black and White TV to watch his state funeral.

[satchel]

I really like how the Swiss handle firearm ownership as someone mentioned earlier.  I believe the intent for the right to bear arms was indeed to keep folks honest and to aid in creation of a militia should one ever be needed (the expulsion of foreign or domestic enemies).  I would fully support the federal government requiring armed citizens to undergo some kind of formal training (provided by government at the closest base/camp) because just being armed does not fulfill the "intent" but rather being armed and having the knowledge to safely and accurately discharge a round would.  

   

   Basically I support the right for all to possess firearms...but what good is a loaded rifle/pistol when you have no idea on how to adjust for range or clear misfires and how to control that adrenaline rush one gets when they are being shot at.  Perhaps requiring this mini-boot camp would deter the would-be crazies that most anti-gun folks fear.  I understand this view seems a little radical but I am also of the belief that every American should serve a 4 year minimum in the military (If its against your religion then you can cook, become a corpsman, or do something else in support of the ones fighting for your religious freedom)!

   

   A national reciprocity is the way to go in theory but without convincing the ubber restrictive states to relax and accept the law and all the rights that come with it then we should not expect anything to change anytime soon.  I like the drivers license comparison as it reflects the way concealed carry should be (yes a license is a privilege but it is only a regulation for your "right" to travel as per the Privileges and Immunities Clause contained within the constitution).  

   

   I don't think technology will ever make firearms obsolete as a tool to be used in resisting an invasion.  No doubt it would be difficult for me to fight off a few dozen UAVs or a tank division but gorilla warfare would be the logical way of conducting a counter-attack making a foreign army slow their advance and in the case of Vietnam...repel the more advanced military force.

   

   Liberal and Democrat don't always mean the same thing and there are a lot of folks that consider the terms synonymous but hopefully most know that our political beliefs are too varied to just be thrown in one of two different camps.  Jestus, I think its great that you are a pro-gun advocate that is also a liberal, if only all liberals were that way as then there would be no need for this thread.  I think Chopprs is just a little sour is all...he might be overly excitable at the sound of "liberal" but his intentions are in the right place, same goes for quite a few folks on here but don't let that scare you away from this forum as those same folks are full of useful firearm related information.

   

   -satchel