“We” as in “you” realize something? You are speaking for everyone I assume or is it that “you” assume that you are speaking for the masses? Do you have any idea how many legal gun owners are in the USA? You are inferring that I want to do something violent with a gun to another human. I have maintained that any weapons ban in the US would be a violation of my 2nd & 4th Amendment Rights and would lessen my ability to realize my 1st & 3rd Amendment Rights since I would no longer be able to defend myself or family from crime, invasion or a tyrant.

I have made my feelings about Dennis Kucinich crystal clear. I stated that if he reversed himself on guns then he would be a more viable candidate as president. The 2nd Amendment happens to be the most cherished and protected Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone that would attempt to remove or limit my ability to protect myself, my family, my home, my town, etc. is relegated to being a socialist or fascist. The freedom haters out there that want to trade liberty for safety live in a utopian dream world and when they wake up they will find that they are nothing more than slaves!

Good day comrade Evil!

should be…
The British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I was would be within my rights to fire into them. Survival is another matter.

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 26, 2007 @ 4:58 pm

I was clear in my points. Yes, the 2nd Amendment permits the ownership and use of ARMS. I’m sure that as an Army Squad from Mexico enters your home in California that using force to counter force is well within my rights and yours. I doubt that I will be shouting, “You Mexicans are violating my 3rd Amendment Rights.” I will instead be loading and shooting unless they get me first.

Any way you’re a smart assed person here on TP and you are likely to be a socialist like many others. Citizens can protect themselves and many do. The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to organize groups or individually protect themselves from enemies. The 3rd Amendment establishes conditions for war time and piece time regarding the possession and use of your home by standing armies. The British occupied large areas during the revolution and as a US Citizen I was within our rights to fire into them. Survival is another matter.

I’m pretty sure that you support illegal immigration and gun bans if what I read from you is correct. Anti-Constitutional behavior is almost as bad as a 3rd Bush term would be!

Comment by Briseadh na Faire — April 26, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

So why are you so cryptic? Many people realize that our world parallels the world in 1984 (the book). So many here want utopia but most of that is wishful thinking at best. Be they thought police or BATF agents giving an inch always costs miles.

I posted about the Amero-Dollar and all the related to suggest that while we are looking at Waxman and congress and while we see no enforcement of illegal immigration there is an invasion taking place. What party you like is not the question in this. The nation is being destroyed from inside and outside. Our unions are already destroyed and in reality both parties have broken Excalibur!

I know the Constitution by heart and I also know the intent of the 3rd Amendment. Should you be for a weapons ban, than I would or may be out gunned by an invader. You like Katy, would see me as another DISARMED VICTEM. (sic)

Comment by Saywho — April 26, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Well, gee. Uh, thanks? I don’t know the Constitution by heart, but I can look it up on “the internets.” And, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out the intent behind the prohibition against quartering a soldier in my home during peace time has anything to do with a weapons ban.

Do you mean, if the Army wants my home in peace time, I have the right to use weapons to resist?

Do you happen to have any Supreme Court opinions on this? I would be interesting in learning about this novel intent behind the 3rd Amendment.

~mildly amused at the ignornace of “saywho”…

I’m still waiting for one example. What’s the matter? Can’t you dig up a quote? It shouldn’t be too hard, if dems and liberals are as bad as you say.

And how is this an example of using fear to troll for votes? The science is overwhelming, and the fact that you do not cite specifics shows the paucity of your argument.

“Heard Democrats speack about Bush? All they say how he and Republicans need to go because they have trampled all over the Constitiution and how we are next. Once again, fear. ”

Well, they have, so it’s not just a scare story. Bush broke the law, by wiretapping all Americans. They have also suspended habeus corpus – a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. So, you’ll have to come up with real examples, not just paraphrased pap.

For every three Republicans that you give me using fear, I can give you 100 Democrats using fear.

Comment by Valiantthehater

i just looked it up. natives: 134 guns, custer: 81.

i don’t want to debate the civil war. i want you to think about the fleeting possibility that your guns will prevent the tyranny of which washington warned. obviously, in washington’s time, citizens could repel invaders and overlords. they had just done it.

as time has passed, military arms have become more sophisticated and powerful. by the time of the civil war weapons had advanced greatly from washington’s time – the horrific casualties are testament to that fact. the difference between the united states and the confederates was the industrial capacity of the united states. the north had more soldiers who had more newer and better weapons; for the most part, the south had the same rifles in 1865 as they had in 1861. as you say, there was no weapons ban, and southerners had their many civilian weapons from which to draw. yet, the north prevailed.

the united states army is armored, mechanized and air-suported. if the army comes into your neighborhood, you may as well throw rocks at them as use your guns, and i include ar-15s and ak-47s in that assessment.

custer. ok. custer’s men’s rifles were inferior to those of the sioux and cheyenne. the soldiers had single-shot trapdoor springfield rifles that were prone to jamming the too-soft copper casings. many of custer’s men were found still holding their jammed weapons, evidently killed while trying to clear the jams with their knives. it is believed that almost all of the natives were armed, and that many had lever-action repeaters (henrys, winchesters and remingtons, i think).

custer was also massively outnumbered and his men were tired. by contrast. the natives’ morale was high and they were rested. some evidence asserts the soldiers panicked and scattered, further squandering whatever slim advantage they might have had. i must also observe that although the natives won this battle, they lost the war.

be careful wth those guns, you are 22 times more likely to kill yourself or a guest than an intruder.

It’s called Oceania. Someone wrote a book about it.

I will say that all of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress use fear to get elected. That is well over 100.

Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, Kerry, Webb, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, I remember them all saying “If you vote for a Republican, the terrorists will attack America.” /sarc

The 2002 election was all about fear. Just to refresh your failing memory:

The Nation: Vote for Bush or Die
As the 2002 midterm elections neared, White House political director Ken Mehlman developed a secret PowerPoint presentation–which was made public after being dropped in a park–urging Republican candidates to highlight fears of future terrorist attacks. In the most outrageous example, Georgia Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss, who had avoided service in Vietnam, ran campaign commercials drawing parallels between triple amputee Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland and Osama bin Laden.

And don’t forget that Tom Ridge himself admitted that the color-coded terrorist threat warnings were used for political purposes. Wasn’t it funny how there were so many warnings around the time of the Democratic National Convention and none during the Republican one?

Let me know if you want me to start posting a series of examples like these, because I can dig up a lot more (i.e. Ashcroft and phony terrorist capture).

There is no comparison between the fear-mongering by the GOP and anything that you dare to spin as fear-mongering on the part of the Dems. You’re either dishonest or deluded if you say there is.

Now you want to debate the Civil War? Here is another What If post on your part. More than that the Civil War at no time called for a gun ban since it was understood that the 2nd Amendment was to be taken literally.

Again:
If you pick Kucinich: “Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill”

The two bills he is attempting to get through the house are HR 808 and HR 676.

Gun bans will in fact NOT prevent criminals from doing crimes with guns. A gun ban, be it for a given type of gun is a direct violation of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the US Constitution. Banning weapons will in fact prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves or their homes.

In the last election and in the coming election the law abiding citizens that exercise our 2nd Amendment Right did not and will not vote for this individual who is intent on violating the US Constitution by banning our ARMS.

Why don’t you talk about the American Indians now? They messed up Custer pretty good with very few firearms.

Sort of like the stealth invasion of the white man in the 1600’s.

Signed,
American Indian

you’re already a disarmed victim, you just don’t know it yet.

in 1776, civilian weapons were about equal to military weapons. in 2007, that is not the case.

you might consider how the confederates performed in 1861-65. they had similar weapons, better leadership, higher morale, and home field advantage. what happened there?

Rather than attempting to insult me why don’t you read the Constitution? I know the Constitution by heart and I also know the intent of the 3rd Amendment. Should you be for a weapons ban, than I would or may be out gunned by an invader. You like Katy, would see me as another DISARMED VICTEM.

I can’t get into the odds of engaging a trained soldier but in the end the Colonists were able to organize and defeat the British Army using their guns and wits! If we submit to a weapons ban then there will be no resistance against an enemy that was foreign or domestic.

So you can keep on going with the snide comments and your what ifs but without a gun you are a DISARMED VICTEM rather than an ARMED CITIZEN defending the Constitution and LIBERTY.

First insults and disrespect…
Then you can’t debate the Bill of Rights and beyond that I brought up the 3rd Amendment as an example of something worth fighting for, namely your home. You insist that should that day come you will not fight and comply with the invader!

You mentioned, “In a manner prescribed by law” and that means that if the nation was invaded or there was a split the government can commandeer your home. This would not be a 3rd Amendment violation and was not within the scope of my example.

You go on to claim that debating the 2nd Amendment is not something you want to do, however you in fact brought yourself into and created the debate several posts ago. So now you run away while yelling, “The issue for me is that I think weapons NEED to be REGULATED and those who argue against that are selfish and/or wacko!” Here in this thread and in others I told the truth and stated that guns are in fact regulated. I happen to be against any bans that infringe my 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. At the same time I agree that we have more than enough laws to regulate the 2nd Amendment.

Lastly you said that I didn’t verify my claim about DK. LOL well I don’t have to, you can read about it on his own site. “Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill” is what it says there and that is against the 2nd Amendment. The two bills he is attempting to get through the house are HR 808 and HR 676. He has come out many times as being anti-gun and this is one of the core reasons that he will not get elected.

Now Katy on a personal note, you are creeping into the red for me. Your views are socialistic when you rely on the government to protect you. As far as you know I may be a police officer and carry a weapon or a soldier doing his duty. I happen to be a citizen and require a government that fears the citizenry rather than being like you and fearful of the government. You trust police and soldiers with your life but in reality they are never around when you need them.

According to people like you police are more trustworthy than the citizens who pay them. Soldiers are somehow more qualified to defend us when in fact we law abiding citizens are the ones who become the soldiers. In reality the citizens who obey the laws are made to be DISARMED VICTEMS by repression of the 2nd Amendment. People like you would rather kiss the ass of a dictator rather than fight for liberty. You are a slave in the making!

So Frank slams progressives for being too weak-kneed to censor comments? A true American, who believes in freedom of speech?
Yeah, right.
Comment by barfly — April 26, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

ha! … well, i didn’t get THAT from the comment, but plenty of condescending patter… why would anyone brag about being a trooll?…
…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress