|
|
|
Index About Us Previous Lists Greatest Hits Hall of Fame You Really Like Us! Privacy Links! Contact  What' s this? |
|
"Seminar Topics at the Scaled-Down NRA Convention." |
|
Since I have grown up with guns all my life and was taught to shoot by
the time I was 12 y.o., I have a deep respect for the right to own and
bear arms. If we pass more laws in the hopes of "protecting" the
public, who will really be "protected". Let's see---hmmmm--- the
military will aways have guns and so will the police. Who's left? Well
since a criminal by his/her own very nature doesn't feel that the laws
pertain to him or her---he/she will stop at nothing to get a gun if
that is what they want!! Therefore, the only people who will not have
access to a gun by more restrictive laws will those that obey the
laws!! Now isn't that ironic?? If we are supposedly passing more
restrictive laws in an effort to curve the use of guns in criminal
activity--why is it that criminals continue to have guns no matter how
many laws we pass?? Because I feel strongly that my right to bear arms should not be taken away so that I can protect myself and my property if confronted by one of these thugs, I will never support any restriction on the ownership of guns. (Marie Bromm) You have made a classical mistake in understanding the 2nd Amendment. It is not your fault, but misinformation that has been spread by the anti-gun groups. You have interpreted "well-regulated" in today's English and not what it meant back when the Constitution was being written. Well-regulated, as our Founding Fathers meant it is "well-functioning". They would refer to a well-regulated clock, not as one that the government was trying to control, but as one that kept good time. (Philip Van C.) I THINK THAT YOUR COMENT IS BULL!!! I KNOW THAT YOU SAID NOT TO WRITE, BUT I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. IF THEY SAID THAT NO ONE COULD HAVE GUNS EXCEPT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ECT. PEOPLE WOULD STILL GET KILLED. THE CRIMINALS THAT SHOOT PEOPLE MOST LIKELY DIDN'T GET THEIR GUNS LEGALLY. THEY GET THEIR GUNS ON THE BLACK MARKET SO THEY CAN'T BE TRACED TO THEM. SO I SAY THAT WE KEEP THE RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT OURSELVES AGAINST THOSE THAT HAVE THEM AND WILL ALWAYS HAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jennifer Sanders) I understand you have decided to entertain reponses to your gun control position, and that one of your arguments hinges on the presense of the phrase "well regulated" in the second ammendment. The phrase "well regulated millitia" meant, when it was written, well practiced. It didn't mean burdened by all manner of laws. Let's look at the whole thing: "A well regulated millitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What they are saying is that no state can maintain its freedom for very long when the bulk of the people in their capacity as a fighting force (i.e. the millitia) are disarmed by the government. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Still don't believe me? Let's take the guns out of it and see if how you would interpret the following sentence: "A well read scholar class, being necessary to the secrity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." What this clearly says is that because a free state can not long endure without having a lot of people around who spend a lot of time thinking and reading and writing, even though not everyone would necessairly spend much time doing those things, you can't have the government stopping people from reading and writing and printing and keeping books. Therefore, the government is not allowed to do that. This doesn't mean that only government approved scholars are allowed to keep and read books (the old "hey the national guard has become the millitia), but everyone. Not because everyone has to be a scholar for a free state to long endure, but because enough people have to and we can't have the government telling us who those people are allowed to be lest it defeat the purpose. Replace well read scholar class with well regulated millitia, and books with arms, and you see what I mean. Another point is that if I write a sentence of the form, "Because blah blah blah, X" You can't say that because of the exact nature of the blah, blah, blah, "not X", or Y was meant instead of X. Particularly when X is pretty plain,"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is an awfully plain statement. Much more so than the first ammendment. (Chris Marshall) The meaning of "well regulated" has changed over the last 225 years, just as "making love" has changed in the last 50. "Making love" meant to pay close attention to one another, courting. It was something a couple could do in a restaurant. Language changes, but the intent of our founding fathers has not. In the days of our founding fathers, there were no "Government Regulations." That was a concept not to be realized more than 100 years in the future. "Well regulated" meant operating properly, adjusted properly, or accurate, as in a well regulated clock. Now, try the Second Amendment: An ACCURATE Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Further, notice that the founding fathers stated "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." When the founders meant government they said STATE, when the meant people they said PEOPLE. When they wrote people, they were describing an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. In the First Amendment, they said the "people peaceably to assemble." Are you saying they meant the Government may only assemble, or did they mean individuals? Further, there were MANY writings, arguments really, between the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. They wrote and argued many points, but NEVER did EVEN ONE argue that it is not an individual's right to keep and bear arms. They did argue that the Second Amendment was not needed (nor the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights) because those rights were GUARANTEED in the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights was not needed. The Bill of Rights only amplified those rights. Many people argue the Militia is the National Guard. Our founders were indeed very wise. They knew, over 125 years ahead of time, that the Congress would create the National Guard, in 1908. The Militia was originally any free white man who had reached the age of 17. Other writings have that age as 16, and a few 15. Some limit the upper age, others do not. The fact is all intended the Militia to be made up of individuals who had become accurate with the most modern firearms available to them. I would suggest you READ history. The intention of the founders was and is VERY clear. Start with the Federalist Papers, then read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and Franklin. All, and especially Washington, feared a standing army, and wanted the common defense, of self, family, community, state, and country to be made up of individuals, and in that order, from self to country. Recently, a man in Texas was refused his firearms rights because of a squabble in a divorce. The US District Court heard the case, and ruled in favor of the Second Amendment being an INDIVIDUAL right. It is unlikely the Federal Prosecutor will appeal the decision, as it would go to the US Supreme Court, and they don't want to lose. The good news is that now the Second Amendment must be considered an individual right in 1/10 of the United States. Even Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he wished the Brady Law challenge that the Supremes heard was based on the Second Amendment, so that he might have thrown the entire law out, instead of just parts of it. It is really too bad the public is willing to be educated by Katie Couric, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah Winfry, and Jerry Rivers (Jeraldo Rivera's real name), instead of actually reading history. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Ward W. Fetrow, III Hmm, I couldn't find THAT referenced in the second amendment although I did find Militia. And if you do your own research and read the Federalist papers written by our "founding fathers" you would find that militia does NOT refer to a standing army or any other government controlled entity but to the people themselves. The term well regulated in the time of the writing on these amendments meant "practiced". Of course you may be a follower of the clintonese schools of language where a word means what you want it to mean at a given time. (James Stratton) First thing, I work on this subject from the inside out. Now let me explain that sentence. I work on A.F.I.S.. It stands for Automated Fingerprint Identification System. I work at numerous locations and this brings me to my point. One of AFIS's many tasks is to do a background check on firearm purchases. We solve murders, rapes and other assorted crimes as well. So I see it from the enforcement side and the gun owners point of view. The system works as best as the politicians and powers that be, allow it to. Some people in the system see ALL gun owners as the enemy. Some are gun owners, trying to balance the system into being a fair one. Others are bean counters, they don't care about your point of view or mine, just get the individuals into the system and push them threw it. It's a system with much information, it does a lot of good in crime fighting. It has a lot of information that could be used for other purposes, other then good. That's the part that is dangerous. Now the people in charge care about individuals rights, but what about 20 years from now ? Who will be in charge of AFIS and what will it grow into ? 10 years ago, I had no ideal that it would be as big as it is today. US Postal Service, the FBI, Secret Service, each State, each City, all interconnected. One hell of a lot of information, hopefully to be used for good. What will keep that information in check ? Hopefully people who care, who have the first amendment on there side and will use it if need be. When it crosses the line of a individuals freedom ? What will back up that individuals right for free speech ? The second amendment in the long run, behind the scenes ! Without the second amendment, the first amendment is NOTHING but words. Evil people can trample words, twist them. (Look at our current conflict going on) The founding fathers knew this and did not want all the power in one small groups hands ( The military ). Don't you see, this county is one Giant check and Balance. Free speech questions the lie's. Ordinary people vote for there leaders. leaders each have a piece of power and NO one leader has it ALL. Every time you remove a check, it changes the balance in many ways you never see right away. ( Look at the Presidential Investigation that just happen) The democrats put the laws in place years ago for it. (After Nixon) They had no Idea back then how it would be used. What will reducing a individuals right to own a firearm create 20 years from now ? You hope for peace and less death. Maybe you may unwittingly create the opposite down the road. You speak of Rush, well lets look at him. Clinton hate's him. He's one voice, like yours using free speech. He is a check in our county and so are you in a round about way. Each speaking ones mind to the public. Now I tie all the pieces together. 20 years from now a Mean Nasty Republican is in charge (He's the President). A war is being waged on the Drug users. Smokers are gone and so are gun owners. This is the current battle, a war. A democratic voice on the radio speaks out against him. We'll call him Mr. PACE (Opposite of RUSH) He says that the president is trampling on individuals rights in the drug war. Not everyone hears him. The majority are worked up into a frenzy about Drugs and what they have done. Just the other week a drug crazed individual blew up a mall in Denver with a home made bomb. It was extortion to get drug money they say. A hundred people died. Mr. PACE also speaks out on how the military gets paid to much over the past years, how it's increased slowly, drug enforcement hazard pay they called it at the time.. But now they are paid way to much. He asks whatever happen to social security and how it was taken away and the funds passed on to the military ( Drug Enforcement they called again). 20% unemployment, low wages and no medical coverage unless you are in the military (See a pattern yet ?). M.N.R.P. ( Mean Nasty Republican President ) doesn't like this, he uses AFIS to find out information on Mr. PACE. He calls him a subversive, a drug user. He rewrites the information in AFIS to backup his lies. The system puts him in jail based upon false AFIS information. Others speak out, they to have false information entered on them. They are put away also for the good of the counties war on Drugs. Then free speech is taken away, slowly at first so as not to alarm any one. Then MNRP takes on more power slowly, as not to arouse suspicion. Congress is lied about. Drug sympathizers, all of them one at a time are lied about. By the time anyone puts the pieces together, there is no free speech to get the word out with. The military backs MNRP up. Why not, they are the highest paid well taken care of group. No one can question him, no free speech, no second amendment to back free speech up. False information in AFIS and no free speech to question it. Sounds like a dictatorship in the making. He does it slowly and by the time anyone notices it. IT"S TO LATE. That final last chance to put him in check him is gone. The second amendment ! It lets the individual common people, keep the powerful few in check. It's gone. The second amendment keeps the will of the many from being over run by the few with money and power. It's a last chance defensive thing. A uprising or civil war. It has not been used since the North and South civil war, and I hope it will never be needed it to be used ever again. But you have to keep the check in place. It's part of the over all balance of our county. On a daily basis it's used to keep a criminal in check. The thought of being shot is a strong deterrent. A officer CAN'T be every place. I know this for a fact. Yeah guns kill, in the wrong hands they are evil. The trick is to keep it out of the criminals and mentally unstable persons hands. Keeping it in the law abiding persons hands is necessary for the good of the country in the long run. The NRA is a check and so is each individual in it. Go ahead, blow it off. Say it can't happen. But 20 years ago, would you ever of thought the President would be debated about getting a B.J. ? (Dan) If you didn't care to debate the gun control issue you shouldn't have sent this out. 1. Trigger locks and self-defense don't mix. 2. The Second Amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, most of our gun laws certainly infringe. 3. Do you know how many of your federal tax dollars were spent last year in gun control "research" by the Center for Disease Control and through other academic grants? I may not know much about biology, but death from a bullet is not a disease. 4. There are over 1000 laws controlling the sale, transfer, transportation,etc. of firearms. Crime would be reduced is the government would enforce the laws we have, instead of creating more. A criminal, by definition, isn't going to obey the law anyway. 5. Nice list anyway, by the way. (Rick Hautekeete) |
|
© Copyright 1994-2010. All rights reserved. TopFive.com and The Top 5 List are owned by Chris White. Absolutely no publishing or reprinting without prior consent. |
|
