Open letter from Ronnie Barrett **Read**

[TreeDoc]

Well said, TS!

[denton]

The sole purpose of a personal firearm is to please its owner. It does not matter why it pleases its owner, as long as it does.

It might please its owner because it carries some history with it, like a Finnish M39, which the Finns used to successfully fight a Russian army 3X as large as their own.

It might please its owner because it is beautifully built.

It might please its owner because it allows him/her to hunt.

It might please its owner because it helps him/her feel more secure.

The burden is not on the gun owner to show that he/she has any practical use for the firearm, whatsoever. If it pleases the owner, that is enough.

We are witnessing the oldest political con game in the world: Invent a danger, so you can get yourself paid to protect people from the danger. If you can make the danger exist in the minds of enough people, you can make a nice living at it. It does not matter at all whether the danger really exists, nor does it matter whether the con artist can actually do anything about it, if it does. It only matters that enough people think it exists, and that the con artist can do something about it.

[Tall Shadow]

Originally posted by TreeDoc
Well said, TS!

Thanks TreeDoc!

I also wanted to say that denton provided another good point.

All I'd add is that this point can be used on our other rights & Privileges:

Why have the Internet? After all, why do you need anything more than 1 news paper to read.

Why should we allow hunting at all?

Why should anyone own a gun?

Why should there be more than one state?

Why would anyone need more than one house?

Why would you need more than one change of clothes?

Why have more than one type of food?

Why would anyone need an SUV?
Why have a car that is able to exceed the speed limit?


There are so many, I'd be here for weeks....You get the point.

Only It's not a "Why>>>Need?" kind of thing with Our rights....

They are Ours, By/At birth.....
They aren't open for negotiations.....Period!

If we fail to hang together, we will surely hang separately.

Tall Shadow

[fabsroman]

This has turned out to be a very good and informative thread.

TS,

Your post leads me to think that maybe military arms should be available to the masses so that if the gov't were to get out of hand the masses could rise up and put it back in its place.

While I understand your analogy about the North Vietnamese, I don't necessarily think you are right. With the technology that the military has today compared to that of the 60's and 70's, and the good possibility that the U.S. never wanted to actually win the Vietnam War, I find it a very tough analogy to today's U.S. Armed Forces putting down a revolt of the people, unless of course some of the military is involved in the revolt and we actually have a civil war.

[Purebred Redneck]

What if killing someone with a gun made that person happy?
Would that not contradict life, liberty, and happiness?
I forget the word or phrase (and I'm not looking for it after 65 hours of teaching social studies and book work this week. ) but the government does summarize that we have these rights so long as they don't infringe on those same rights of others.

And I do know "property" is not mentioned in the final draft of the Declaration of Ind.
Thomas Jefferson borrowed oringally "life, liberty, and property" from John Locke. It was even in the declaration up until the final draft when it was removed in favor of a more emotionally charged statement - happiness".
A lot of people believe democracy was this wonderful thing born in America. It most definatly was not - it was born in europe time and time again. This time Americans such as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc studied european philosophy in europe and brought it back here to write.
But enough of that lol.

Let me ask this question and I would like an honest answer, although I probably know it.

Is there a difference between the government becomming a dictatorship and taking away guns AND the magority of the people through representation legally creates a law to ban guns?

One last point on Fab's post.
The U.S. could of went in and totally wiped the N. Viet. off the surface of this earth but they didn't do it wholeheartedly.
Also, if we are afraid of a corrupt government - what is to stop them from using nukes on the uprisers if they form in a common area?

That's what the president of Iraq did. People attempted to overthrow the legitament (questionable I understand - but nevertheless legal) leader of the country and that got them killed in MASS numbers.

[fabsroman]

PB - I think we are on the same page as far as your points on my last post. I don't think there is any way that the people of the U.S., whether in mass or not, could defeat the U.S. military unless the military sided with the people.

Warfare is a lot different today than it was back during the Revolutionary War. Back then, all you really needed to know was how to fire a musket, ride a horse, or use a sword. Of course, there was the strategy behind everything too just as there is today. Difference is, today, not many people know how to drive an A1-ABRAMS, Bradley, frigate, or aircraft carrier or fly a F-18, AC-130, or any other type of military plane. Warfare is much different than it was 200+ years ago, especially when you take into account nukes. But nukes also provide a lot of power if the people get their hands on them.

Maybe when there is a will there is a way.

As far as their being a difference between a dictatorship taking away firearms and the people voting to do away with firearms, there is obviously a difference. The first decision is made by a select few, if not one, whereas the second is made by the people in their entirety. While we are on this subject, I will also remind you that the U.S. gov't is not a true democracy in that the people do not vote on all the issues. Getting rid of the Second Amendment would most likely require an Amendment to the Constitution, and that would require a vote of the people.

[PJgunner]

Fabs. I don't want to really take this off thread, but the reason we lost our butts in Viet Nam is due to that idiot (strictly my opinion) Lame Brain Johnson. (also signer into law that abortion 1968 gun control law.) He decided that he knew more than his generals in how to conduct the war. Don't bomb hanoi. Might kill off some Russian and Chinese adisors, piss 'em off and start WW-3. Same with bombing Haiphong Harbor. Sink a few Russian and Chinese ships, and yup, you guess it, start WW-3. China was supplying the NVA over bridges at the Chinese/N. Viet Nam border. Oops! Might knock of few Chinese and start WW-3. Like Adolf Hitler, who also thought he knew more than his generals, Lame Brain also signed into law, Hitler's 1938 (?) gun control law. If you need to know the details, I'll be glad to post them.
PBR felt we should take a softer action against the anti-gun people. The NRA has been doing that since 1934. They compromised on the National Firearms act of 1934 (NFA 34), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) the Firearms Owners Act of 1986 (FOPA 86) and that gun law of 1994 I forget the exact title.
Adolf Hitler once said, "What good fortune for government that the people do not pay attention." That's part of my signature along with "Compromise is not an option." and "Political correctness is an oxymoron promulgated by morons."
The main problem is in educating the sheeple that gun control is bad. It's very hard to do, considering the liberal media workes as hard as they can to promote gun control. As has been said, the 2nd Amendment ain't about duck hunting. It's the original Homeland Security bill. The militia ain't the National Guard either. A lot of my reference material is not at hand right now as my study is in the process of being remodeled.
So, how do we go about educating the non-shooting public? I try to take out non-shooters top the range and let they try it, should I find one open minded enough or curious enough to see what it's all about. I teach Hunted Ed classes, and try to talk the parents and kids to join the NRA, GOA or one of the other pro gun organizations.
I write my representatives about how I feel one anti-gun legislation. My Senators are fairly reasonable but my Congressrat would like all personal firearms taken away ASAP and all the Mexicans who want to come here illegally be allowed to do so, and be considered legal.
His predecessor was just as bad and I outright asked him if he was a Communist. (JMHO,, but I consider both of them commies.)
Paul B.

[TreeDoc]

Originally posted by Purebred Redneck
Is there a difference between the government becomming a dictatorship and taking away guns AND the magority of the people through representation legally creates a law to ban guns?

The answer is "No" because the Second Amendment gaurantees that right.

[Purebred Redneck]

It also grants ways for it's own demise though - like Fabs said - amendments.

It's only a right because we say it's a right. As soon as the 2nd amendment is amended then the right is totally non-existant.


But we are on the same page Fabs.

BTW - good thread. Whoever voted this thing a 5 star is on the money. Very good debate.

I also about sprayed beer all over the screen with the "frickin lazer beam" comment

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Purebred Redneck

It's only a right because we say it's a right. As soon as the 2nd amendment is amended then the right is totally non-existant.

I would like to ammend that PB.
It is only a right until WE allow it to be taken away.

To me the answer is simple, either fight for what you belive is right, or walk away, take what is dished out to you, and don't complain about it.

Myself, I stand for sticking with what got us into the greatest nation in the world in the first place.

[fabsroman]

PJ,

I think we are on the same page too. I think that we could have won the Vietnam War if we really wanted to. If push came to shove, we could have done a lot more than what we did.

By the way, somebody mentioned Johnson picking and choosing targets in Vietnam, might have been you PJ, but I read this thread a while ago and walked away from the computer to watch a TV show with the fiance. Seems as though Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo according to some of my Navy pilot friends. The armed forces didn't care much for Clinton and I would guess they didn't care much for Johnson either.

After everything is said and done, I will fight as hard as I can to keep my guns. I am an Endowment Member in the NRA and give whenever I have the funds. However, the day they make it illegal to own firearms, albeit a sad day that will find me crying, I will turn them in if required to do so.

[TreeDoc]

Originally posted by fabsroman
PJ,

Seems as though Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo according to some of my Navy pilot friends. The armed forces didn't care much for Clinton and I would guess they didn't care much for Johnson either.

Not to change the subject but Clinton's move in Kosovo was purely "Wag the Dog" to take the media coverage off of his whoring of the Oval Office!

[fabsroman]

TD,

I'll agree with you on that one. Problem was that he was sending fighter pilots into dangerous situations and supposedly telling them not to bomb certain threats on their way in. Completely bone headed if you ask me.

[Lilred]

Picture this: Yer in a new york ghetto w/ a gang on one side and a gang on another. Better yet, picture yerself in Bagdad w/ terroists on both sides of ya.
Now, picture yerself w/ a single shot 50 cal. in yer hand. Dead meat aint ya? Does ya bout as much good as a 1-legged man in a butt kickin contest.

So...why ban the dam thing? Why ban one of the oldest guns that man has concockted? Seems a lil out of place dont it....hmmm...maybe that's just they're way of addin another lil ole flea to the dog's back. But it dont take too many of them fleas to bring a dog down on his butt now does it? Just another way of lookin at things..

While I'm at it..let me say somethin bout that there Constitution.
Bein from Virginia and from a very long line of proud Virginians, I know my state's history perty good.
You see...the Constitution aint werth the paper it's printed on, iffin the people aint there to fight fer fer it..er back it up. Just like our money backed by gold. The state of Virginia has fought numerous times fer what they believed in, and more than once fer their own interpretation of that there Constitution.

Irregardless of that, no matter how many "interpretations" people may have, down through all of this here U.S. of A's ages, it has been the backbone of this country. Has it not been the one and only thing that has kept this nation connected in some form or another? And, on the other hand, has it not been the one thing that we have fought over fer hundreds of years? Yep folks, it has. Amend, amend, amend. But, there is 1 key werd in my last sentence that, IMHO, is the key. We fought. We still fight.

I dont know bout ya'll..but Lilred dont bow her head to nobody but the Good Lord and her Mama..and I reckon Mr. Redneck, that seein as how you aint from the South, sir, you need to change that there name of yers, cause you aint no purebred nuthin, esp. a redneck like us, iffin yer content to sit back and let them add them fleas on yer back.

I have more respect fer a person, wether I agree w/ em er not, iffin they have enough gumption to stand there and take the hit, than to cower. That is what your, and my, great-great-great granpappys fought fer and died fer. Why they came here to begin with. The way I see it, I aint shamin my gran-pappy by givin in to nobody. Then they all died, and continue to die, fer absolutley nothin. Iffin ya caint think of nuthin else, nor agree with nuthin else...think about yer ancestors who took the hit fer you and me..and what they would say to all of us today.

[fabsroman]

Lilred,

What is great about the Constitution is the ability to amend it. If it weren't for amendments to the Constitution, most of the people that vote today would not be allowed to. I am sure you know that women and uneducated people were not allowed to vote initially. I didn't even mention blacks because they weren't even considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted. Among other things, the Civil War was also over amending the Constitution.

The Constitution is able to change with changing times. Do you think the founding fathers ever thought there would be things such as airplanes and computers, much less satellites. The Constitution was made so that it can change as need be. That is why it has lasted as long as it has.

While we don't always agree with the Amendments (i.e., the Civil War), they usually mirror the people's wants. Let's hope that society never gets so bad that evil amendments can be passed by the majority. However, if it does get that bad, I guess we won't have much to look forward to anyway.