posted on April 24, 2001 12:46:36 PM
"Gun ownership in this country is one of the reasons that no military force in modern times have tried to invade the U.S., the simple idea that every home in the U.S could possibly harbor a gun is a strong deterrent against invasion."
Really? Except for our war mongering neighbors of Mexico and Canada I would think that a few thousand miles of ocean is the strongest deterrent to invasion by a military force.
posted on April 24, 2001 01:40:45 PM
Consider what obstacles a opposing military force would incur, while attempting to invade the U.S.
if they attack and gain a military advantage and move to invade. Sending foot troops into a country heavily armed with a considerable amount of ammunition! All provided by private ownership! This scenario
lends itself to Guerrilla Warfare, costly to counter, and usually long an drawn out.
I know I'm a little late on this, but one of your posts in this thread confused me. I agree with you that an unarmed citizenry is a dangerous thing, but as far as Bush and his new world order... It seems to me that Bush and the Republicans are the one's who want to protect peoples right to bear arms. I think thats the Democrats you are referring to that want to take all the guns away (presumably for this new world order you are referring to). Maybe I missed your point...
[ edited by jlpiece on Apr 24, 2001 10:55 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2001 12:04:30 AMjlpiece, I must say that it is most amusing to converse with you here on AW.
To answer your question, I pointed at none of the political parties in this thread as I am aware of it, referring to who supports gun control and who doesn't.
I would hope that the RT teaches everyone to check their facts before making statements here, as it saves a lot of time. It is also a learning lesson for those who have preconceived notions before arriving here to gain the opportunity of changing their basic perceptions; such as:
If you DISLIKE the Fascist Republicans in power at the moment, you must be:
a) A Liberal
b) A Democrat
c) Both, since there is no such thing as a Liberal not being a Democrat!
d) none of the above
Answer d) is correct. It is entirely possible to despise the stupidity of "conservative wisdom" - an oxymoron; it is also possible to defend Clinton and not be a Democrat; it is possible to believe in Ideals that the Democratic Party USED TO have, but have trashed in favor of the Corporate New World Order; it is entirely possible to actually have facts and logic when quoting the Bible -- all this, and not be either a Democrat or a Liberal!
When I saw that you had started this thread, I knew that you would be surprised at the number of persons on here whom you may have considered die-hard Liberals and Democrats go in an entirely different direction than what you thought it would. SURPRIZE! Most Americans DO NOT agree with the Democratic push to separate us from the fourth amendment and to instill Big Brother in its place! Most Americans did not vote; not Democrat or Republican.
And it does not take a political point of view to actually READ history and come to the same conclusions that many of us have. If Gore and the Democratic Party did not go about trying to limit and abolish the Fourth Amendment, George Bush, Jr. would have been a mere footnote in history. That is how many people READ history and have come to the same conclusions that you see here in this thread.
Because the Demos were doing the New World Order bidding of trying to disarm the American populous, the Republicans, in their one and only brilliant move in over twenty years, realized that protecting a US Constitutional Amendment like the Fourth would catapult them into power and demolish the Democrats. Therefore, Dubya received more votes than he would have otherwise, simply because Americans are not ready for a Tyranny of any sort.
But don't let the Republicans fool you anymore than they already do with their garbage: they work for the New World Order as well and in time, they will agree with Democrats to destroy the Fourth Amendment! They just want your vote until then ...
edited for syntax
[ edited by Borillar on Apr 25, 2001 12:09 AM ]
posted on April 25, 2001 02:10:59 AM
Like I said somewhere else, next time i vote for Harry Brown. I am not at all impressed with the jackass or the elephant.
posted on April 27, 2001 03:53:56 AM new
The Wall Street Journel had an excellant article a few years back where a reporter wondered when and why gun restrictions started to be made in law.
The investigation led him someplace he did not anticipate - He found that gun laws were enacted to keep weapons out of the hands of the newly freed slaves after the Civil War.
Almost everyone agreed that it would be terrible for black men to be running all over the countryside with firearms they were not smart enough to use and carrying a grudge against white people.
Once they were enacted it was easy for the communities to apply the same laws to the Irish the Chinese and every other distained group including the simply poor.
Today you can see that same application where I live. In Oakland county Michigan you can get a permit to carry concealed weapons if you are a politician/rich/immediate family of police. All others need not apply. People who have need like transporting cash or diamonds are routinely refused.
In neighboring Macolm county the prosecutor has said that the State Constitution says that a citizen of Michigan has the right to use a weapon to protect hinself his property and the state. So it is a shall issue county.
Their crime rate has gone down like all the counties in Michigan so the anti-gun people are reduced to arguing that the crime would have gone down MORE if they had not allowed the permits. That is in the face of the fact that of the thousands of permits issued only two people have been charged with misuse and had the permit revoked. Neither was the result of an actual shooting.
posted on April 27, 2001 08:42:38 AM new
Great point Gravid, and as a very near resident allow me to point out that Oakland County, gun laws and all, still can't build enough space to house all the criminals awaiting trial for every crime known to man.
posted on April 27, 2001 10:43:09 AM new
England used to ship them off to Australia.
Now just about everyplace already has someone there to object. Antarctica?
posted on April 27, 2001 12:12:09 PM new
About six years ago, a small rural town in central Oregon got angry at the creeping laws and ordinances infringing on the Fourth Amendment. So the City Council unanimously voted a local ordinance that all citizens MUST own a gun and that carrying guns was not against the law there.
I wonder how that's go over in other parts of the country? Is there any other non-violent way for people to object to the criminalization of firearm ownership in this country?
posted on April 27, 2001 02:34:57 PM new
A couple years ago here in Michigan one of the TV stations had a fellow go out and walk down the street wearing a pistol in a nice holster and belt. Since all the carry laws are about concealed weapons there was nothing illegal about openly wearing a pistol. However they made a big stink and were upset that nobody rushed to arrest this fellow
who was doing nothing wrong. It seems they wanted the police to make an unjustified illegal arrest. This is the quality of thinking done by our media people. They want police to enfors\ce culture. That's scary.
