All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/20/2012 7:13 PM
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist #28


"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) Political and Spiritual Leader of Indi

 




12/20/2012 8:22 PM
Other than the Gandhi quote, those other quotes are well over 180 years old.

Are the circumstances and sentiments that were prevalent at the time those quotes were made still relevant today?  Or do we just hang onto to them just because "it's what we've always done"?
12/20/2012 10:29 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210415/Revealed-Army-scientists-secretly-sprayed-St-Louis-radioactive-particles-YEARS-test-chemical-warfare-technology.html

http://rense.com/general36/history.htm

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/15/atomic-testing-burned-its-mark/

"...By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
President John F. Kennedy

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power."
Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/92
12/21/2012 12:16 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/20/2012 8:22:00 PM (view original):
Other than the Gandhi quote, those other quotes are well over 180 years old.

Are the circumstances and sentiments that were prevalent at the time those quotes were made still relevant today?  Or do we just hang onto to them just because "it's what we've always done"?
Individual freedom is so passe!
12/21/2012 10:40 AM
I've been trying to come up with a scenario where a citizen would need to defend himself from a governmental agency in the US.   It isn't happening.  And I think that played into the 2nd amendment back in the day.   We were breaking away from a restrictive government and there just wasn't a proper infrastructure for the new government to defend each individual citizen.   That's without mentioning the natives who were somewhat of a threat.   And, of course, hunting for food.  It's almost like you really did need a gun if you didn't live in the most populated areas.   

Trying to apply that logic to present day, we no longer need guns to defend ourselves from foreign governments.  I doubt Canada or Mexico are planning a ground invasion.  And despite what Patrick Swayze went thru, an invasion from the sky is even more unlikely.
We still need guns to hunt.  No idea what percentage of the population actually hunts for it's food but I'm sure it's pretty small.  I imagine a similar percentage of the population needs protection against wild animals.   Either way, there's no denying that there is a requirement for some firearms for a small percentage of the US. But they're not living in cities.
Finally, I suppose you could replace "natives" with "criminal element".   This is where you could make a case for ALL individuals owning a gun.  You can be the most "surroundings" conscientious person on earth but still end up in a bad situation as criminals are free to travel the same path as you.

While I don't think banning AW will prevent another mass shooting, I'm having a tough time figuring out why anyone would actually need a gun capable of firing 100 rounds a minute.  Again, if a grizzly bear was charging me, I'd want a bazooka.   However, I'm pretty sure it's ilegal to own a bazooka.   Banning guns with more than a 10 round clip seems like a no-brainer.  Beyond that, it just seems like you're trying to placate an outraged, hysterical group.
12/21/2012 12:44 PM
<sarcasm>

More good news!  The N.R.A. has solved the problem!

</sarcasm>
12/21/2012 1:05 PM
I tell you what... imho I feel safer bringing my kid to a school with an armed (and trained) guard than one without. 

Just like I'd rather board a plane that has top security before I board one that has little security.   

Maybe that's just me.


12/21/2012 1:08 PM
Under the circumstances, I'd also feel safer having armed security at my kid's schools.  That's the sad reality of life going forward.

Mostly, I'm just shocked that the NRA's "solution", by pure chance, just happens to line up perfectly with their agenda.  Who could have predicted that?
12/21/2012 1:19 PM
The pure existence of the NRA and their impact on policy is proof enough that millions of US americans still haven't arrived in the 21st century mentally.
12/21/2012 1:53 PM
Posted by bigalric on 12/21/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):
The pure existence of the NRA and their impact on policy is proof enough that millions of US americans still haven't arrived in the 21st century mentally.
Because personal freedom and the 2nd Amendment are ancient concepts and we should be glad to surrender all our freedom to some guy in an office in a big building in Washington and let him decide what is best for all of us!

The fact that people like you dont join the NRA is proof positive that some people have not arrived on earth mentally!
12/21/2012 1:53 PM
I have no problem with the existence of the NRA.  It's an organization of gun enthusiasts.  Nothing wrong with that.

But the fact that they, or any other special interest group, wields so much political power should be alarming to everybody.
12/21/2012 1:55 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/21/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I have no problem with the existence of the NRA.  It's an organization of gun enthusiasts.  Nothing wrong with that.

But the fact that they, or any other special interest group, wields so much political power should be alarming to everybody.
They wield power because of the millions and millions of people who  support their cause.

This idea that the NRA is a handful of people forcing Americans to buy guns is crazy.

The anti-gun groups are the ones we should worry about.

Mostly fake front groups that are supported by traditional left wing funding sources.
12/21/2012 2:39 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/21/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bigalric on 12/21/2012 1:19:00 PM (view original):
The pure existence of the NRA and their impact on policy is proof enough that millions of US americans still haven't arrived in the 21st century mentally.
Because personal freedom and the 2nd Amendment are ancient concepts and we should be glad to surrender all our freedom to some guy in an office in a big building in Washington and let him decide what is best for all of us!

The fact that people like you dont join the NRA is proof positive that some people have not arrived on earth mentally!
Personal freedom is no ancient concept, believing in the 'right' to own any gun you want is. Look around: Where in the world are people allowed to carry automatic  guns  (=war weaponry) whenever/wherever they want? Do you really think (nearly) the whole civilized world is wrong on that?
12/21/2012 2:45 PM
Isn't America supposed to be the "land of the free"?

Comparing the US to China or Japan or England or Australia or Sweden or well, you get the point, is pointless.
12/21/2012 2:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/21/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Isn't America supposed to be the "land of the free"?

Comparing the US to China or Japan or England or Australia or Sweden or well, you get the point, is pointless.
If we speak about personal freedom, I wouldn't mention China in the same sentence with those other countries. China is a dictatorship, Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia and Sweden are democracies.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.