Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

Status
Not open for further replies.
If a self defense shooting looks like a summary execution, it probably wasn't self defense.


If you kill an innocent man because you THINK you're saving your own life, that is an accident.

If you kill an innocent man in a premeditated way, that is murder. The difference is whether there was time to choose, and if the action was to prevent further bloodshed or not.
 
Whether a person is killed by you in self defense, or by the state via the courts, they're still dead. What right do you have to take another person's life? Doesn't the state have the same right? My point is that if you support the death penalty at the micro, or personal level, in the form of self defense, that it's inconsistent to oppose the death penalty at the macro, or state level. Is the difference that you know the victim and have sympathy for him (because he's you) in the case of self defense, while you don't know the victim and therefore have no sympathy for him in the case of the state's punishment? Aren't you executing your considered judgment on the thug and deciding he needs to die? How is the state not doing the same thing?

To put it another way, if you and a thug ended up wrestling for your gun and he won and shot you dead, you think the state has no right to execute the same thug you would've shot if you could've? Personally I'd want him executed because he killed you, an innocent human being. But that's just me and about 2/3rds of the rest of uncivilized America. Here's the latest stats on death penalty support:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=23&did=210

Where is your proof that innocent people have been executed? It's much harder to prove a negative than a positive, so the burden of proof is on you to present positive evidence. If you personally had exculpatory evidence, I trust you brought it forward to prevent the execution. And I trust that any evidence you present will be more than mere hearsay and would've been admissible in a court of law.
 
Asinine, pointless and intellectually impotent
Click to expand...

You have just stated that you think the founding fathers didn't know the word "proficient" in their day and had to use the phrase "well-regulated" instead when they were writing something they thought really important.

That pretty much puts your arguments in the trash bin, where they belong.
 
Nope - I'm saying that my understanding of The Founder's wording is that in the late 1700's the English language was spoken a little different than it is today - just like the King James Bible has some wording that seems odd compared to the way we speak the English language today in 2006.

Just like the word "fat" used to mean overweight but now is used by some to describe something you like ("Man, that Rolex is 'phat!' ")
 
Could you just see Ms Marxist herself (Hallary Clinton) standing in a well stocked modern day gun shop. With free people all around her enjoying the incredible world of firearms. Signing up for NRA memberships to defeat her inch by inch gun grabber laws. I can hear her teeth nashing.

Now think about our founding fathers walking into the same store today, and with AR15s, Mini14s, hanging on the walls for free people to lawfully purchase! You would need trucks to drag those guys out!

I think they would be happy to see us fight sneaky gun grabbers like the Clinton's and expose them.

Criminal gun tracing laws:rolleyes:
 
Whether a person is killed by you in self defense, or by the state via the courts, they're still dead. What right do you have to take another person's life? Doesn't the state have the same right? My point is that if you support the death penalty at the micro, or personal level, in the form of self defense, that it's inconsistent to oppose the death penalty at the macro, or state level. Is the difference that you know the victim and have sympathy for him (because he's you) in the case of self defense, while you don't know the victim and therefore have no sympathy for him in the case of the state's punishment? Aren't you executing your considered judgment on the thug and deciding he needs to die? How is the state not doing the same thing?
Click to expand...
I still don't see the comparison.

A self defense shooting is like a nation fighting an invasion. Someone is going to die, and the moral high ground goes to the innocent party, who is simply resisting the attack for the sake of self preservation.

State sponsored execution is like assasination. The death is premeditated and is not necessary for the continued survival of the nation or person who takes the action.

My state acts on my behalf. I would not personally subdue a murderer and then tie him up and burn him to death. So I would not want the state performing that action in my stead. Are you personally comfortable with a cold blooded execution? I don't think most people are - and if they can't imagine doing the work themselves, they shouldn't be advocating doing it on their behalf.





Invention_45,

The English language has indeed changed greatly since the Constitution, or even since Gettysburg. If you want to argue the generally agreed upon meaning of that passage, may I suggest you have a basis for doing so that is more scholarly than what you have posted. Perhaps a link to or quote from an analysis of the passage supporting your view?
 
Handy,

OK, I'll put it this way. When you're personally attacked by a thug and you kill him in self defense, he was guilty of nothing more than assault or attempted murder at the time you killed him. That's all he could've possibly been convicted of in a court of law at that point, at least as far as you're concerned. Yet you killed him to save an innocent life. Yours. The state has the same right to kill thugs to ultimately save other innocent lives. We have an individual right to self defense, and the state has a collective right to self defense. You see a brief flash of someone charging at you from across your living room brandishing a knife. You decide, instantly, that this thug must die or you or other innocent human beings will die. The state makes the same sort of decision about a thug, except they make the decision more deliberately, with safeguard after safeguard and appeal after appeal. And the state knows all about his childhood abuse, that he loves his mama, etc. The only difference I can see is that the state makes a more considered judgment than you did in gunning him down in a split second, yet you feel justified in self defense but the state is not justified in your eyes.

You seem to be saying that the premeditated murder of an innocent human being is the moral equivalent of the state's execution of a guilty murderous thug. A person minding his own business and not bothering anybody is unworthy of death and therefore innocent. A person attempting to kill an innocent person for an unlawful reason is worthy of death and is guilty. You're saying that you can kill a thug in self defense because you KNOW the thug is guilty. You're saying the state can't kill a thug because you don't trust the state. I see a double standard there somewhere.

But you may be one of those that refuses to make a distinction between innocence and guilt. In that case, we live on different planets and will never communicate.

And if one of my loved ones was the victim of a murderous thug, I'd volunteer to throw the switch, press the plunger, etc. But that's because I DO see a distinction between innocence and guilt.
 
Self defense shootings are attempts to STOP, not necessarily kill, your attacker. There is no judgement or decision on the part of the defender: He is not "sentencing" the attacker to anything.

If someone kills your family member, and you kill them before they are arrested, you are guilty of murder. Period. Cold blooded, premeditated murder, even if there is no doubt as to his guilt.


Normal people understand that difference. People who have received CCW training know that the effort to STOP an attacker is not a decision to kill. And once they are stopped (but still breathing) you can't keep shooting, no matter who was already killed.


You are playing silly word games. Start a thread telling people that using lethal force in defense is the same as an execution and you will find no one taking your side.


I don't differentiate between guilty or innocent when it comes to executing helpless people. I will not tie a man up and shoot him, burn him or poison him. If that's in your comfort zone, good for you. But I'm not alone in feeling like this, even among CCW people. The two are not equivalent, and your arguments aren't changing that.
 
Chicken in every pot??
Nah - but stick a stinger in every garage,,,and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts taxes would plumment PDQ. ;)
 
Could you just see Ms Marxist herself (Hallary Clinton) standing in a well stocked modern day gun shop. With free people all around her enjoying the incredible world of firearms. Signing up for NRA memberships to defeat her inch by inch gun grabber laws. I can hear her teeth nashing.

Now think about our founding fathers walking into the same store today, and with AR15s, Mini14s, hanging on the walls for free people to lawfully purchase! You would need trucks to drag those guys out!

I think they would be happy to see us fight sneaky gun grabbers like the Clinton's and expose them.
Click to expand...
If Field Marshall Hillary walked into a gun shop by accident, she'd burst into flames (which wouldn't be a bad thing:D ).

One of my favorite gun shops has a long gun rack that is routinely stocked with 20 or so AR15/Bushmaster type rifles and a few M1A's. If The Founders could see that, I'll bet they would weep with joy.

We just have to make sure we always have stores like that - and one absolute must in accomplishing that is to send Clinton's socialist ass to the unemployment line.
 
Pittsburgh Tribune Review says Hillary is not so slick:
Not-so-slick Hillary


Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Red states are turning scarlet for Sen. Hillary Clinton as her cultural elitism becomes transparent to Middle America.

Mrs. Clinton, D-N.Y., her party's likely presidential nominee, has quietly co-sponsored an insidious gun bill of fellow liberal Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. But Hillary's slick move to silence left-wing critics will backfire as it blows holes in her well-cultivated image of a red state-friendly moderate.

Honest liberals are less repulsive than dishonest ones in America's heartland.

The lawsuit-friendly bill Hillary is co-sponsoring would make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales so plaintiffs could sue gunmakers more easily for the actions of their buyers.

Al From, founder of the ironically named Democratic Leadership Council, hosted a conference in 2003 titled "God, Guns and Guts: Seizing the Cultural Center." He knew that rural and suburban voters doubt liberals share their values. Well, duh.

Gun grabbers were told to mouth respect for the Second Amendment but demand tough laws to close "loopholes" -- such as the one allowing a widow to sell her husband's rifle at a gun show without having to do background checks.

Hillary, who doesn't even make a passing reference to the Second Amendment, must have blown off that session.

Now more than ever -- run, Hillary, run! Please!
Click to expand...
 
steelheart said:
If Field Marshall Hillary walked into a gun shop by accident, she'd burst into flames (which wouldn't be a bad thing).
Click to expand...
Hmmm...

{channelling the Wicked Witch of the West}

I'm melllllllllllltttttiiiinnnng. What a world; what a world....

Sorry, I'll stop now...

P.
.
 
Redworm:

Re your opening comment, see below, thanks for the kind word. I have made, over the years, all manner of claims. Never claimed to be diplomatic though.

That was quite a diplomatic CYA post, I'm impressed. It depends on what you mean by antigunners. I believe the anti-gun politicians mostly hold their views for one of two reasons:

Regarding anti gun politicans, I believe that what their words and actions clearly show is the very low regard in which they hold their fellow citizens, as well as the small trust they have for them. Why else would they advocate schemes that demonstrably don't work, schemes that serve only to attack the rights and prerogeratives of the law abiding?

As to why anti gun citizens "want" such laws, do they really, or are they merely operating on, as you noted, artifically generated fear and misinformatiion, combined with ignorance. Have you ever read any of the articles written by William Tonso, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana. As I recall, he has had articles printed in Reason, The National Review and The American Spectator, among other magazines. One in particular was titled The Media As Information Gatekeepers, or words to that effect. It was quite interesting, or so I thought.

On another question, concerning anti gun martial artists, I've never run into one, and think the liklehood of ever so doing is slight, to say the very least.

Re those who will not defend themselves, yet expect others to so do, In A Nation of Cowards, Jim Snyder once asked how it is that for relatively paltry sums, such people expect others to place their lives at risk, protecting them. Interesting question that. A possible answer is that this self annointed elite feel that such is their due. This is an idea I never agreed with, but what do I know.

I submit that regarding the death penalty, it amounts to our having agreed to disagree. That happens sometimes.

As to your closing point, re finding a way to keep criminals from obtaining guns, while not trashing the rights of the law abiding, I don't have an answer to that question either, other than to say that "business as usual", the making of ever more constraining hoops for the law abiding to jump through won't do it. Pity that so many political types are either unable or unwilling to recognize and or admit this.

Thanks for your time and thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Handy:

I did not think that you were a member of the gun ban set. Let's say that we disagree on the quality of examples. I believe that this is important, for the ultimate, unchanginging and often stated goals of the anti gunners are, have been and remain, the total proscription of arms, except perhaps for themselves.

Going on to other points, yes government has the things you mention. At some point, peope have to dismount though. Could be that at that point, things would get interesting. I do not believe, at least not anytime soon, that we will come to the point of so opressive a government. I certainly could be wrong though.

As to various types of arms, as I recall from reading Miller v U.S., USSC 1939 Mr. Justice McReynolds said something to the effect that the militia would be armed with weapons similar in pattern to those of the regular forces. I assume he referenced the classical militia, that being the general population, though I could be wrong. As to The Second Amendment, a former President of NRA once offered that The Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear flintlock muskets. That gentleman failed to impress me.

As to defense of The Second Amendment, and covered arms, I would say that the arms protected thereby would be arms similar to those that the infantryman of a given era (today) would normally be equipped with. A light weight, selective fire rifle type weapon, possibly a sub-machinegun, or in some cases, a scope sighted bolt action rifle, though this last might be something of a stretch. Throw in a pistol if you like. The bit of business about atomic weapons, sometimes mentioned, seems silly to me, unless one were suicidal.


As to your final point, where you mention "reasonable", the anti gunners have historically taken whatever was offered, always singing the siren song of "reasonable restrictions", which in their minds is as mentioned above. Meantime, they have never failed to come back for more. Have you viewed the history of modern gun control? By modern, I refer to what has been proposed since the early 1960's, starting with the offerings of then senator from Conn. Tom Dodd? The growth of proposals viewable is really quite instersting, and is clealy illustrative of ultimate goals, also mentined above.

Thanks for your time and thoughts.
 
Alan,

I would like to point out that your take on what is a reasonable weapon selection for the armed citizenry essentially puts you comfortably in line with the 1934 NFA. The weapons banned by the NFA were pretty much anything that wasn't fielded by individual soldiers in the previous war. The NFA banned machineguns, and all machineguns actually used in WWI were crew served. The NFA blocked the acquistion of the newfangled submachinegun and automatic rifle before those weapons had ever been used in warfare.

This is what I mean when I say that EVERYONE seems to desire some form of arms control, whether it be a say in WHO can own, or what.

A nuclear weapon is an extreme example, as is the musket in my and your NRA President's example. But the extremes speak to the center. A few years from now something like a rail gun, capable of destroying tanks or aircraft at many miles, might be a common infantry weapon. Is that a proper weapon for the citizenry? Same with the Stinger, the mortor, the recoilless rifle, magazine fed grenade launcher and hand grenades.


Drawing such a line is not a simple thing based on obvious or prewritten rules. There are plenty of antigun people who do not favor complete disarmament, even if their wish to remove all self loading rifles and all handguns seems monsterous to us. I'm just pointing out that a truly ardent 2A supporter would find little difference between that ban and your "individual infantry weapons" idea, as both lack a basis in history or law, and both are quite fundamentally "arms control".
 
As to defense of The Second Amendment, and covered arms, I would say that the arms protected thereby would be arms similar to those that the infantryman of a given era (today) would normally be equipped with. A light weight, selective fire rifle type weapon, possibly a sub-machinegun, or in some cases, a scope sighted bolt action rifle, though this last might be something of a stretch. Throw in a pistol if you like. The bit of business about atomic weapons, sometimes mentioned, seems silly to me, unless one were suicidal.
Click to expand...
Bringing up the "threat" of the average gun owner possessing a nuclear weapon in the context of this discussion totally invalidates the viewpoint of those who do so. I've met alot of gun owners over my 27 years in the shooting soprts and ya know what? Not a single one of them has ever mentioned wanting to own a nuclear weapon. The "nuclear weapon in the hands of joe citizen" is an argument that is beyond lame.
As to defense of The Second Amendment, and covered arms, I would say that the arms protected thereby would be arms similar to those that the infantryman of a given era (today) would normally be equipped with. A light weight, selective fire rifle type weapon, possibly a sub-machinegun, or in some cases, a scope sighted bolt action rifle, though this last might be something of a stretch. Throw in a pistol if you like.
Click to expand...
Has anyone else noticed the fact that the gun banners want to outlaw the possession of any and all firearms that would have any usefulness as a fighting tool?

Can anyone see a problem with this? I can. The goal is to deny We The People the capability to resist Government troops; the best way to do that is to outlaw the possession of any weapon that has any military application. We cannot resist "The Government" very well if all we have is .22LR pistols and .410 shotguns, now can we? We all need to be asking the question, "Why does 'The Government' insist on surperior firepower over We The People?"

First it was "assault weapons,":barf: then high capacity magazines, then .50 caliber rifles - I even remember some talk being thrown around during the Clinton regieme about banning 12ga. shotguns as "destructive devices." Today the antigun bigots talk about outlawing what they call "medium caliber sniper rifles" - that would be deer rifles to you and me. So much for their claim that they aren't out to ban "sporting" arms.

The Bush years have provided us with a break from the efforts of the antigun/antifreedom bigots - they haven't made much headway at all since 2000, and I recognize that. However, it will be next to impossible to keep them out of power on an indefinite basis, and they won't abandon their goals.

The most important thing of all is that as gun owners, we never vote for politicians with an antigun track record - and we all know who they are.

Voting for antigun politicians is nothing less than cutting your own throat and enabling them to destroy our right to arms, plain and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top