# The Coming Dark Times



## The Martialist (Nov 7, 2006)

*The Coming Dark Times*
_Thoughts on Today's National Elections_

By Phil Elmore, Publisher, _The Martialist_

Throughout history, every religious and socio-political group has had or does have its dark times &#8211; the times to which it refers and proclaims, "Never again," the times for which its members prepare with grim purpose and pessimistic proclamations.  For the Jews, it was the Holocaust &#8211; and it remains the spectres of anti-Semitism and, if you are a member of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, gun control.  For Christians it was the persecution of people of faith throughout history, from Roman coliseums to the enforced atheism of the Soviet Union &#8211; and it remains the litigious and systematic removal of Christianity from the public sphere in contemporary American society.  For modern-day Pagans it was the "Burning Times," including the infamous Salem Witch Trials &#8211; and it remains the hostility, suspicion, and discrimination of contemporary citizens whose opinions of neopagan religions are based on misinformation and misunderstanding.

For armed, prepared citizens, those whom I call _*martialists*_, the dark times are comprised of any period in which the political, social, and cultural pendulum swings towards _control_ &#8211; control of arms, control of training, control of individual lives.  For what is self-defense without the _self?_  The right to defend yourself and the legal freedom necessary to own the tools and take the actions necessary to accomplish this goal are aspects of your self-ownership, the concept that _you_ own _you_.  Your are nobody&#8217;s slave and you are nobody&#8217;s property.  You don&#8217;t owe anyone anything to which you&#8217;ve not agreed.  You have the inalienable, unquestioned natural right to yourself &#8211; and to the products of your labors.  To protect those rights, you have the right to defend yourself.  More importantly, you have the right, in a free society, to be free of burdensome, invasive legislation that infringes on your right to self-protection or otherwise unjustly deprives you of your property, your time,  or your life.

For example, the most recent dark times for men and women of action -- the people who are reading _The Martialist_, for the most part &#8211; were the eight years of the Clinton Presidency &#8211; eight years of abuse by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms punctuated by the Clintons' contempt for gun owners and anyone to the right of their political leftism.  These were dark times that saw the burning to death of the Branch Davidians, for example -- people whose crimes certainly included being deluded religious nutjobs, but whose crimes certainly did not merit an horrific death sentence.  These were dark times that saw a young boy, whose mother died to free him from the socialist dictatorship of Cuba, stolen at gunpoint by jackbooted stormtroopers -- a boy stolen from an American home in an American city by black-clad federal ninja wielding submachineguns.  (Thanks to President Clinton, Elian Gonzales was returned to the prison-state that is modern-day Cuba, where is the property of the state.)  

These were dark times that saw a marked decrease in Federal Firearms Licenses, as the government did its best to harass legal gun dealers and put them out of business.   These were dark times that saw what was, at the time, the largest tax increase in history, accompanied by ever-greater government control on the liberties, lives, and livelihoods of those living and working in the United States.

For today's armed and prepared citizens, the dark time remains the Orwellian thought policing of that which is considered politically correct, coupled with the increasing pacifism and passivism of American popular culture.  Ours is a culture that would rather see a woman raped than allow her to carry a gun.  Ours is a culture that would bring that woman up on charges if she shot a would-be rapist.  Ours is a culture that, increasingly, equates weaponry and even martial arts training with vice, with the desire to do unprovoked violence to others.  

The Centers for Disease Control, as politicized a public agency as ever one could want, treat firearms like a disease.  Schoolchildren, increasingly brainwashed in government schools, are indoctrinated to view all use of force as evil -- sometimes even being asked to inform on their parents&#8217; firearms ownership, if news accounts can be believed --and come home to their horrified parents spewing politically correct clichés and revisionist history with the wide-eyed innocence of true believers (all while failing miserably to understand everything from math and reading to simple weights and measures, to say nothing of mysteries like grammar).
The coming dark times have, on occasion, seemed more distant.  In post-Clinton America, it seemed -- beginning with the Republican "take-over" of Congress during Clinton's time in office -- that the tide was turning.  

Americans who believe in being prepared, in living life actively and dynamically, in defending themselves and their families, breathed premature sighs of relief.  These American anti-pacifists -- whom I call _martialists_ -- even saw the expiration of the national "Assault Weapons Ban," signed into law by the first President Bush.  (Lest you think that this is a polemic against a specific political party, it is not.  Both Republicans and Democrats pose a threat to your liberty and have engaged in the war on self-defense.  For example, George Pataki, nominally a Republican, did more harm to legal gun ownership in New York State than the infamous Governmor Mario Cuomo ever managed before him.  Pataki signed into law what was, at the time, the strictest gun control in the United States.)
For a brief moment in time, the American future -- which seemed inexorably to be moving towards greater tyranny, greater statism, greater and more invasive government control, greater socialism &#8211; seemed bright.  

Conservative radio hosts starting arrogantly proclaiming (while ignoring their own political functionaries&#8217; infringements on personal liberty and failures to secure national security and individual rights) that those on the political left simply couldn&#8217;t win elections, that their ideology had been rejected by the American people, that their party or parties were dying.  It was, apparently, a good time to be a martialist in the United States.  It was, many thought, a good time to be an armed and law-abiding American.  It was, so many hoped, a good time to be a free woman, a free man &#8211; a free citizen.

The future has gone dark.

In truth, the future always was dark.  It is remarkably stupid, given the lessons of history, to rejoice when Republicans take power, for they have wrought as much damage to individual liberty as have their Democrat rivals.  Substitute &#8220;right-wing&#8221; for Republicans and &#8220;left-wing&#8221; for Democrat in that sentence and the truth is only slightly different.  While I do believe right and wrong exist -- and I believe ardently that what is true and morally correct is far more often characterized as &#8220;right wing&#8221; than as &#8220;left wing&#8221; -- the fact is that our society is moving inexorably towards totalitarian statism.  

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States ruled -- legislating from the bench as it so often does -- that your government may take your property for almost any "public good," in what is surely the most gruesome abuse of Emminent Domain ever to be handed down by our robed masters.  This is only the beginning.  When your government can take anything you own for almost any reason, private property does not exist.  When private property does not exist, de facto socialism has been implemented.  The dark times are coming &#8211; and they have always been coming.

When I first got the idea to write this editorial, the dust was just clearing from the 2005 off-year elections.  At that time, in San Fancisco, all guns were banned.  It was illegal to make guns, sell guns, or own guns.  You couldn&#8217;t carry a gun in the city;  you could not even have a gun in your home or your business.  San Francisco was thus destined to join Chicago and Washington, DC, as one the most violent cities in the nation, torn by the lawlessness that is always the result of disarming law-abiding citizens.
While it seems the law has been successfully challenged in court since that time, the passing of the San Francisco ban was not an isolated incident.  Republican ballot initiatives in California were roundly voted down.  Left-leaning politicians, primarily Democrats, swept the most consequential of the off-year elections nationwide in the wake of the political scandals plaguing the second Bush administration.  On the opposite coast, Hillary Clinton was (and is, as of this writing) the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination in 2008 &#8211; and notoriously anti-gun Elliot Spitzer, now an Attorney General eager to sue firearm manufacturers out of existence, is poised to become the next Governor of New York State.  The national and local news media are already trumpeting the "political nightmare" George Bush will face in 2006 when Democrats sweep the elections in two weeks' time.  Polls across the country indicate that the Democrats will likely seize control of Congress.


Never a particularly strong president, George W. Bush has proven to be his party's worst enemy.  As political conservatives have lost ground, so, too, have armed citizens lost ground.  Say what you will about the other politics of the right wing in this country;  complain, rightly, as much as you like about "theocracy" and other issues associated with the G.O.P. that are less than libertarian.  For all the party's faults, however, it did one thing reasonably well, if at times with mediocrity:  it stood up for firearms rights.  The party's legitimately conservative members stood up for self-defense in the face of crime.  They stood up for martialism in the face of popular culture's pacifist mantra of appeasement, self-destruction, and self-delusion.

Of course, they did this while society continued to close in around its members.  They did this while, at times, aiding and abetting the very forces of &#8220;big government&#8221; they claimed to oppose.  In a day and age when Congress and the President create and sign into being not tens, not scores, but hundreds of laws &#8211; from a pool of bills created in the Senate and the House that numbers in the thousands &#8211; it&#8217;s safe to say that all the really important and necessary laws (such as not murdering our neighbors or stealing their property) have been covered at some point in our more than two hundred year history.  That means that with each of the thousands of possible laws your federal government tries to foist on you as an American citizen, another piece of your life is cordoned off, boxed in, and tied up.  

There are now more laws on the books at the federal and state levels in the United States -- not counting the nearly limitless regulations imposed by various and sundry federal and state agencies and their faceless bureaucratic functionaries -- than any human being could possibly comprehend.  No single person could keep in his or her head all of the laws he or she must follow in order to engage in any endeavor in his or her personal or business life.  It simply isn&#8217;t possible.  As the web of laws continues to tighten, the war on your freedom -- the war on you, your individuality, your right to self-defense -- continues apace.  The war on freedom starts with the war on self-defense because a human being who can fight back is a human being who can oppose all other forms of government control, government intervention, and government theft.

As the coming dark times close in, it will become even more difficult for American martialists.  Already under assault from every side in a culture that values victims over victors, defensively-minded critical thinkers are becoming increasingly rare among Americans.  Think about the other gun owners you know -- and among them, think of the hardcore "tactical" enthusiasts, the ones who post in online discussion sites devoted to self-defense, the ones who spend hundreds of dollars to train with people and at institutions like Gabe Suarez, Massad Ayoob, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and MDTS, and Progressive F.o.R.C.E. Concepts, the ones who&#8217;ve studied or are studying martial arts and who do more than wander through life blissfully ignorant of life&#8217;s potential dangers.  How many of them consider themselves, quite rightly, members of an increasingly shrinking minority?  How many of them will tell you, quite honestly, that they must live in the &#8220;tactical closet&#8221; for fear that coworkers and family members will consider them paranoid, dangerous, or otherwise mentally "odd" (at best) if their beliefs about self-defense, weapons, and realistic martial arts training became known?

As bad as it has been, it's going to become much worse.  Martialists -- martial artists, self-defense and combatives exponents, gun owners, survivalists, and others who believe in basic preparedness and objective reality over wishful thinking and utopian political correctness -- will become an increasingly persecuted minority.  The fiction that seemed so far-fetched even during the Clinton Years will become chillingly relevant.  Across this nation, martialists and like-minded armed citizens will reread Jerry Ahern's _The Survivalist_, _The Freeman_, and _The Defender_.  They will pick up and read with shaking hands their copies of _Unintended Consequences_, _Enemies Foreign and Domestic_, and _Out of the Gray Zone_.  They will realize with horror that there are classics of English-language literature predating these more contemporary offerings, classics that warned us of the coming dark times in voices and images that are only too clear in our 20/20 hindsight.  The communist dystopia of Orwell&#8217;s _Animal Farm_ will only too chillingly embody the attitudes of the men and women in power who presume to write laws telling us what we may and may not do.  The alarmingly prescient depiction of an oppressed citizenry under constant video surveillance by a manipulative and brutal government will no longer be confined to the pages of Orwell&#8217;s _1984_.  Martialists will delve into a cornucopia of libertarian short fiction, the most famous examples of which involve everything from the smuggling of illicit dairy products to costumed vigilantes waging ceaseless war against the well-oiled machines of restrictive, pitiless autocracy.  

If all of this sounds far-fetched, if all of its sounds like alarmism and pessimism, if none of this seems likely to occur&#8230; well, congratulations.  You&#8217;re in the majority of people who think it can&#8217;t happen to them.  You remember the famous condemnation of apathy in the face of oppression, don&#8217;t you?  It goes something like, &#8220;When they came for the Jews, I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew.  When they came for the [place persecuted minority here] I did nothing because I wasn&#8217;t a member of that persecuted minority.  When they came for me, there was nobody left to stop them.&#8221;  

_*The Martialist*_ is more than a means to discuss weaponry, chat with like-minded individuals, and entertain you with martial theory and application.  It is an attempt to give you the inspiration, the strategies, and methods for living in, coping with, and preparing for a society that hates your right to self-defense.  In some ways it&#8217;s a self-help 'zine, for _The Martialist_ gives you the means to cope -- mentally as well as physically -- with life as a persecuted minority.  Specifically, it teaches you how to conduct yourself as an armed, prepared citizen in a community, state, and nation that despise you for being (or wanting to be) what you are.   It teaches you what steps to take while you still can and while there are options available to you before the dark times close in.  It enables you to build mental (and perhaps physical) fortifications against the onslaught of the politically correct, the passive, the power-hungry, and the pitiless.

_The Martialist_ comprises material that I have wanted to read, and failed to find, so many times.  I have wanted to read it whenever I became depressed, despondent, or dispirited.  I have wanted to read it whenever I contemplated planning for the future -- a future I was not sure I was happy about meeting.  I have wanted to read it for comfort, for information, and for affirmation whenever I questioned just why I was different from so many of society&#8217;s apathetic, passive, and pacifist sheep.  

_The Martialist_ is the source material I have wanted to read whenever I was worried about the coming dark times.  It will be the means through which I cope with the next few years.  I am writing this today because we're all in this together -- and I hope what I've written and what I will write will help you, too, to cope with the years ahead.

Best regards on November 7, 2006,

Phil


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

A lot of the rest of the world manages to live quite nicely and happily without each citizen being armed to the teeth with guns, why can't you? Only a very small section of our police are armed, the population aren't armed and we've not quite turned into 1984 yet, if we do it won't be weapons that stop it. Have you considered how much gun carrying is actually for safety and how much is because you like the phallic symbolism of carrying arms?


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> A lot of the rest of the world manages to live quite nicely and happily without each citizen being armed to the teeth with guns, why can't you? Only a very small section of our police are armed, the population aren't armed and we've not quite turned into 1984 yet, if we do it won't be weapons that stop it. Have you considered how much gun carrying is actually for safety and how much is because you like the phallic symbolism of carrying arms?



I've got one friend who was severly beaten once by a group of 5 guys. quite severely injured. Now he won't go anywhere w/out his gun. I doubt he considers it a phallic symbol.

I don't like the concept of looking for phallic symbols everywhere... but thats just me


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> I've got one friend who was severly beaten once by a group of 5 guys. quite severely injured. Now he won't go anywhere w/out his gun. I doubt he considers it a phallic symbol.
> 
> I don't like the concept of looking for phallic symbols everywhere... but thats just me


 
Would have having a gun saved him from a beating? With 5 men onto him wouldn't he have been disarmed and possibly shot with his own weapon? For those of use who have grown up and live without weapons being available the call for people to be armed seems strident and hysterical. I don't at all look for phallic symbols everywhere but to be honest I find all this adoration of firearms very creepy.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Would have having a gun saved him from a beating? With 5 men onto him wouldn't he have been disarmed and possibly shot with his own weapon?


He may have been injured/killed as a result, but he quite possibly may have been able to defend himself and hopefully ward off the attack w/out killing/seriously injuring someone. Using a weapon does escalate the level of potential injury and is not always a cure. He has also taken up various martial arts as a result of the attack.



> For those of use who have grown up and live without weapons being available the call for people to be armed seems strident and hysterical. I don't at all look for phallic symbols everywhere but to be honest I find all this adoration of firearms very creepy.



For those of us that have grown up with guns, the call for disarmament sounds a bit silly  Alot of people here hunt with them as well as use them for self defense purposes.

I tend to look at firearms as a kitchen knife. Its simply a tool. You can use it for many purposes. I don't -adore- my guns any more than I adore my kitchen knife, but I don't see any more logic in trying to remove my gun than removing my kitchen knife. Both can be used for violence, but I don't see an outcry for the removal of kitchen knives...

To a certain extent guns are very much a part of our culture and have been since colonization. I don't see it creepy, but honestly I find cultures that forbid firearms a bit strange  Just what we are used to I suppose...

I assume since you are on this board that you practice some form of martial arts. Do you find it creepy that most martial arts practice some form of weaponry? Do you think cultures w/out weapons would find that a bit creepy? (well, I don't think those cultures exist, but for the sake of imagination)


----------



## Kreth (Nov 7, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> For those of us that have grown up with guns, the call for disarmament sounds a bit silly


But it's worked so well for them.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 7, 2006)

Kreth said:


> But it's worked so well for them.



Say it is not so!


----------



## morph4me (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> A lot of the rest of the world manages to live quite nicely and happily without each citizen being armed to the teeth with guns, why can't you? Only a very small section of our police are armed, the population aren't armed and we've not quite turned into 1984 yet, if we do it won't be weapons that stop it. Have you considered how much gun carrying is actually for safety and how much is because you like the phallic symbolism of carrying arms?


 
What's the weapon of choice for criminals in England? Knives? Clubs? Just because people don't carry firearms doesn't mean they aren't armed.

I don't carry a firearm, my choice, my right. But, I have no criminal record, no history of mental disease or defect, and a right to bear arms under the constition, also my right. I believe there should be background checks and waiting periods, mandatory training, and a limit on the kinds of firearms that are availible to the public. I also believe that my right to protect myself and my family should not be infringed upon.

So, while I may not be in complete agreement with The Martialist, I can understand his position. I hope that at some point, as I follow this thread, that I will come understand yours.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> *For those of use who have grown up and live without weapons being available the call for people to be armed seems strident and hysterical.* I don't at all look for phallic symbols everywhere but to be honest I find all this adoration of firearms very creepy.



Not for all of us it doesn't.  Canada has recently been going through changes in its gun laws.  The most disconcerting thing I remember is hearing about was Gang members lobbying *FOR* gun control.  Simply put, disarming the law abiding public makes us an easier target for them.  THAT is what I call creepy.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Would have having a gun saved him from a beating? With 5 men onto him wouldn't he have been disarmed and possibly shot with his own weapon?


 
This is the same assumption that almost every anti-gun person makes, that a gun in the hands of a thug makes him an invincible killer, and yet a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen will turn against him...

You can't have it both ways.  

The answer to your question is easily seen in the archives of history.  Look at the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.  It wasn't surprising that many Korean-owned businesses survived the looting, arson, and destruction, simply because their owners were able to fend off the attackers with firearms.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Nov 7, 2006)

To put it simply, it is an inherent right of any human being to defend themself.  Firearms are a very efficeint way to help protect yourself from deadly force.

There is a lot of truth in "God created men, Sam Colt made them equal"

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Would have having a gun saved him from a beating? With 5 men onto him wouldn't he have been disarmed and possibly shot with his own weapon?


 
A gun shot wound even in just one person can severely hinder the motivation of the group.



> For those of use who have grown up and live without weapons being available the call for people to be armed seems strident and hysterical. I don't at all look for phallic symbols everywhere but to be honest I find all this adoration of firearms very creepy.


 
The "adoration" of firearms wouldn't be there if there weren't people out there afraid of them, and trying to take away peoples rights to have them. They would simply just be a part of life. But instead, we have to combat those who project their inscurities on to us and who would ademently fight to take our rights away.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 7, 2006)

Jack booted thugs returning a child to a parent. That is just terrible. These are dark times.
Sean


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> A lot of the rest of the world manages to live quite nicely and happily without each citizen being armed to the teeth with guns, why can't you? Only a very small section of our police are armed, the population aren't armed and we've not quite turned into 1984 yet, if we do it won't be weapons that stop it. Have you considered how much gun carrying is actually for safety and how much is because you like the phallic symbolism of carrying arms?



My penis is quite large thank you, and I still own guns.  

Why?  Because, much like the local cops who refused to even take a report when I called them, my PENIS isnt gonna stop the guy who tried to break into my house.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Nov 7, 2006)

I don't own guns, though I'm proficient and comfortable with their use.  I don't mind guns being around and figure they're a valuable enough tool under the right circumstances.  My own experience has taught me that I don't need a gun to be safe, and I've lived in some pretty foul neighborhoods.  The three times I've had a gun pulled on me, having a gun of my own wouldn't have helped.

But others have had other experiences, and I respect that.

Where it all starts to look silly to me is when people start talking about needing guns in case they have to resist an overly oppressive government.  That was all well and good in 1776, but really the government of today is far too powerful to beat that way.  Mr. Elmore is dedicated, intelligent and well armed, but a SEAL team would end him and his six best, toughest, most heavily armed friends.  The people have lost that arms race and there's no winning it back.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 7, 2006)

As I understand it... the Consitutuional right to "bear arms" was initally supposed to apply to the militia back in the 1700's in America. But of course what is the militia? Average citizens taking up arms and gathering together to fight off a greater evil than themselves i.e. at the time British invaders from King George.
Today does it apply? One would think so. But is it the National Guard today's version of the colonist's militia forces? Everyday citizens that dress in military garb and gather to train one weekend a month to have the skills necessary to ward off an invading force? 
But what about us every day citizens that do not wish to "join the National Guard"? We who have the inalienable right to defend life, home and property are denied arming ourselves because supposedly they lead to incidents like Columbine and the recent Amish School shootings, or the Postal workers that went "postal" and shot up their supervisiors and co-workers, the everyday average criminal and those others who grab their guns and perform "crimes of passion". 
Tragedies like these and hundreds upon thousands of examples are a way of life when the liberities to bear arms for the purpose of defense of our homes and our lives and their liberties as granted by the Consitution and Bill of Rights. 
But if this country were ever again invaded by an outside entity can we trust our government to ensure our safety and quick expulsion of these invaders via the full time military and National Guardsmen without taking up arms ourselves? 
I believe our founding fathers knew that it would take every man (and woman) to rise up and to fight for our freedoms against any invaders foreign and domestic (actually a military oath but I think it can apply to each of us as well). 
The fact that we're apparently stuck with a two (dominate) party system of government is probably the reason why we're having said liberties slowly taken away from us. That we need to have more parties to create a wider balance and wider perception of what is just and what is freedom so that these liberties are not taken away for our greater good.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 7, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> As I understand it... the Consitutuional right to "bear arms" was initally supposed to apply to the militia back in the 1700's in America.


 
The dependent clause of the statement, namely "A well-regulated militia, being necessary..." is not part of the independent clause of the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  

The independent clause exists solely on its own, and the inclusion of the dependent clause is stating but one reason why the right of the people (nowhere does it say "the right of the militia") to keep and bear arms must be preserved.  

Furthermore, the Second Amendment recognizes that such a right of the people to keep and bear arms, had already existed, and merely protects what was already in existence.  




> Tragedies like these and hundreds upon thousands of examples are a way of life when the liberities to bear arms for the purpose of defense of our homes and our lives and their liberties as granted by the Consitution and Bill of Rights.


 
The lawful ownership of firearms had nothing to do with the vast majority of those tragedies.  

Simply put, people will find ways to kill other people, regardless of what items are outlawed.  After all, look at Jamaica, where firearms ownership is all but forbidden to its populace, yet they have one of the highest rates of violent crime in the entire world.

It's a cultural issue, not an item ownership issue.  

Furthermore, we are a free society, period.  In order to exist as a free society, we grant liberties that place a significant amount of trust in the average citizen.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 7, 2006)

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz. heard it all before, addressed it here already about last summer:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=558655#post558655

And yes, for the most part I do believe Mr. Elmore is correct concerning the irretrievability of my country.

That's why as soon as my bank account permits it, I'm leaving.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

When I said adoration of guns I mean precisely that, not the use of guns as tools or as weapons. I mean the people who have cabinets full of varying guns, rifles, shotguns etc enough for a small army which they fact seem to think they are. I certainly am a martial artist, doing TMA and MMA I'm also one of the few armed police officers in this country.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Mr. Elmore is dedicated, intelligent and well armed, but a SEAL team would end him and his six best, toughest, most heavily armed friends.  The people have lost that arms race and there's no winning it back.



Really?  Then why hasn't that worked in Iraq?  Because the enemy is "joe everyman" and that is too hard to distinguish from the local populace.  Same same if it were to take place here.

Lets face it, An armed populace has a MUCH better chance of fighting off tryanny than an unarmed peasants would.

Maybe its me... but Id rather snipe at invading enemy troops with a high powered hunting rifle, than charge their machine gun emplacement with a pointy stick.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 7, 2006)

> charge their machine gun emplacement with a pointy stick.



How about with fresh fruit?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Really? Then why hasn't that worked in Iraq? Because the enemy is "joe everyman" and that is too hard to distinguish from the local populace. Same same if it were to take place here.
> 
> Lets face it, An armed populace has a MUCH better chance of fighting off tryanny than an unarmed peasants would.
> 
> Maybe its me... but Id rather snipe at invading enemy troops with a high powered hunting rifle, than charge their machine gun emplacement with a pointy stick.


 
Weapons are obviously needed if you are invaded by a foreign force but tryanny has a habit of sneaking up on you. The more likely scenario is that would have your rights under law eroded away but it would be done in such a way that you would agree with this action, ie "we need everyone to do this because we need to beat the terrorists, anyone that disagrees is unpatriotic" so you would end up with curfews, holding people in detention camps, banning unions,neighbours and family would spy on each other, torture would be allowed in police interrogations and hundreds of other "laws" put in place and before you know it you are in Nazi Germany/Iraq/Zimbabwe/ Soviet Russia and so on. Your freedom would be gone and you wouldn't realise it until it was too late. Over dramatic? Have a think about it!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 7, 2006)

Yup.

But that isn't the worst pain.

The worst thing is seeing it come a mile away and knowing it's pretty much unstoppable , you can only slow it down, you hope.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 7, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> That's why as soon as my bank account permits it, I'm leaving.


Hate to tell you, my feline friend, but it's not that much better in other parts of the world.  Also, you can leave as long as the gov't allows you too... Papers please?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 7, 2006)

Oh, i was never under the illusion that it was, just I'm not sure if I can stand to watch too much more of my country dissolving before my eyes.

Maybe I can find a place where it'll be quiet and I can be left in relative solitude to train, maybe it'll be here, possibly not. But for the most part, excepting friends/family, to quote Frankenstein's Monster, "I am done with man."


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons are obviously needed if you are invaded by a foreign force but tryanny has a habit of sneaking up on you. The more likely scenario is that would have your rights under law eroded away but it would be done in such a way that you would agree with this action, ie "we need everyone to do this because we need to beat the terrorists, anyone that disagrees is unpatriotic" so you would end up with curfews, holding people in detention camps, banning unions,neighbours and family would spy on each other, torture would be allowed in police interrogations and hundreds of other "laws" put in place and before you know it you are in Nazi Germany/Iraq/Zimbabwe/ Soviet Russia and so on. Your freedom would be gone and you wouldn't realise it until it was too late. Over dramatic? Have a think about it!



Nope. Thats a completely different circumstance, that one weapons wont help against...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

It's the one that more likely to happen though. Over here Blair wants us to have ID cards with all the information on it they can get, trying to persuade us that it will help in the war against terror. We manage very well without ID cards, why do we need them now? The police have been given the right to hold people under suspicion of terrorism longer than ever before,we have people who have been in prison for 2 years without even being charged with an offence, the government wants to get rid of the "right to silence" too. Our liberties and rights are being slowly eroded away under the guise of it being "for our own good" and "part of the war on terror", really?


----------



## Lisa (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> When I said adoration of guns I mean precisely that, not the use of guns as tools or as weapons. I mean the people who have cabinets full of varying guns, rifles, shotguns etc enough for a small army which they fact seem to think they are. I certainly am a martial artist, doing TMA and MMA I'm also one of the few armed police officers in this country.



hmmm...my household resembles that remark! :lol2:  However, I honestly don't consider myself a small army and don't appreciate being painted with the same brush.  My husband's family has had a love for firearms for generations and a few are gun collectors and admirers.

Some people only use their firearms for shooting competitions, some use the for hunting/warding off predators on their land, and, yes,  some for personal protection, but not all.  

If I had a choice in my country to carry a concealed weapon or not, I can't honestly say at this point that I would.  I would, however, like the opportunity to make that decision for myself and not have some politician jump on the "guns are bad" bandwagon and pass more useless laws,  after ever tragic senseless death by an illegal firearm which all too often is fired by someone with a pre-existing record.

It is obvious that you have a difference of opinion then myself and some of the other members of this board and I can respect that.  I think we can all agree on the need for mandatory sentences for those that USE weapons in crime and governments that don't blame the law abiding gun owner but the criminal, is what is needed in this day and age.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2006)

Lisa said:


> hmmm...my household resembles that remark! :lol2: However, I honestly don't consider myself a small army and don't appreciate being painted with the same brush. My husband's family has had a love for firearms for generations and a few are gun collectors and admirers.
> 
> Some people only use their firearms for shooting competitions, some use the for hunting/warding off predators on their land, and, yes, some for personal protection, but not all.
> 
> ...


 
I can understand appreciation of good workmanship and the use of a weapon as a good, useful tool. We've been hunting in this country for a very long time. Respect for weapons is one thing, unholy glee in a killing machine is something else. The people I'm speaking of are the ones that are brought most to our attention in this country by your media, the ones with their 5 year old kids using machine guns firing them at cans in the countryside, the ones who gloat how they can blast holes the size of dinnerplates out of someone unlucky enough to get in their way, they boast ever bigger weapons whooping with glee when they've blasted some poor tree stump into oblivion. These are always the people that are shown when the subject of gun control comes up,usually after a high school shooting, they are shown demanding the right to bear arms and frankly look like they shouldn't be trusted with a pea shooter. 
I'm not sure if you realise how gun ownership in America is presented to the rest of the world.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I can understand appreciation of good workmanship and the use of a weapon as a good, useful tool. We've been hunting in this country for a very long time. Respect for weapons is one thing, unholy glee in a killing machine is something else. The people I'm speaking of are the ones that are brought most to our attention in this country by your media, the ones with their 5 year old kids using machine guns firing them at cans in the countryside, the ones who gloat how they can blast holes the size of dinnerplates out of someone unlucky enough to get in their way, they boast ever bigger weapons whooping with glee when they've blasted some poor tree stump into oblivion. These are always the people that are shown when the subject of gun control comes up,usually after a high school shooting, they are shown demanding the right to bear arms and frankly look like they shouldn't be trusted with a pea shooter.
> I'm not sure if you realise how gun ownership in America is presented to the rest of the world.


 
Ever seen someone _not_ in a mobile home interviewed after the tornado?  

Sorry, had to interject a little humor.  /sarcasm off


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 7, 2006)

Until we have universal education opportunities, we should not have universal fire-arm opportunities.
Sean


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 7, 2006)

Universal anything is a utopian viewpoint. Meanwhile back in reality, enemies and thugs will be arming themselves and seeking their prey.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure if you realise how gun ownership in America is presented to the rest of the world.



So what you are saying is you have ****** media showing the "worst of what we got" scenario and claiming it is the norm... and the sheep fall for it.

Gotcha.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 7, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> So what you are saying is you have ****** media showing the "worst of what we got" scenario and claiming it is the norm... and the sheep fall for it.
> 
> Gotcha.


 
That's what's happening for the most part, IMO.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> So what you are saying is you have ****** media showing the "worst of what we got" scenario and claiming it is the norm... and the sheep fall for it.
> 
> Gotcha.



It makes better ratings no matter what country you are from and what subject to go for the more interesting, if rarer, aspects than in the dull, boring everyday life.

Hell John, you have seen some of the stuff said about Japan. If you ever get here you are going to find a lot of it is just boring, everyday stuff. But that is not the stuff that gets on TV.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I can understand appreciation of good workmanship and the use of a weapon as a good, useful tool. We've been hunting in this country for a very long time. Respect for weapons is one thing, unholy glee in a killing machine is something else. The people I'm speaking of are the ones that are brought most to our attention in this country by your media, the ones with their 5 year old kids using machine guns firing them at cans in the countryside, the ones who gloat how they can blast holes the size of dinnerplates out of someone unlucky enough to get in their way, they boast ever bigger weapons whooping with glee when they've blasted some poor tree stump into oblivion. These are always the people that are shown when the subject of gun control comes up,usually after a high school shooting, they are shown demanding the right to bear arms and frankly look like they shouldn't be trusted with a pea shooter.
> I'm not sure if you realise how gun ownership in America is presented to the rest of the world.


 
Women get portrayed in the media as clueless bobbleheads, among other things.   It doesn't mean we are.

Negative stereotypes are nothing new, nor are they going away anytime soon...especially when there is money to be made by purporting them.

It's up to the individual to decide whether they want to think for themselves or be "immune, where fact is fiction and TV reality"


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

This is your media showing these people, they may not be the norm but they certainly exist don't they? When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things. Not helpful. Of course we take everything with a pinch of salt, but even the reliable balanced media get a little hysterical when guns are mentioned.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure if you realise how gun ownership in America is presented to the rest of the world.



Actually, I am quite aware being I am Canadian and not American.  However, realising that the media ALWAYS inflates issues because it is a better sell makes me well aware that what is shown is far from the truth.  Anyone is capable of seeing that.

Not sure if you have ever been to the US.  If you ever do visit, you will be pleasantly surprised at how level headed and law abiding the citizens are, especially the ones with gun permits.  I have yet to meet on that is like you describe.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things.


 
Maybe it is because other countries should have NO say on OUR gun laws.

Legal gun ownership is not a problem here.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Maybe it is because other countries should have NO say on OUR gun laws.
> 
> Legal gun ownership is not a problem here.


 
As far as I know no other country is interested in having a say in your laws. What there is in Europe is a healthy interest in what goes on in the world. Interest in America is especially keen as so much of what goes on there flows out to the rest of the world. In our case though this is Blair's fault for blindly following Bush against our wishes but that's a whole different argument. It's one I'm feeling raw about at the moment http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...erations/KingsmanJamieHancockKilledInIraq.htm

This was a young lad in one of the Regiments I work with, they'd only been there 2 weeks.  
Anyway sorry for being off topic. It's not that I agree or disagree with people having guns, I just find it fascinating how passionate both sides are on this point.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> This is your media showing these people, they may not be the norm but they certainly exist don't they? When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things. Not helpful. Of course we take everything with a pinch of salt, but even the reliable balanced media get a little hysterical when guns are mentioned.


 
I think that it's pretty well established that, given a choice, the press will go for a sensational story, or slant a story to create the biggest buzz. They aren't going to report on normal, legal, gun owners, because it's not sensational. They are going to find extremists and whack jobs, because that makes it a more sensational story. Is it true? Yes. Is it accurate? No.  How do we show we're doing a balanced story? We find the extremists and whack jobs on both sides.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> As far as I know no other country is interested in having a say in your laws.


Just the UN...


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> This is your media showing these people, they may not be the norm but they certainly exist don't they?


 
As always, I strongly recommend, to not "fall for the hype."  

Law-abiding firearms owners are pretty much as their name states: law-abiding.  They cannot have felonies on their record, and in fact, cannot have certain serious misdemeanors on their records.  They cannot be drug users, nor can they be habitual drunkards, according to the questions asked on the ATF 4473 form.  

In fact, if you were to take a group of law-abiding firearms owners, and compare them to a group of people who don't own firearms, you're going to see that the first group will have a much lower rate of crimes amongst them comapred to the second group.  

The media tries to constantly show what grabs the headlines, and these are exceptionally rare incidents.  

If one were to believe everything they see on TV, then one would think that Israel is always full of explosions and attacks (it's not; it's actually a nice place to visit).  That same person would also believe that (if watching the 1992 LA Riots) Americans are overweight looters and arsonists, or that they like to assault truck drivers who try to help others, and smash bricks on their heads (the Damian Williams / Reginald Denny incident, also related to 1992 LA).  

I'll simply suggest this: take what the media gives you with several grains of salt.  




> When your politicians ( your representatives) are interviewed on our media they become very defensive about guns and guns laws giving the impression you either live in such a wild place you need weapons with you all the time or you just love the things. Not helpful.


 
In the United States, people have a right to defend themselves, using the best lawfully-available means possible.  For the most part, we don't believe in punishing those who lawfully defend themselves when it comes to threats against their well-being.  

Instead, for the most part, we prefer to punish the criminal, instead of punishing the law-abiding.  In several states, criminals are not allowed to sue those who defended against them, if the defense was justified.  

What someone lawfully chooses to do with a lawfully-owned firearm, is his business, and his alone.  It's the same thing with a car, a hammer, or a welding torch.  They're all merely tools, and as long as someone isn't misusing them, it's really nobody's business.  Whether they want to use their firearms for self defense, hunting, target shooting, competition, or even just as a nice display piece, is their business, and their's alone.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Just the UN...


 

And America has no interest in any other countries laws? 

As I said I always take the media with a pinch of salt but recently we have been seeing more of American political pundits coming on our screens telling us that we need to be armed too especially in the light of "the war on terror".


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> As I said I always take the media with a pinch of salt but recently we have been seeing more of American political pundits coming on our screens telling us that we need to be armed too especially in the light of "the war on terror".



You are not by chance advocating the opposite? In light of terrorism and other threats that Americans should disarm? What good does disarming law abiding citizens do? Think criminals/terrorists will be giving up their arms? Thats what black markets are for. Guns still exist, just their trade is not as visible. Has gun violence gone to zero in the UK? Have violent crimes dramatically decreased yet?

If I were a criminal and knew a house was not armed, I'd probably not think twice about robbing it. However, if I knew a gun did exist in a house or at least had serious doubt about the presence of a gun, I'd likely think otherwise, or at least make sure noone was home. Either way, the occupant of the house is safer.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> You are not by chance advocating the opposite? In light of terrorism and other threats that Americans should disarm? What good does disarming law abiding citizens do? Think criminals/terrorists will be giving up their arms? Thats what black markets are for. Guns still exist, just their trade is not as visible. Has gun violence gone to zero in the UK? Have violent crimes dramatically decreased yet?
> 
> If I were a criminal and knew a house was not armed, I'd probably not think twice about robbing it. However, if I knew a gun did exist in a house or at least had serious doubt about the presence of a gun, I'd likely think otherwise, or at least make sure noone was home. Either way, the occupant of the house is safer.


 
Actually I'm not advocating anything, I was pointing out how your gun owners are perceived by those outside America which may or may not bother you but it bothers us when we have American politicians coming onto our own networks telling us that we need to follow you in allowing people to be armed. We are more than aware of the crime figures in our cities though I live in an area where we don't lock our doors and people can walk round the streets at any time in no danger other than being butted by sheep. You are saying your way is right for you, fine but our way is right for us. To have Bush and his cronies etc telling us we are going to be bombed out of existance unless we arm up is ridiculous. We've lived with being bombed now for more than 30 years. We have a great many Muslims living in the UK and to advocate arming the populace would cause tensions, roits and deaths.Our crime figures don't warrent it and the war on terror certainly doesn't.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 8, 2006)

Always a perennial favourite this topic .

It's still interesting to hear peoples viewpoints on it tho', especially as some have been posited in a particularly cogent fashion here :tup:.

I think that the subject can be rendered down to a few relatively simple statements/factlets, from which people draw their opinions depending on which of the elements they find resonates most strongly with their prior held views.

1) Disarming a population certainly makes it easier to oppress but 'domestic' oppression is seldom going to take a blatantly militarist form.

2) Firearm related deaths in America are alarmingly numerous.

-closely tied to-

3a) Gun ownership in America is relatively common.

3b) It is psychologically 'easier' to shoot someone than stab them, especially when emotions are running hot.

4) Tight gun regulation in the UK was very effective right up until the time that an outright ban on ownership was introduced (the article linked to in a previous post was quite right in that gun-crime has soared since the ban).

5) Owning a weapon that you cannot use effectively is worse than not having a weapon at all (which is where I think the notion comes from that a gun-toting (untrained) citizen will just have it taken off him and be shot by his own pistol).

6a) Laws, in general terms, only serve to moderate the behaviour of those who are already intrinsically law abiding.

6b) Americans are citizens of their country with codified rights and priviledges.  Britons are subjects of the Crown and altho' we have an illusion of 'rights and priviledges' in essence we do what we're told .

7) An arms race between the law enforcers and the law breakers only increases the level of danger to the average member of the population.

My own opinions on the matter are that we used to have it just about right in England where ownership of (most types of) firearms required Police oversight but once licensed you were largely free to pursue the aspect of gun-ownership that appealed to you e.g. small game hunting, target/clay(skeet) shooting and so forth.  

I also think (and I hope *Tez3* will back me up on this) that it is generally held, even by the Police, that an armed police-force is a very bad idea.  Armed Response Units are a seperate issue as they are specifically tasked with a defined role and are made up of carefully selected and trained officers (despite what media coverage if certain high profile 'mistakes' would have us believe).

Whilst I understand and actually agree (at the logical level) with many of the points the pro-gun lobbyists in the 'States put forward, I cannot but help think that the 'record' speaks for itself and that, for some reason, the legislative and sociological balance it 'off'.  I don't have a 'cure' for why it is that widespread gun ownership causes so much grief in America and can only point out the obvious that it can't go on as it is (not in the pressure-cooker urban areas anyway).

Anyhow, spent too much time tapping this in and I'd better get back to work ... "Breaks over lads, back on yer heads!" .


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

I am a member of the only police force in the UK that is armed, the MOD police. I also live in a area where shotguns are kept routinely for game shooting (and the occasional poacher lol), I worked with service people who by the nature of their job are armed.The farmers and country people do not have the same attitude to weapons (though they may admire a fine matched set of Purdeys) as we perceive as Americans having, who you must admit are very defensive about the whole thing, it's a very emotive subject. Of course we question the rights and wrongs of gun owning, we are keen not make mistakes. If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !


----------



## Kreth (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !


Are you guys still bitter over that whole Revolutionary War thing?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Are you guys still bitter over that whole Revolutionary War thing?


 
LOL! I'm only a first generation Brit, my family were Dutch, all but a few died in the camps during the war. 
the revolutionary War doesn't come up in British politics.... the battle of Bannockburn is still being fought out by the Scots and English. The Welsh and Cornish want independance, as for N Ireland well you know the situation there! Incidentally money from America has stopped pouring in to the Province since 7/11 interestingly.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Incidentally money from America has stopped pouring in to the Province since 7/11 interestingly.


Well, we needed to save our money for Big Gulps. :lol:


----------



## Lisa (Nov 8, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Well, we needed to save our money for Big Gulps. :lol:



:lfao:

Damn you Kreth!  You beat me to it! :lfao:


----------



## TonyMac (Nov 8, 2006)

The original post sounded like a frightened little boy crying wolf.


----------



## kelly keltner (Nov 8, 2006)

Grenadier said:


> The dependent clause of the statement, namely "A well-regulated militia, being necessary..." is not part of the independent clause of the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The independent clause exists solely on its own, and the inclusion of the dependent clause is stating but one reason why the right of the people (nowhere does it say "the right of the militia") to keep and bear arms must be preserved.
> 
> ...





Here is a specific definition from U.S. code.
Any thoughts, ideas ,questions and comments.
kk



A littl    10 USC Sec. 311                                             01/03/05

-EXPCITE-

    TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

    Subtitle A - General Military Law

    PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

    National Guard.

      (b) The classes of the militia are - 

        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

      and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

      Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-

    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),

    Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,

    Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

-MISC1-

                       HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES                   

                                 1956 ACT                             

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revised         Source (U.S. Code)           Source (Statutes at   

     section                                             Large)         

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    311(a)       32:1 (less last 19 words).    June 3, 1916, ch. 134,   

                                                Sec. 57, 39 Stat. 197;  

                                                June 28, 1947, ch. 162, 

                                                Sec. 7 (as applicable to

                                                Sec. 57 of the Act of   

                                                June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 

                                                61 Stat. 192.           

    311(b)                                                              

                 32:1 (last 19 words).                                  

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

      In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of

    intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have

    declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and

    * * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who

    shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than

    forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section

    313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as

    hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum

    age.

      In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which

    consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are

    substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia",

    since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the

    organized militia.

                                 1958 ACT                             

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revised         Source (U.S. Code)           Source (Statutes at   

     section                                             Large)         

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    311(a)       32 App.:1.                    July 30, 1956, ch. 789,  

                                                Sec. 1, 70 Stat. 729.   

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

      The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are

    omitted as surplusage.

                                AMENDMENTS                            

      1993 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted "members" for

    "commissioned officers".

      1958 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of

    the United States who are commissioned officers of the National

    Guard.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Where it all starts to look silly to me is when people start talking about needing guns in case they have to resist an overly oppressive government. That was all well and good in 1776, but really the government of today is far too powerful to beat that way. Mr. Elmore is dedicated, intelligent and well armed, but a SEAL team would end him and his six best, toughest, most heavily armed friends. The people have lost that arms race and there's no winning it back.


 
It's not that the armed citizen would need the abilities to defeat a SEAL team or the military. It is that they would have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether ours became that way or if we were invaded.

No, groups of private citizens will not have superior firepower in comparison to a military. But, by having the right to own and carry, they do have _just enough_ firepower to prevent complete control. It is easy for a military to go in to a country and blow stuff up; it is very difficult for a military to FORCE people to comply and go to work and be productive and obey the government if citizens are armed and have the ability to fight back.

Just look at the trouble that we have in Iraq, and why it is a long war.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Weapons are obviously needed if you are invaded by a foreign force but tryanny has a habit of sneaking up on you. The more likely scenario is that would have your rights under law eroded away but it would be done in such a way that you would agree with this action, ie "we need everyone to do this because we need to beat the terrorists, anyone that disagrees is unpatriotic" so you would end up with curfews, holding people in detention camps, banning unions,neighbours and family would spy on each other, torture would be allowed in police interrogations and hundreds of other "laws" put in place and before you know it you are in Nazi Germany/Iraq/Zimbabwe/ Soviet Russia and so on. Your freedom would be gone and you wouldn't realise it until it was too late. Over dramatic? Have a think about it!


 
I agree with you here. This is why some of us are adament about maintainiing our civil liberties; not just to bear arms, but other liberties as well. Some of us don't want to see our great country fall prey to a slippery slope into tyranny.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 8, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> It's not that the armed citizen would need the abilities to defeat a SEAL team or the military. It is that they would have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, whether ours became that way or if we were invaded.
> 
> No, groups of private citizens will not have superior firepower in comparison to a military. But, by having the right to own and carry, they do have _just enough_ firepower to prevent complete control. It is easy for a military to go in to a country and blow stuff up; it is very difficult for a military to FORCE people to comply and go to work and be productive and obey the government if citizens are armed and have the ability to fight back.
> 
> Just look at the trouble that we have in Iraq, and why it is a long war.



This is true, just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. Superior weapons and home made bombs and cheap guns still kill just as easily.

NOTE: I do not like Phil. We disagree on lots of things, such as tactics of getting information our. So, by no means is this support of Phil. This is just me saying that people should have the right to own a gun.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I'm not advocating anything, I was pointing out how your gun owners are perceived by those outside America which may or may not bother you but it bothers us when we have American politicians coming onto our own networks telling us that we need to follow you in allowing people to be armed.


 

THIS I was totally unaware of and do not agree with ( I may have a different idea of what the citizen's rights concerning firearms should be, but none the less, it remains, after all, *YOUR* Island.)


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> I am a member of the only police force in the UK that is armed, the MOD police. I also live in a area where shotguns are kept routinely for game shooting (and the occasional poacher lol), I worked with service people who by the nature of their job are armed.The farmers and country people do not have the same attitude to weapons (though they may admire a fine matched set of Purdeys) as we perceive as Americans having, who you must admit are very defensive about the whole thing, it's a very emotive subject. Of course we question the rights and wrongs of gun owning, we are keen not make mistakes. If we wonder about the ownership of guns in America it does not mean we are criticising the American people and Constitution! it means we are wondering about the widespread gun ownership !


 
What we have is 2 issues here.

#1. Is the right to bear arms an unalienable right, because it equates with the right to self-defense which is an unalienable right, and therefore should be preserved?

#2. When does one country reserve the rights to tell another what to do?

The case of #1 is independent of subjective beliefs, independent of what one country feels is "best for them" over another, and is incidentally independent of what the constitution says. This is a philisophical issue, not necessarily a legal one. Arguing case law, legal differences between two countries, or the semantics of the 2nd amendment accomplishes nothing in addressing this core philisophical issue. Philisophically, we believe that everyone should have the freedom and right to persue life, liberty, and happiness. Most people in all civilized countries would agree with this core value. So then the question becomes, is the right of "self-defense" needed to persue life, liberty, and happiness? I would say yes. Is the right to bear arms, then, needed to preserve the right of self-defense? I would argue also, yes.

This brings us to #2. The answer isn't "never," otherwise all countries should dismantle all dilpomatic relations and the UN, and never interfer with one another. So, lets say if a leader is killing and torturing his own people; I think that other countries do reserve the rights to express an opinion about that, and even use force if nessicary to stop attrocity.

But, how far does that right go in the case of the right to "bear arms"? Well, I would have to say that I don't think that we have the right to use any kind of force or cohersion to persuade countries to preserve that right. I do believe it is a civil liberties violation to take the right to bear arms away, but I don't believe that it is grossly in violation of human rights and safety. Some people on the extreme side of the issue would actually disagree with me and say that it is a huge violation of human rights and safety; I am just not willing to go that far.

So, I don' think that "Americans" have the right to try to coherse "Europeans" of whatever ilk to change their laws if it is not a gross human rights violation. But, I do think that we reserve the rights to our opinions, going back to that 1st phisophical question, as do Europeans reserve their rights to their opinions as well. That is what supports good discussions... 

Paul


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 8, 2006)

When did any of our politicians do that?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> When did any of our politicians do that?


 
Good point; it's kind of a straw man because I don't recall the last time any of our leaders tried to persuade England or anywhere else to preserve their citizens self-defense rights.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2006)

tez3 said:
			
		

> _Actually I'm not advocating anything, I was pointing out how your gun owners are perceived by those outside America which may or may not bother you but it bothers us when we have American politicians coming onto our own networks telling us that we need to follow you in allowing people to be armed._


 
That would bother me too.  




Blotan Hunka said:


> When did any of our politicians do that?


 
I'd also like to know that.  When was this done and which politicians did that?  Tez, I'm not trying to put you on the spot.  

Personally I do have my opinions about firearms.  One of those opinions is...I abhor irresponsible use of firearms.   If you have any information to share it would be greatly appreciated. :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Don't forget that Blair is Bush's poodle and will follow willingly along with the President wants. Blair's spin doctors are always bringing out experts to tell us how to think and what to do, these include a fair few American pundits, experts, politicians and television personalities ( to be fair we have no real way of knowing that so and so 'a leading American polititcian' isn't actually a mayor in a tiny town in the middle of no where!) Our own dear representatives are always crossing over to America for study trips and observing how things are done.It's not just the arms thing either, Blair see us having an American sytem of healthcare eventually instead of the NHS. He also sees himself as the President of Gt Britain. The best news I've had for ages is that Blair and several Cabinet members are to interviewed by the police over money for honours ( that's where you pay the Labour Party ie Blair loads of money and you get a knighthood, tbh it's been like that for centuries but this is a bit different as it's the Labour party and not Henry VIII )


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2006)

My only problem with MT is that as you all start putting up interesting posts on the forums, it's past my bedtime and I have to get off to bed! It's coming up to midnight and I have to be up at five for work! I enjoy it when I'm here though!


----------



## crushing (Nov 8, 2006)

Are you sure Bush isn't Blair's poodle?  Afterall, the infamous Bush quote starts, "British intelligence has. . . ."



Cheers!


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> My only problem with MT is that as you all start putting up interesting posts on the forums, it's past my bedtime and I have to get off to bed! It's coming up to midnight and I have to be up at five for work! I enjoy it when I'm here though!


 
We love having you with us Tez!


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Don't forget that Blair is Bush's poodle and will follow willingly along with the President wants. Blair's spin doctors are always bringing out experts to tell us how to think and what to do, these include a fair few American pundits, experts, politicians and television personalities ( to be fair we have no real way of knowing that so and so 'a leading American polititcian' isn't actually a mayor in a tiny town in the middle of no where!) Our own dear representatives are always crossing over to America for study trips and observing how things are done.It's not just the arms thing either, Blair see us having an American sytem of healthcare eventually instead of the NHS. He also sees himself as the President of Gt Britain. The best news I've had for ages is that Blair and several Cabinet members are to interviewed by the police over money for honours ( that's where you pay the Labour Party ie Blair loads of money and you get a knighthood, tbh it's been like that for centuries but this is a bit different as it's the Labour party and not Henry VIII )


 
Well, what's right is right and what works well works well. Looking at what other countries are doing that works is a smart thing, IMHO. I know that some of us, politicians included, wish that we had Frances healthcare system, for example.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2006)

Thank you for your kind words!

I've never thought of Bush as Blair's poodle! There was a big scandal about the  British Int report. The Int services accused Blair of "sexing up" (horrible expression) the report to make it say what he wanted and a leading MOD scientist involved in the situation was found dead in what many think was suspicious circumstances though it was pronounced as a suicide. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3170593.stm  The whole thing sounds like a spy novel but sadly isn't.
 There's nothing wrong with with looking at the way other countries are run but not when using tax payers money for what is basically a jolly for the boys. I don't think they will learn anything about your system of government sightseeing in California or Florida! Rarely do our politicians venture to places that don't have four star hotels, swimming pools and shopping malls - tax free of course!
 At the moment your elections are dominating our news and many "former White House advisers" are giving us the benefit of their wisdom, bless them, (for our elections they wheel out ex government advisers and ex MPs, I suppose it gives them a job!) I will take more notice of whose on the tele and note their names to post here to get your opinions!


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2006)

Would someone like to point out exactly what insults I have been throwing around on this thread? I ask a lot of questions and throw some ideas in but I have never insutled anyone. Believe me you'd know if I did lol!


----------



## Kacey (Nov 12, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Would someone like to point out exactly what insults I have been throwing around on this thread? I ask a lot of questions and throw some ideas in but I have never insutled anyone. Believe me you'd know if I did lol!


I freely admit that I have only scanned this thread, not read it in detail - but I did not see anyone claiming you have insulted them in the thread.  If someone has PM'd you with that comment, then you need to PM them back, not bring that discussion into the thread, as it will pull the thread off topic.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I freely admit that I have only scanned this thread, not read it in detail - but I did not see anyone claiming you have insulted them in the thread. If someone has PM'd you with that comment, then you need to PM them back, not bring that discussion into the thread, as it will pull the thread off topic.


 

It wasn't a PM or else I would have done. It was left on the CP user bit with no name attached so I thought I'd better ask.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 12, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> It wasn't a PM or else I would have done. It was left on the CP user bit with no name attached so I thought I'd better ask.



If you feel you have been unfairly targeted via the Rep system.  Please contact an asst. Admin or Admin with your concerns and they will look into it.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2006)

Lisa said:


> If you feel you have been unfairly targeted via the Rep system. Please contact an asst. Admin or Admin with your concerns and they will look into it.


 
It's no problem really, it just surprised me, I thought that this was a good discusssion with different views put well.


----------

