I support the 2nd but...

[Dantankerous]

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

This will go on my Facebook page and also my elected capons. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

OFS!

 

This should be pinned to the top of Team SASS.......

OLF

[Tell Sackett SASS 18436]

I've been saying for YEARS that anyone who says "I supposrt the 2nd Ammendment BUT...." , DOESN'T.

To simplify the video even more: FREE men own guns-slaves don't. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Pat Riot]

And people wonder why they no longer teach history in school. 

 

We could be at a climactic point in our history. It is my hope that good and freedom triumph, as I am sure you all would agree.

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

[Blackwater 53393]

It's like saying you're an American with some national or ethnic prefix!!  You're either an American or NOT!!  You can add that your antecedents are from some other nation or continent if you like, but you're either simply an American or something not American!!  Even naturalized immigrants are AMERICANS after they take that oath!!  Leave the rest off!!

[Dantankerous]

I always kind of figured I'm Native American because I was born in America. Not an Indian American like Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren, the good Senator from Massachusetts pretends to be…

 

 

Can we say we are White Americans these days without getting fired or sued or protested by Antifa?

 

Just wondering where the insanity ends.

[Tell Sackett SASS 18436]

20 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

 

 

Just wondering where the insanity ends.

It doesn't Dan, it doesn't

[czhen]

Very well exposed points, politicians used words to express their concern and thrive by interest now and them.

In the past, freedom from British Empire was the goal, they knew their people were at the mercy of the King because had no arms to dethrone it.

They didn't want that happen in a new soil, blessed with opportunities, the only chance to assure it was put that in a paper for the years to come. 

The history around the world proved that fact, Europe, Asia, South America, Middle East, Australia and Africa politicians only fear the mad plebe when they can not provide the promised pseudo welfare.

Therefore, disarm them is the only chance for them to survive for decades of cruelty and empty stomachs.

Are we less quality than, Belgians or Switzerland absolutely no, but they keep their traditions, standard of education and respect for others individuals. 

Politicians mixes their words to sound edible, but the only goal for them be safe on their high seat, telling you what is the best for the plebe.

 

           

[Tequila Shooter]

The founding fathers were dedicated not to politics but to forming a great country.  Today the politicians are only concerned with what will get them re-elected.

[Boomstick Bruce]

When the bill of rights was written, the government had muskets and cannons and the people had muskets and cannons...

 

Over 200 years later, the government has laser guided missiles and smart bombs and we still only have muskets and cannons...

[Dantankerous]

On 10/3/2020 at 12:08 AM, Boomstick Bruce said:

When the bill of rights was written, the government had muskets and cannons and the people had muskets and cannons...

 

Over 200 years later, the government has laser guided missiles and smart bombs and we still only have muskets and cannons...

I believe citizens and their militias had rifled barrels before the government troops did. That rifling combined with the minne ball was an enormous advantage for range and accuracy over a smoothbore. I have never read where anybody on one side or the other of the government whined and cried about that.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

An interesting history is the 1933 gun bills.

 

They were set up to provide work for the former "alcohol police."

Of course, it was at the early to mid "progressive period" where "progressives/liberals/marxists" wanted the government  to take rights away from citizens.

 

But due to the people understanding history, the laws were generally based on the idea that IF the army had the weapon, citizens could as well. 

Now, they didn't think about the BBARs and they should have.  And they had not researched to show that "shorted shotguns" and some other types were in military inventory.  Partly since they were using the fear of organized crime, etc as a motivator.

 

So by that logic, citizens SHOULD be allowed the same weaponry currently used by the military, including "machine guns, short barrelled rifles such as the M4's, etc.

 

Of course, we truly should not have those laws on the books as they were a major step against the constitution and the second amendment.

Also remember that many or most of the founders believed that with proper understand of the constitution, the bill of rights were not needed.  But they understood people well enough to add them for emphasis. 

The founders also warned that if we got to the place were were depending on the amendments, people were already abandoning the constitution in favor of over expanding government.

 

Realizing the the document was intended to spell out government duties and limiting government to those duties.

 

How many of us (me included) actually know what is in the constitution?

 

 

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

Now we are trying to bring back the 2nd and the Tenth. 

[Blackwater 53393]

My biggest disappointment in recent memory has been seeing some of my cowboy friends and acquaintances voting for the very people who openly say that they aim to disassemble or destroy the Second Amendment!!

 

It will be very hard for me to continue to consider them as friends when they obviously wish to deprive me of this natural right!!

 

  

[MizPete]

On 2/18/2020 at 12:30 PM, Tequila Shooter said:

Today the politicians are only concerned with what will get them re-elected.

And filthy rich.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

5 hours ago, MizPete said:

And filthy rich.

 

Funny how that happens.   Enter politics with an attack on the rich for their "obvious" inability to understand and sympathize with the less fortunate; stay in office by revealing new plots by the rich to "deny" the underclasses their "rights", and by supporting legislation that will "fix" this problem by stripping away the rights of those who pay taxes; retire or die in office, rich beyond any reasonable legal and ethical explanation, and secure in the knowledge that they will be personally unaffected by the rules imposed upon everyone else.  

 

No one can represent me adequately unless they had to fight and work for everything they have; unless they have to dig into their own pockets for health care, groceries, transportation, a mortgage or rent, clothing, and federal, state and local taxes; unless they had to beg, borrow and earn to pay their own kids' tuition; unless they have honorably borne the burdens and tragedies of military service; and unless they have a full understanding of and belief in the content and original meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  That probably disqualifies at least half of the serving Congress, and rightfully so.

 

LL

[MizPete]

It has been suggested to me that I run for President.  Loophole, will you be my VP?

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

3 hours ago, MizPete said:

It has been suggested to me that I run for President.  Loophole, will you be my VP?

 

To paraphrase Karl Marx's cousin Groucho, I'm not sure that I would want to be a member of any administration that would have me as a member....

 

LL

[bgavin]

On 11/8/2020 at 10:33 AM, Blackwater 53393 said:

My biggest disappointment in recent memory has been seeing some of my cowboy friends and acquaintances voting for the very people who openly say that they aim to disassemble or destroy the Second Amendment!!

 

Trump got 73 million votes.
There are 100 million gun owners.

Apparently, some of the people were too lazy to vote, or actually voted for the guy who promises to strip their gun rights.

[Tennessee Red]

On 9/2/2019 at 12:30 AM, Dantankerous said:

I always kind of figured I'm Native American because I was born in America. Not an Indian American like Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren, the good Senator from Massachusetts pretends to be…

 

 

Can we say we are White Americans these days without getting fired or sued or protested by Antifa?

 

Just wondering where the insanity ends.

 

You might get away with "European American."  Maybe.  That is actually more in line with how others hyphenate names.

 

I agree: you're American or you're not. It's fine to be proud of your ethnic heritage, whatever it is: African, Asian, European, Native Americas (changed that a little to distinguish it from your meaning, and deliberately just put those in alphabetical order) but it doesn't hyphenate your "Americanism."

E pluribus unum - out of many, ONE.

[Tennessee Red]

On 11/13/2020 at 4:31 PM, bgavin said:

Trump got 73 million votes.
There are 100 million gun owners.

Apparently, some of the people were too lazy to vote, or actually voted for the guy who promises to strip their gun rights.

 

A lot of "gun owners" just own one or two, maybe for hunting, maybe because they were inherited. There are fewer gun enthusiasts than just "owners." But there are plenty of us.

I'm disgusted, as a Georgia resident, with the results of the Senate runoff here. I think some DID stay home because they thought (right or wrongly, I do not want to break the rules and get into an opinion on this) that the Nov. 3 election was not fair so there was no point in voting in the runoff because it would not be fairly counted either.  I can't say about those things. I can only say I voted in both.

On guns I am a single-issue voter. I would vote for and have voted for a pro-gun Democrat back when there were such things, or at least a lot more of them and a lot more pro-gun.  Like many I was less conservative in my younger days but I'd still vote for someone I disagreed with more on other things, to a point, that was also the better candidate on gun rights.

The 2nd amendment should have been the first. Not that the first is not VITALLY important, and maybe even in a way more so, but the 2nd is meant to insure the first and others, making it primal in my view.

[Tennessee Red]

On 10/3/2020 at 1:08 AM, Boomstick Bruce said:

When the bill of rights was written, the government had muskets and cannons and the people had muskets and cannons...

 

Over 200 years later, the government has laser guided missiles and smart bombs and we still only have muskets and cannons...

 

Well there is a certain amount of practicality involved. The government in those days also had sailing ships with cannon, but the people did not (though they may have had a cannon in a shed or their house if they wanted.)

 

I don't think most people want or expect the 2nd to apply to cruise missiles and bombs. Besides, and this is an important point, those are weapons intended to take out other military targets or, if bombs targeted on civilizations (typically a 2nd strike retaliatory strategy meant more as a deterrent) and not personnel. They are not practical to use against a rebellious populace, at least for the most part (I can see a laser designator on a helicopter lighting up a truck of rebels, true.)

The question of, "well if the populace should not have, say, tanks, where do you draw the line?" is interesting. I recall years ago, in the 80s I think or early 90s, Jeff Cooper addressing this in his column in the back of Guns and Ammo and offering his opinion, as just that, that it's at the level of individual versus crew served weapons. I saw some video recently, can't recall the exact one, that made the point that "and bear" rather says the same thing. You can't "bear" a tank. But you can bear a normal individual infantry weapon. That makes sense to me from both standpoints: 1) what the framers meant, and 2) what is a practical weapon for resistance to tyranny and what is not.  In modern terms, what's useful for modern guerrilla warfare? That's exactly in particular what should be protected by the 2nd.  

[Tennessee Red]

On 10/14/2020 at 8:59 PM, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

An interesting history is the 1933 gun bills.

 

They were set up to provide work for the former "alcohol police."

Of course, it was at the early to mid "progressive period" where "progressives/liberals/marxists" wanted the government  to take rights away from citizens.

 

But due to the people understanding history, the laws were generally based on the idea that IF the army had the weapon, citizens could as well. 

Now, they didn't think about the BBARs and they should have.  And they had not researched to show that "shorted shotguns" and some other types were in military inventory.  Partly since they were using the fear of organized crime, etc as a motivator.

 

So by that logic, citizens SHOULD be allowed the same weaponry currently used by the military, including "machine guns, short barrelled rifles such as the M4's, etc.

 

Of course, we truly should not have those laws on the books as they were a major step against the constitution and the second amendment.

Also remember that many or most of the founders believed that with proper understand of the constitution, the bill of rights were not needed.  But they understood people well enough to add them for emphasis. 

The founders also warned that if we got to the place were were depending on the amendments, people were already abandoning the constitution in favor of over expanding government.

 

Realizing the the document was intended to spell out government duties and limiting government to those duties.

 

How many of us (me included) actually know what is in the constitution?

 

 

 

One interesting thing about the NFA, as I understand it (and someone correct me if this is wrong) is why the insane provision for SBRs is even there. It makes less than zero sense that you can buy a handgun, anything from as small as Freedom Arms 22 (smaller if anyone made one) up to whatever length barrel as long as it's not made to fire from the shoulder, and it doesn't require an NFA registration and tax, but you can't buy a rifle with a 15" barrel or under 26" overall length, even though, say, a 15" barrelled rifle that's 25" overall is still FAR less conealable than the vast majority of handguns.

My understanding is that when they were writing the bill they wanted to include all handguns, and someone raised the question of what, in that case, would prevent someone from just buying a rifle and cutting it down to handgun size. So they wrote the SBR provision. When it became clear the law could not pass with all handguns included that portion was removed, but through either oversight or zealous intent the SBR provision remained. It makes no sense at all.

 

The NFA is unconstitutional on the face of it, but also just plain does not make sense in many places even from "their" point of view.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

I too am sad about the Georgia vote, although since the Dem's owned the machines, we will never know how the people actually voted.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

It helps to understand the philosophy and the government "needs" at the time. 
This was just as the well intentioned but stupidly done prohibition was ended.

The people believed in the right to bare arms.

 

But the government had two problems

1. The prohibition and extended depression (both due to government policies) produced publicized crime "waves"

2.  Without prohibition, where do we place all those alcohol agents?

 

So the socialistic government of the time wanted to restrict the second amendment and create replacement agent jobs.  Being socialistic supporters of Stalin, they pushed the limit of the constitution. (Many at the time supported either Stalin or Hitler or both.)

 

The people would not stand for too much infringement, so the politicians said they would limit the firearms to what the military had. 

After a quick review, they claimed the military did not have short barrel guns (SBR).  Their limited research did not reveal that the military used "sawed off" shotguns. And of course, they chose to ignore the full automatic guns such as the BAR.  So they said fully automatic and SBRs were NOT covered by the constitution.  This was ridiculous since many people had short barreled rifles and shotguns for decades.

Of course, by the logic that if the military had it, we should be allowed to buy short barreled M4s without restriction.

 

But they used the fear of organized crime (essentially created by prohibition) and others (Bonnie & Clyde) to ban SBRs and "machine guns" without special government approval.  Much of the media of the time was against the constitution, except for where it protected them.