Wow, those are some statements. No wonder the gun-rights folks are worried.Nelson Shields, the founder of the organization which later became Handgun Control Inc., said in 1976: "Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years.The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." "Intentionally alarmist"?In a 1993 editorial, a major newspaper urged Congress to outlaw almost all firearms: "Only by slicing away at this nation's already vast and deadly arsenal of guns will we reduce the violence and the fear. You will not feel safe, your children will not be safe, until there are almost no guns on the streets and in homes.No guns, period, except for those held by law enforcement officials and a few others, including qualified hunters and collectors. Can Congress impose such a ban? Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently upheld a variety of firearms restrictions, even prohibitions, over the last 60 years."
What's your opinion? Do the sentiments of Nelson Shields represent the gun control movement at large? Did his ideas trickle down through Gun Control Inc., and into the Brady Campaign? Has his message simply evolved into a secret agenda?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
"No guns, period, except for those held by law enforcement officials and a few others, including qualified hunters and collectors. Can Congress impose such a ban? Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently upheld a variety of firearms restrictions, even prohibitions, over the last 60 years."
ReplyDeleteMike- This statement is retarded, period. Last night, a Chicago squad was broken into. SWAT equipment was stolen. Here's a list that a criminal now has in their possession.
(1)Remington sniper rifle, model 700, serial No. G6595551
(1)Bushmaster M4 rifle, serial No. L274455
(5)Loaded magazine clips for a Bushmaster rifle
(1) Heavy ballistic SWAT style bulletproof vest
As I said, the statement is retarded. That's what I think.
I agree with you J.O.B. My question was not whether you think it's a sound policy, even i don't think that, I asked
Delete"Do the sentiments of Nelson Shields represent the gun control movement at large? Did his ideas trickle down through Gun Control Inc., and into the Brady Campaign? Has his message simply evolved into a secret agenda?"
You have to ask, Mikeb? We've been telling you this for a long time, but you wouldn't believe us. We know that there's a reason why many gun control advocates won't specify what they actually want. They tell stories about this event and that event; they whine about the availability of guns; they mock gun owners, but when pressed, they always claim that they don't want to ban guns. It's something like an alcoholic who goes into a liquor store, ostensibly to buy a candy bar. Uh huh. We're not stupid.
ReplyDeleteIt's convenient for you to say that, but I don't think it's the case.
DeleteAll Handgun Control Inc did was change their name to the Brady Campaign; they never changed their agenda.
ReplyDeleteObviously the agenda is not the same since Helmke and Henigan never spoke in such extreme terms.
DeleteA lot of things are obvious to you, Mikeb. But look at my description of gun control advocates. Doesn't it sound like every one you've known?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Do the sentiments of Nelson Shields represent the gun control movement at large? Did his ideas trickle down through Gun Control Inc., and into the Brady Campaign? Has his message simply evolved into a secret agenda?"
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, yes, yes, very, very, yes. Since Nelson Shields made that statement, the gunzlightz of teh gunzloonz have been infringed, abridged, sliced, diced, sauteed and served on a bed of arugula with a nice Chianti. Why, every day I see jacknanniednboothugs of the Obamasecretpoleece raiding homes and hunting lodges across upstate NY and grabbin' teh gunz from law'bidin' castle defenders and, and, an...Oh, wait, I don't actually see that.
Gosh, do you think that Mr. Shields might speak for himself and some other people (something less than 3M or, maybe, something less than 3,000 or...) darn it, I forgot, he's been dead for almost 20 years so only John Edwards actually knows who he speaks for.
And that 1993 "major newspaper"? Could they NOT find out which one it was? I mean I'd kinda like to know which "major newspaper" that was so's I can send them a note congratulating them for crippling teh GMOF* with their editorial! 11-1!!!
Gunz Manufacturerz Of MurKKKa
Your side peaked in the 90s. Just because you've failed ever since doesn't mean that you've changed your desires.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeletePretty much the entire debate centers on the first part of the 2nd amendment. Is the militia a restriction of a right or an expansion of it? Do you get to have, or must you have in order to have the other thing?
How one approaches the issue will be determined in large part by how one approaches any text and its meaning.
A historical-grammatical approach (hermeneutic) is one that tries to determine the meaning of a text by attempting to ascertain the original intent its author(s). This is done by examining the text itself - and the text's words and how they were used in the language and time period they appear in. Also, this approach entails examining other writings an author, or authors, have written in order know how he/she uses certain words.
If one does this, then one gets a very pro-gun reading of the constitution. America's founding fathers were pro-gun, and by "pro-gun" I mean Americans (both individually and corporately) being armed with the weapons of their choice in order to successfully stage a coup if they so desired.
The militia part is there because they knew that a fighting force with rank and structure has a better chance than a mere mob of taking out a professional army. Americans get to have, maintain, and train with their weapons both individually and corporately. If you read what the men who drafted and signed the constitution had to say about weapons (both before and after the revolution), and life in general, then you Mike would know that the founding fathers were against weapon prohibition.
It really is that simple.
David, Thanks for the comment. I agree with you totally. The obvious hermeneutical conclusion of the meaning of the 2A would be exactly what you said IF you're already a pro-gun thinking individual. If not, I submit, it could be quite different.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteHow do you come to that conclusion? Do you really think America's founding fathers intended other than what I said? If you take a deconstructionalist approach to the U.S. Constitution, or texts in general, now would be a good time to say so. What ammo do you have on your side other than you think individuals should not be allowed to have weapons and governments should?
"The militia part is there because they knew that a fighting force with rank and structure has a better chance than a mere mob of taking out a professional army. Americans get to have, maintain, and train with their weapons both individually and corporately."
ReplyDeleteHere's a question (oh, btw, the hermeneutic interpretation that you subscribe to is one of several, not all of them winding up as being in favor of unbridled private ownership of firearms); why is it that the gunzloonz are passionate about the 2nd amendment being a guarantee of their right to keep and bear arms with NO limitations, NONE? And then feel like they have to offer some sort of nonsense like your comment that I quote? It is or it ain't. I think you guyz know full well that the notion that the 2nd Amendment should be absolutely without limit, as opposed to every other amendment--all of which SOUND as though they should never be ABRIDGED or INFRINGED. Free speech WITH limits? How is that free speech? Habeas Corpus is required, but not for people we don't like? I could go on, but I think you get the drift.
What mikeb302000 is saying is precisely correct. For those who LIKE the idea of hazzin' any and all of teh gunz that they want well, fuck yeah, that's what the 2nd Amendment SEZ!! For those of us who can live with or without gunz it's not quite so obvious and the justifications, "Because that's the way it's 'sposed to be, according to the FOUNDING FATHERS and shut up, that's why!" is not compelling.
How about what the founders intended? It seems like you and Mike are coming from this perspective like - "if you want to see it that way you can, but I do not so the text can mean X". If this is not an objectifiable situation we are in then we are just in a debate of preferences.
ReplyDeleteIf you can show me historically where there is merit to your position then bring it. I never stated, nor intended, for you or Mike to shut up; I believe in debate and dialogue. I can be convinced. It has happened before. How is what I wrote nonsense?
I really am not sure what you meant about the other amendments. I am really big on those too and I think the limits placed on those amendments are attempts to limit freedom.
Don't you see the point that I am trying to make? - That for governments that possess the most destructive weapons (like nukes), trying to disarm individuals is the height of hypocrisy. And these governments are not exactly peaceful; they have used their weapons before.
Honestly, if you really were consistent in your attempts to disarm any and everything then you would set your sites on the DoD's of the world as they have the most and best/worst weapons.
First of all David, we're not talking about disarming you or anybody else who is of sound mind and qualified to own and operate guns. The individuals we want to disarm are the unfit and dangerous ones, which I think even you would be in favor of. It's not an attempt to inch up on you or to eventually disarm everybody, it's exactly what it says, an attempt to raise the bar a little bit in order to disqualify the worst of the worst.
ReplyDeleteThe 2A, in my opinion is as obsolete and anachronistic as the 3rd. Furthermore, to harken back to the golden days of our founding fathers does not add credibility to your position. Those guys owned slaves and denied women of basic rights. What kind of recommendation is that?
And finally, in the 1790s, the reason for owning a weapon was to be able to participate in the militia for one of two reasons, to fight off a tyrannical federal government or an invading foreign army. Both those concepts do not exist today.
1. You just quoted gun control advocates talking about the disarmament of private citizens, and yet you insist that your side (you used we) doesn't want to disarm us. Do you think that we're stupid?
Delete2. Have you heard of asymmetrical warfare? That goes on all over the planet right now.
3. The hope, though, is that given the American love of freedom, our armed forces would refuse an order to attack Americans. Those amendments that you think are out of date are there to encourage that kind of resistence to evil orders.
I disagree MikeB. Citizens in the 1790s also owned weapons for self-defense against wild animals, criminals, gangs, and sadly Native Americans. All of those threats (except for Native Americans of course) are real and still exist today.
DeleteMy neighbor's full size Doberman Pincers run around their yard every day barking, growling, and foaming at the mouth at passers-by ... and there is nothing to stop them from attacking other than an "invisible fence". At some point in time, every dog breaches an invisible fence. The entire neighborhood hates it and there are no laws to stop it. My only recourse is to be armed at all times because I never know when they are going to leave the yard.
And I have already mentioned the several thousand square miles of Southern Arizona where drug and human smuggling activity prompted a County Sheriff in 2010 to inform his constituents that the Sheriff's office could no longer protect the citizens.
And then we have the "Battle of Athens" in 1946 where local citizens used their firearms to end political corruption.
These are just three modern examples of why citizens need unfettered access to effective firearms. There are countless additional examples. All of these concepts do exist today.
And as for your notion that our federal standing army negates the need for a militia, I beg to differ. With our federal standing army stationed in military bases, it would be a simple matter for the soviet union to drop missiles (even with conventional warheads) on the bases and decimate our standing army in a single day. In order to decimate the militia, however, a foreign power would have to kill just about the entire population -- something much harder to accomplish.
MikeB: “And finally, in the 1790s, the reason for owning a weapon was to be able to participate in the militia for one of two reasons, to fight off a tyrannical federal government or an invading foreign army. Both those concepts do not exist today.”
DeleteWhat is your guarantee that these two concepts will never exist again? Not just now, but 50 years from now. 200 years from now…
To answer MikeB's question in the post, yes, that is what comes to mind when most people hear the term "gun control" -- especially to citizens who own firearms.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThere is alot to unpack there. First,
"to disqualify the worst of the worst."
Does that include soldiers and cops? Cuz historically they have killed more people then individual citizens could ever dream and they have their hands on the best/worst weapons out there. Also, this is really more of an enforcement issue. Rules like that are already in place and their track record is not that good.
I disagree that the 2A is obsolete or anachronistic. Governments know what weapons can do that is why they banned them then and it is why they are trying to ban them now. There are other old, and high concepts out there like Habeas Corpus and due process; I am guessing you would pitch a fit if some world leader blew those off and yet they are really old concepts.
I am not "harkening back" I am trying to get at the meaning of a legal document and it seems like you would just rather blow the whole thing off cuz you do not like it. I realize many here may not be Americans and the rules are different in their respective countries: fine. However, in these United States the Constitution is the law and it seems like you are basically saying you do not like what it says so we should just blow it off.
And the majority of the Founding Fathers did not own slaves - in fact some were abolitionists. Yes - some did own slaves and so what? It is only a myopic 21st century cultural view that judges them by our norms and blows off anything good they ever did or anything they could teach us today.
So foreign and domestic enemies do not exist? Are you kidding me? A tyrannical U.S. federal gov. does exist. That is if we use the criteria of 1776 as a base line. We have more rules and pay (way) more in taxes than what they fought over.
Some are under the impression that a successful coup or insurgency against the United States cannot be staged. First, let it be known the same thing was thought of by many in 1776 except then the superpower was the British Crown. Second, low-tech and politics won the proxy battle that was Vietnam. Same could be said against another superpower of the 20th century - the U.S.S.R. Afghanistan in all its low-tech glory successfully launched a counter-coup against communist Afghans and their international comrades. In can be done.
The bar for cops and military should be raised exactly like the one for civilian gun owners.
ReplyDeleteI don't say because some of them owned slaves, everything they say is worthless. I do say stop putting them on the demi-god pedastal.
Your last paragraph reeks of lunacy and paranoia. Other than it, your writing makes you sound pretty intelligent and informed. Please don't tell us you really picture the gun owners of America fighting off the Federal Government.
MikeB wrote:
Delete"Please don't tell us you really picture the gun owners of America fighting off the Federal Government."
Why not? No one at our military bases are armed. The sick Major (I refuse to state his name.) at Fort Hood had no trouble killing 13 and wounding 29 others all by himself. As you may recall, civilian police officers that responded to the action finally stopped the Major. Imagine the potential if just 2000 armed citizens stormed the base. And imagine if such an event happened simultaneously on every base in the U.S.
The only thing that could stop such an action is an intelligence leak. If the federal government knew this was going to happen, it would be ugly.
Incidentally, this also illustrates how vulnerable our bases are to attack from foreign nations. It wouldn't be hard for a foreign entity to send a crack squad of 500 commandos to each base. With great training and weaponry and in peak condition, it would be a trivial matter for such a squad to decimate a base. That is why we need a citizen militia.
Oh, and have you heard about "Oath Keepers"? A little research on their website www.oathkeepers.org will probably surprise you. I included an excerpt below from their website. Please note that many former service men, service women, law enforcement, and emergency responders are also Oath Keepers that will respond if the time comes.
(begin quote)
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
(end_quote)
Oh, and you might like reading this MikeB. There are companion bills in the Tennessee Senate (SB 2669) and House (HB 2619) which "... provide that a federal employee who is not designated as a Tennessee peace officer may not make an arrest or conduct a search and seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search and seizure will take place except under certain circumstances."
DeleteThe State of Tennessee is telling the Federal Government that they will not allow the federal government to march in and do whatever they want with impunity ... and will prosecute federal agents who act without the consent of local Sheriffs. If federal officials fail to acquire written permission from the local Sheriff before acting, the State will prosecute federal officials for the following felonies: kidnapping (arrest), trespassing (search), theft (seizure), and homicide (death of Tennessee citizen during arrest/search/seizure).
I hope this makes it clear that "we the people" will stand up for our Constitution and basic human rights.
What's clear to me is that a small minority of gun-rights extremists, backed by the NRA and gun manufacturers are having their way right now. It won't last.
DeleteYou do keep telling us that. So why should we compromise on anything with your side if we're having to gain as much ground as we can during this period?
DeleteMike,
ReplyDelete"Please don't tell us you really picture the gun owners of America fighting off the Federal Government."
It seems like a few Afghans and Pakistanis (w/ a sprinkling of Mujahadeen) have given the DoD a real run for its money. Again, was it not your countrymen that said the same thing about mine over 200 years ago? To quote a guy who is kinda famous right now, "Yes, we can".
I do not put the founding fathers on a pedestal. What I do know is that 2nd Amendment was written by guys who thought alot more like me than like you. If you have some interpretive gymnastics that can get your weapons prohibition past the"2A" I am open to seeing them.
David you're a fantasy dweller if you think the Afghans who are holding their own against the DOD is an indication that you and your friends could successfully fight against the US government if it ever came to that. -which it won't, it can't. That's your fantasy.
DeleteGetting my weapons prohibitions past the 2A makes no sense, since I'm not preaching prohibitions. I'm preaching higher standards for qualification, that's it.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour constant harping on "fantasy" is well more than a bit dismissive. Will you not admit that many super powers have been humbled by a few tenacious natives?
Honestly, its not really about the weapons - the weapons can be got later (although having a good starting point really helps). Its not even about winning; its about a mentality - one that I think (sadly) you do not have. Give me liberty or give me death - sound familiar?
* So are you saying an AA-12 shotgun, Ma Deuce, or claymore mine in the hands of a regular Joe American is OK?