Ammo for the gun lobby

[MrBill]

What can you say about a country that protects the rights of the very people who are trying to tear it down?

God bless America!

paraphrased from West Wing.

Two words that I have noticed being blurred in my lifetime are rights and privileges.  
My Father taught me that rights were global to all persons, they could not be bartered with, amended, or revoked.
Privileges, on the other hand, were granted persons/groups, by other persons/groups for some return, or specific type of behavior.

If these statements are true (a matter of speculation to be sure) then the right to whatever should be inalienable, no matter how many years pass or how much money changes hands.

As to the gun control debate, there are HUNDREDS of laws on the books that regulate whom and what, but the liberal caucus will not allow them to be enforced.  To do so would mean some PERSON would have to be accountable, and THAT is contrary to liberal belief.

Just my opinion ... I could be mistaken  

[Ripsnort]

Something to think about if your an American...
Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and lots of others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,  100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Known defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:  56 million.  The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system.  They deserve academy awards.


 "Confidence is contagious. So is lack of confidence,"  -- Vince Lombardi

[StSanta]

heh now that the X-Files has ended, I am glad I can get my conspiracy theories from this bb s  

[blitz]

[
[QB]Something to think about if your an American...
Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and lots of others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,  100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Known defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:  56 million.  The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system.  They deserve academy awards.

Lol ribs,

these arguments doesnt hit here.
Exampel: How could have, say 2 million german jews, armed to the teeth with Sturmgewehr 44 & Walther PPK stand against a welltrained german army with tanks, planes, machineguns & all?
In fact, it's much more easy to blame + witchhunt a minority if parts of it act as terrorists/freedom fighters.

Cheers ( no offence intended)

 blitz

[fd ski]

Hey Rip, here is something to think about...

bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?

Maybe if we allow everyone to have a howitzer, just maybe then you will be able to defend yourself from a government....

Don't kid yourself folks, if goverment wants your ass, they will have it and your M60 or Ar16 won't stop them.

[buhdman]

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

Ripsnort,

This is an interesting statement.

I have owned guns all my life and I have no desire to have anyone try an take them away, but I have never considered them essential to my being a "citizen" of this country.  In fact, many of the "citizens" of this country that I know do NOT own guns.  And none of us think of ourselves as "subjects" to anyone.  I always thought that "citizenship" was something that was bestowed on us constitutionally, by right of birth, rather than by the size of our own personal arsenal.

So, I'm curious:  How has having guns made YOU a "citizen" as opposed to a "subject"?

 

Buhdman, out

[mietla]

Originally posted by MrBill:
Two words that I have noticed being blurred in my lifetime are rights and privileges.  
My Father taught me that rights were global to all persons, they could not be bartered with, amended, or revoked.
Privileges, on the other hand, were granted persons/groups, by other persons/groups for some return, or specific type of behavior.

How true. Especially that the lefties (while trying to take away our real rights), are trying to push the entire new list of concocted "rights" like a right to a shelter, food, job, minimum wage, healtcare etc., guarranteed and unconditionally provided by the government.


There is a simple test one can use to determine whether something is a right or a priviledge. Just ask yourself:

"Would I be able to exercise it while cast away on a deserted island?"

Free speach? - sure
Right to arm and defend yourself? - yup
Right to be safe in your posessions? yes

Right to a shelter?
Right to food?
Right to healtcare?
Right to minimum wage?

Now, of course we have a right to pursue, achieve and keep them all, but this is not what the lefties are proposing. They want all these thing to become an entitlement. They want to force other people to provide the loser with all these goodies without any strings attached. Not only do they take away (by force) a half of income from the achievers and give it, unconditionally to the non-achievers, but they also call you selfish if you object.

And yet, half or so of our society is bying it.

[Nifty]

Originally posted by Ripsnort:

Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but their soft-on-crime law enforcement and pro-violence and immoral entertainment industry is the real cause. Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal establishment. In effect, we have a one party system.  They deserve academy awards.

hmm, I like to blame liberals too, but sheesh!    Both conservatives and liberals take HALF the approach to dealing with crime.  Liberals believe if you deal with the sources (sorry, movies and TV are NOT the source.  Generally, poor social conditions "force" people to crime.  Perhaps they can't see a better way out, I don't know.) of the crime, crime will go away.  Conservatives think that if you're harder on those who commit crime, it'll lower crime.  Since we actually do have a two party system, what one side thinks the other usually refuses to support.  Why on earth can you not take BOTH approaches simultaneously???  Be VERY frickin' hard on criminals.  No slaps on the wrist, no first time offender off lightly crap either.  At the SAME time however, find ways to make the social conditions better so people don't feel they have to turn to crime.  Granted, this won't stop every crime, but perhaps it will stop theft.  For example, a lot of "crime" is drug related.  Make drugs legal, much like tobacco and, more relevant, alcohol is legal.  Take the money spent on the "war against drugs" and spend it on educating children as to the dangers of drugs (among other things!)

Btw, I don't personally have any guns right now.  I do techinically own a couple of shotguns that were willed to me when my grandfathers passed away, but they're with my father at the moment.  I don't feel I "need" them to protect myself from the government.  I also don't think the government should take them away from me.  I will only use them responsibly, if ever.  

heck, I forgot what my point was.  Gotta killer headache and lost train of thought.  

[Mighty1]

I have several guns but the only time I would use them is if someone tried to take them away from me.

[streakeagle]

The point is, per the original writers of our constitution: we all have the right to bear arms. The full meaning of the particular "militia" mentioned in the constitution is a legal definition for all free men not affiliated with the government's army and militias, it did not mean the National Guard or organized groups of paranoid wackos afraid of the feds.

As with any right, you can refuse to exercise it. But those who do not desire to speak freely or bear arms should not be able to interfere with others who choose to exercise their rights fully. Regardless of any dictionary or common sense definition of a "right", in this country we are bound by legal defintions that can only be disputed via the supreme court. The supreme court stands by the above interpretation (for the time being). Other lesser congressional laws do directly conflict with the rights to free speech and bearing arms, but no one has successfully challenged these conflicts in court to resolve them, so per our wonderful system, they stand.

On a side note, do a little research and look up the amendment that created the IRS (I forget the number): note that it was never ratified by congress. The IRS does not exist legally by our constitution. Yet, there are laws which will legally punish you for false income tax reports and once you are in the system there is no legal escape. But a handful of people have refused to enter the income tax system on the grounds it is not constitutional, and won quickly and quietly in court (not the kind of thing the government would like widely published).

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]

[mietla]

Is Income Tax Legal? Evidence suggests 16th Amendment never ratified

Constitution News
Source: www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke/19990709_xcdfr_is_income.shtml
Published: 7-9-99 Author: David Franke
Posted on 07/09/1999 03:12:02 PDT by Born in a Rage


WASHINGTON-- Evidence strongly suggets that the 16th Amendment, which establishes the income tax, was not approved properly as required by the Constitution and was fraudulently ratified.

"If this evidence is true, the income tax is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," says Robert L. Schulz.

Schulz is head of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., a New York state-based organization that hosted a symposium in Washington last week on the topic, "Are the Income and Social Security Taxes Legal?" The foundation twice sent registered letters to President Clinton, Senate President Pro Tempore Trent Lott, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, asking them to send representatives to the symposium who could explain the government's case for the legality of the income tax. They received no response, much less a speaker, but part of the conference was covered by C-SPAN and that resulted in hundreds of friendly responses from viewers.

A key speaker at the symposium was William J. Benson, author of a two-volume investigative report on the ratification of the 16th Amendment entitled "The Law That Never Was."

Benson was a special agent with the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. He was fired after uncovering evidence of corruption in the agency. It took more than six years to get the case into a federal court, but the jury awarded him "a large amount" he says, for violations of his First Amendment rights.

What followed his victory is an even more amazing story. Benson delved into the history of the federal income tax-- the granddaddy of the state income taxes-- and became suspicious. He noted irregularities in the ratification of the 16th Amendment and pressed on in his research.

That research took him to the archives in the state capitals of each of the 48 states that were part of the United States in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed by the Congress. The Constitution requires ratification of amendments by three-fourths of the states, and Benson's meticulous research says this was never properly done. Secretary of State Philander Knox declared the amendment ratified on the basis of a report from his solicitor, but that report was "fraudulent," says Benson.

In each state archive, Benson uncovered the records of that state's consideration of the proposed amendment. To present a legally acceptable case "you must have documents that are notarized and certified," he explains. "Otherwise they're considered hearsay in court."

All total, Benson collected 17,000 documents, all properly notarized and certified by officials of the states. And what they reveal is shocking.

The ratification required by at least 36 states-- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence-- ha sto be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Benson cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

----Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

----Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

----Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded voice count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

----Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

----Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

----And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states-- far less than the required 36.

Benson's story doesn't end with the compilation and publication of his research. As expected, his evidence that our present system of government is based on a fraud did not get a friendly reception in Washington. Benson says a senatorial aide attempted to bribe him. Supress all copies of your books, he was told, and "you will live in comfort for the rest of your life."

Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges.

"Going to prison was not easy," he told the symposium, "but because I had written volume one and was speaking out about it, the government was determined to put me in prison."

And that wasn't all. Benson was on prescribed medication for encephalitis. That medication was confiscated, and "four guards and three nurses entered my cell and forcibly injected me with different medication." As a result, he spent nearly two years in prison in a wheelchair.

"I now have to use a cane and walker, and ofetn a whellchair," Benson said, "all because of the federal government."

An appellate court reversed Benson's conviction, and he was free after 15 months and five days. But, ignoring prohibitions of double jeapordy, the Feds clamped him in prison again. And took away his medication again.

This time he was in jail only 22 days. His wife had appealed to Congress, and after a congressional inquiry the prison authorities stopped his overmedication and returned him to his original prescribed medication. The judge who had jailed him was furious when presented with evidence that the government's actions were unlawful, and ordered him released.

The latest chapter in Benson's saga is the counterattack.

"As soon as I get back to Illinois I'm suing them-- every one of them," Benson told WorldNetDaily-- and he started listing them: four U.S. attorneys, a first assistant U.S. attorney, and assistant U.S. attorney. All except the judge, that is. "I could sue the judge-- no question -- but I'm not going to do that," Benson added.

"Fear is the worst thing you face," said Benson of his prison experiences. And now it's time for the prosecutors who were his persecutors to be afraid.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by fd ski:
Hey Rip, here is something to think about...

bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?

Maybe if we allow everyone to have a howitzer, just maybe then you will be able to defend yourself from a government....

Don't kid yourself folks, if goverment wants your ass, they will have it and your M60 or Ar16 won't stop them.

There are exceptions to every rule, in every country, I can think of 10 off the top of my head.

If guns were illegal in the US, this 'cult' would have still had them regardless.

[AKDejaVu]

bunch of whackos baricaded themselves with all sorts of guns and ammo in a building in texas not so long ago, and guess what ? Didn't help them at all, did it ?

Let me ask you this... what would have happened if the entire town of Waco would have decided this action was unmerrited and decided to act against it?

Guns ownership (and the rights to it) isn't intended to help small groups overthrow the government.  Its intended to help the majority of the people keep the government pointed in the right direction... and able to help themselves out if something goes wrong.

And... have you been by a National Guard armory before?  Do you really believe none of that would be used by the people?

Bah... pointless argument anyways.

AKDejaVu

[streakeagle]

"Benson didn't cooperate, and he landed in prison on income tax charges."

Now that is the federal government I came to know and love while serving 8 years on submarines. It regularly abuses its power by severely punishing those who don't cooperate with the corrupt powers that be (by trying to obey and enforce the very rules the government created). The government has a "waste, fraud, and abuse" anonymous whistle blower hotline. Whoever invented that was a genius. The government gets its enemies (honest people trying to do the right thing) to call them directly and tell them where they are at. I pitied everyone that ever called that number. Sooner or later it was always proved that the only "real" fraud was their phone call, so their plea was ignored by the higher echelons they had called, and they were punished by the local leadership for trying to squeal on them.

I have been out for 4 years now, and I am so glad I am no longer directly a part of their political power games. Timothy McVeigh and other people like him are certainly not heroes, but neither are the people he was trying to attack. I personally prefer Ghandi's approach. Passive resitance on a national level is awesome. Hell, even TV images of a few thousand Chinese college students being run over by tanks in the name of freedom leaves an impression that lasts a lifetime. Nobody can abuse power if the people beneath them refuse to do what they are told. You just have to be willing to risk your life for your principles. Plenty of people have already done so by serving in the military. If everyone throughout the world had that level of courage, there could be no tyrannical governments.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]

[StSanta]

Heh well I've followed the benson case and it seems it comes down to the wording of one sentence.

if one stretches it a bit, one could get outta it what benson claims.

It's akin to a poorly phrased sentence like

"the humans and their dogs then talked"

Did the humans talk to the humans, or did the humans talk to the dogs? or did the humans talk to the humans and the dogs to the dogs? or did some dogs talk to humans?

Now, a computer would have trouble parsing that message. Benson tried to capitalize on it, and failed.