Video - More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

YouTube - More Than A Right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms


This is a classic film from the 1970s that targets anti-gun hysteria. It shows not only how gun control legislation does not prevent criminal acts with firearms and puts citizens in more danger, but how government control over private firearms ownership is a totalitarian agenda to disarm law-abiding citizens. All totalitarian regimes in 20th Century from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to present day China and Cuba disarmed their subjugated populations as a key element of enslaving them.​
 
Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.
 
Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

Since I am feeling particularly benevolent today, apropros of nothing whatsoever:

1. If I have a firearm that is stolen , I can report it and the serial number to the police. Registration serves no purpose. You will also notice that in liberal hell holes especially, stolen firearms used in crimes are not returned to the rightful owners, but are confiscated and destroyed.

2. maybe people also need to pass a parent course before being allowed to have children?

3. A responsible member of society hardly needs a law to tell him not to sell dangerous stuff to obviously unstable people.

4. Restricting the type of weapons that one may bear to certain classes of people ensure those with access to superior weaponry will be the rulers of said society. The reason the founders of the US wanted the citizenry to have the same weapons as used by the professional military was to ensure that the country was ruled by its citizens,and not by a professional military class.

In summary - buzzzzzz wrong answer, but thanks for playing:)
 
When I saw a sign today, it seemed like an oxymoron. The sign said, "For the safety of our employees and customers, weapons are not permitted on these premises."

I immediately thought to myself, how is having all law abiding individuals being disarmed contributing to anyone's safety? All I could think of was some criminal entering the place and using his weapon to kill as many people as he felt he wanted to.

What kind of mentality do people have who make up stupid signs like that one?
 
Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

images
 
Since I am feeling particularly benevolent today, apropros of nothing whatsoever:

I feel so honored. :rolleyes:

1. If I have a firearm that is stolen , I can report it and the serial number to the police. Registration serves no purpose. You will also notice that in liberal hell holes especially, stolen firearms used in crimes are not returned to the rightful owners, but are confiscated and destroyed.

Links please. I don't have any, and I know it's not proof, but my comments are based on a neighbor's experience with the matter. His Model 1911 was returned after the perp's trial and conviction. I do realize, however, that the case may be different in other areas.

The example I used is but one of many advantages to society that registered firearms generates.

2. maybe people also need to pass a parent course before being allowed to have children?

Non sequitur. Children aren't potentially deadly weapons.

Why do you apparently not support safety training?

Besides, I happened to like my C&C training courses.

3. A responsible member of society hardly needs a law to tell him not to sell dangerous stuff to obviously unstable people.

Not all psychosis are obvious, and neither are criminal convictions either.

That's ignoring plain greed, of course.

4. Restricting the type of weapons that one may bear to certain classes of people ensure those with access to superior weaponry will be the rulers of said society. The reason the founders of the US wanted the citizenry to have the same weapons as used by the professional military was to ensure that the country was ruled by its citizens,and not by a professional military class.

Sorry, but I do not buy into this simple hysteria.

The Second dealt with not only a citizen's right to own firearms for personal protection and to put food on the table (if you will remember almost the entire Nation was "frontier" at the time), but as we did not have a large standing army at the time and we were a new Nation without a strong army/navy to protect ourselves, militias that could be raised in an instant in case of a foreign invader.

The Second wasn't made with any intention of giving We the People some form of ability towards armed insurrection or "protecting ourselves against the ebil gub'mint".

The ballot box is where We the People protect ourselves from a totalitarian regime.

And, neighbor, there wasn't any such thing as a "military grade" weapon at the time, so the idea that the g'ment wanted it's citizens and military to "have the same weapons" is rather silly, to be frank.

Also, "Infringe" means to invalidate, to remove, it does not mean that it eliminates some form of controls. The government is well within it's Constitutional mandate to regulate gun ownership.

It is up to We the People to determine how far those regulations span.
 
I feel so honored. :rolleyes:



Links please. I don't have any, and I know it's not proof, but my comments are based on a neighbor's experience with the matter. His Model 1911 was returned after the perp's trial and conviction. I do realize, however, that the case may be different in other areas.

The example I used is but one of many advantages to society that registered firearms generates.



Non sequitur. Children aren't potentially deadly weapons.

Why do you apparently not support safety training?

Besides, I happened to like my C&C training courses.



Not all psychosis are obvious, and neither are criminal convictions either.

That's ignoring plain greed, of course.



Sorry, but I do not buy into this simple hysteria.

The Second dealt with not only a citizen's right to own firearms for personal protection and to put food on the table (if you will remember almost the entire Nation was "frontier" at the time), but as we did not have a large standing army at the time and we were a new Nation without a strong army/navy to protect ourselves, militias that could be raised in an instant in case of a foreign invader.

The Second wasn't made with any intention of giving We the People some form of ability towards armed insurrection or "protecting ourselves against the ebil gub'mint".

The ballot box is where We the People protect ourselves from a totalitarian regime.

And, neighbor, there wasn't any such thing as a "military grade" weapon at the time, so the idea that the g'ment wanted it's citizens and military to "have the same weapons" is rather silly, to be frank.

Also, "Infringe" means to invalidate, to remove, it does not mean that it eliminates some form of controls. The government is well within it's Constitutional mandate to regulate gun ownership.

It is up to We the People to determine how far those regulations span.
Your post demonstrates an ignorance of history.

Contemporary sources clearly illustrate the purpose of the Militia and the second amendment - it is to provide the ultimate check on government power.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))


"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)


"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)


"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

And so on. If there be any further doubt, heed the Militia Act of 1792:

[SIZE=+2]Militia Act of 1792[/SIZE],
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.


...........................


The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792,

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
 
Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.
 
Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.

Slavery is brought to the people by "consensus".

Understanding the difference between a right and privilege, fail.

-rep
 
Thanks for posting the Articles for me, you saved me some time and proved my point.

As for your quotes, I refuse to get into quote wars as quotes can be cherrypicked, fradulent, or fabricated outright, and for every quote forwrded, one from the same source can be found to support the opposing view.

What amtters are the laws that were formed by concensus.

Why not show us at least one of those opposing views from the same source.
I would rather like to see that.

Seems to me, rather than proving your point, those quotes did just the opposite, and your refusal to participate in a 'quote war', seems more like a failure on your part to be able to find any quotes, supporting your point of view.
 
Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

On the whole that is exactly what they add up to. What matters is the result.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

Oh dear...

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

Unnecessary. Serves no purpose whatsoever in those terms. Registration is, however, a great mechanism for streamlining confiscation, however broadly or narrowly those in power might choose.

More basically speaking, what is the moral basis for such a requirement?

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

This presupposes the necessity for such, which further presupposes the moral basis for forcing such training upon people. Please provide that basis.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

Who determines who is mentally fit to have firearms? Who establishes the standard? Upon what standard is the standard established?


4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.

Smells like troll dung from here. Upon what basis do you determine "need"? Who are you or is anyone else to act as arbiter of such need? What I own is none of you business and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is a great way to get seriously injured. It seems you are either disingenuous, ignorant beyond all measure, or wholly void of respect for the rights of others.

Seems to me you may be more comfy over at the Brady Campaign.
 
How about it Axis? Give us a couple of examples...
Yeah, I thought so...."troll dung".
 
Slavery is brought to the people by "consensus".

Understanding the difference between a right and privilege, fail.

-rep

And slavery would have been removed by consensus as well.

Bad example on your part, I'm afraid, as slavery was considered moral and proper back in the day.
 
3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

Big friggin' deal, "a little more difficult for the insane/criminal".

Try focusing on the innocent whom you mistakenly believe these laws protect instead of your personal fears. That applies to all four of your points.

All your points are bad, but I've had personal experience with this one.

You've probably never had to wait 14 days and nights 'to aquire' a firearm after tweaker next-door neighbors shot up your property -My wife, mother-in-law, and myself have.

I was guilty until proven innocent concerning my right to protect life.:mad:

Keep reading the above sentence until you see the light, and realize that a government with easy access to military grade weapons, bought with MY money, enforces that bullshit law.




Bunkloco
 
Big friggin' deal, "a little more difficult for the insane/criminal".

Try focusing on the innocent whom you mistakenly believe these laws protect instead of your personal fears. That applies to all four of your points.

All your points are bad, but I've had personal experience with this one.

You've probably never had to wait 14 days and nights 'to aquire' a firearm after tweaker next-door neighbors shot up your property -My wife, mother-in-law, and myself have.

I was guilty until proven innocent concerning my right to protect life.:mad:

Keep reading the above sentence until you see the light, and realize that a government with easy access to military grade weapons, bought with MY money, enforces that bullshit law.




Bunkloco

Thank you for exhibiting one of the basic problems with politics, and pretty much everything else, in this Nation today.

A black-and-white, us-versus-them mentality knee jerk response and the inability to even consider the other side, or any side other than your own, of the issue.

Not to mention jumping to conclusions.

I am a firearm owner and possess a C&C license.

I do not labour under some illusion that gun control laws effect criminals, who by their very definition, ignore laws.

However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.
 
Last edited:
However, I do believe that SOME laws are absolutely vital, such as the cool-down period and requiring a license for C&C.

Shall not be infringed.

I am infringed.

There should be NO Law regarding Open or Concealed carry. How one carries is a personal choice and none of the governments business.
Right to Bear Arms. It is a Right. Not a privilege.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, I have never bought into the hysteria that gun control laws were some "totalitarian regime agenda".

There are some people who are convinced that gun control, check that, elimination laws are a good thing, and lobby g'ment for them. Understanding the underlying cause not only helps to resist overly intrusive gun control, ie elimination, laws, but such hysteria as you foward merely makes people roll their eyes and refuse the message for a basic Constitutional Right.

While gun control laws only effect law abiding citizens, the ones least likely to commit a gun crime, some control laws are, IMHO, necessary.

1. If your firearm is stolen, having it registered not only CYA's yourself if it is used in a gun crime and you have reported the theft, if located by LEO's, it can be returned.

2. They ensures that a firearm owner has had at least rudimentary safety and use training.

3. They ensure that the known mentally unstable and/or career criminals cannot legally purchase them, thus CYA'ing gun store vendors and making aquiring and possessing firearms a little more difficult for the insane/criminal.

4. Lets face it, no one but an avid colelctor and/or museum needs military grade firearms. You're not going to snipe a deer from a half mile, and if you want to, perhaps you should be classified in the "insane" catagory above.


I believe you clicked on the wrong link some how. Here is the correct one: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
 
Back
Top