Grab the guns while we still can

[Jintor]

Its along the same lines of "Its so old its not needed anymore"

Except slavery (or the possibility of slavery) continues today, and people need to have a constitutional/legislative right against it. Unlawful search and seizure still happens, and people still need to have a constitutional/legislative right against it.

What is it that you need guns for, exactly? Invasion by the British? Invasion by the Ruskies? Home defence?

And if they are needed for that, why do countries with much tighter gun restrictions cope completely fine without them?

 

[V-Man339]

They gave us the right to bear arms in the first place in order to rise up and rebel in case of a tyranical government takes place (see American Revolution), and look at what direction we're heading. Then again I realize that using this argument will more likely appeal to people like kath, but I rest my case.

 

[Navaha]

And if they are needed for that, why do countries with much tighter gun restrictions cope completely fine without them?

Becawz they r commiez.

 

[justin.walters01]

Why would that happen? In any possible way of reasoning, why would that happen? Why would removing (or, alright, amend, change it so firearms at least aren't as readily available) the second amendment lead to all those things? Now, I realize you're a moron, so I'm not sure why I even respond to you, but please, give me your reasons for thinking that banning firearms is the first step towards re-instituting slavery and creating a police state, since there is no possible proof that that would happen, and hasn't happened anywhere else (and God help me if you bring up Nazi Germany again...). And "once you pop you can't stop" isn't a good enough reason.

Why wouldn't he bring up Nazi Germany again? It's the perfect example, and it is possible proof. Also, your constant personal attacks Just make you look like an elitist. Based on your previous posts, I can tell that you know very little about the subject you are discussing. You seem to think that all firearms in the world originate in the US. That's absurd. Even if you did ban LEGAL firearms, there would still be as many illegal firearms as there is now. Banning guns won't help stop violent crime. If you want a gun in this country, you can get one, legally or not.The fact is, most illegal firearms in the US are smuggled from Russia, China, and the Middle East up through Mexico. So, if the sale of legal firearms in the US is stopped, illegal firearms(The guns that most crimes are committed with) would be sold at the same or even higher rate.

Now, to your point. If you disband the second amendment, it will be illegal to own firearms. Doubtless, some people would hide their guns. All the government would need to do is tell the population "If we lower the restrictions on search and seizure, it will be easier for us to get illegal firearms owners." and BOOM, instant slippery slope. I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen, I'm just saying that it is extremely likely. You don't seem to understand how stupid the average American is. Our education methods are admittedly not the best. The Bush administration has turned this country into a bunch of imbeciles easily controlled by fear. Your argument is a great example of this. You've been brainwashed as well. Just let the government do everything for you. Just let the government protect you. Just let the government take care of you when you're sick or injured. The government definitely has YOUR best interests at heart, not theirs, right?

 

[Dog--]

I don't understand, the constitution says something, they base a country off of it, they worship the god damn thing, yet.. They don't follow it at all. Free country my ass. Canada ftw. Actually anywhere but US ftw. (not saying it's crappy there, it's just getting less free each day).

(probably been said a billion times by now)

 

[Ridge]

How is it not followed?

 

[Jintor]

The problem with banning or even restricting guns in the US is that gun culture is so prevailant there's no way to take them out of the system in any meaningful way without the previously mentioned search and seizure, unlike say Australia circa Port Arthur massacres (to the point that I've never seen a gun shop in Australia, despite their highly regulated availebility.

Why wouldn't he bring up Nazi Germany again? It's the perfect example, and it is possible proof. Also, your constant personal attacks Just make you look like an elitist. Based on your previous posts, I can tell that you know very little about the subject you are discussing. You seem to think that all firearms in the world originate in the US. That's absurd. Even if you did ban LEGAL firearms, there would still be as many illegal firearms as there is now. Banning guns won't help stop violent crime. If you want a gun in this country, you can get one, legally or not.The fact is, most illegal firearms in the US are smuggled from Russia, China, and the Middle East up through Mexico. So, if the sale of legal firearms in the US is stopped, illegal firearms(The guns that most crimes are committed with) would be sold at the same or even higher rate.

I still think this 'OH HO HO CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW' arguement is stupid. However, I can't argue with the ridiculous amount of illegal firearms that is seemingly going through your country.

You don't seem to understand how stupid the average American is. Our education methods are admittedly not the best. The Bush administration has turned this country into a bunch of imbeciles easily controlled by fear. Your argument is a great example of this. You've been brainwashed as well. Just let the government do everything for you. Just let the government protect you. Just let the government take care of you when you're sick or injured. The government definitely has YOUR best interests at heart, not theirs, right?

HUR HUR HUR ELITIST

Seriously though you should try and moderate the anti-government tendencies a little. The government is actually supposed to be for the people, even if at the moment they're a bunch of incompetant jackasses (Disclaimer: previous statement may or may not be true).

This arguement seems to be based on the fact that your government is out to get you.

 

[Ridge]

Our government is full of incompetent people, and it appears it will continue to be.

You call us elitists...

What about the people who are saying we dont need our guns to protect ourselves? They are surrouned by Secret Service and other government agencies who are loaded to the brim with automatic machine guns and all sorts of stuff.

Most of these politicians are career politicians, and many of their parents were politicians before them. They are rich, well protected and not readily available to their constituents.

THEY are elitists...most of us are barely getting along as the price of everything continues to rise and our paychecks stay the same....

 

[Pesmerga]

I like how the idiot's arguments get more attention than mine

 

[Jintor]

I like how the idiot's arguments get more attention than mine

That's because he's an idiot.

What about the people who are saying we dont need our guns to protect ourselves? They are surrouned by Secret Service and other government agencies who are loaded to the brim with automatic machine guns and all sorts of stuff.

I'm saying you don't need guns to protect yourself, but then again I suppose my arguement isn't valid because I'm not American (presumably that makes me 'elitist').

 

[AJ Rimmer]

You seem to think that all firearms in the world originate in the US. That's absurd. Even if you did ban LEGAL firearms, there would still be as many illegal firearms as there is now. Banning guns won't help stop violent crime. If you want a gun in this country, you can get one, legally or not.The fact is, most illegal firearms in the US are smuggled from Russia, China, and the Middle East up through Mexico. So, if the sale of legal firearms in the US is stopped, illegal firearms(The guns that most crimes are committed with) would be sold at the same or even higher rate.

Illegal firearms originate from legal sources, they are bought legally, sold to someone else, stolen by someone else or used for violent crime. A part of illegal guns are smuggled in from Mexico or Canada, yes, but not all of them, and decreasing the number of legal guns would decrease the number of illegal guns available. Now, maybe this would further increase the smuggling in of illegal firearms, but surely that's an easier thing for the police to crack down on when it becomes one of the few sources for firearms available to those who intend to do harm?

 

[Ridge]

I think if the guy trying to rob or otherwise endanger me is carrying a gun, its only fair to level the playing field.

Honestly, even if it meant giving up all my guns, I'd love to live in Australia...such a unique and exotic place for someone like me who has only lived in Los Angeles and Denver...

 

[Eejit]

Its along the same lines of "Its so old its not needed anymore"

The second amendment isn't obsolete just because it's old, it's obsolete because the developments of military technology means that a civilian militia is never going to be able to beat a modern army.

 

[Ridge]

While they are more than ready to keep the peace, the majority of servicemen and women are quite unlikely to fire on their own people unless they citizens open fire first....that is the word Ive gotten from many many active duty soldiers and Marines...

 

[Eejit]

So if they don't have to fight anyone why does the militia need guns? -.-

Also that's what the army says now. The British Army had a similar attitude in NI either but we still got Bloody Sunday because they thought they had been fired on.

 

[justin.walters01]

Illegal firearms originate from legal sources, they are bought legally, sold to someone else, stolen by someone else or used for violent crime. A part of illegal guns are smuggled in from Mexico or Canada, yes, but not all of them, and decreasing the number of legal guns would decrease the number of illegal guns available. Now, maybe this would further increase the smuggling in of illegal firearms, but surely that's an easier thing for the police to crack down on when it becomes one of the few sources for firearms available to those who intend to do harm?

I can't argue with you because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. Do you think it is easier to break into someone's house, and steal their semi-automatic AK-47, or to go down to San Diego and buy a fully automatic AK-47 from Boris the illegal firearms dealer? I guarantee you that the majority of illegal firearms are NOT stolen from legal owners. Also, just because a legal firearm is stolen doesn't make it illegal As long as the weapon complies to state laws and is federally registered, it is a 100% legal firearm. That fact right there nulls your entire argument. You state that most violent gun crimes are committed with weapons stolen from legal owners. That simply is not true. Look up the illegal firearms smuggling business. I would recommend looking up news stories on gun smuggling, illegal firearms smuggling in San Diego, and the global "black market". Simply put, you need to get your facts straight. You are arguing on false information.

Also, I did NOT say that all non Americans are elitists, just this particular one. You guys seem to twist my words a lot. I tend to find that most liberal types do that.

 

[Jintor]

Also, I did NOT say that all non Americans are elitists, just this particular one. You guys seem to twist my words a lot. I tend to find that most liberal types do that.

Everybody does it man, it's easy. Your whole attitude is kinda pointing that way anyway.

To similarly generalise, most pro-gun types like to call non-Americans elitist.

grrr 'Liberal types' who do you think you are -___-

 

[xcellerate]

I think if the guy trying to rob or otherwise endanger me is carrying a gun, its only fair to level the playing field.

I posted some stats earlier in the thread about home defense, and it basically boils down to: if anybody tries to victimize you at gunpoint, you have a 20% chance of just touching your home defense weapon, and then if you do manage to get it there's a 20% chance you'll be shot afterwards.

That's quite a bit difference than the image most people seem to have in their heads, where they hear a criminal break in, they quickly and precisely load their weapon and make their way down stairs, sneak up on the criminal, pow pow pow, he's down and you're a hero. yay home defense!

 

[CptStern]

While they are more than ready to keep the peace, the majority of servicemen and women are quite unlikely to fire on their own people unless they citizens open fire first....that is the word Ive gotten from many many active duty soldiers and Marines...

right:

The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre,[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot had merely been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance



Killed (and approximate distance from the National Guard):

* Jeffrey Glen Miller (265ft) shot through the mouth - killed instantly
* Allison Krause (343ft) fatal left chest wound
* William Knox Schroeder (382ft) fatal chest wound
* Sandra Lee Scheuer (390ft) fatal neck wound

Wounded (and approximate distance from the National Guard):

* Joseph Lewis Jr. 71 ft (22 m); hit twice in the right abdomen and left lower leg
* John R. Cleary 110 ft (34 m); upper left chest wound
* Thomas Mark Grace 225 ft (69 m); struck in left ankle
* Alan Canfora 225 ft (69 m); hit in his right wrist
* Dean Kahler 300 ft (91 m); back wound fracturing the vertebrae - permanently paralyzed from the chest down
* Douglas A. Wrentmore 329 ft (100 m); hit in his right knee
* James Dennis Russell 375 ft (114 m); hit in his right thigh from a bullet and in the right forehead by birdshot - both wounds minor {died 2007}
* Robert F. Stamps 495 ft (151 m); hit in his right buttock {died June 11, 2008}
* Donald Scott MacKenzie 750 ft (230 m); neck wound

some of those wounds sound consistant with people running away or from a great distance ...doesnt see like they were overly concerned about the public's safety

they had no problem shooting unarmed students ..armed traitors would be even easier to shoot; you're traitors to the United States of America ..the general public (after watching hour after mindnumbing hour of fox"news" reports detailing excatly how the traitorous terr'ists are out to destroy america) will shoot at you because no one likes a traitor. Any uprising would be instantly quelled, you wouldnt stand a chance and to think you would is just blind wishful thinking ...the problem is that the entire right to guns argument hinges on this even though it's apparent to anyone who doesnt have their head in the sand that this is completely unrealistic ..you would not stand a chance, there are hundreds of examples throughout american history ..waco, ruby ridge, kent state, la riots etc etc etc

I guarantee you that the majority of illegal firearms are NOT stolen from legal owners.

you'd have a hard time proving this, the onus is on you to back up your statements

first of all you'd have to post number of firearms smuggled into the US every year vs number of firearms stolen from legal gun owners ..since legal gun owners are more than likely than criminals to report stolen guns any figures you do find would be a guesstimate at best. then there's the fact that quantity is of guns stolen in particular of incidents is not recorded in national databases

The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates that there were
341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private
citizens annually from 1987-92. Since the survey
does not ask how many guns were stolen, the number
of guns stolen probably exceeds the number of
incidents of gun theft

furthermore records are compiled from things like gun traces by law enforcement agencies....this is not done in every case where a firearm is found

The National Tracing Center of ATF traces firearms
to their original point of sale upon the request
of police agencies. The requesting agency may use
this information to assist in identifying
suspects, providing evidence for subsequent
prosecution, establishing stolen status, and
proving ownership. The number of requests for
firearms traces increased from 37,181 in 1990 to
85,132 in 1994.

Trace requests represent an unknown portion of all
the guns used in crimes. ATF is not able to trace
guns manufactured before 1968, most surplus
military weapons, imported guns without the
importer's name, stolen guns, and guns missing a
legible serial number.

Police agencies do not request traces on all
firearms used in crimes. Not all firearms used in
crimes are recovered so that a trace could be done
and, in some States and localities, the police
agencies may be able to establish ownership
locally without going to the ATF.

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache...all+firearms+used+in&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca


so your statement is sorta meaningless without context

 

[Ridge]

To compare today's military and people to those of almost 40 years ago is complete idiocy. People were very different then. The people hated the military who went overseas, and the complete lack of compassion was reciprocated. Nowadays, with the exception of people like you, citizens have the utmost respect for their soldiers and are willing to go out of their way to assist these warriors whenever possible...

BTW, Stern, a friend of mine says hi....Bodacious was his name...

 

[Vigilante]

To compare today's military and people to those of almost 40 years ago is complete idiocy. People were very different then. The people hated the military who went overseas, and the complete lack of compassion was reciprocated. Nowadays, with the exception of people like you, citizens have the utmost respect for their soldiers and are willing to go out of their way to assist these warriors whenever possible...

BTW, Stern, a friend of mine says hi....Bodacious was his name...

I support and respect for our troops. I don't support their cause, but they don't have any control over where an idiotic president tells them to go.

 

[CptStern]

To compare today's military and people to those of almost 40 years ago is complete idiocy. People were very different then.

yes law enforcement dont open fire on war protestors any more

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/4/8/police_fire_rubber_bullets_wooden_pellets

The people hated the military who went overseas, and the complete lack of compassion was reciprocated. Nowadays, with the exception of people like you, citizens have the utmost respect for their soldiers and are willing to go out of their way to assist these warriors whenever possible...

lol you really live in a delusional world full of gun toting white patriots smiling at each other in america bred pride ..like hitlers young nazis (omg godwin). anyways it's not the people you have to worry about, it''s law enforcement ..the military would never be called in like it was in Kent State because you will never be allowed to get to that point ..Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco ..you are so dead before anyone even takes notice of your cause, they have the might, they have the judicial branch on their side and most importantly the media on their side ..you would not stand a chance

BTW, Stern, a friend of mine says hi....Bodacious was his name...

oh I remember him ..he enlisted the aid of that nutjob right wing community "protest idiots" (protest and warriors as a word is still banned to this day because of this) in an attempt to flood our community with their retarded views ..if I remember correctly he was banned when it was discovered and more than a handful of people returned the favor by posting in their community which led to many in their community calling bodacious an idiot for doing so. Some of our mods and long time members will remember this. I'm guessing you're also from this period but somehow managed to evade the ban hammer

<waves at bodacious> no hard feelings bodacious, it was entertaining at the time

 

[Absinthe]

You state that most violent gun crimes are committed with weapons stolen from legal owners. That simply is not true. Look up the illegal firearms smuggling business. I would recommend looking up news stories on gun smuggling, illegal firearms smuggling in San Diego, and the global "black market". Simply put, you need to get your facts straight. You are arguing on false information.

"Hey! Do my research for me!"

 

[Kase]

To compare today's military and people to those of almost 40 years ago is complete idiocy. People were very different then. The people hated the military who went overseas, and the complete lack of compassion was reciprocated. Nowadays, with the exception of people like you, citizens have the utmost respect for their soldiers and are willing to go out of their way to assist these warriors whenever possible...

if a Soldier was ordered to shoot at the traitors then he would shoot at the traitors
if dosnt follow his orders he isnt a very good Soldier:afro:

 

[Ridge]

yes law enforcement dont open fire on war protestors any more

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/4/8/police_fire_rubber_bullets_wooden_pellets

You ever been to Oakland? Its a scum hole, and home to many criminals and dirtbags. I was there last summer...being stuck at a train station in industrial oakland at night after a Raider game lets out doesnt get much scarier than that...You scoff at me for posting right wing news letters, yet you do the same thing and post left wing periodicals...I'll bet you spend a lot of time at DU...

lol you really live in a delusional world full of gun toting white patriots smiling at each other in america bred pride ..like hitlers young nazis (omg godwin). anyways it's not the people you have to worry about, it''s law enforcement ..the military would never be called in like it was in Kent State because you will never be allowed to get to that point ..Just like Ruby Ridge and Waco ..you are so dead before anyone even takes notice of your cause, they have the might, they have the judicial branch on their side and most importantly the media on their side ..you would not stand a chance

I know its hard to understand where you live, but the vast majority of Americans who share the same ideals WILL in fact be polite to each other and band together to fight injustice...

oh I remember him ..he enlisted the aid of that nutjob right wing community "protest idiots" (protest and warriors as a word is still banned to this day because of this) in an attempt to flood our community with their retarded views ..if I remember correctly he was banned when it was discovered and more than a handful of people returned the favor by posting in their community which led to many in their community calling bodacious an idiot for doing so. Some of our mods and long time members will remember this. I'm guessing you're also from this period but somehow managed to evade the ban hammer

<waves at bodacious> no hard feelings bodacious, it was entertaining at the time

Again, showing bias against a group because they dont agree to the same ideals as you...

 

[Ridge]

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee (History)
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort Against Corrupt Government Officials.
Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution –– Article 1, Section 26 –– recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot county "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

 

[CptStern]

You ever been to Oakland? Its a scum hole, and home to many criminals and dirtbags. I was there last summer...being stuck at a train station in industrial oakland at night after a Raider game lets out doesnt get much scarier than that...

what does that have to do with anything? are you saying that the police were justified in shooting peaceful protestors because the city has high crime ..this is retarded reasoning

You scoff at me for posting right wing news letters, yet you do the same thing and post left wing periodicals...I'll bet you spend a lot of time at DU...

no actually I've never been ..however you protestidiots know it well enough. in anyy event it was the first link I picked to a story that was reported pretty much the same in every other media who bothered reporting it

I know its hard to understand where you live, but the vast majority of Americans who share the same ideals WILL in fact be polite to each other and band together to fight injustice...

give me a break, are you saying militia groups can mobalise to the extent where they could overthrow the government and they wouldnt be wise to it before hand? it would never get to that level just ask the Weavers ...oh and the Oklahoma bombing was said to be in direct response to Ruby Ridge ..militias are already branded as terrorists

Again, showing bias against a group because they dont agree to the same ideals as you...

no it's because they're raving idiots and lunatics who's arguments can be torn to shreds by anyone with even a minimal level of intelligence ..I had a grand ole time bitchslapping a number of them till they stopped responding to my posts and I moved on.

 

[Ridge]

The police used rubber bullets. Those are non-lethal devices and are used to break up protests, just as they were used. If they wanted to kill those people, why not just use lead bullets?

And yes, you have criticized me in previous threads.

Ruby Ridge was a massacre perpetuated by the FBI and ATF. FFS, the whole incident started when they shot a dog (something the ATF is very good at) and then killing a mother and her infant child. Clearly they were a threat...

We've been here before. Our ideas are madness to you, your ideas are madness to us. Conservatives dont want the government to be our nanny. Liberals dont like to be responsible for their actions, so they ask the government to do that...

 

[CptStern]

The police used rubber bullets. Those are non-lethal devices and are used to break up protests, just as they were used. If they wanted to kill those people, why not just use lead bullets?

because that would be unlawful? nooooo that couldnt be the reason. They learned their lesson since the kent state massacre

And yes, you have criticized me in previous threads.

well stop giving me a reason to and there wont be any problems

Ruby Ridge was a massacre perpetuated by the FBI and ATF. FFS, the whole incident started when they shot a dog (something the ATF is very good at) and then killing a mother and her infant child. Clearly they were a threat...

you're not helping your assertion that law enforcement would be reluctant to shoot americans ...apparently infants/mothers/dogs arent off limits I'd imagine it'd much much easier to shoot an armed person who threats your life ...you wouldnt stand a chance

We've been here before. Our ideas are madness to you,

and to any sane rational individual ..why is that the US out of every other industrilised nation needs their populace armed in case there's need to take down the government ..really is your government that close to the brink of anarchy, chaos and tyranny?

your ideas are madness to us.

what that the ease of access to firearms leads to thousands of unneccary deaths a year? that even in the face of horrible events such as the virginia tech massacre you still blindly and stupidily cling to your selfish personal wants and desires? you're not patriots, you're missguided ego maniacs who just dont want their hobby to be taken away ..in that sense you're more akin to bottom feeding scum uncaring that your hobby leads to so much tragedy. GJ gun nuts

Conservatives dont want the government to be our nanny.

yet support and elected george bush who used conservativism to start wars where people who share your ideals are slaughtered for no other reason but to line the pockets of those you elected

Liberals dont like to be responsible for their actions, so they ask the government to do that...

bullshit it's obvious gun nuts dont like to be responsible for their actions ..action against gun control and the lossening of gun control laws DIRECTLY leads to innocent deaths. their blood is on your hands . Without you ****ers Canada would have much less gun crime

 

[Ridge]

The primary reason we can carry weapons, is because we are citizens. We are not the queen's subjects. If you like oppression, then continue to live in that manner. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they believed that every man, woman and child had a right to certain freedoms. V for Vendetta's plot seems less rediculous with each passing year....

How would Canada have less gun crime? We have to have a background check each time we buy a weapon....Canadians apply for a permit once, and then guns can be delivered to their door from then on out...

 

[CptStern]

The primary reason we can carry weapons, is because we are citizens. We are not the queen's subjects. If you like oppression, then continue to live in that manner.

have I stepped into some wacko time warp that sent me to athe bizarro world version of the prelude to the war of independence?


really you parrot words but dont even know the meaning behind them ..the queen is an oppresor? since when? I live in canada we recognise the qween ..obviously I'm too brainwashed by the queen to arm myself and overthrow her despotic rule. it may not be your intent but you really sound like a looney here

Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they believed that every man, woman and child had a right to certain freedoms.

yet for some reason that constitution has been amended several times ..so obviously it's not set in stone ..AND most importantly isnt all that relevent to any time period except when it was written ..otherwise there'd be no need to amend it am I right?

V for Vendetta's plot seems less rediculous with each passing year....

no, I think movies and media are planting completely unrealisitc wishfullfillment fantasies and fears on the guilible and the naive

i noticed that A. you ignore the bulk of what I say; usually the facts part and B. your replys to me are getting shorter and shorter ..possibly related to point A.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

The primary reason we can carry weapons, is because we are citizens. We are not the queen's subjects.

Neither am I, and Sweden don't have gun rights for everyone. What I don't understand is, there is no possible way you can deny that there are loads of countries out there with freedom of speech, press, rights to representation for each of its citizens and clearly established rules for how a democratically elected government should be run that work as countries and as democracies- without having the right to bear arms. Why wouldn't that work in the US?

 

[Ridge]

Yes, the constitution has been amended many many times over the years....with the exception of the Prohibition, every single amendment has been to ADD freedoms to the American people.

 

[CptStern]

so you'd agree that the constitution is a document that changes with the times to better suit the world americans live in?

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Oh my god this thread is like a political debate.

 

[CptStern]

a political debate in the politics section? OMG!!!!! wont someone please think of the children

 

[jimbo118]

Multi-quote battle!

 

[justin.walters01]

"Hey! Do my research for me!"

I've already done the research. I just have better things to do than to spend half an hour grabbing statistics for a pointless internet debate. I just simply like to argue. And, if I can get a few people turned towards my side, that's a plus.

Neither am I, and Sweden don't have gun rights for everyone. What I don't understand is, there is no possible way you can deny that there are loads of countries out there with freedom of speech, press, rights to representation for each of its citizens and clearly established rules for how a democratically elected government should be run that work as countries and as democracies- without having the right to bear arms. Why wouldn't that work in the US?

Quite simply put: The US is different. We have different laws, a different culture, and much MUCH more racial diversity than Sweden does. Comparing the US to Sweden is like comparing and apple to a banana, they're both fruit, but are doubtless very different.

Also, why is it that most people who are arguing for gun control are not Americans? Does no one else find this strange? Why do you guys care in Canada and Sweden?

 

[Dog--]

How is it not followed?

Banning games, movies, even ****ing plants are banned, wtf is that.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I've already done the research. I just have better things to do than to spend half an hour grabbing statistics for a pointless internet debate. I just simply like to argue. And, if I can get a few people turned towards my side, that's a plus.

So basically your a troll. Yay.