I CONSIDER FEDERAL FIREARM CONFISCATION DUE TO ANYTHING. AN ACT OF WAR BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS PEOPLE DOES ANYONE ELSE HOLD THIS

-- greg morrow (gregman900@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999

Answers

Got LINK??

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), December 04, 1999.

Evidently so did the founding fathers. While I'm sure everybody remembers the midnight ride of Paul Revere (The Bristish are coming!) does anybody remember why the British were coming? They were coming to seize weapons and powder stored by the colonial militias at various New England locations. i.e. gun confiscation. While people today might view the British crown an foreign army of occupation on American soil, at the time they were the lawful government of this land. You might say that the last time the government attempted wide spread gun confiscation in America they ended up being thrown out on their collective butts. Too bad most people just dream about that and will simply hand them over in the hopes of being temporarily secure.

-- Chris Tisone (c_tisone@hotmail.com), December 04, 1999.

Yes, I would be willing to hand over all firearms.
Ammo first.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), December 04, 1999.

I like the way you think Spider. Any chance that you live south of the Mason-Dixon line?

-- Chris Tisone (c_tisone@hotmail.com), December 04, 1999.

I hear you spidey, ammo first then fix bayonets.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 04, 1999.

Y2K = WAR.

It'll happen. Can't avoid it. Choose sides and then lead, follow or get outta the way. Nobody likes the subject, it gives them the willies, but then, we have become a country full of 'willies' and shall get what we deserve. Mayhem.

How many think we'll be able to vote our way out of this one?

Pa-lease.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 04, 1999.

I do, if enough of us vote for Alan Keyes.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 04, 1999.

If it comes to the point of gun confiscation then you better get one if you don't have one, keep yours if you do and if you believe in gun control you better be smart and find a good shelter as I think the bullets are going to be flying.

I have found most people who are so much for gun control or confiscation are wealthy who use their money to live behind "gated communities" for protection yet they want the rest of the little peons to be unable to defend themselves. Just like most wealthy controllers they want to tell everyone else how to live including what they are allowed to have or not.

Another group seems to be some high officicals who hummm excuse me but are protected from the public by guns stationed at the entrances of their doors or men carrying guns in the car with them! These are just hyprocrites who want to use guns to their good, for protection, but do not want others to be protected by guns. When these officials dispose of their guns including tanks, planes etc then maybe the rest of the world will listen. Until then my gun stays in my hand and as a mom I encourage my adult children to purchase one or two just to be safe.

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), December 04, 1999.

What the Founding Fathers Said About the Second Amendment and Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

"Laws that forbid the carrying of armsdisarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater  confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784).

"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 band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" -- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169

"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 p. 750, August 17, 1789.

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.

"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, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 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 No. 29.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

"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.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975.

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"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)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." --Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850).

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. --Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967.

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2.

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"[The American Colonies were] all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." --George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970).

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." --James Madison, Federalist No. 46.

What the Courts Have Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

About the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," --James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.

Other Quotes About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Freedom

"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle

"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-- never --never--never!" William Pitt (1777)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." --Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697].

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775].

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." --William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, in his edition of 'Blackstone's Commentaries,' 1:300 (1803).

"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." --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].

"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)

"If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people." --James Madison

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible."--Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

" 'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." --Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York [London 1823]

"The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individualsIt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"Gentlemen may cry, 'peace, peace'--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Is life so precious, or peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.--There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of men and women." -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis, Intro. (Dec. 1776).

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (1776), Chap. 1.

"When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir." Thomas Paine, 1788.

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton, English historian, 1907

"It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd." Henry Miller, American author, 1947

"You can never have a revolution to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution." G.K. Chesterton, English journalist and author, 1955

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee, date unknown

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince."

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince."

"Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999.

CharltonHeston:

zoobie has posted threads detailing the best way to control your aim when firing. Look around the archives; check out the Prep Forum, too.

Man, I always loved your movies! THE OMEGA MAN, especially -- too cool, dude!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 04, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001lhj get your hands off my guns you dirty rotten stinking apes!

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999.

mmmm CharltonHeston's posts seem to have been
deleted. ?Que pasa?

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), December 04, 1999.

Fake Charlton Heston,

you sound more like Whoppi, than Chuck. The law of the land will once again be Vaild in this great nation because we have alot more fire in our bellies, than you do in yours GM

-- GREGM (GREGMAN900@YAHOO.COM), December 04, 1999.

Will Continue; I am as big a supporter of the Consitution as anyone. I don't believe it should be modified except as provided within itself. Never-the-less 'Will', you fail to appreciate the point that we could have avoided the current problems we have about infringements to the first and second amendments IF WE HAD VOTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. My argument is simple, if less than a majority of eligible voters vote in the first place, it becomes very difficult to elect quality leadership. What we have come to is a nation where a politician can put together a coalition of voters comprised of splinter and special interest groups and obtain a majority vote. The elections of 1992 are a PRIME example of that. A coalation of splinter groups was forged to garner a majority of about 27% of the total eligible voters. If we are truly fortunate, we may actually have ONE more attempt to get it right at the ballot box, although in my opinion, it is highly unlikely. It is also my opinion that EVEN if we get ONE more attempt to get it right, the people will not take the opportunity. The alternative to voluntary participation in ones elective process becomes no right to participate when the right is not exercised. THere are MANY ways the people could have been encouraged to participate. I often wonder why nobody has proposed a TAX CREDIT for those persons who exercise their right to participate in elections. The secret ballot could easily be protected, after all we already register voters (and check them off the lists when they vote) to ensure a fair ballot.

Will... It was the GUNS that EARNED us the right to vote. It is the guns that ensure that right is not infringed. Never the less the founding fathers did not want to see a revolution every time we choose to select leadership. I suspect that was because they knew better than anyone what that really means. If it becomes necessary for the people to take up arms against their government, there will be a blood bath such as has never been seen in history. It is the option of absolute LAST resort and should NEVER be considered lightly.

-- (...@.......), December 04, 1999.

I know I shouldn't do this but I think this is relivant.

My son was (moom lighting). Tuesday he repaired a computer for a gentleman who has a local Handgun School, you have to take this course in order to get you handgun license. While my son was there the man told him he had recieved a letter from the State of Texas telling him he had to suspend his courses, begining Dec. 27th., 1999 thru Feb.3, 2000. This guy was pretty upset about the whole thing and was venting to my son saying How do they expect to pay my bills if I can't continue my classes, He even let my son read the letter. Now, my son really wanted a copy of the letter but was to embarrassed to ask. My son ask him if he thought it had anything to do with the Year 2000 problems, the man said well I don't know, but he (the man) was not inclined to go much into that conversation. So my son dropped the subject. The letter did stay that the state would compensate the man for his troubles, and the man said sure they will, it will be nothing compaired to what I will lose being closed for that long.

It could be due to the fact that the Pentagon's back ground search computers are having problems. All applicants for a handgun license, have to have back ground searches done.

I looked through the NRA site and found nothing on this. I also looked at The State of Texas FireArms regulations. But turned up nothing. But I am not really good at searching through unfamiliar sites. Has anyone else from Texas or any other states heard about this...

And I do expect to be gripped at for posting second hand info.

I can take it...I'M FROM TEXAS...

-- Marli (can'tget@it.duh), December 04, 1999.

Yeah sure, greg morrow vs. the United States, that should be an interesting war. Good luck.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

@:

Your observation of our voting practices in this country is exactly what led me to sarcastically ask who would be dumb enough to believe it could get us out of the disaster President Baby-Bumpers has created. I don't believe for one minute voting will be available when it will be most needed anyway. (Keyes is my man as well, also like McCain) The fact that anyone would so much as *suggest* giving a tax credit to a participating voter is the MOST F***ING INANE thing I've heard in ages. FIRST, the federal tax system is unconstitutional. SECOND, any WORTHLESS MORON who needs to be compensated BY THEIR GOVERNMENT to entice them to vote NEEDS TO BE STOOD AGAINST A WALL AND PLUGGED IN THE LIGHTBULB. WTF??????

The rest of your advice is insultingly simple minded. No duh. Use your imagination and then study the most current news (with under 30 days to go). Hell-oh

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 04, 1999.

Will,it's hard not be cynical with our messed up one party system that poses as a two party system.The last election I willingly threw away my vote on Nader rather than vote for the generic white heterosexual male#1 who panders to the interests of industry and big money or generic white heterosexual male#2 who panders to the interests of industry and big money .We live in a plutocracy not a democracy.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999.

Hawk, I know you will do the right thing gm

-- gm (gregman900@yahoo.com), December 04, 1999.

gm,

You know as well as I do that even if the entire population were armed we wouldn't stand a chance. Going to have to use brains, not brawn.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

Gee Hawk, you're missing the point aren't you? You're assuming which sides will be which and picturing a scenerio which would be taking place under 'normal' circumstances. Pretty narrow imagination you have there.

You see, we've placed a high-tech pacemaker into the heart of this country. We're unable to function without it. Unfortunately, it never occured to anyone that anybody in the world could pick up a universal remote control from Radio Shack or Wal-Mart and 'adjust' our 'pacemaker' at will. I've little doubt that we will be experiencing attacks from every direction imaginable, foreign and domestic, in addition to Y2K related loss and/or heavy damage to our infrastructure. Chaos.

Secondly, you're assuming that the boys with the biggest toys would all act against our citizens. I find that difficult to swallow (unlike Monica).

Like *nothing* history has ever seen before. Conventional thinking could be a very big mistake here. It's one of the reasons we're in this mess. Of course, opinions are something everybody has.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 04, 1999.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future" -Adolph Hitler 1935

They can have my guns when they pry the empty barrels out of their ass. -~***~ 1999

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), December 04, 1999.

Will continue,

Talk about narrow imagination. This 200 year old idea that all you macho idiots with guns are going to win a battle against government is ludicrous nonsense.

Wake up and smell the napalm. Our joint chiefs of staff and top military commanders are certifiable psycopaths. If you think they will hesitate for one moment to put down an insurrection then you didn't learn anything from the nice little demonstration they just gave in Seattle, or Waco. That was a frolic, mere child's play. With or without their computers, they aren't going to need any high technology to vaporize you and your neighborhood armies into a cloud of smoke.

All of this stuff in the news about the FBI being ready for any cults or terrorist threats is not a joke. They will be on you so fast that the rest of the population will not even get a chance to think about whether or not your motives were justified.

You're right, convential thinking is a very big mistake. That's why I've been saying forget the macho bravado guts and guns crap and use your brains for a change. The easiest way to take the power back from this government is to take away their fuel, hit 'em where it hurts. One word... money.

We need to show everyone that the Federal Reserve System is a fraud which is enslaving the people by encouraging debt and profiting from our labor. The corporate establishment is using money to manipulate and control our lives for their profit. The political and governmental structure which everyone despises these days is feeding off of these Federal Reserve and Corporate profit scams.

So what do you need to do to take the power back from an out of control government that feeds off of this money system that WE support? Simple. You stop supporting the system. Take away their food. No guns needed, perfectly legal. Get YOUR money out of the system, and encourage your friends, relatives, and neighbors to do the same.

Watch how fast they become interested in our needs when they realize they will no longer get a paycheck. WE are rewarding their behavior, so is it really a suprise that they continue to behave this way? As with a child that misbehaves, we need to take away the rewards until they are ready to sit down and negotiate.

Sounds insane right? Well maybe, but just insane enough to actually work. You tell me which is more insane... taking your money out of the bank, or you and a few of your neighbors armed with a few rifles trying to defeat a Delta Forces team.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

Hawk As far as a few of my neighbors holding off a Delta Team, well I do consider that an unlikely event. On the other hand you really should see the reality of gun ownership. It's not about taking over the Government, it's about the right to keep and bear arm's. If that right is taken away then I would have to consider it an act of war against the American way of life and would probably die for it. Hell so many people have died for this country because of stupid politicians what would one more mean more or less. Besides you might be surprised, some of the people I know would definately take some of the bastards with em. Especially if they knew the terrain and what was coming. Better to die on your feet than live on your knee's. And I don't keep much in the bank. H&K91s, Nightvision gogle's, sniper rifles, ammo and stuff like that take up most of my money. Hey there's an idea. If everyone spent their money on guns and ammo instead of leaving it in the bank we could pull a double whammy. A well armed public, and a very broke Federal Reserve System. That sounds even crazier than your idea. I think it just might work.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), December 04, 1999.

~***~,

Lol! Excellent idea, that'll work too!

Actually this entire thread is based on a stupid assumption. There is no way they are going to try to confiscate guns from the masses. It is going to be done gradually and methodically. Ban certain types, take those away when found, a couple years later ban a few more types, take those away. Every once in a while they will buy back guns from people who would rather take cash and see them destroyed. Eventually, maybe 50 years from now, the guns of today will just be rare collectibles for which ammunition is no longer commercially available. Let's hope by then we are a much more pacifistic society.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

Hawk,

I've said it before up here and I'll say it again. If we have such lethal fighting forces on the ground, why didn't we send ground troops into Bosnia? I'll tell you why. Because when you put soldiers within firing range of people with guns those soldiers WILL GET SHOT!

If a SWAT team were to attack my house no doubt I would die. But if my neighbors were take out their hunting rifles and start sniping at members of that SWAT team, well, they would definitely leave with less men than they arrived with. That would also mean less men available to show up at the next guys house. And the house after that and the house after that.

It was precisely this line of thinking that led the founding fathers to write the Second Amendment. I also disagree with your statement that they'll be successful in their use of the 'boiling frog' approach where they slowly take away all our guns/ammo. They might try, but they won't succeed. Unlike other countries where firearms have sucessfully been outlawed, guns are a tightly woven into the fabric of American society and history. Remove the guns and you unravel society. Too many current and former military men still alive who would fight to the death before allowing guns to be removed from the publics hands.

If they go too far in their attempts I suspect you'll start to see threads/messages appear on the Internet with titles like "Paging Henry Bowman...Paging Mr. Henry Bowman..."

Personally, I don't think it'll come to that though. I don't think there's a thing wrong with this country that the public can't fix at the voting booth, and one of these days, we will.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 04, 1999.

All excellent points indeed. The fact of the matter is......our forces are pitifully prepared for ANY form of urban warfare and sorely lacking in numbers. It is their absolute weakest link in an otherwise formidable show. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply in denial. This will tend to twist their knickers in an 8 which will likely spiral into a quick 10 scenerio. For you to imply their only obstacle will be a few neighborhood uprisings is so short-sighted I just wouldn't know where to begin. As for your ignorant observation that all high ranking military officials are psychopaths, you have just afforded me a quick lesson about how knowledgable you are NOT.

Choke the federal reserve? Oh, you bet. The 401k crowd oughta jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat. Reality check please. Keep dreamin' city boy. You almost sound like a liberal. All fluffy 'theory' and void of reality.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 04, 1999.

Vote from the rooftops

-- Henry Bowman (not@my.watch), December 04, 1999.

Sorry, I meant to address the majority of my comments to Hawk and neglected to address him by name. One more quick point; had the Seattle forces been confronting armed and angry citizens rather than peaceful protestors that would have been a whole different scenerio, Hawk. Far uglier and they WOULD HAVE LOST. It was a poor example to be using to further your 'hopeful' theory.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 04, 1999.

Hey Farmer John, I ain't no city boy you freakin redneck.

You haven't got a fricking clue if you think our military is not prepared to deal with a bunch of friggin rebel rousers like you and your hillbilly friends. You wouldn't be able to get 20 men formed into any kind of reasonable threat before they would be all over you like white on rice.

If they don't want to risk any of their sharpshooters (not that you hicks could even hit the broad side of a barn), they'll just send in a few tanks like they did in Waco, or better yet, how about a couple of F-18 fly-bys to napalm your friggin farm compound into oblivion! Yeeee haaaaaww!! I'd rather enjoy watching that on TV, just like an updated version of Waco! LOL!!

Jeeeeesssuuuss criminy Gomer, didn't they put you through any kinda schooling out there in Dirtsville? You're dumber than a freeegin horse! Hell you're so dumb you don't even know the difference between cash and a 401K!! Go back to the dark ages where you came from.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 04, 1999.

We might have a secret weapon: If the Government thinks we are all so stupid that we can't pour p^ss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel, then it's time to simply out-think them. Use your brains, gentlemen. Deadly weapons. A man (or woman) armed with even a small weapon and a sharp, clear mind should be able to do SOMETHING. Get sneaky.

-- Liz Pavek (lizpavek@hotmail.com), December 04, 1999.

You need to change your handle from Hawk to Carrier Pigeon.

I take it FLEET didn't work for you?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 05, 1999.

Yeah Hawk, like how we won the war in VietNam... Right?

-- Dennis (djolson@cherco.net), December 05, 1999.

Dennis, please don't promote any further flashbacks in him. I'm catching the aroma of singed feathers already. He could blow his beak any minute now.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 05, 1999.

Am I missing something here? The crux of this whole forum is Y2k and all the pending ramifications. This "mess" will be caused by the disruption of technology. I don't think the .gov will be in much of a condition to harm or help. But I do think if anyone is contemplating becoming armed, they better get their butts in gear. The 200 year old window of oportunity of the right to bear arms is rapidly drawing to a close.

-- lou (theknowzone@worldnet.att.net), December 05, 1999.

Dennis,

Will is right, Vietnam isn't a good example since it was 30 years ago. Our military is light years ahead of where they were then. The Gulf War was a more recent demonstration of what our air superiority and technology are capable of. It isn't really accurate to say we "won" because it really wasn't even a battle. We pulverized their forces to a dust with only a few casualties on our side.

TECH32, you are also living in the dark ages. That's my whole point is that our military doesn't need to use troops anymore. Where have you been? That's why I have to laugh at all the ignorant rednecks that keep saying "oh, we still have our guns and the American people will fight to the death to keep them." Those days are gone pal, and make no mistake, if they want your guns they WILL take them, over your dead body if that's the way you want it.

Farmer Will,

"I take it FLEET didn't work for you?"

What the hell are you talking about? Sorry, I guess I was confused by your earlier comments and thought you were just dumb. Apparently you are some kind of retard, sorry. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 05, 1999.

Hawk,

TECH32, you are also living in the dark ages. That's my whole point is that our military doesn't need to use troops anymore....if they want your guns they WILL take them, over your dead body if that's the way you want it.

Then why haven't they? It's clear they would LOVE to do it so why haven't they? Because IT TAKES MEN going door to door. And many of those men would get shot. You think they can apply SWAT/Military tactics without placing men in harms way? Think again. They would be fighting a gorilla war against a lot more people than just the gun owners. I know a hell of a lot of people who do NOT own guns themselves but support the rights of others to own them. Liberal media aside, it's in our Nations Blood.

What you are saying is that they would be willing to GO TO WAR AND PUT TANKS ON THE STREETS just to take our guns. How fast do you think public opinion would change if they did that? How long before Congress succumbed to public pressure to put a stop to it? You really think it'll be just hunky-dory with John Q. Public if SWAT/Military teams raid the house next door? Or the guy who coaches their kids soccer team? Do you really think that??

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 05, 1999.

Get a life. If they want your guns they will get them. Why do you need guns anyway they are dangerous. and besides if I wanted to kill you, Id rather that you had a gun, it would make it more challenging, Id poison your water or something...no no I'd blow up your car, ya with a pipe bomb. No no ....Maybe I'd just walk up to you and put an ice pick through your head, ya that would be fun. get a life....loose the guns...guns are for loosers

-- Kool (Kool.Kool@planet.com), December 05, 1999.

TECH32,

You're putting words in my mouth now. I'm not the one who started this stupid thread! I'm the one who said it was based on a stupid assumption remember?! Sheeesh! I DON'T think they are even going to TRY to take guns away. I AM a gun owner and a SUPPORTER of the right to own guns! Greg, who started this thread said he considers it an act of war. Then Will, the typical dumb redneck, starts telling me how he thinks it is a war that can be won by the people. I said I think this idea that civilians can defeat the military is absurd, and I stand by that. If they WANTED to take our guns, they COULD, I never said they would. Do you really think they care about public opinion? There are some people on this forum (if I recall, you are one of them) who believe that the government is planning on nuking us, or killing us with anthrax. Now your going to tell me it is impossible that they could sedate us with gas and come around and collect guns? I don't think it is likely, but it is NOT impossible. What is impossible IMO, is this stupid idea that we could win a war with rifles against high-tech weapons.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 05, 1999.

Now, now Hawk. Calm down. I don't think they will try either but when you say that they could if they wanted to, well, I have to disagree. Clinton CLEARLY wants to and could order the troops to start collecting guns tomorrow. I ask again, why haven't they? Why hasn't he?

And when you say that 80 million armed civilians who collectively own some 250 million guns can't handle 2-3 million military personel (at least some of whom would NEVER fire on other Americans) I have to disagree with you also. The military may be a world unto themselves but they do not operate in a vacuum. They are great at dropping bombs but unless they're willing to start bombing US cities and towns what diffence does it make? What good is a sword when it can't/won't be unsheathed by those who wear it?

Do I think they care about public opinion? HELL YES!! Pardon the pun but .gov watches public opion 'like a hawk'. If they didn't care the spin doctors who's salary we pay would be out of a job.

There are some people on this forum (if I recall, you are one of them) who believe that the government is planning on nuking us, or killing us with anthrax.

Not me dude. I think it's in the nature of Government to try and overstep it's bounds (our Founding Fathers recognized this) but I don't think they are out to kill/drug us into submission. You can't run a productive economy that way and let's face it, money is what makes the wheels of .gov turn and money is what calls the shots.

What is impossible IMO, is this stupid idea that we could win a war with rifles against high-tech weapons.

I ask again, why did we not send in ground troops into Kosovo? Why did we not send in ground troops during Desert Storm until after we had bombed them for weeks and weeks?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 05, 1999.

"I ask again, why did we not send in ground troops into Kosovo? Why did we not send in ground troops during Desert Storm until after we had bombed them for weeks and weeks?"

As I said, we didn't need to. Why take the risk if it isn't necessary.

Gun owners would never get the chance to get a large enough group organized together to be able to resist the military before the military force would dominate them. Factions would form, be met with overwhelming force and be swatted down. This process might repeat itself over and over several times before the people realized they would be defeated, but they WOULD be defeated. Removal of guns has occurred in other countries, and it IS possible here.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 05, 1999.

Hawk you underestimate the people, half the miltary would join the right side. You would have to fight house to house across america smart weapons wouldn't win it for you.Yes the people still hold the the power but lack the will, to use it as long as they have their 6- pack and the game is on the dish everything is ok. gm

-- gm (gregman900@yahoo.com), December 05, 1999.

I don't think it too likely that the military would carpet bomb Alabama in order to grab guns.Should a despot steal our freedom,guerrila fighters would slowly increase as people got fed up and guns can always be found,or made.Once Americans realize what they gave up through laziness and inattentivness they will slowly remember that there really are things worth dying for and the spirit to resist tyrany that lies dormant in many a meek joe-normal will resurface.

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), December 05, 1999.

This is the last attempt I'll make to bring Hawk into the reality of *Y2K*. That IS the topic of this forum. I shall strain to remain patient and attempt to consider the denial he suffers from (unless it's mere ignorance, in which case, there is nothing further I can do for him).

The Marines are in the forefront of solving our problems associated with urban warfare. It is an ugly form of warfare that we will be made to participate in with more frequency in the future. We already have in Panama City, Mogadishu, Kuwait City, Port Au Prince, etc. and we are COMPLETELY unprepared for it. This isn't a newsflash....it's well known. You see, it absorbs huge numbers of troops (oops), is extremely bloody (not me buddy....I joined up to be put through college) and NEGATES OUR TECHNICAL ADVANTAGE (remember Y2K featherhead?). I agree that we are masters of the seas, the air and the CONVENTIONAL battlefield, BUT, in cities, we are as primitive as the Germans at Stalingrad---small arms and hand grenades. If technology is ripped out from under them.....well, it wouldn't be 'conventional' any longer, now would it?

FLEET is a brand name enema. Find one.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 05, 1999.

Don't know how long this debate has been going on, but here goes...

The moment you fire a deadly weapon, you have just dramatically increased your chances of dieing. Most poeple know and understand this fact. So, few will take this route unless there is no other opportunity to redress a grievance. Yet it lakes a large number of gun owners convinced to use the guns if they plan successfully resist the government.

If conditions are such that there might get enough people convinced to risk their lives in a potentially successful revolution, how much easier would it be to convince people to take their money out of the banking system? Taking money out of the bank requires no precondition of gun ownership, gun training, or habituation to killing another human. Men, women, children can all participate in a bank-run equally with little or no training.

In summation, a bank-run would be just as successful in overthrowing the PTB, but would have little or no risk of individual mortality. It is a revolution in which we could all participate - young or old, liberal or conservative, christian, jew, hindu, or other. Furhter, it is a revolution we could begin, control, and end with little affect on mortality or the economy.

Now, I use the term bank-run above in a more controlled sense than is ususally implied. A bank-run ususally implies panic and no control. An uncontrolled bank-run would indeed destroy the economy as well as the PTB and lead to increased mortality. Rather, I am using the term bank-run to describe a controlled, gradual withdrawal of money from the system. Could this level of control actually happen? Well, I believe it a much more workable/realistic goal than one which relies upon inciting Americans to take arms against their government.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), December 05, 1999.

Myth:When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Not all bad men are jackbooted government stormtroopers.Tyrany should always be fought regardless of it's form.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 05, 1999.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated:

"We hold these truths to be Self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since the right of self-defense is unquestionably one of the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence, there is no need to submit the right to keep and bear arms (which is, after all, the embodiment of the right of self defense) to adjudication--and possible elimination--by the courts.

By way of example, if a government agent came to your house this afternoon and said your family was going to be executed tonight due solely to their unpopular political beliefs, would you need a court ruling to tell you the agent was acting immorally and illegally? Would you wait to hear what the court said before protecting your family's inalienable right to life and liberty? Would it even matter what the courts said on this issue? Obviously not.

By the same token, we don't need the courts to tell us we do or do not have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right. It is part and parcel of the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The only question is whether people will submit to obviously illegal and immoral laws

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 05, 1999.

myth?Doesn't the Second Amendment only guarantee a state's right to maintain a militia? When the United States was formed, the Founding Fathers were afraid of an overly powerful national government. For this reason, they insisted a Bill of Rights be ratified to protect their citizens' freedoms.

The Bill of Rights established where the new national government may not tread. The right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights because it was considered to be a personal and inalienable right.

Historically, the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment was drawn from the whole body of the people. It was dependent on the individual right to keep and bear arms to even exist.

Every time the word "people" is used in the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is clearly intended to refer to individual Americans. This means each and every individualone of the "people"--has the right to keep and bear arms, just as he or she is entitled to the other rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. The Militia Mentioned in the Second Amendment Has Been Replaced by the National Guard Not according to current federal law. Here it is:

United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Regarding the "unorganized militia" mentioned above, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois (1886) that, "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States."

Though this ruling is over 100 years old, no subsequent Supreme Court ruling has contradicted it.

According to the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee Report on the Constitution in 1982: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Although that pretty much settles it, there are a couple of other problems with the idea of relying on the National Guard for personal defense:

1) during times of civil uncertainty - LA riots '92, Florida's Hurricane Andrew '93, etc. - the citizenry is defenseless until the National Guard is mobilized, which usually takes a couple of days;

2) since the National Guard can be federalized and become an arm of the U.S. government, it won't be much good against government tyranny.

And those "dead white guys," the Founding Fathers:

"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789

"And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."

- Samuel Adams, delegate, First and Second Continental Congresses

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, delegate, Constitutional Convention

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress

"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,

I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789 This is America. The government is never going to turn into a tyranny.

Many people trust their government. But a government is simply a collection of people, some good, some bad, who may disobey or change the laws of the country.

The current U.S. government may seem benign, but what about ten, twenty, or thirty years from now? The world may change drastically. Did the inhabitants of Germany, possibly the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation on earth in the 1930's, imagine that in a few years their government would gas and cremate by the millions its own citizens and those of other countries?

In this century governments have systematically exterminated more citizens than have died in war. The Soviet Union--20 million; China--20 milion; Nazi Germany--13 million; Cambodia--1 to 2 million; Turkey--1 to 1.5 million; Uganda--300,000; Guatemala--100,000; other Latin American countries--thousands. Living in the safety and comfort of present-day America, many people are naove about the dark side of human nature, but those who study history are not. Two men who didn't confuse humans with angels:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --Sen. Hubert H Humphrey If the government uses the military and police to confiscate our guns, we can't fight them and win.

The question of regular American citizens fighting a homegrown tyrannical government army is older than our Constitution. James Madison wrote about it in Federalist Paper No. 46.

The primary point that Madison makes--still valid today--is that as long as the number of government-controlled military personnel is a small fraction of the number of armed citizens available to fight against them, Americans will have the means of throwing off a tyrannical regime.

To be most effective as a counterforce, the citizens' weapons must be equivalent in range and capacity to those of the military. However, Americans might additionally resist a hypothetical tyrannical government by using scoped rifles at long ranges, at places and times of their choosing, to target the political and military leaders of the regime.

It is very likely that citizens would receive further help from large numbers of military personnel who would refuse to obey unconstitutional orders to confiscate citizens' weapons and/or would actively fight against those who attempted to do so.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 05, 1999.

Will continue farming (until they take my farm away),

"FLEET is a brand name enema. Find one."

Bwaaaahhaaaahhaaaahaaaahaaaaa!!!

Now it all makes sense... you are speaking from first-hand experience! Of course, just as I expected, you often have problems from being too FULL OF CRAP!!

ROTFLMAO!!! :-) Bwaahhhaahhahahhahah!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 05, 1999.

Thanks for that reality check there, zoob. Of course, there will always be those who would, in the face of tyranny and threats of violence, prefer to talk their way out of it. Their numbers tend to dwindle quickly, historically speaking.

Make no mistake, I never endorsed the population taking up arms against our government anyplace on this thread (irregardless of what bird-brain implied on more than one occasion). I simply rejected his 'theory' that it would not be possible to do so succesfully. Hog- wash. We're talking about no rules, anything goes, everything's up for grabs, never before witnessed in history, worldwide simultaneous disruption complicated by international and domestic terrorism, Y2K. How will our government react? What are the intentions of a president who has done irraprable damage to our country with complete disregard for anyone or anything but himself, his agenda and his own power?

I guess we shall soon find out, and yes Greg, I would consider it to be an act of war.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 05, 1999.

Please stop embarrassing yourself any more, Pigeon. Too pitiful. Go back to playing with your bucket of soldiers.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 05, 1999.

Doesn't anyone remember Afghanistan? They took on one of the world's largest and best equipped military machines. THEY WON! They did it with small arms, homemade weapons, captured weapons and some minimal outside help. You don't think that scenario could happen again? In a country as populated and large as this one, you really don't think it can be done? BULLS***!

-- Powder (powder@keg.com), December 06, 1999.

Want to print this a little later.

-- Raiser (to@the.top), December 08, 1999.