 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
quote:
Okay, first off, I'm an actual revolutionary. I study revolutions, who and why they happen, etc. |
Studying ants doesn't make you an ant. |
Studying revolution doesn't make a revolutionary. Being a revoluitionary makes me study revolution. I want to know what worked, what didn't, and why. I actually hope to be able to make a revolution here someday, though I admit it's extemely unlikely.
quote:
Are you saying American victory in Iraq is a guarantee? |
I think it's extremely likely. There are a few scenarios in which the U.S. could lose. The U.S., however, won't be militarily defeated. It will withdraw because of the trouble it will cause back home.
So great, if the U.S. is occupied by a foeign power, then yes, and armed public will be instrumental in liberating the U.S. In the event of a dictatorship, it will be pretty useless.
quote:
Also, consider, without armed resitance, Al Sadr would be in jail, his papers shut down, and America would be riding the Iraqis from the backside right now. Instead, America has to be a little more careful about how it treats the Iraqis. |
That's not their goals. That's a side effect. They wanted to drive America out. Instead they've blown their wad and found their suuport failing.
quote:
You say you are a revolutionary, but where is your gun? You are a student, but can never be a leader if you are not willing to be a soldier first. |
As I have repeated, my having a gun is irrelevent. Anyway, radicals with guns attract an inordinate amout of police attention, and frequently find themselves dead. I'm not going to die just to satisfy you.
The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns.
quote:
quote:
It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped. |
What do you mean "just helped". How can you deny an armed populace was an integral part of the American revolution? |
We wouldn't have beaten the Brits without the French. It was French forces that defeated the British.
quote:
quote:
And we don't need to be armed now to form irregulars in the event of civil war. |
What civil war? What revolution? There are hundreds of possibilities of revolution and civil war.
Perhaps the . . . war would be more of a series of anarchistic lynchings and mob battles. Maybe it would be a quiet revolution, with a series of assasinations and sabotage directed at supporters of opposing causes. |
I'm not interested in being a terrorist. Our movement is not interested in being terrorists. We reject terrorism. Terrorism is the weapon of the narcisist, of the individual, and the impatient. It alienates people from your movement and only leads to a popular backlash. Communists organize to lead a popular revolution.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 16-09-2004 at 05:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Studying revolution doesn't make a revolutionary. Being a revoluitionary makes me study revolution. I want to know what worked, what didn't, and why. I actually hope to be able to make a revolution here someday, though I admit it's extemely unlikely. |
I know you do. You think your enlightened words and ideas may one day rouse a nation from it's slumber. Just like every other person in America who thinks they know a thing or two about politics.
quote:
Unless the government listens to people like me and pulls out, yeah. Or unless they keep listening to people like Rumsfeld, and refuse to committ the forces necessary. |
I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such.
quote:
That's not their goals. That's a side effect. They wanted to drive America out. Instead they've blown their wad and found their suuport failing. |
How do you figure? Support failing?
quote:
You say you are a revolutionary, but where is your gun? You are a student, but can never be a leader if you are not willing to be a soldier first. |
quote:
Anyway, radicals with guns attract an inordinate amout of police attention, and frequently find themselves dead. I'm not going to die just to satisfy you. |
Satisfy me? Radicals also find themselves in jail, and forgotten, set up. Regardless of gun or not. How can you get police attraction if you keep it a secret? It's not a toy, or a red corvette, it's a tool. Nobody needs to know about it. It should not be shown, it should not be seen, and it should not exist.
I would love to tell you whether I own one or not. But no-one knows if I do, or not.
quote:
The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns. |
Where else would they attack you, if you always have your gun? And why are you calling them terrorists?
quote:
quote:
It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped. |
What do you mean "just helped". How can you deny an armed populace was an integral part of the American revolution? |
quote:
We wouldn't have beaten the Brits without the French. It was French forces that defeated the British. |
The French could have never have done it without us either. They lost the French and Indian War.
quote:
What civil war? What revolution? There are hundreds of possibilities of revolution and civil war.
Perhaps the . . . war would be more of a series of anarchistic lynchings and mob battles. Maybe it would be a quiet revolution, with a series of assasinations and sabotage directed at supporters of opposing causes. |
quote:
I'm not interested in being a terrorist. Our movement is not interested in being terrorists. We reject terrorism. Terrorism is the weapon of the narcisist, of the individual, and the impatient. It alienates people from your movement and only leads to a popular backlash. Communists organize to lead a popular revolution. |
Regardless of your goals, why are you so quick to give up one of your rights? Would your new Communist America ban all guns? Would the popular revolt be able to continue if it tried? Or would it get bogged down in a face to face, bloody civil war?
I am not a soldier, nor do I hope to be one, but I am a human. I understand that the pain of a loved one killed or maimed may never die, and may actually burn hotter as age begets more loneliness.
I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy, is much more difficult to defeat than a professional, whose goal is wealth and riches, and a nice life and a nice home. The suicidal have nothing to lose, and nothing ot live for except war.
I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins. Your signs and chants would be nothing. You ever read books about the Black Panthers? They were infiltrated, confused and destroyed by the FBI, those who could not be subjugated were killed. Your popular revolution will never come on your own timing, that is what the US government is for. If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power. You will be forced into a reactionary stance. More than likely any one who opposes will go down, one by one, by neighbors who know little about politics, but enough about money to see the value of a hefty reward.
I just don't understand why anyone, would be willing to throw away any right given to them by their government so quickly. It will solve very little, except perhaps lessen the amount of homicides in gang wars, and suicides will switch over to razor blades or illicit drugs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I don't think I can recall ever hearing a satisfactory answer as to why United States has the highest gun-related, violent crime rate in the world. |
1. not true at all.
2. true for industrialized nations
3. I'll get my text from the other site... alot of Europhiles may be disappointed....
4. we have many guns per capita
5. the drug war makes the black market a living for many.
This is from an old Almanac I have, 1997:
top 10 crime rates (per 100,000), the United States and UK are not mentioned:
1 was Dominica, with 22,432
4 was Sweden, 5 was New Zealand, and 6 was Canada.
10 was Gibralter 10,039
Most burglaries (per 100,000 population, again)
1 Virgin Islands 3,183
2 Netherlands
3 Israel
4 New Zealand
5 Denmark
7 England and Wales
8 Austrlia
10 Greenland with 1883
US was unranked, with 1041
This is a count of arrested, not necessarily convicted. So American lax crime system cannot be blamed.
The highest crime rate per 100,000 up to 1997 was 5950, in 1980. Note that is only about half that of New Zeland and Canada.
One thing I must note about the American crime wave. It is largely a myth. The inner cities have mystiques that are untrue. A white man most certainly can walk through downtown South Central, and not even be harassed, at 3 AM in the morning. It is possible, yes a crime could occur, it is just highly improbable.
The threat alone of an armed "victim", is a great depressant on crime... and it makes a gas station clerk at 4 AM in the morning feel a lot safer. Our murder rate is high. We just happen to have the world's most powerful media, so all of our sins are exaggerated internationally.
The top ten in highest murder rates in 1997, started with Swaziland, with 30, ended with Peurto Rico with 24, Colombia and the Phillipines fell in betweeen, with other 3rd world countries. US had 9.
If someone wants ot look up the stats for 2004, be my guest, but a doubling of the crime rate to rank in the top ten between 1997 and 2004, would be a crimewave never before seen.... So I am sure America will stay out of being ranked as one of the most crime infected nations, and even industrialized nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Saying our murder rate is high is kinda an understatement, considering the gap between United States, and the industrialized nation with the second highest murder rate, isn't it?? |
Do you have the numbers?
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert...l/msg00013.html
I found this one pretty satisfactory... wordl comparison was actually kind of difficult for me to find on google.
BTW, Mexico and Colombia are way, way, way higher, like ten times.... and the drug war is incredibly hot in those countries.
EDIT: link has old stats... which is about all I can find on google.
Last edited by NeOmega on 16-09-2004 at 06:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
I know you do. You think your enlightened words and ideas may one day rouse a nation from it's slumber. |
Not exactly. Revolutionaries don't convince people that a revolution is needed. Objective conditions do that. Revolutionaries just try and guide it to a successful conclusion.
quote:
I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such. |
Very likely. That doesn't mean we'll be defeated.
quote:
How do you figure? Support failing? |
LotM posted a thread about how al Sadr's support is drying up. His followers are smashed and demoralized, and without the Mosque, they have no money coming in. Very likely, they are finished as a force. I suspect many of the fighters will merge into the nationalist movement, however.
quote:
Radicals also find themselves in jail, and forgotten, set up. Regardless of gun or not. How can you get police attraction if you keep it a secret? |
There are records of licenses and background checks, I assume.
quote:
quote:
The only possible point for having guns would be to protect ourselves against right-wing para militaries. Even then, they would only help if these terrorists attacked us where we had our guns. |
Where else would they attack you, if you always have your gun? And why are you calling them terrorists? |
If they engage in terror tactics, what else should I call them?
quote:
Regardless of your goals, why are you so quick to give up one of your rights? |
Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to excercise it. I have a right to whatever religion I want. That doesn't mean I have to be religious. I have a right not to have a gun also.
I'm not aguing against the right to have guns. I'm arguing that having them won't stop the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship and wouldn't overthrow it if it did become one.
quote:
Would your new Communist America ban all guns? |
No, we believe in the right to own guns.
quote:
I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy, |
Revenge isn't a good goal. Victory is a good goal. Revenge doesn't get us there, and might even hurt our chances.
quote:
The suicidal have nothing to lose, and nothing ot live for except war. |
There are times when that may be called for. It should only be an option when the purpose is to save others. I don't think Allende should have made a final suicidal stand. I think he should have fled, to lead an opposition from abroad.
quote:
I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins. |
Not always. Sometimes the side with the most firepower refuses to use it.
quote:
Your signs and chants would be nothing. |
And yet with them, the Bolsheviks made a revolution.
quote:
You ever read books about the Black Panthers? They were infiltrated, confused and destroyed by the FBI, those who could not be subjugated were killed. |
Yep, cuz they had guns. The government targetted them because they had guns. The whole reason the SWAT team was invented was to deal with the Black Panthers. They were gunned down in their sleep, ambushed at ralleys, murdered in their prison cells. Guns may have made them feel more macho, made their testosterone pump, but the really good work the BPP did was non-violent, like their school breakfast programs, their free grocery give aways, getting doctors to recognize sickle cell anemia as a serious disease, etc.
quote:
Your popular revolution will never come on your own timing, that is what the US government is for. |
They never do.
quote:
If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power. |
Revolution in America will come when something shakes the legitimacy of the government, such as the Great Depression or a disasterous war. That breaks people's faith in the government. At that moment, there's a window of opportunity for a mass revolutionary party to overthrow the government and create a new one.
If a revolutionary party has been successful in building a mass movement, if it has won the hearts and minds of a significant part of the population and also the military, then a revolution might succeed. All of the important work of building to that point can be done without a gun.
quote:
You will be forced into a reactionary stance. |
If the objective and subjective conditions don't exist, you don't have to bite. We're far from the subjective conditions, and the objective conditions are beyond our control.
quote:
More than likely any one who opposes will go down, one by one, by neighbors who know little about politics, but enough about money to see the value of a hefty reward. |
In which case, a gun won't help me, and might get me killed.
I will, however, let you in on the fact that comrades who live in poorer white areas are buying guns, for self-defense against extreme rightists. People on the right fringe are talking about a struggle against King George, and thinking that if George is re-selected, the left will revolt and there will be a new civil war.  In that case, I did suggest to the comrade that she buy a gun (or two).
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 16-09-2004 at 06:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
|
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Not exactly. Revolutionaries don't convince people that a revolution is needed. Objective conditions do that. Revolutionaries just try and guide it to a successful conclusion. |
So you are hoping for more oppression? You'll get what you wish for, I am sure. America in 20 yearsis going to be teeming with men in black. Many soldiers coming back from Iraq are going to need to get their thrills.
quote:
I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such. |
quote:
Very likely. That doesn't mean we'll be defeated.['q]
Eventually, we will lose, or America will crumble... or we will ahev an "honorable end"... a loss.
[q]LotM posted a thread about how al Sadr's support is drying up. His followers are smashed and demoralized, and without the Mosque, they have no money coming in. Very likely, they are finished as a force. I suspect many of the fighters will merge into the nationalist movement, however. |
Of course they will, and solidarity will grow between the suppossed ethnic rifts. this is an article from today;
quote:
New Iraq Attacks Are More Sophisticated
By KIM HOUSEGO
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The scale and sophistication of militant attacks in Iraq are steadily increasing, with coordinated strikes and complicated ambushes that increasingly hit their targets, officials and analysts said Wednesday.
The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in U.S. troops.
Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, cooperating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.
``More thought is going into the execution of the attacks,'' said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings of Task Force Olympia, which is trying to bring stability to a swath of northeastern Iraq.
Militants now follow up roadside bomb attacks with a deluge of rocket-propelled grenades instead of fleeing, or fire off mortar rounds to lure soldiers out of their base and into freshly laid mine fields, military commanders say.
In a July attack in Samarra, for example, militants detonated a car bomb and then hammered a military headquarters with a mortar barrage as troops fled the building. Five American soldiers died.
At least 47 people were killed in a car bombing in Baghdad on Tuesday targeting would-be police recruits, the deadliest single strike in the capital in six months.
``The enemy has been able to construct IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that are more complex, include more rounds in the form of a ``daisy chain,'' and tend to have a higher lethality,'' said Maj. Neal O'Brien of the Army's 1st Infantry Division.
O'Brien also said that an increase in the use of car bombs in the last two months coincided with an influx of foreign fighters with the bomb-making know-how in July.
``They graduated to more coordinated attacks,'' he said.
On Sunday, militants in Baghdad struck the U.S.-guarded Green Zone - the seat of the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy - with their biggest mortar and rocket barrage to date, many of them showing signs of careful aim.
Hours later, guerrillas used a car bomb to disable a U.S. patrol on a main Baghdad thoroughfare before detonating a second car bomb that wrecked a Bradley fighting vehicle sent to assist the patrol. They then opened fire on the wounded crewmen as they fled the vehicle.
``The set of attacks that occurred over the weekend were definitely more simultaneous than in the past,'' said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for coalition forces in Baghdad.
Analysts say the plethora of armed groups behind the insurgency are increasingly working together.
``As time goes on, various gangs get together and it does become more coordinated,'' said Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations. ``Groups start small, get know-how and become more lethal over time.''
American commanders, however, insist the stepped-up attacks and the possibility of increased cooperation among militant groups are signs that the insurgents have realized time is running out for them with the onset of elections in January.
``There is a level of desperation associated with the anti-Iraqi forces, they absolutely don't want to see free elections and reconstruction projects work,'' Hastings said.
But the attacks have fueled a growing backlash against the United States and interim Iraqi Prime Minster Ayad Allawi.
``The situation is getting worse day after day and the American are still in the streets,'' said Kawakib Butris, 40, a supermarket worker in Baghdad. ``This government didn't ensure the simplest things to us like security, electricity and other services.''
In response to the growing violence, the Bush administration announced plans this week to divert about $3.5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds for security and the training of Iraqi forces.
NATO, however, moved close to an agreement on sending hundreds of military instructors to Iraq, with France and the United States narrowing their differences Wednesday over the mission to run a training center for the country's new armed forces.
The plan will likely entail the deployment of 200-300 NATO instructors to Iraq and would complement a much larger U.S.-led operation to build new Iraqi armed forces, which are expected to total 260,000.
Iraqi police and national guardsmen have been the focus of many of the recent attacks, creating a challenge for the United States and Allawi as they strive to strengthen the Iraqi security forces.
The ferocity of the insurgency has also raised new doubts about how effectively Washington and Allawi can carry off the elections - and whether they will be able to wrest control of rebel strongholds such as Fallujah and Ramadi in time to include the cities in the process.
A full-fledged assault may be the only way to restore state authority to Fallujah and Ramadi, even though such a get-tough approach risks alienating the population.
Iraqis, a mostly conservative people, have been deeply angered by some of the practices of the U.S. military, like raiding homes and detaining women, and their failure to restore security more than a year after Saddam Hussein was ousted. While viewing the Americans as infidels or crusaders who want to destroy Islam, many have been won over by what they see as the piety and devotion of Islamic-oriented insurgents.
In places like Fallujah, a hotbed of resistance west of Baghdad, the insurgents have endeared themselves to the local population by spearheading a religious revival and taking over some law enforcement tasks.
``I was very optimistic when the Americans entered Iraq ... but then I was so shocked by their practices that I even joined Fallujah residents in their war against them,'' said Haqi Esmaiel Ibrahim, 25, an accountant at a Baghdad stationery store. ``Because of the bad security situation and kidnap cases, I had to make my two sisters quit school and stay at home.''
The Americans recently launched a series of military operations and opened negotiations with religious and tribal leaders to retake several cities that have fallen into rebel hands, yielding some positive results.
U.S. troops ended their siege of the northwest city of Tal Afar on Tuesday, saying they had cleared it of militants after 12 days of fighting killed dozens of people. The siege ended soon after neighboring Turkey said it would stop cooperating with U.S. forces in Iraq if ethnic Turks continued to be harmed in the crackdown.
On Wednesday, militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at U.S. and Iraqi soldiers guarding a council building in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. The assault came just days after the Americans negotiated a deal with local leaders to enter the city without risk of attack.
Associated Press reporter Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.
09/15/04 19:45 |
quote:
Would your new Communist America ban all guns? |
quote:
No, we believe in the right to own guns. |
That's good to hear. Now the capitalists will be able to take the government right back... oh wait, no, they'll be impotent militias. Just "dead enders", holdouts from the Bush regime.
quote:
I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy, |
quote:
Revenge isn't a good goal. Victory is a good goal. Revenge doesn't get us there, and might even hurt our chances. |
I was talking of what motivates guerillas.
quote:
I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins. |
quote:
Not always. Sometimes the side with the most firepower refuses to use it. |
And why would that be? If they could not engage in total war, as the disasterous effects of bombing their own populace would hurt their cause. This once again makes the battles more personal, and an armed populace becomes a greater threat.
quote:
Your signs and chants would be nothing. |
quote:
And yet with them, the Bolsheviks made a revolution. |
and guns....
quote:
Yep, cuz they had guns. The government targetted them because they had guns. The whole reason the SWAT team was invented was to deal with the Black Panthers. They were gunned down in their sleep, ambushed at ralleys, murdered in their prison cells. Guns may have made them feel more macho, made their testosterone pump, but the really good work the BPP did was non-violent, like their school breakfast programs, their free grocery give aways, getting doctors to recognize sickle cell anemia as a serious disease, etc. |
more mysandry......
Many groups have guns... they were targetted because they were black and had guns. But I'll cede the point, BRANDISHING weapons definitely will not get you any favors from the law enforcement people.
quote:
If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power. |
quote:
Revolution in America will come when something shakes the legitimacy of the government, such as the Great Depression or a disasterous war. That breaks people's faith in the government. At that moment, there's a window of opportunity for a mass revolutionary party to overthrow the government and create a new one. |
So you hope for a poor economy, or disastrous war? What if instead you see a "velvet revolution" and America begins to becoma communist, as you dream, and religion is removed frim schools, government etc?
Then perhaps you will see the power of an armed populace. Unfortunately, it would be a christian armed populace, and your trained army, a christian army. With out an armed left wing populace.... you can do the math.
quote:
If a revolutionary party has been successful in building a mass movement, if it has won the hearts and minds of a significant part of the population and also the military, then a revolution might succeed. All of the important work of building to that point can be done without a gun. |
Important indeed, but there would still be the final task....
quote:
I will, however, let you in on the fact that comrades who live in poorer white areas are buying guns, for self-defense against extreme rightists. People on the right fringe are talking about a struggle against King George, and thinking that if George is re-selected, the left will revolt and there will be a new civil war. In that case, I did suggest to the comrade that she buy a gun (or two). |
You think I don't know in real life a radical socialist or two? 
Civil war is a scary thought, and seems impossible, but throw in a crisis or two, another stolen election, (regardless whether it was or not) and you may have to be dealing with armed looters.
I cought two guys in the act trying to break into my car. We had a discussion, and they left. Had I had a gun, they would have gone to jail. Had they run, I'd shot them in the legs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort. |
No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people. |
No, the rights of both the States and the People are protected in the bill of rights in general, and in the 2nd Amdt in particular.
You are correct that the 2nd Amdt as interpreted by the current SCOTUS does not protect citizens' right to bear arms at the State level. But we're talking about a Federal law.
Last edited by Straybow on 16-09-2004 at 08:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort. |
No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people. |
No, the rights of both the States and the People are protected in the bill of rights in general, and in the 2nd Amdt in particular.
You are correct that the 2nd Amdt as interpreted by the current SCOTUS does not protect citizens' right to bear arms at the State level. But we're talking about a Federal law. |
Straybow, finally someone who understands the Bill of Rights.
As I said before, and as K steadfastly refused to listen, any restriction on powers in the Bill of Rights was directed to the Federal Government because that was what the Constitution was all about its allocation of powers. Thus, you should interpret the Second Amendment to read, "Congress shall pass no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms." There is no restriction on States Rights there. If the States had so interpreted the Second Amendment to restrict their rights in this regard, I am sure no state would have ratified the Bill of Rights.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2004 05:00
|