Durbin's Reply

[Woods Walker]

Oh, I know all about Sand Creek. And it could be argued that the native Americans who were the victims there were indeed their OWN "miltia" and would have benefited greatly by being as well armed as their attackers. But they were not, AND they trusted the government with their lives.......bad move. REAL bad move on their part.

[rthomas4]

The Constitution outlined the individual state's rights, and one of those rights was to maintain it's own laws and regulations, as well as it's powers over it's militia. The Second Amendment provided the necessary requirement that prevents the Federal Government from taking away the power of the individual state and it's citizens. Just as the War of Northern Aggression was fought over state's rights due to Federal tariffs and taxes against the Southern cotton, we are seeing the Federal Government again wage war against the state's right to determine it's citizens weaponry. Why do we need semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines? Because the Federal Government has fully automatic weapons and even higher capacity magazines!!!!!!! We the people, are our modern day version of the militia. Remember that during Colonial times, there were still areas that suffered attacks from the Native American Tribes, as well as incursions from the North by the French, and in the South by the Spanish. Every farmer, blacksmith, candle maker, or printer, etc., was expected to own and maintain that period's equivalent of whatever modern firearm was available in order to respond to any crisis. Today, we are faced with armed gangs, illegals from South of the Border, and Muslim extremists on top of an ever increasing threat from within. The liberals have created a resurgence of class warfare through increased taxes and attacks on businesses and the upper and middle classes. We truly are faced with a rising lower class reliant on the Federal Government for their daily sustenance. At the current rate our national debt is increasing, it's inevitable that sooner or later, the lower class will begin to no longer be satisfied with Government handouts; at that time the actual war between the classes will erupt, just as surely as a volcano that is spitting it's gas and ash into the air. The police are already unable to deal with problems in a timely and efficient manner, so how can we expect them to provide protection for us and our families. The military is being depleted and diluted while being spread around the globe helping our enemies and promoting more hate against our country, so if martial law were to be declared who would be the enforcers? I certainly don't plan on having blue helmeted UN peacekeepers telling me when I can leave my house, when I can go to the grocery store, or how much gas I can purchase for my truck. Those peacekeepers will have fully automatic weapons, I will have my AR-15 and my high capacity magazines. Which one of us do you suppose will protect MY house and family??????

Yes the times do change, but then again there remains a stasis. Our Constitution has proven to be as viable and effective today as it was in 1780. Unlike other countries where the laws that make their nation must be rewritten periodically, we have an enduring and everlasting document that has proven it's longevity. Without it, we would no longer be the US, with it we shall endure. Those who would change it are those who would see our country degrade into the likes of Greece or Spain. With the Second Amendment intact we the people, are the present day version of the militia as delineated when it was written.

[JPH]

Oh, I know all about Sand Creek. And it could be argued that the native Americans who were the victims there were indeed their OWN "miltia" and would have benefited greatly by being as well armed as their attackers. But they were not, AND they trusted the government with their lives.......bad move. REAL bad move on their part.

Well I can't argue with a word of that. They were pretty well regulated at the Little Big Horn though.

[JPH]

War of northern aggression, rthomas4? Really?

Edit: Actually, I'm glad I saw that. It tells me this is as good a time to step away from the conversation as any. It tells me that I'm in a conversation with people who's understanding of American history is so opposed to my own that there is really no chance of coming to any kind of consensus. I've stated my thoughts as well as I can but they will certainly ring hollow with people who view the slave owning South as the victims in the Civil War and who feel like they have to have high capacity magazines in order to fight "Muslims and Illegals".

I wish you the best, but I have nothing left to offer.

[Oakarver]

Let's look at this scenario...Someone breaks into my house. More than one person. Quite a few, actually. They're even armed themselves. I've got a pistol with a 7...even let's say 10 round clip. I've also got a Defense(libs call 'em Assault) rifle with a "high capacity" magazine. Guess which one I'd have nearby for such a situation?

Actually the answer is both..but the rifle would be the one I'd be starting with.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the criminals will still have these "high capicty" magazines etc and I'll have to settle for a ________ round clip/magazine that the gov't decides is enough for me.

[Woods Walker]

Oh, I know all about Sand Creek. And it could be argued that the native Americans who were the victims there were indeed their OWN "miltia" and would have benefited greatly by being as well armed as their attackers. But they were not, AND they trusted the government with their lives.......bad move. REAL bad move on their part.

Well I can't argue with a word of that. They were pretty well regulated at the Little Big Horn though.

Yes they were, and they were also UNITED, which because of their culture and their historical way of life was not something they normally did. Imagine if they had and they were equally armed. I'm not saying that the end result would have been all that different, but it would have taken a LOT longer than a decade or so, and the events therein may have been different also.

Let's see..."united and armed"...so we can defend ourselves. Methinks we should maybe heed this historical lesson.

And while I admit that the term, "war of northern aggression", while accurate, it is only described for one view's side of the confllict. But what cannot be argued...if it really makes any difference...is the fact that the average confederate soldier knew little if much at all about the underlying political or moral reasons for the war, especially at the beginning. All they knew was that another army, hostile in nature, was coming onto THEIR home ground and that were going to defend it. Not all that different than those native Americans. History is always best viewed from hindsight and while true war crimes and the like are flat wrong on any level regardless of who's side you're on, it's hard to judge someone's motivation to start shooting at someone else unless you're in their shoes.

[rthomas4]

The War of Northern Aggression was just that. There would not have been a civil war if Lincoln had just allowed the Southern states to secede without sending armed Union soldiers to occupy Fort Sumter. This parallels what we may witness in the near future if Obama were to actually implement his apparent emergency powers and institute martial law. Just as Lincoln overstepped the Constitution by denying the secession of states, Obama and his liberal Democrats are also attempting to abolish Constitutional Rights as guaranteed to citizens of the US.

I also see the current efforts on behalf of the administration to allow citizenship to the 11 million illegals in this country as an affront to the people of this country and our ancestors; as well as, the attempts by the Muslims to establish Shari'a law as a replacement for Constitutional law when circumstances involving Muslims dictate such.

Regardless of the semantics, the fact remains that the US Constitution is our single most defining instrument; and as such does not deserve any attempts at altering or abusing it. As I said our Constitution is what defines us as a nation, to change it is to destroy our country!

[Woods Walker]

Well it was changed to ban slavery, which as far as most folks are concerned was a good thing. But the slavery issue was also one that was a sticking point even at the time of the revolution and was "resloved" as it were by compromise, which as it turmed out was not a good move because it wasn't really resolved. It could also be argued that the whole idea of slavery went AGAINST the very core principles that the founders had in mind and should never have been part of the beginnings of this nation in the first place.

".....all men are created equal...."

That is the essence of what the United States stands for, and the problem way back when was that POLITICIANS started defining what "men" is/are (blacks were not defined as "men" as far as they were concerned). This is the same stew that we will/are finding ourselves in when the same politicians say that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms...and then in the next breath state which arms they think we can and can't have, thereby defining (incorrectly to boot), what "ARMS" are.

Either ALL men are created equal, or NONE of them are, and either we have the right to keep and bear arms, or we don't. There is no halfway, or "BUTS".

[rthomas4]

I won't get into the revisionist history of why South Carolina seceded from the Union, but suffice to say that slavery was not the major reason. Remember that even when Andrew Jackson (born in SC, grew up in NC, and lived in Tenn.) was President, SC threatened to secede over unfair taxation and being forced to sell cotton to the large brokerage houses in the North, instead of dealing directly with European markets.

But to get back on topic, no matter how the liberals try to disguise the gun ban proposition, it boils down to usurpation of our Constitutional Rights and the stepping stone to confiscation. Both of which will undermine the entire document and pave the way to the dismantling of our country.

[Woods Walker]

"But to get back on topic, no matter how the liberals try to disguise the gun ban proposition, it boils down to usurpation of our Constitutional Rights and the stepping stone to confiscation. Both of which will undermine the entire document and pave the way to the dismantling of our country."

I agree 100%.

And just for the record, I'm well aware that the slavery issue was NOT the main cause of the Civil War. It was one of the reasons but it wasn't really one of the major ones until Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation and even that was done as more of a political weapon than anything else as the war was not going all that well for the North at that time.