Baltimore Scum Letters to Editor on 2A

3rdRcn said:

I think the only chainsaws that should have a tax stamp are those dangerous ones with the detachable high current capacity cords.

Click to expand...

Numidian said:

NO HIGH CAP BATTERIES!!!

Click to expand...

Guns no defense against tyranny
Some arguments prove too much. Take, for example, the one that the Second Amendment was intended to arm individual citizens because those "who are armed have a louder voice" ("Armed citizens limit government power," Nov. 30).
Let us put aside the idea that an armed individual, even in 1791, as the Bill of Rights became effective, was able to make a revolution against the federal government. That's ludicrous.

Here is the real problem with the argument. If muskets and powder horns were effective weapons against King George, they are not effective weapons against a government today. Nor is an AK-47 or M-16.

What you would need is fighter-bombers with heat-seeking missiles, tanks, spy satellites and a whole raft of other stuff.

Do the claimants for finding individual rights to bear arms in the Second Amendment claim a private right to own an M1A1 tank or an F-16?

If not, then their claim that an individual right to own guns can be based on the need to limit government power fails.

Philip L. Marcus
Columbia

Click to expand...

Norton said:

I wonder if this is Mr. Marcus?

www (dot) ttgservices (dot) com

left cold deliberately

Click to expand...

Some arguments prove too much. Take, for example, the one that the Second Amendment was intended to arm individual citizens because those "who are armed have a louder voice" ("Armed citizens limit government power," Nov. 30).

Click to expand...

Let us put aside the idea that an armed individual, even in 1791, as the Bill of Rights became effective, was able to make a revolution against the federal government. That's ludicrous.

Here is the real problem with the argument. If muskets and powder horns were effective weapons against King George, they are not effective weapons against a government today. Nor is an AK-47 or M-16.

What you would need is fighter-bombers with heat-seeking missiles, tanks, spy satellites and a whole raft of other stuff.

Do the claimants for finding individual rights to bear arms in the Second Amendment claim a private right to own an M1A1 tank or an F-16?

If not, then their claim that an individual right to own guns can be based on the need to limit government power fails.

Click to expand...

I have another response to Mr. Marcus who claims that my "assault" rifles cannot protect me against tanks and missiles.

What happened in Vietnam...how about our current fighting in Iraq? A determined force, dedicated to a cause can wreak havoc on a modern military using the most primitive of means. Why else would our military have millions of rifles and other small arms? Why do our soldiers carry bayonets?! I suppose you believe we should ban bayonets, because they have no use against a tank.

And I personally DO believe that our Founding Fathers WOULD want us to be allowed to own larger weapons. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow us the capability to overthrow an oppressive government. They realized that sooner or later, even a democratic government would become too large. They realized that a group of people would ultimately try to rule the rest. It's simply human nature for people to yearn for power and control, therefore they included the 2nd Amendment as a way to protect us from just such a thing.

Our Founding Fathers were not weak men. They knew what they believed in and they were willing to fight for it. Believe it or not, there are still strong men in our society, and we are still willing to fight for what is right. So feel free to disarm yourself if you don't feel that your life is worth fighting for, but do not disarm those of us who feel our lives are worth fighting for.

Click to expand...

novus collectus said:

Having guns does not give use a louder voice, having guns makes sure our voices are not able to be ignored or dismissed out of hand as being inconsequential by a government that tries to take too much power.
It also helps to defend against corrupt local governments as well, like with the Deacons of Defense and Justice did for the civil rights movement in the South against the KKK and their supporters in charge of the state governments.

First of all we are allowed to have M1A1 tanks and F-16 fighters if we can afford them, but that is beside the point because in a revolution the rebels take the more advanced weapons from the military and use them against them by first using the small arms.....like exactly how Castro and his allies were able to overthrow Battista in Cuba. They started with privately owned small arms in guerrilla warfare and after acquiring enough advanced military weapons and materiel from the troops they ambushed, they then had enough for battles with the army full force and fully armed....and they won.
Also, many former members of the military are now citizens and often with revolutions and rebellions the insurgency is made up partly of former military or soldiers which resigned the military to fight the government....like General Lee was former U.S. military.

And finally, it does not really matter if the government "could" totally quash a rebellion because it just has to be harder for them than it is worth to try. If the armed populace can fight them enough to make winning for them no longer so guaranteed, or too costly to win, then that voice that comes with being armed said not to be heard suddenly becomes deafenning even without having to be spoken. (in other words, the potential threat of an armed populace dissuades oppression and makes an attempt at totalitarianism less likely to succeed thereby securing our freedoms without arms ever having to be used)

The fact that a full, armed rebellion has not been needed since at least the Civil War, that we have not been invaded and that our government has been basically stable all these years is most likely in large part because the populace has been armed.



My words can be used by someone much more articulat than I, so feel free to do so.

Click to expand...