Hear, hear!

Nope, not spineless, but apathetic and ignorant for sure.  

Here's the problem:  Regardless of what is written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, a [i][b]RIGHT[/i][/b] is what the [i]majority of people in any society [u]believes[/i][/u] it is - no more, no less.  And the majority of Americans, over the years, have been convinced that [i]the "right to arms," [b]isn't[/b][/i].  "Standing up and demanding" our right to arms in a society that doesn't believe we really have one - or at least a right to the weapons you believe we have a right to, won't get you that right.  All it will do is make you feared.  And you know what herds do when frightened - they stampede.

The people believe that if the Supreme Court rules on something, well that makes it right (no, not all of them, but the majority do.)  If the Supreme Court finally comes out and says that the individual right to handguns and long guns is protected by the Second Amendment, it will cause outraged howls by the minority that makes up the gun-controllers, it will be met with glee by gun-rights activists, and the overwhelming middle of society that doesn't think about it (or much anything else) will say, "Oh, OK, it's a right.  What's the big deal?"

I'm a realist.  I restate my previous position:  Right now I'd be happy if they'd finally legally recognize our rights to pistols, rifles and shotguns, much less full-auto weapons.

Yup.  First they were denied to blacks by denying blacks citizenship.

Now they're denying that being a CITIZEN guarantees those rights.  

It is getting closer to time to feed the hogs.

If ignorance is the issue, what do you call this? You sound like HCI/Brady/VPC here. Constitutionally valid restricions? [i]"...shall not be infringed..."?[/i]



Is it really? So if no one believes God exists, then he must not? If I don't believe that a truck will run me over when I jump in front of it, then I'll be fine? Come on. "...inalienable rights endowed by our Creator..."



Very true.



We don't have to "get our rights", they're already ours. You're confusing rights and [i]privaleges[/i] - and so is everyone else in the gun control debate.
BTW, respectful fear is exactly what the .gov should have for us.



I would also be thrilled if they did this. But, if you were truly a realist you'd know that they will never let this happen. Once tyrants gain power, they never let it go of their own accord.

KBaker: I agree with you on many things. Your words have said volumes on many topics. I respect you as a fellow member of this board and as a fellow human being.

Yes, constitutionally valid restrictions.  Like it or not, the government of the United States has concluded, through decades of precedent, that [i]there are no absolute rights[/i].  The difference between a [i]FUNDAMENTAL[/i] right and our auxiliary rights is whether those rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  FUNDAMENTAL rights must stand up to a "strict scrutiny" test - Is it NECESSARY, is it NARROWLY DEFINED, and is DUE PROCESS MET.  We have an "inalienable right to life" too, but the Constitution says the government can deprive citizens of life, given due process.  We allow certain restrictions on free speech ("Fire!" in a theater,) on religion (Worshiping Satan? OK.  Sacrificing virgins?  Verboten.) and on other [i]fundamental rights[/i].  Remember "Congress shall make no law...?"  

Like it or not, them's the facts.  

You want a quote?  "The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams.  That can be interpreted as implying that the [i]non-[/i] "peaceable citizens" CAN be.Yes, it is.  Really.  A right is not God when it comes to society.  A "Right to Life" won't stop that truck.  Ancient Romans had a "right" to expose newborns they didn't want.  Americans had a "right" to own other people.  You have the rights your fellow citizens allow you to have.  Accept it or not.No, I quite understand the difference.  What you don't seem to understand is the fact that societies can change what they once believed to be a right into a priviledge. Or no right or priviledge at all.  Again, face reality.  You can claim a right to own an unregistered fully-automatic weapon until the cows come home.  A man is sitting in jail right now because society says he doesn't have that right.  You'll note, he doesn't have his automatic weapons either.  So what good is his "right?"They may if we can convince [i]the legal professionals[/i] that they must [i]follow the law[/i].  The [i]Emerson[/i] decision gives us some hope.  Some of the things said by Scalia and Thomas and even Stevens give me hope.  Because for the majority of the uninterested, if the Supreme Court says it's a right, well, it [i]must[/i] be!

Thanks for the kind words.

Maybe that's our difference; you have hope. Mine has long since faded.

More power to you, brother.

[b]Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.[/b]
H. L. Mencken

[b]It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.[/b]
Claire Wolfe.

[b]The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.[/b]
Ulysses S. Grant

[b]Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.[/b]
Mao Tse-Tung

[b]Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.[/b]
Ambrose Bierce

(Something we forget at our peril.)  And finally:

[b]...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.[/b]

All true.  The question is, which will happen?  Will we correct the problem peacefully?  Not likely.  Will we continue to muddle along, giving up more of our rights, unwilling to risk what we have, suffering rather than taking the risk required to abolish the suffering (and risk more, worse suffering?)  Probably.  Or will we rise up and exercise our natural right to releive ourselves of oppression?  Don't see that happening.  Too many people are content to chew cud.

So I have to hope that through the legal system we can ensure that people like you and me are able to retain arms, and remain the fourth branch of the government - the people that keep our "elected representatives" from overstepping their bounds [i]too[/i] far.  (I LIKE the idea that Diane Feinstain is afraid of the ability of the .50BMG round to penetrate armored limousines.)

You speak, and quote, truth.

America is way too content and prosperous to rock the boat. I doubt anything will happen in our lifetimes to turn this around.