Consumer Credit Card Act and Loaded Weapons?
Real Estate Investor · Tampa, FL · Member since 2008 · 456 posts · 42 votes
I was reading an article on concealed weapons today. Actually, it can be found here if you're interested in that
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
but that isn't really the topic here. I read through this article and got to the end to see this:
In May, President Barack Obama signed into law a consumer credit card act that also restored the rights of people to carry loaded weapons in national parks.
lol! Now I knew about the Consumer Credit Card Act and I own both guns and credit cards but I fail to see how one has to do with the other. I was just floored. I'd never heard that before. But I thought I would show this as an example of how things get pushed through the system without the American people knowing about it. Hide it in with something really popular and run it through.
I have noticed throughout this thread that others are using other countries as examples to prove a point. But be careful. Most of the counties that have been mentioned are social democracies, or democracies using the parliamentary system.
America is truly unique, in that it is a Republic that was born out of the ashes of a revolution against tyranny. True Republics are rare in the history of the world. Because they contain strong executive branches, they lend themselves to evolving into dictatorships.
The founding fathers knew this. They assumed that at some point the people would have to turn against a federalist government if it became too powerful and tyrannical. Hence, why gun ownership is at the core of this country’s founding.
Guns, muskets and cannons gave us our freedom and they protect our freedom against enemies foreign and domestic.
One interesting fact, Eddie, about the amendments. It starts with WE THE PEOPLE then lists all the things that the government can not do, which includes the "10 amendments" to that constitution. So therefore your statement of "To the issue at heart, IMO, the 2nd amendment is over rated. It should be changed form "The right to bare arms" to "The privilege to bare arms". Just like driver's license. " applies to the rights the WE THE PEOPLE are giving the government and not rights or privileges that the government allows the people to have.
This is where most people have things backwards, even within the US. It is a privilege for the government to bare arms to form a militia to protect us its citizens.
It then ends with all rights not given to the government are hereby kept by the people
Then you also have the 'constitutionalist' view of things, which basically is a positive view as well. It is the terms in which the constitution is written and was viewed by the founding fathers.
It basically goes under the assumption that the people fought for the rights and won the rights that they possess by winning the war against GB for their freedom from the rule of that government. Then they formed a government of united states where the peoples rights that they fought for and won would never be taken away by the government. This is very positive indeed and the first amendment has always been viewed in this manner as to the rights PREEXISTING the govenment. The second amendment has NEVER been fought in a court of law using that arguement and there would be no doubt that the peoples rights pre-existed the formation of the government and therefore can not be taken away just as has been decided for the freedoms of speech, ect.
From the peoples viewpoint this is a positive viewpoint. I guess you could claim it as a negative viewpoint if you are looking at it from the governments viewpoint.
Think about it. The entire US Millitary is 3 Million personnel in active and reserve duty and the entire police force of the entire United States is between 800,000 and 900,000. Let's round up the number of police to 1 million to make it an even 4 million of all armed government personnel.
The armed civilian populace is between 117 and 150 Million.
Assuming that in the event of some attempt at totalitarianism, these Americans within the military and the police force side with the government against the people with 100% loyalty (not likely), the government is well aware of the fact that armed civilians here outnumber the armed government by a factor somewhere between 29:1 and 37:1.
This was by design of the founding fathers as well for security of the country not only from within but from without - knowing that a man/woman who would have the freedom to obtain a firearm in defense of self and property would result in an armed populace massively greater in size than any possible standing army in the world. Not to pick on them but to use as a comparison - you would need 390% of China's combined military forces to match the size of the armed private US populace.
Tim
And maybe that is why you don't see any foreign country invading us. No country would stand a chance if they were to invade US soil.
Tim---"There is the prevalent idea that the real intent of the second amendment was to keep the government "afraid" of "We the People"...."
________________________________
While that is a prevelant view today a good look at the founding fathers papers and even the debates recorded in the Congress offical records show that the real intent of the second amendment was to prevent the Federal government from asking a States militia to assist in this or that Indian problem and then sending in their own militia to that State to force their will upon those citizens while their militia is away.
I wish I could pull up the actual record that I read on the issue. I seem to remember it as the actual debate that occured in the full Congress which included the House of Representatives with each speaker who spoke on the issues of that day.
The bottom line is that the citizens of the United States have RIGHTS to include the freedom of speech and the freedom to bear arms. When the morons in the government decide to take away my rights - they better come heavily armed! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in a previous thread "Is ANYTHING worth fighting for". If Eddie is willing to have his rights turned into privileges, that's fine. I AM NOT!
Mike