Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Brady: DC gun ownership in DC would endanger Congress

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Brady: DC gun ownership in DC would endanger Congress

    http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=18761


    The Brady Campaign has posted this mass of hysterical drivel in response to the introduction of H.R. 6691: Second Amendment Enforcement Act by Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) and currently cosponsored by 49 Democrats and 6 Republicans (if I counted correctly). They also sent a letter opposing the bill to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the directors of the FBI and Secret Service.

    The bill itself looks pretty good--it brings DC law into line with federal law and preempts much of the authority of the DC government to regulate firearms. As section 3 of the bill says:
    This is old news of course, but it doesn't seem to occur to anyone at Brady that the 2A was put into place for the explicit purpose of endangering congress. Just a theory of mine, but it seems unlikely obamacare would have passed if the thousands of people protesting outside the capital had muskets, let alone "assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles "

    Like I said though, just a theory.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  2. #2
    Regular Member HeroHog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=18761 This is old news of course, but it doesn't seem to occur to anyone at Brady that the 2A was put into place for the explicit purpose of endangering congress. Just a theory of mine, but it seems unlikely obamacare would have passed if the thousands of people protesting outside the capital had muskets, let alone "assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles "

    Like I said though, just a theory.
    I love it and concur!
    Speedy: LOCAL League Sec/Treasurer, Information Officer
    AKA: Hero Hog, Dr. Speed, "The Brass Mangler" and "That fat, old, balding, Grey-bearded gimpy guy"

    I don't have NEAR enough ammo on hand. `nuff said.

    NRA Life Member, LSA, USN-DAV

    "Stay safe..." - Paul "Skidmark" Henick, RIP

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.

  4. #4
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

    It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by elixin77 View Post
    When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

    It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.
    And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by elixin77 View Post
    When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

    It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.
    I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective. Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas. The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.


    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer22 View Post
    And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.
    I don't think we'd get slaughtered, if we had proficient riflemen numbering in the tens of millions, all the militaries of the world couldn't invade us and win IMO. I've seen a lot of the world's militaries and they're a joke. I agree though that modern equipment is high maintenance and requires a lot of training and attention. We could not have all the planes, tanks, trucks, missle silos and equipment without a constant force doing upkeep, protection and maintenance, let alone the training.

    That said if we had an infantry consisting of all males (eligible) between 18-42, all responsible for maintaining an MBR and issued gear. Who made it through basic training, and showed up for monthly drills. I think we would not have gone this far down the socialist hell hole.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 09-29-2010 at 05:50 PM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.

    I certainly did leave that out didn't I? You're right about that too. Congress had a lot to be afraid of back then. They don't now, and it's clearly causing some bad decisions to be made in DC.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective. Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas. The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.




    I don't think we'd get slaughtered, if we had proficient riflemen numbering in the tens of millions, all the militaries of the world couldn't invade us and win IMO. I've seen a lot of the world's militaries and they're a joke. I agree though that modern equipment is high maintenance and requires a lot of training and attention. We could not have all the planes, tanks, trucks, missle silos and equipment without a constant force doing upkeep, protection and maintenance, let alone the training.

    That said if we had an infantry consisting of all males (eligible) between 18-42, all responsible for maintaining an MBR and issued gear. Who made it through basic training, and showed up for monthly drills. I think we would not have gone this far down the socialist hell hole.
    Just who are you calling a civilian? In this Federation all able bodied men are considered organized or unorganized militia, therefore not civilian.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyer22 View Post
    And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.
    well individuals can spend money on wonderful arms of many sorts, and individuals can train. Heck we can form militias and spend money on plans and tanks as a group to spread the cost out some. Taxes and a strong federal govt are not required for a strong military.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral Imperial Japanese Navy

    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

    Even without a large standiing army before WW2, the Empire of Japan did not dare attack us directly on the mainland. Now a days, who knows what would happen. Most of the west coast and parts of the east coast are mostly unarmed. A million man strong army who lands anywhere in California will have little resistance.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Just who are you calling a civilian? In this Federation all able bodied men are considered organized or unorganized militia, therefore not civilian.
    We are ALL civilians. It's not an epithet.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.
    You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

    1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

    2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

    3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar
    Now a days, who knows what would happen. Most of the west coast and parts of the east coast are mostly unarmed. A million man strong army who lands anywhere in California will have little resistance.
    I agree that if an armed force were to attack the west coast at dawn, they would probably in Denver before sundown, if they go around Az. The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I wanted to add this little tidbit.

    When the Republic was founded, most countries would use the military to enforce the laws of that particular nation. That is the reason that they wanted a civilian militia instead of a standing army. That is the reason that the Constitution has no provision for a federal police force of any kind. It does have a provision for the feds to call up the militia to enforce federal laws. That is why I say the FBI, DEA, BATFE, IRS, and now the Dept. of Education, among others, has become the standing army that our founders warned us about.

    Of course they never envisioned federal laws as they are today, and the framers never gave them Constitutional authority to pass a lot (probably most) of the laws that they have.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  14. #14
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective.


    Who says it can't be? While I do not advocate mandatory military service, I think having everyone go through a boot camp-esque experience where they learn to handle a rifle would be good overall.

    Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas.
    I also understand this. If left alone, people naturally do what we want to do (in a good way). We teach ourselves how to build airplanes, clean guns, etc etc. If there's a way for people to learn something, and someone able to teach that, than there will still be combat pilots, tank commanders, and field engineers, because people would *want* to learn how to do this.

    The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.
    And I do not fault you one iota. One of my best friends is going through TBS with the marines. Whenever I talk with him, I tell him how grateful I am because of what he's chosen to do, and he's even inspired me to join as well.

    And besides, as DCKilla said, if mostly everyone had a MBR ready to go, and were trained in its use, than no one would even dare to step foot on American soil. Besides, defenders usually have a 3:1 advantage over attackers, so they would have to bring ~450 million troops (assuming 1/2 population is male at 300 million). China only has 2.3 million (at least from what they've told the world)
    Last edited by elixin77; 09-30-2010 at 11:41 AM.
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

    1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

    2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

    3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.


    I agree that if an armed force were to attack the west coast at dawn, they would probably in Denver before sundown, if they go around Az. The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.
    Can you cite any historical documents that reflect those three purposes stated? I'm not trying to offend you, I just want to read the actual document where those were discussed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Tinker AFB, ,
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.
    You really think they'll get very far in Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont?

    Not all of New England is bereft of a well-armed populace.

  17. #17
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender
    You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

    1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

    2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

    3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.
    Quote Originally Posted by sonoran_Tj View Post
    Can you cite any historical documents that reflect those three purposes stated? I'm not trying to offend you, I just want to read the actual document where those were discussed.
    Try reading the notes that were taken during the framing of the Constitution (there was no official record kept), the ratification debates of the states, the debates on the writing of the Bill of Rights, and ratification debates of the same. The federalists and anti-federalists papers won't hurt either, although a lot of this was opinion.

    That's a good start. I don't have any internet cites for you. Mine are all in very expensive books that get into a lot of detail. These books include no or little opinion by the authors. If the author did give an opinion, I ignored (actually redacted) it because I wanted a pure look at what the framers had to say. Also find founding fathers and framers quotes on the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Something else you may want to look into is the meaning of words at the time of the framing. The two most important words in the Constitution that have changed meanings is "regulate" and "state".

    Regulate meant "to make regular" or "to make even", not "control" as it is commonly used today.

    State meant, in a plain and simple word, "country or nation", and nothing else. It did not refer to "a subdivision of a country", at all, as it does now.

    This is from a dictionary dating back to 1790.

    Yes, we are a federation of 50 different countries.

    The federal government is a child of the "states" and it has become unruly. It is time for the 50 "countries" that are suppose to be running this federation to take this unruly child behind the woodshed.

    My book will be finished soon and it will have a lot of footnotes in it for everyone to check out. Just hope I can find a publisher.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by hightecrebel View Post
    You really think they'll get very far in Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont?

    Not all of New England is bereft of a well-armed populace.
    Yes, only because they will probably cut that part of the federation off (through Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts) then concentrate their efforts on these states to keep from having to deal with 2 fronts. They will have D.C. in no time. There will not be much resistance from the populous through these states.
    Last edited by rodbender; 09-30-2010 at 01:53 PM.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    The fact that CHP holders are allowed into the General Assembly (the oldest legislative body in North America) in VA, as well as several other states' legislative bodies, makes it a hollow argument.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The fact that CHP holders are allowed into the General Assembly (the oldest legislative body in North America) in VA, as well as several other states' legislative bodies, makes it a hollow argument.
    Could be why Virginia has some of the most friendly gun laws:

    "Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce legislation to restrict guns in the fol....."

    *click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click*

    "Mr. Speaker, I'd like to withdraw my bill."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    We are ALL civilians. It's not an epithet.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

    A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces
    Quote Originally Posted by Militia Act 1903
    Composition of militia, and classification as organized militia and reserve militia.
    Be it enacted, &.c, That the militia shall consist of every ablebodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes- the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.
    Civilian seems to be a term for those countries with subjects. Here in the federation almost everyone is in the militia, therefore in the armed forces and not civilian; congress just removed to requirement to have a musket or rifle when things were reorganized.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Back in the day of our Forefathers, men were men, I hope this still holds true today. I don't want my children to have to fight a tyrannical government that we failed to stop.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    tidewater, Va
    Posts
    53

    They'd be right if....

    if congress allowed itself too far off the path of liberty, they would have something to fear from the populace, that's part of the FF original intent.

    As for New England.....
    While we may have lost much of the "Sam Adams" spirit in the "Commonwealth", Don't be so quick to count out the rest of the group. Don't forget these are the descendants of the original Tea Party hosts. While sure to lose the major cities by sheer force of number vs. the low population, Yammamoto was right the cost inflicted by every Fisherman, farmer and shopkeeper firing from behind every rock and tree would be high. Remember what happened to the rest of that British regiment when they tried to get back to Boston after Lexington and Concord.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Average Dad View Post
    if congress allowed itself too far off the path of liberty, they would have something to fear from the populace, that's part of the FF original intent.

    As for New England.....
    While we may have lost much of the "Sam Adams" spirit in the "Commonwealth", Don't be so quick to count out the rest of the group. Don't forget these are the descendants of the original Tea Party hosts. While sure to lose the major cities by sheer force of number vs. the low population, Yammamoto was right the cost inflicted by every Fisherman, farmer and shopkeeper firing from behind every rock and tree would be high. Remember what happened to the rest of that British regiment when they tried to get back to Boston after Lexington and Concord.
    They got drunk, lost their way and were abducted by Extraterrestrials?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral Imperial Japanese Navy

    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

    Even without a large standiing army before WW2, the Empire of Japan did not dare attack us directly on the mainland. Now a days, who knows what would happen. Most of the west coast and parts of the east coast are mostly unarmed. A million man strong army who lands anywhere in California will have little resistance.
    Things would change once they got to UT, AZ, NV or CO. If we lose Kalifornia...acceptable casualties....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •