Bushmaster Pays Money to Victims of Sniper

It may have become bogus at this point, I will grant you.

But the jounals and thoughts of the founding fathers indicate they intended an armed citizenry to be a deterrent to governmental excess, and a final response to tyrrany.
 
I dont see how the argument is bogus at all. I would rather have a gun than to throw spitballs at them, whoever they may be. As far as how small arms could be used to alter the government, I think that John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald proved quite effectively that they could. Im not at all condoning murder or supporting their actions, it just goes to show that a group of motivated people could change the government. You may say the men who were behind these actions were a small rebellious minority, but so were the founding fathers. Both of these mens actions changed the way the government operated in their times. Maybe civilians would be slaughtered with an all out assault, but that isnt the only way for change to come about, and like Munk pointed out, the government would certainly not leave such an engagement with armed citizens unscathed. I dont remember who said it on here, but, we have three ways to bring about change, the ballot box, the soap box, and the cartridge box.

Well, as for me, its getting late, so I think ill step off the soap box.
 
I was just pointing out that the argument of bearing arms to protect yourself against government excess is bogus>>> Ben around

And you accomplish this proof how? By citing a few ugly moments in US History. If every moment was ugly, you would be right. But you are not right. We cannot predict what will happen. Ben wants us to think the Army will destroy us if so ordered. Actually, a confidential poll given to the Marines at 29 Palms several years ago to the Question: "IF so ordered, would you go home to home to confiscate private arms?" (I may not have worded the question quite accurately- but that is the jist) Poll results? Bad memory, folks, but the overwhelming majority said no, and a sizable portion said, HELL NO. Many respondants wrote in what they would do instead, particularly to those who ordered the poll and to those who ordered the confiscation .

It is more probable that if the cause is good, an effort to retain the Bill of Rights, for instance, then a sizable portion of the military would support a sizable portion of the civilian population. That's called a civil war.

There is no wisdom among any of us here, not me, not Benaround, not Bill, not Rusty even when he says "May", that could conclude that private ownership of firearms as a deterent to an evil Government is a 'bogus' argurment.

Any such conclusion is a 'bogus' argument indeed.

There is still magnificance in this world. The Bill of Rights contains many intrinsic, fundamental self balancing truths. They may surprise you some day.

If you don't try, you'll never find out.


munk
 
then write a law so they could have them. Kerry, Bush, do they really care or evven know the little guy?

As for "assault weapons ban" banter, there's alotta BS figures out there. I suggest you read the Nat'l Institute of Justice's treatise on The impacts of the 1994 "Assault weapons ban", published in March 1999 (about 12 printed pages).


Keith
 
1999 was a Clinton year and there were a lot of 'bogus' studies and stats put out, for instance, by the Center for Disease Control. So, what is in the 12 pages? That the ban was a roaring success or had no impact on crime?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"then write a law so they could have them. Kerry, Bush, do they really care or evven know the little guy? " Ferrous

What is this Ferrous? They could write a law to harvest all the first born female virgins too but I fail to see how that helps them if no one wants to surrender their virgin daughter.

Bush thought enough of the 'little guy' to appoint a man to AG who declared the Second Amendment was a Individual right- something Clinton administration argued against.

munk
 
David Koresh and a bunch of Waco fools held off the FBI and BATF for 51 days. (killing 4 and wounding 16 black-suited, bullet-proof vested SMG wielding, quantico-trained "professionals.")


Now, imagine a bunch of US in a semi-similar situation.

Let's see: 260 million people in America. 100 Million adults capable of fighting and armed with semi-autos.

American Armed Forces: 1 million? Even with tanks and planes, they wouldn't last long.

Maybe that's fantasy, but I stand ready. (If the govt ever turns evil and tries to declare martial law and I truly believe that the american dream of democracy is dead. I don't. Not yet. I think we are in turbulent times, but I think we still have the best government and country in the world. I doubted that before I moved to Japan, but now I believe it more than ever.)
 
munk said:
... "IF so ordered, would you go home to home to confiscate private arms?"...the overwhelming majority said no...
Click to expand...

Of course if you ask the question like that, most all soldiers will respond in that way. But if such an action was to be actually taken, it wouldn't be against "ordinary citizens". Those against whom it would be directed would be demonized as "Enemies" whose objective was to destroy the US and our way of life.

After a long period of government opposition and propaganda, the Bonus Army Vets were called Communists, the striking coal miners were called Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Viet Nam Peace Protesters were called Anarchists. When the country is threatened by such groups, the Military will respond with force, and will have the support of those who believe the government propaganda.

If you vocally support gun ownership, or arming yourself against the government, or join groups who do so, you are probably already on the "Radical Survivalist" list. Remember Ruby Ridge? What about the Waco massacre? These were all American citizens and government agents had no problem killing men, women, and children.
 
Ben; I'm very much aware of Ruby Ridge, and the ind standoff twenty years before that, (where local ranchers got to join in and shoot ndns) and of Koresh.

I should not have to play a game of listing possible alternatives for you. Today's media is a different beast than it was 20 years ago. We find out about Oval Office BJ's now. Koresh was advertised as a waco- but even still, the standoff had great controversy. If millions of men, women, and children refused to give up their arms, the Government could not take them. Imagine your tanks moving against a family on Nightly News. Knowing that resistance would be stiff, the Government would never order confiscation. It's policies would avoid a direct confrontation. That is why law suits and feel good safety restrictions are so important to understand and fight.

Unless, of course, too many listen to the wisdom of Benaround.
In this case, I honestly think you've outfoxed yourself with cynicism. One of the greatest features of both the Bible and the Second Amendment, is that a larger society, media, and whoever else can't quite seem to drum it out of the ignorant savage's head.

Kindly count me in amongst them.


munk
 
munk said:
One of the greatest features of both the Bible and the Second Amendment, is that a larger society, media, and whoever else can't quite seem to drum it out of the ignorant savage's head.

Kindly count me in amongst them.


munk
Click to expand...
Me too, except for the Bible. That was drummed out of my head from the beginning when I started asking who I was and what I was doing here...

The 2nd amendment has never been in question, in my mind anyway!
 
Here here Munk! :)

And like I said earlier, it doesnt have to be a huge outright assault. If you want to kill a snake you go for the head, not the body. Imagine how many people would have lived if someone had plugged Hitler back in when he started preaching hate and death. Not that our government is EVEN close to needing anything like that. Things would have to get a whole lot worse to condone a revolution or coup d'etat.
 
The point isn't whether an armed citizenry would have the power to defeat a modern domestic army. The point is that they would have the power to make them stop and scratch their heads.

The fight is won when you raise the stakes high enough for your opponent to decide it's not worth it. Which ties right back to the Bushmaster settlement - same philosophy.
 
Jebadiah_Smith said:
...Imagine how many people would have lived if someone had plugged Hitler back in when he started preaching hate and death...
Click to expand...
Remember, Hitler did not seize power. He was democratically elected, and was the most popular leader Germany ever had. The majority of German citizens agreed with his programs. It was not the German government against the Jews, it was Germany against the Jews.

If things got to the point in this country where American citizens deemed it necessary to raise arms against the government, they would only represent a segment of the population. The majority of citizens would remain loyal. The rebellious segment would be dispatched in short order, with full complicity by the general population.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time discussing this. I have no stake one way or the other in Gun Control Laws as I have already been deemed by the government as too dangerous to own firearms.
 
Ben Arown-Awile said:
Remember, Hitler did not seize power. He was democratically elected, and was the most popular leader Germany ever had. The majority of German citizens agreed with his programs. It was not the German government against the Jews, it was Germany against the Jews.

If things got to the point in this country where American citizens deemed it necessary to raise arms against the government, they would only represent a segment of the population. The majority of citizens would remain loyal. The rebellious segment would be dispatched in short order, with full complicity by the general population.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time discussing this. I have no stake one way or the other in Gun Control Laws as I have already been deemed by the government as too dangerous to own firearms.
Click to expand...

Our hypothetical abusive leader would be democratically elected as well, this makes no difference whatsoever. This is why Plato termed a democracy as a wrong government, the masses could elect a bad leader.

Maybe revolutionaries would be a small group, but as I stated before, so were the founding fathers. Not everyone in the colonies was 100% for revolution, not by a long shot.

Your presumption that the group would be small, that the public would remain loyal, and that the group would be easily wiped out, seems to me very off base and on the verge of stupidity, for reasons that many of us have stated on this very thread.

Please keep wasting your time, this has been a very enjoyable discussion.
 
Ben, you are just guessing now. Maybe it's this, or maybe it's that, green eggs and ham, and Cat in the Hat.

I'm glad you mentioned Hitler- do the words, "never again' mean anything to you?

We don't know what the future will bring. We do the best we can and hope. Being armed is part of that.


munk
 
Before the "Never Again" slogan, the group's previous slogan was "Every Jew A 22".

I was told this by a nephew of one of Kahane's right-hand men, himself Jewish, for whatever that is worth, and to me that's worth a lot.
 
I can see why they changed the motto. It sounds like they're going rabbit hunting.



munk
 
Hey, good thread. Back to Munk's original point though, I read a statement from a Bushmaster spokesman and they were extremely pleased with the outcome, stating that "Bushmaster did not pay one penny." Well, yeah, because their insurance covered the entire thing, so they're happy.

But like Dan said, they are overlooking the fact that now similar insurance rates are bound to rise because they "fed the bear", and now will just get passed onto all the rest of us when we go gun shopping.

I would rather they had stood their ground and paid a couple of million in legal fees and tell these people to get stuffed. Maybe the gun shop owner owes $, sounds like he really violated the law, but charging BM anything is like Ford paying a settlement to people I run down with my car. (I think Munk or someone already made this excellent point.)

Believe me, this lesson will not be lost on the lawyer's and anti-tort reform leeches. Soon there will be a suit on something like this and who knows where it will end. How about this: I put on my new Rocky hiking boots and then kick someone to death. Sue Rocky for knowingly manufacturing boots that could cause damage to someone if they were kicked. And on and on and on... A lawyer's dream...

Regards,

Norm
 
The point of the "Every Jew a 22" was for every jewish person to have at least a 22 to use. Rifle, pistol, shotgun, whatever. But have something!

Remember the "Liberator" pistol dropped by thousands in occupied territory during WW2?

Have you ever heard the saying "Your first gun only has to be good enough to get you your second gun."?

A 4" 22 semiautomatic with a ten round magazine and a loaded spare mag can stop an assault before it starts. And if used is a lot better than a contact weapon. A 32 is deadlier than you'd think because it has limited power and the person carrying it often knows it. So assailants tend to receive multiple wounds.

But the p[oint was to have the means to fight if needed.
 
I'm aware of that, Rusty, I just don't think it an effective slogan.

Your point reminds me of a gunsmith in San Bernardino, Bob's Cop Shop.
He was putting the finishing touches on a FNFAL when I walked in. The rifle was for a client. I asked if he had any of those type weapons for riots and whatever..
"What for?" He said. "If it ever gets that bad I'll just take it away from someone."


munk
 
I wanna buy one of them Ted Kennedy assault cars. He was able to kill more people with it than I have with any of my evil guns.

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top