[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by belercous

GMFWoodchuck: You're right, but Randy Weaver was about the only one I know of that not only survived a gunfight with the ATF, but did not go to prison for it. Of course his wife, child and dog died. I was just sayin' its not generally a good idea to shoot at anyone with the the government, the odds are not on your side.
If you are willing to die for your principles, I applaud you. Most people say they will make a stand on their principles, but few actually do when it comes down to it. I've never been in a situation such as you describe (few have) but I'd let them take the guns, they certainly aren't worth my dying over. I'd fight using the legal & political systems we have in place. My principled stands have been few, probably cuz I usually follow the law. Some laws I do violate. I've had 3 tickets for not wearing a seat belt. I've never lost. I told the prosecutor that I'm ready for trial, lets go. They always dismiss the charge. I got a ticket for riding my 4 wheeler on a nature preserve 2 last year. I knew it was a nature preserve, but it wasn't marked as such (it only had been for 2 years.) Once again, the prosecutor dropped the charge when he seen I was prepared to go to trial. I did not use an attorney (why would I?), but I was serious about my position. Now I realize this is small potatoes compared to the ATF, but my point is that I'm not intimidated by those in power. Except when those in power have guns, then I will be pragmatic, or will be so until I have a terminal illness.

N.B.; Apparently my father also is willing to stand up to the authorites. A few years ago he was caught in a raid in Ark. for cock-fighting. He was one of the few who would not take a plea and demanded a trial. They dismissed all charges. Google "Kenny Ebert+animal cruelty" for more details, it was the biggest raid on cock-fighting in U.S. history. The ATF&E was there with black rifles, along with Egads of other federal & state officers. I do not condone cock-fighting, but I see both sides of the argument.

Also, if the gov. were to confiscate all guns (and there is a better chance of being struck by lightning in your basement before that happens) you would be compensated for them, you would be paid for them. See the 5th Amen. Oh, and before anyone chimes in about New Orleans, please note that what the N.O.P.D. did was found to be illegal and they had to give them back.

Also, Obama did nothing to offend the freedom of speech from a constitutional view. Obviously, you do not know what the 1st Amen. means in making such an outrageous claim. Same with war veterans (wtf?) or me (as a gun owner I assume) being terrorists. You are taking things out of context and touting them as truth. I maybe wrong, but it certainly seems that you are simply parroting others opinions. As far as "killing babies" outside of the womb, I think you have a valid viewpoint. It might be a bit simplistic without the full context of the debate, but could reasonably be summated as such. I'm not sure what you mean about not being able to defend one's self, so will not comment on that.

Armed and Safe makes a good point. Not every version of the Constitution or the proposed amendments back then contained the same punctuation. There were variations between the bills ratifed by the states. But here, i'm not so sure that punctuation would have made much difference, niether in meaning or ratification.

But hey, I thought this thread was about the 2nd Amen., it seems we have gotten a bit off point.

That has got to be the most illogical post I have ever read. You say that if the feds violate the 2nd Amendment and confiscate guns that they will compensate us because the 5th Amendment tells them they have to?! So they would throw one amendment right out the window but follow another while doing so You would willingly lay down for an ILLEGAL gun confiscation, and then try to go through the COURTS for redress?! Last time I checked, the gov't controlled the courts. And if the federal gov't throws the 2nd in the trash to illegally take guns, you really think that you could still fight them in court by that time?! I mean really, if the feds violate the 2nd, you really expect them to compensate people under the 5th?!?!

Oh, yes, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. You seem to be forgetting one small point about the 5th Amendment. Here it is

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I highlighted the pertinent portion. The 5th says the gov't must compensate people for private property that is taken for PUBLIC use. So you really think that if the feds VIOLATE the 2nd and take peoples' guns, that they will be taking them for PUBLIC use? Under your "logic," then the police must compensate people when they sieze their property used in selling drugs or the commission of other crimes. Man, if you went to law school, it must have been the suckiest law school in the country. From your apparent knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Constitution, you must have attended the same law classes as Obama Now I see how you supposedly retired before you were 30. You're obviously selling some good hardcore stuff and partaking of it at the same time

And as for this...

Same with war veterans (wtf?) or me (as a gun owner I assume) being terrorists. You are taking things out of context and touting them as truth. I maybe wrong, but it certainly seems that you are simply parroting others opinions

...read this http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf The section entitled "Disgruntled Military Veterans" is quite telling. This "report" came straight from Homeland Security. Nepolitano never denied that it was real. She just said that some of the wording should have been changed