Curious, why does your link “A growing majority of Americans is now on the opposite side of the NRA on every important issue” take you to a page of random gun stats from the late 90’s. Is this a list of “every important issue”? The polls listed seemed to be small and random, and nothing supported your saying “a growing majority of Americans” There was no historical data listed to support “growth”.

As for you last line, they don’t represent the views of all Americans, nor do they “pretend” to. They represent their members, of which I am not. Stop speaking like Bush with the Evil crap.

I vote Dem more often than not.

If you want to help the Repubs at the polls on ‘08, by all means, demonize gun owners and paint them all with the brush of the NRA.

This helps then immeasurably.

I thought only the repugs were against the constitution.

The government has no “duty to protect” you as an individual. We are all responsible for ourselves and our family.

FWIW, some original intent regarding the 2nd Amendment.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Jefferson was well esconced as a diplomat in France when the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions occurred. Remember that Jefferson was NOT a signer or participant in the writing of the CONSTITUTION.

Lots of folks who were back watching the United States fray apart considered his statements as a bit “out-of-touch”. And his statements about how Democracies had to from time-to-time be fertilized by the blood of patriots and tyrants were ambiguous enough to suggest that the leaders of the Shays rebellion were the “tyrants” and the militias sent to suppress them the “patriots”.

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Hamilton was referring to the need to have a WELL-REGULATED militia in lieu of a standing army to prevent invasion. He was NOT referring to a people’s right to rebel against the Federal government. I don’t think that he would have envisaged the ability of the Executive to usurp powers to the degree that Bush has attempted, however. He thought the checks and balances existed through impeachment, and the powers of the courts and Congress.

Thus the Founders envisaged a militia in which there was order, registration of the participants under command, etc. The random “self-organization” of groups of armed men would have been considered highly dangerous.

Recall that the Constitutional Crisis that led to the revocation of the Articles of Confederation were events like the Shay’s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion – the militias were called up to SUPPRESS these uprisings.

The President becomes the Commander in Chief of the militia in times of war and insurrection. Those OUTSIDE that system are “insurrectionists”.

One can imagine that it won’t be Blackwater, but some collective of right-wing militia nuts fired up by the NRA that will be the ones “keeping order” after Bush and Cheney void the election. Maybe Blackwater-like companies will be the ones to “manage” this coup.

Bush has been very good at using the Constitution against itself. He’d just have to ignore that it is Congress that calls up the militias…and do it himself.

So much discussion. A QUESTION: How many would feel safer if only government agents (police, FBI, etc.) and military personnel owned firearms?

I need look no further than Ruby Ridge for an answer to your question.

Weaver was a whack-job, sure enough. And according to Republicans, so is Kos, Jane, Digby, etc.

“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”

Pastor Martin Niemöller

What I don’t understand is why the NRA wants people to be able to get assault rifles and I guess bazookas if they want them. What rational person needs those weapons which are designed to do nothing but kill people – not game.

How exactly do you define an assault rifle?

Who do you know bought a bazooka?

I ask so I can respond rationally to your message.

that sounds TOTALLY COOL!

wow, hafta think about it………part of it is, i’m on dial up, and linking with everything and everyone would take profound effort……..and don’t know about that part……..

The aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, Franco’s government had all the guns, they are still plucking bodies out of remote execution sites, that killing of oposition was carried on for decades and is still telling in social discourse to this day, a division of victims and perpetrators is deeply, indelibly etched.

The gun culture in the US would lead any entity attempting takeover into a slaughter of unimaginable scale, Rwanda would look like a schoolyard scuffle by comparison, and the “authorities” would know who to look for and where to look for their “profiled” oposition and the mercenaries will be trained to brook no resistance, take no prisoners. This has already been practiced elsewhere and the results are known and improved upon, recall how many parallels to historical dictatorships already are in evidence as we speak.

Just something to think about, and be prepared for, the impossible has a strange way of happening.

After the Spanish Civil War, Hilter invaded Poland. Guernica. Seem familiar?