CCFan wrote:gatlingun6 wrote:The paragraph from the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the current conversation. Comparing grievances against a King to a legally constituted entity of the Federal Government is beyond ridiculous. Besides the vast majority of the American people including gun owners would never be for the complete deregulation of firearms, rockets, poison gas, and shoulder fired rockets.
Irrelevant to the current conversation how? That's pretty much how I expected you to respond...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Lets see - comparing grievances against a King, to declare their independence from British rule, vs. what did you call it? Oh, a "legally constituted entity of the Federal Government" - what exactly is the difference here? The King had proven that they (The Government, i.e. his minions, i.e. "legally constituted entity of the Royal Government", so to speak) were to collect taxes without any form of representation, they (The Government, i.e. minions, i.e. "legally constituted entity of the Royal Government") persecuted others who didn't wish to believe in the teachings of the Church of England (or capitulate to their demands of the territory, which is what uniformity of religion was based on in those times) etc.etc.etc.... It seems to me that the quote above is succinctly relevant to the current conversation. Since our current government derives their just powers from the
consent of the governed, it seems imperative that based on the numerous debacles of our recent government (trillion + dollar debt, failure to pass budgets as legally required to do so, going to war without the consent of Congress, the ATF its self becoming "
destructive of these ends", just to name a few) then we as the People have the right alter or abolish it... I cannot fathom any argument you could provide that would so indicate there is not a direct correlation between comparing abolishing the power the AFT has over firearms (based on their complete and utter incompetence on so many levels) which restricts the rights of free men everywhere, and abolishing the power the King has over his subjects...but I really don't expect you to see that side of the argument.
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Since you cited the difference between a King and our government surely you jest. However, just in case you were not joking. A King rules by divine right. His or her authority comes from God. Our government rules by the consent of the govern, as you so aptly put it. The governed, that's us. That's makes the comparison irrelevant. It's logic that does not follow. The colonists had no voice with the King, and no vote in Parliament. Nothing in the Declaration is relevant to any discussion of the ATF.
Those who want the ATF disbanded should make a current argument rather than trying to hide behind a document written for a very different purpose. This begs numerous question: 1. Why should the ATF be disbanded? Is it because they have made some serious mistakes, or is it because you don't agree with their mission? What entity would take over ATF's missions? To be consistent, do you recommend disbanding every government entity that has made mistakes?
Where was all this vitriol over the pass 30 years? The Federal government has run a deficit every year excepting 3 over that period. It's not illegal for the federal government to run a deficit. In fact, there are times when you want to, or need to run a deficit. Budgeting processes are rules written by the Congress, they are not laws. The penalty for not enacting the budget on time is that last year's fiscal budget continues to run under continuing resolutions. Surely you are not equating this to the excesses of a King.
Some ATF agents, and supervisors have made egregious errors to be sure. However, please name any law enforcement organization at any level that has not made equal, or more egregious violations. When individuals within an agency falter, you find them and you hold them accountable, you don't disband the organization. When 911 operators screw up, you don't disband the 911 service. When the FBI screwed up at Ruby Ridge, you discipline those responsible, you don't disband the FBI.
ATF Special Agents put their lives on the line every day in dealing with vicious criminals and gangs, and some are killed in those dealings, so it's particularly troubling when some paint with such a broad brush. But back to the questions: Is it really the ATF or is it their firearms mission? Is what you really want is no federal control over firearms?
In the end, we don't have the right to violent revolution, as the Declaration was written to justify, to disband the ATF. If you wish to vote for politicians who will pursue that goal, so be it.
Gat6
The overwhelming percentage of debt beginning with President Reagan was run up by Republican Presidents. Did you bitterly complain when we landed troops in Lebanon, Somalia, invaded Grenada, Invaded Panama, Invaded Iraq and even Afghanistan without a declaration of war by Congress? Were you angry when we engaged in covert wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia and elsewhere in South and Central America?
