Posted on 02/23/2007 3:26:17 AM PST by proudofthesouth
OK I understand that, but the point is that the individual at home with a gun is doing the same thing as the "representative".
OK thats the theory.
The problem is that this definition changes all the time. It has to. The world does not sit still. The constitution worked very well when it was drafted, but society was very different then to what it is now. It was a great deal more homogenous for a start off.
Let me put a theoretical proposal to you. Supposing the people decide to change the constitution? They have the right to do that. You may think the changes made are unwise. They may very well be positively suicidal, but that is still the will of the people and opposing it makes you a tyrant.
"Well, just annex Mexico then."
Let's not and say we did.
"I think that kind of decision needs to be made by the people in toto, not the individual."
So it all comes back to the war on the individual?
Yes, people seem be be a lot more stupid now. They are also spineless and cowardly, willing to trade pretense of safety for freedom. No, the Constitution has not become even slightly outmoded. Every single word is just as fitting for our society as in the past. Only those who do not understand the Founding Principles would think so. Ignorance is the only thing that could disrupt the meaning of that document. I suggest you read the "Federalist Papers". That will help you understand what the Constitution actually represents.
I will oppose changing the Bill of Rights through force of arms if necessary. It is not how we die. It is how we live and for what we die that matters.
Only 7% of the people in the colonies actively participated in the war for independence. I will be numbered among that group should it become necessary once again to defend Liberty. You confuse democratic rule with highly restrictive laws as Liberty. If the masses elect to wear chains, I will still elect to be free.
I forgot to include this with my last post: The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The idea here is to represent the People through an educated Congress. The main problem is that Congressmen of today simply do not understand the Founding Principles.
Controlling objects such as firearms does nothing to make the Nation safer. Only a good education combined with a decent moral and ethical upbringing can do that. Current political trends make it easier for dangerous individuals to escape imprisonment, only to infest our society. The issues are highly misplaced in "gun control". The issues should be directed toward incarcerating felonious individuals rather than feeling sorry for that lot and making the judicial system treat them with leniency. Firearms were not an issue until good moral principles were deleted from society and governance.
The real issues of self governance should be related to maintaining a population that is capable of governing itself. Whenever the public trust has broken down so much that objects are blamed for people's bad behavior, then the troubles can only intensify. For, next there will be "knife control" like in merry olde England. Then there will be "ball bat control", followed closely by "pillow control" and "rubber glove" control. Murderous behaviors just aren't the fault of the objects. It is the behavior of people that is the issue. With the dawn of political correctness, we can't seem to get up the courage to tell anyone that they are behaving poorly. It is simpler to just take some object from their hands. A number two pencil and a math book or a nice rock make for fierce weapons. My question is, when can we assume disarmament is complete?
it says "we the people", not "me the person".
Every single word is just as fitting for our society as in the past.
If that is the case, how come you're on your 27th amendment to it?
Only those who do not understand the Founding Principles would think so. Ignorance is the only thing that could disrupt the meaning of that document. I suggest you read the "Federalist Papers". That will help you understand what the Constitution actually represents.
Thank you. Ill take that advice.
Only 7% of the people in the colonies actively participated in the war for independence.
Doesn't strike me as a particularly popular revolution. Does that include the people who actively fought against the revolution?
You confuse democratic rule with highly restrictive laws as Liberty. If the masses elect to wear chains, I will still elect to be free.
That depends on your definition of "highly restrictive". There has to be some restrictions on peoples behaviour, otherwise there will be chaos. The problem is that your definition of "highly restrictive" may be very different from other peoples definition. If you can argue your points as well as you have argued them here, I dont think you have too much to worry about.
You make a persuasive argument. I agree, the world doesn't need better governments or better laws, fundamentally we need better people. If we have that, then there would be little need for Joe Public to have firearms. Of course, that is never going to happen.
I still think that the easy availability of very lethal ordnance has too many disadvantages. Sure you have a right to defend yourself, but you dont need a mortar or an assault rifle to do that. Having so many guns in circulation means the criminal fraternity has little difficulty in obtaining them (or stealing them) and they are far more likely to use them too.
I think youre being blindsided myself. The real crooks of the twenty-first century don't use guns - they don't need them. They use cellphones and bloody laptop computers, and they wear sharp suits and have big smiles, all the time they are bleeding you dry. We all know who I am talking about... :)
You mean 'Rhodes', as in Rhodesia and Rhodes Scholar. A Gsobalists icon if ever there was one.
Correct. I seem to forget the "h" when I post the name, sorry 'bout that.
I fully agree. Taking tools of self defense from them is not how this is accomplished. Teaching them about the sanctity of life and appropriate moral behavior is how this can be done. When one infracts the laws, justice should be swift and sure. The death penalty needs to be applied without too much delay in certain cases.
That is how behavior is adjusted. Taking objects from them is how children are handled.
This depends on circumstances. I presume you saw how poorly people behaved in New Orleans following the hurricane. There are far more good people than bad in any population. The police stripped good citizens of their firearms, and then criminals had a field day with them. If the good citizens had remained armed, there would have far less misery in that foul city.
Now assume a larger disaster. So large that the government can't really function any longer. Most people overestimate the size and strength of national governments. They really are not mighty enough to deal with disaster .. especially major natural events. It would become imperative that good people be armed with military grade weapons in order to perpetuate society. Where do those weapons come from, one might ask? In my neighborhood, they come from my closet. If a disaster causes widespread disruption of society, who do you want as a neighbor? Me, or another disarmed person like yourself?
It is necessary for the perpetuation of a free state that the People be armed. That sounded just like the Second Amendment, didn't it? The arms for such defense MUST match the arms of the agressor. This has been proven in combat through thousands of years.
Yet, as I pointed out before, it is necessary for me to own military weapons simply because I enjoy shooting them. In a truly free society, that is good enough reason. Since I am a good citizen, this causes no harm. I tough times, I would be a Godsend. Good people FAR outnumber the bad. This is the concept that gun grabbers ALWAYS fail to grasp. The risks posed by the very small numbers of bad people are very small. You are more likely to die in an automobile accident or a misdiagnosis of a doctor than some act involving a firearm. Your fears really must be proportional to the risk in order for reason to remain in control.
I have really enjoyed sparring with you. God bless you, and take care of yourself and your splendid Nation!
Well it doesn't seem to be working then!
I personally am of the opinion that swiftness and severity of punishment has a fairly limited deterrent affect. Far more effective is the CERTAINTY of being caught.
Good people FAR outnumber the bad. This is the concept that gun grabbers ALWAYS fail to grasp. The risks posed by the very small numbers of bad people are very small.
I grasp the concept fully. I personally trust you implicitly. Unfortunately, it only takes a few gad people to cause problems - and with the kind of firepower that is available now, that can be considerable. Consider. There are approx 300 million people in the USA. If even 1% of them are mentally disturbed, thats 3 million people who can cause mayhem. Its no wonder security and police forces shoot first and ask questions later! I would too!
Then of course theres the accidents and the tragedies. It happened to a friend of a friend a few years back. An actual gun crime - VERY rare in the UK. This guy was a deliveryman. An honorable profession, if hardly a high powered one. He was quiet, never got into trouble, paid his dues...a model citizen. Then one day he came home early and found his wife in bed with another man. And so he went next door, got a double barreled shotgun (he used to go and hunt rabbits) came back and dispassionately gave them a barrel each...point blank range. Then he sat down and waited for the police to come. And they duly came and took him away. He's still inside. Sad story eh?
Now you might very well say that the issues were with him, his wife and her lover - and you'd be right. That is where the tragedy lies, but the simple truth is that the easy availability of that shotgun turned that gentle man into both a murderer and a criminal (and the unfaithful couple into corpses). They all deserve some kind of punishment, but none of them deserved that.
Yes, but not reason enough to disarm the population. If you add up all firearm deaths in the US from murders to accidents, the numbers are still dwarfed by the number of people who die from medical accidents under a physician's care. Still dwarfed by the numbers killed in automobile accidents. It would be far more rational to ban doctors and automobiles.
No, firearms just aren't the issue you'd like to think. You really must use logic rather than emotion. It is your thinking that is paranoid. You have no numbers to back your fears.
Thats quite insulting, I'm sorry to say.
Firstly, you dont have any figures to back up your arguments either.
Secondly, logic isnt everything anyway. Just because something isn't logical doesn't mean it can't be true. Love isn't logical, but it covers the land.
Thirdly, you are using a fallacious argument. I KNOW that gun deaths are far rarer than medical and automobile accidents, but do you think that's going to be any comfort to grieving relatives? This is Human life we are talking about! I want to reduce ALL untimely deaths - just because deaths due to inappropriate handling of firearms are rarer than medical misdiagnoses doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about them. What kind of argument is that? You need to use some of that vaunted logic yourself.
Quick check on the internet. Gun related deaths in the US in 1999 was just under 32,000. In the UK, just under 150. Of course, you have five times our population, but that's still a rate 40 times higher.
Perhaps figures for 2006 are different. My own feeling is that both rates have probably increased.
You can't make a perfect world. The world is safer, however, when firearms are in the hands of the people. Your freedoms are better secured and your home is safe from invasion. You are better prepared to survive a catastrophe when armed. I thought all of this was previously discussed. It is necessary to bear some risks to maintain other levels of preparation.
You can search for facts just as easy as I. I already know the facts, but am not your personal research center.
Invalid argument! The UK has supposedly stripped its citizens of its arms. Of course the gun-related deaths are down. In merry olde England, the home intrusions are up 45%. There are sword attacks in England. None that I know of here.
Some deaths are warranted. Home invader should be killed ... that is natural.
http://www.wagc.com/GunsSaveLives.html
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43
http://www.kressworks.com/Politics/Gun_Control/dgu/defensive_gun_uses.html
http://www.truthinjustice.org/guns-save-lives.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Save-Lives-Americans-Defending/dp/1559502266
http://www.bachbio.com/gunsavelives.htm
http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=329
This goes on and on. The trick is, of course, getting you to read them. You've already made up your mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.