Guns and stuff... [modified]

Matthew Faithfull

Ah the sad truth is that its correct

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

but it has been ignored for too long, the USA no longer has such a militia and hence the consolidation of Federal authority, enforced by the ATF and FBI and the repeated tragedies this has led to. Americans have not lived in a free state, as would have been understood by the framers of their constitution, for a long time. Their federal government having almost entirely taken over the authority of the States has sold the right to print its own currency, to a private club (Federal Reserve), and the right set its own external trade policy, to another private club (WTO). It is in the process of selling the right to set its own internal trading standards and regulations under the SPP/NAU and long ago handed over much of it foreign policy to the CFR. This has recently been rolled back somewhat by the neo-con crazies, but will accelerate again whoever is elected next November. Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Hardly, more like centralised control of the people for the elite by whichever shmuck with a gun in his back is stupid enough to get selected.

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

Stan Shannon · modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

The intellectual origins of the bill or rights was inspired by the anti-federalists who wanted strict limitations upon the power of the federal government before they would sign off on the constitution. They did not want their states subjected to whatever tyrannical control might evolve at the federal level. Through out most of American history that has been the interpreation of the bill of rights. That is, for example, why no one in Dodge City ,Kansas in 1877(?) got bent out of shape when Wyatt Earp forced them to register their weapons with the town marshall. As an anti-federalist, I have no problem at all with a state or community formulating legistlation which restricts gun ownership (or free speech for that matter), I just don't want the federal government doing it.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

realJSOP · modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

digital man wrote:

but I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you that right…

It doesn't *give* you the right. It says that the right shall not be infringed. This means it is a natural right, and that the government cannot revoke it. (I know, it's a somewhat subtle difference, but that's exactly what keeps the bad guys from taking it away.)

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

Stan Shannon

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Americans have not lived in a free state, as would have been understood by the framers of their constitution, for a long time. Their federal government having almost entirely taken over the authority of the States has sold the right to print its own currency, to a private club (Federal Reserve), and the right set its own external trade policy, to another private club (WTO).

I find that a difficult comment to argue with. Just as long as it is understood that most of that has come about as a consequence of the 'progressive' evolution of our government and its legal system to conform to a more European political world view, and is not the result of 'conservative' or 'right-wing' influences. Lets at least be intellectually honest about the philosophical history of all this.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

realJSOP

"well regulated militia" - taken in the context of the time, "regulars" was the term for federal troops, and "well regulated" *probably* meant that the militia would have sufficient arms, supplies, training and leadership to perform the task of defense. "Regulated" certainly doesn't imply that the government can dictate who can/can't own a gun, nor what type of gun can be owned. In order to form a militia, "the people" must be pre-armed because they're not in the employ of the armed services. This means they have the right to "keep and bear arms" in the interest of personal and national defense. Currently, we have the (state) National Guard which has taken the role of militias, so there's really no need for a militia right now, but a militia can certainly be raised at a moment's notice (much to the chagrin of the US government). Gun control laws is an attempt to keep criminals from owning/using guns, but being criminals, they already don't obey the law, so what's the point in prohibiting ownership? I refuse to forfeit my constitutional right to own a gun just because some asshole shot a convenience store clerk in the commission of a crime.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

soap brain

I still don't see how it's a natural right. I don't think that the words 'natural' and 'right' can waltz.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

realJSOP

When you're finally an adult, maybe you'll understand.

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz · modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

digital man wrote:

I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you that right

That's like saying if there were a constitutional amendment prohbiting abortion that it would "give the right to life" to the unborn. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us a right, it restricts the Federal gov't and the states from infringing or diminishing or removing that right. The right exists in and of itself.

soap brain

No, there's nothing in nature that gives you the right to even live. It's about survival, pure and simple, and there are no rights involved. It's not natural, so STOP CALLING IT THAT!

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

realJSOP

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil. Thomas Jefferson

"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

you're an idiot. ok, since you have no right to live, i'll come over there and kick your ass until you die. and since you don't believe in the right to defend yourself or own guns, it'll be easy as pie.

Stan Shannon

Wow, you just completely overturned the enlightenment and threw Locke and Jefferson right out the window. Not bad for a 13 year old. Will the Age of Reason be next on your hit list?

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

soap brain

Quotation confesses inferiority. - Ralph Waldo Emerson (by the way, you don't need to point out the irony in using a quote about how bad using quotes is)

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Matthew Faithfull

I'm all for intellectual honesty. Yes, this has happened under 'European' as opposed to 'conservative' influences but that does not in itself say much about left or right wing. It is worth noting that while those campaigning for, promoting and proposing the intellectual ideas underlying these destructive changes have largely been 'left' leaning academics, those benfiting in terms of power and profit have been 'right wing' crypto faschist globalists. This is why its so important to understand the deliberatly created nexus of cooperation between the two groups. Take the Council on Foreign Relations for example, set up and funded by Wall Street Bankers to pay 'left-wing' acedemics to promote anti-american foreign policy, and yet Dick Cheney is 'proud to be a member' in private but careful not to mention it when campaigning in his own state. Something non obvious that can't easily be pigeonholed as left-wing or right-wing is going on. The best explanation that anyone has come up with is that these people are signed up to a bigger agenda that they never publicly talk about, which both wings think will get them what they want but they know the public will never support. In Europe we know this to be true for a fact because of the details of the EU that have come out over the years, both ultra-left international socialists and ultra-right corporate faschists have been led to believe that it will result in their eventual domination and effective but covert control of the entire continent. Both sides have almost certainly been lied to, along with certain religious groups like the upper eschelons of the Catholic church, to get their cooperation. The question then becomes, by whom and to what end?

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

soap brain

What IS a right, and why does nature give them to you?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

you must also believe that the unborn don't have a natural right to live.

Matthew Faithfull

Good question! Keep that up and you'll end up like me with any luck :laugh:

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

soap brain

I'm not saying that people shouldn't live. I'm merely saying that just because you think that nature gives you the right to live, doesn't mean it won't kill you horridly and for no reason. Nature isn't about rights. That's a human thing.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Stan Shannon

I'm not quite sure I agree with that. The right of self defense must certainly be considered a natural right, but, to me, that hardly translates into an unrestricted, unregulated right to own weapons.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

nature doesn't give us rights, it's part of who we are as human beings. it's like saying why does nature give the flower a red color? no, wrong. the flower is just red, it's just the way it is. rights exist as a universal, eternal law. Kind of like the Law of Gravity.