rivalarrival: Sir, in part, you are now defending your issue. That is the issue, you created with ''your'' definitives.
it is easy to create simple thought phrases, my background is totally english, totally American, totally educated, my native language english, our family history? 200yrs? in this country.
your innuendo, my native language, I spend my days around many different language, from Vietnames, French, African, Spanish +++, with several of the different dialects. Many are very well educated, with different languages.
invision your thoughts, which in some cases are very good, outside the box,
I did
quote;
The base of my thought was not tyranny, freedom, or liberty. The base of my thought was the differences between two people. One person fights and dies to obtain his freedom and liberty. Another person refuses to do anything to keep his freedom and liberty. You did not address the differences in these two people. You did not address my thought.
you decided how you wanted me to read your words, with your history, with your thought process. hmmm
I did address your thought, in the simplist denominator. Words, in my world, mean something, words have meaning/meanings.
I addressed your words, then, what is said or meant; to me.
you didn't grasp, you chose another thought process, or you are in denial
with any reading; each line becomes its entity, each word has its own identity
I chose/choose my words carefully, I never want to be smart, nor a person who pressures others to follow my lead, even in the arena's that my circle places me and my actions. without me being educated, I'll not understand what should be done next.
Learning is the only way things can be understood.
lastly; Constitution, Article I, Section 8, when was it added?
which by the way wasn't part of "my" thought
too, put everthing into a simple, each line that I have written, with each piece, is a stand-alone
were we to go back, and see how ''I" want the Constitution words to mean to "ONLY ME";
it will become fragments, it will become unrecognizable, a piece of nothing.
I haven't issue with vocabulary, I haven't issue with word useage, I haven't issue with you.
Do I have the talent to insult your intelligence, or your dialect, or you ability to read, understand, grasp, your word usage
would I be lowering myself, or? would I be reaching for the stars? I choose neither, I choose to accept at face value, then grow from the learning experience.
__________________
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
I agree, there is a danger of this happening, but this danger exists in either case. A person making such a claim today can point to the fact that we appear to be ready to instigate a violent uprising as further evidence that our gun rights should be restricted.
Obviously, the police can't PREVENT crime, they REACT to crime. Sure, they can drive around in their cruisers, make bad guys think twice before committing a crime, but they can't be everywhere at once, nor do we want the oppression that would result from a "Big Brother" police force capable of being everywhere at once.
But, because they cannot prevent crime, and their reaction time is far greater than that of a victim of crime, there is, of course, no legitimate reason to disarm any potential victim.
Money hasn't been given the right to vote. Money wins influence, and influence wins elections, but money isn't the only source of influence. The worst tradition in our nation is the idea that politics, religion, and controversy are impolite to discuss in casual company. Think about that - we've declared it rude to talk about political issues. It's impolite to ask a person how they intend to vote, or ask them to justify their political stance! We've declared that our differences in these areas are so significant that we can't discuss our own governance without setting formal boundaries.
Certainly, I see the reason why we've done this, but that doesn't change the fact that we give up our influence when we refuse to use it. We choose to vote based less on what our friends and neighbors think and more on the opinions of professional lobbyists.
This issue was conceded sometime shortly after the Civil War. We haven't generally acknowledged concession, but there was a quiet moment in time where it became more feasible to challenge our government with words than it was to challenge it with force. Honestly, I think that undefinable moment is when our nation became truly great.
This isn't a defeat - just a recognition that there is a time and a place to use our guns, and that time and place is not when we are having an argument with our neighbors. We can't resolve our differences when one side leaves the table, saying "Do what you want, but if you don't do what I want, I'll kill you"
Fortunately, we're not limited to this particular thread. I look forward to arguing these issues in new topics.
I guess the summary of my beliefs on gun rights is that the more reasons we have to maintain those right the better. I do not reasonably expect that my having a gun is likely to resolve any political dispute at all. I just know that the right of citizens to bear arms is almost like a symbol of freedom in this country. I would rather have the guns and not have a use for them than not have guns and find a need.
I just do not believe that restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens has very much value at all.
And yes, we shall argue many many issues in new topics.
I guess the summary of my beliefs on gun rights is that the more reasons we have to maintain those right the better.
I agree with the sentiment. In general, the more reasons, the better. But I would suggest that any reason we espouse must be feasible.
"We must have guns to defend ourselves from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal"
This reason doesn't carry any weight with our detractors. There is no such beast, and we are under no such threat. Replacing this with any wild animal present in the US and capable of causing harm, the argument becomes feasible.
"We must have guns to defend ourselves against our government"
Like it or not, this argument doesn't carry any weight with our detractors. It is a rallying cry, nothing more. Anti-gun nuts know that it is a bull**** claim, but they also know that arguing against it simply weakens their position. So, they sit back, tell eachother that we're delusional, paranoid idiots, and vote to take away our guns. The more we focus on defense from government, the more paranoid and delusional we appear, and the more justified they feel in taking our guns.
Quote:
I do not reasonably expect that my having a gun is likely to resolve any political dispute at all.
No rational person has that expectation. Not even the people who yell it at the top of their lungs. The proof is when you ask them how they will go about accomplishing a violent reform. They'll talk about their SHTF kits and their bugout bags, but there is never any mention of how to link up with like-minded people and assemble and sustain an organized force.
Quote:
I just know that the right of citizens to bear arms is almost like a symbol of freedom in this country. I would rather have the guns and not have a use for them than not have guns and find a need.
I just do not believe that restricting gun rights of law abiding citizens has very much value at all.
I agree, fully and completely.
Quote:
And yes, we shall argue many many issues in new topics.
Oh, it's on like donkey kong!
We have a vast arsenal of good issues to work with. We don't need to give our opponents ammunition by claiming the impossible.
Our best argument is personal responsibility. It is our own responsibility to defend ourselves from crime. (Concealed carry laws were reformed due almost entirely to one phrase: "When seconds count, rest assured, the police are mere minutes away") Responsible gun owners don't commit crimes. Responsible gun owners don't endanger people. 250 million guns in the US - with a tiny fraction of 1% being used to commit crimes - indicates that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Why would we use an argument that suggests gun owners are paranoid, irrational, or anything but completely responsible individuals? Because it makes us feel patriotic? That sense of patriotism comes at too high a price.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
..........."We must have guns to defend ourselves from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal"
"We must have guns to defend ourselves against our government"
I do not think that these are at all the same. There is a such thing as "our government". There is no such thing as a "Ravenous whatever beast."
Whether weapons would be useful for defending from either one, that is debatable.
While I do not think it reasonably feasable to resolve any political issues with our guns I do believe that an oppressive government would prefer an unarmed population. You may say our government is not oppressive, but like I have said before, we do not know what the future holds.
So I do not completely disregard having weapons to maintain freedom.
I think you are saying that weapons are not necessary (for government stuff) because there are other means to do things.
I am simply saying that our government has the power to end an uprising of the people with help from "allies." (That is scary in itself) That pretty much means that we would likely be very under-armed. Meaning the weapons may prove not to be as useful as we would like like. (NOT a reason to give up the weapons we DO have).
I do believe it is possible to get to a point where the political process could become a failure and the people may find themselves with little recourse.(Do you think that is crazy?)
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
each of us have an interpretation,
Lets visit the arguments in a different manner. The Constitution is what it is; words, directing a growing country.
Lets destroy the ''Second'', what gets destroyed next; The first Amendment is too under attack.
Lets get rid of these two; parts, what becomes the next attack.
I haven't ever asserted that firearms will quell the attack of our government, I assert, Destroying any part of the Constitution destroys the Constitution.
Many in the firearm community, agree with my reasoning; this thing, we will attack our government, with firearms, at best is ignorance.
Yet, we that are fighting for our rights; realize, we are figthing with our firearms.
Voters, have rights, voters need more education, by and large, ''how'' many laws has President Oboma signed into law this past year?
My willingness to investigate, teaches me lots
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
I do not think that these are at all the same. There is a such thing as "our government". There is no such thing as a "Ravenous whatever beast."
Whether weapons would be useful for defending from either one, that is debatable.
Neither option is in any way feasible. We can't attack the Beast of Traal because it doesn't exist.
We can't attack a government of the people without earning the condemnation of the people and becoming criminals. If we build up enough support that we don't risk condemnation by the people, then we need not fire a shot. Either way, attacking the people is just as infeasible as attacking the Beast of Traal.
Neither reason - anti-traal-beast or anti-government-oppression - is effective. They are both losing arguments. Why should we cling to one of them?
Quote:
While I do not think it reasonably feasable to resolve any political issues with our guns I do believe that an oppressive government would prefer an unarmed population. You may say our government is not oppressive, but like I have said before, we do not know what the future holds.
"to oppress the people" is not the only reason why a government would prefer an unarmed population. "To prevent gun-crime" would be another - you can't commit a gun crime without a gun. (While this is a logically sound argument, the reality is that 1. guns are used far more often to stop crime than to commit crime; 2. Gun laws don't affect criminal gun use.)
The "to oppress the people" argument is another facet of the same asinine claim that guns protect our rights from infringement by the will of the people.
Quote:
So I do not completely disregard having weapons to maintain freedom.
I think you are saying that weapons are not necessary (for government stuff) because there are other means to do things.
Not exactly. You used the words "not necessary"; I don't think that describes my position at all. My position is that weapons CANNOT be used "for government stuff". This is a vital distinction - power and authority in this country can NEVER come from the people's arms; but from the people. This idea, that the people inherently possess full political authority, is the fundamental essence of our nation.
Shrink two nations down to 100 people each. Throw a gun in each of the rooms. In both societies, the person who uses that gun to get his way is a tyrant. In earlier societies, he was the king; in ours, he is a criminal, not a patriot. That's the way it should be.
Quote:
I am simply saying that our government has the power to end an uprising of the people with help from "allies." (That is scary in itself) That pretty much means that we would likely be very under-armed. Meaning the weapons may prove not to be as useful as we would like like. (NOT a reason to give up the weapons we DO have).
Of course it does. The founders GAVE congress the military authority to suppress insurrection. It's in the constitution, article I section 8 IIRC; I quoted it earlier.
That kinda goes against the idea that the second amendment was intended to give us military authority over the people, doesn't it? The fact that congress is expressly authorized to suppress us if we chose to try?
You're still thinking as though you need to defend your rights with force; that's not how our society works. We defend our rights through shared will. THIS is the foundation of our society.
Quote:
I do believe it is possible to get to a point where the political process could become a failure and the people may find themselves with little recourse.(Do you think that is crazy?)
That would be a sad day.
Utterly crazy. And you may think I'm naive for thinking that, but consider exactly what would be required for it to happen. The "simplest" way it could happen would be for massive, systemic corruption of electoral boards across the nation. Boards comprised of local people, our friends and neighbors. But, such corruption would be required to put the "right" people into political office, where they can bring about changes that go against the will of their constituents.
Actually, there is one simpler method - the people come to be so disillusioned and disenfranchised that instead of choosing to vote against unpopular measures and candidates, they stay at home, cleaning their guns.
Keep in mind that I'm NOT advocating we give up our guns. On the contrary, buy them up, get them out to the people, along with extensive training. (One of the other things I would modify is gun education in schools - the current program is "guns are bad" from kindergarten through high school. This is an idiotic program we've allowed to perpetuate)
Crime is ridiculous, police forces are expensive and less effective than armed citizens.
I'm saying "stop threatening anti-gun people with guns" - you only give merit to their arguments that we are dangerous, paranoid lunatics.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
in history the ''framers'' had issue; I bring these to the discussion; for understanding.
In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress[67]
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, they agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.[
rivalarrival: Sir, history suggest my argument.
instead of dragging your thoughts; or "YelloJeep"; how about we visit the history. and the wording by the writers.
I didn't bring the completed, just informative opinions, by a couple of the writers.
From this, we could possibly get a feel for the framers thought process. There-by understand how it still applies.
__________________
Craig
"We have never seen anything like this.? Mark 2:12
.................................................. ............... If we build up enough support that we don't risk condemnation by the people, then we need not fire a shot. ................the people inherently possess full political authority, is the fundamental essence of our nation..
You are still assuming the system will always work.
Quote:
..........Of course it does. The founders GAVE congress the military authority to suppress insurrection. It's in the constitution, article I section 8 IIRC; I quoted it earlier............
the second amendment was intended to give us military authority over the people, doesn't it? The fact that congress is expressly authorized to suppress us if we chose to try?.
I was referring to the ability to invite our allies to "assist" in quelling an uprising. This would only be needed if our own military was dissolving into the uprising. THAT is what is scary. If the vast majority of the people & military are all working against our government then I do not believe that foreign powers should intervene.
Quote:
........ We defend our rights through shared will. THIS is the foundation of our society..
I agree. There are many things that were parts of our foundation that we have seen dissolve into thin air in the name of "progress". Who is to say that that wouldn't go also.
Quote:
..... But, such corruption would be required to put the "right" people into political office, where they can bring about changes that go against the will of their constituents..
I think that you believe that all politicians are just normal folks like you and me. I think that is primarily where our opinions differ. I think there are SOME that are. I believe there are MANY who have tasted power and like it. That is where the money I spoke of earlier comes in. There are people in politics that continue to get voted in only because of party affiliation. I don't think that ALL politicians are acting at the request of thier constituents. You have politicians making deals with each other, with lobbyists, and with foreign nationals (most of which behind closed doors). I guess what I am saying is that just "voting them out" sounds good. I just don't think it is always THAT easy. Also, I don't know what the future holds. If it became more difficult to vote people out (for whatever reason) and the corruption got worse then your "ideal" government may be no more and no longer made up of "the people."
Again, I am not suggesting that we will necessarily have to carry out any such actions. I am pretty sure there are countries that have had uprisings that at one time thought that their country was great and their government was doing things in their favor etc...
Quote:
Keep in mind that I'm NOT advocating we give up our guns. On the contrary, buy them up, get them out to the people, along with extensive training. (One of the other things I would modify is gun education in schools - .......Crime is ridiculous, police forces are expensive and less effective than armed citizens.
I understand where you are coming from. I agree with much of what you have said. I think we only differ on this one thing about the government will ALWAYS work in our favor (because if it doesn't then we will simply vote someone else in).
You are still assuming the system will always work.
For "the system" to fail, a vast majority of the people will have to lose faith in the fundamental idea of self-governance.
Quote:
I was referring to the ability to invite our allies to "assist" in quelling an uprising. This would only be needed if our own military was dissolving into the uprising. THAT is what is scary. If the vast majority of the people & military are all working against our government then I do not believe that foreign powers should intervene.
"The vast majority of the people are working against our government" - how can such a thing happen? If the people are working together to regain it, they haven't lost faith in the idea of self-governance. But, for their government to be actively working against them, such a loss of faith must have occurred, and been maintained through at least 4 years of elections. (To do it in less time would require a forcible takeover)
The point is that these ideas are so far into the realm of infeasibility that one would be justified in concluding that they were the product of paranoia and lunacy. Nobody likes the idea of armed, paranoid, lunatics.
Quote:
I agree. There are many things that were parts of our foundation that we have seen dissolve into thin air in the name of "progress". Who is to say that that wouldn't go also.
If you have to ask that question, you don't understand the idea of self-governance.
Quote:
I think that you believe that all politicians are just normal folks like you and me. I think that is primarily where our opinions differ. I think there are SOME that are. I believe there are MANY who have tasted power and like it. That is where the money I spoke of earlier comes in. There are people in politics that continue to get voted in only because of party affiliation. I don't think that ALL politicians are acting at the request of thier constituents. You have politicians making deals with each other, with lobbyists, and with foreign nationals (most of which behind closed doors). I guess what I am saying is that just "voting them out" sounds good. I just don't think it is always THAT easy. Also, I don't know what the future holds. If it became more difficult to vote people out (for whatever reason) and the corruption got worse then your "ideal" government may be no more and no longer made up of "the people."
And what of the people who want their elected officials to make deals with lobbyists and foreign nationals? I'd hope that my congressman would be open to deals with other legislators, the NRA or several other lobbyists, or companies - foreign or domestic - investing in my region. I'd hope he would agree to give ground in certain areas that are unimportant to me, in order to garner support on issues I consider paramount. This isn't corruption. This is a good representative, working for his constituents.
Quote:
I understand where you are coming from. I agree with much of what you have said. I think we only differ on this one thing about the government will ALWAYS work in our favor (because if it doesn't then we will simply vote someone else in).
My main fear is that by stating "we must have guns to defend ourselves from our government", we paint ourselves in the eyes of the public not as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but as paranoid, delusional, dangerous lunatics. I fear that our own efforts occasionally justify the short-sighted anti-gun agenda.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Rivalarrival, I believe we are pretty much running around this in circles. We will likely have to respectfully agree to disagree on some of these points.
We can, however, agree that we should not allow the romoval of our gun rights.
To sort of veer the discussion a little... I could be mistaken on this because I don't think I have really ever looked for any evidence of this but:
Let it be said that I have never really lived in a large urban setting. I could not imagine it really. I wonder if the most densly populated areas have a very different view of firearms. I imagine they would. Mostly because everyone lives in such close proximity of each other. I would think it almost like a different culture. Example: I have never really lived where puplic transit is a viable option whereas there are (I think) folks who have lived all their lives in a densely populated city and perhaps have never driven a car.
Anyway, I am afraid that the larger the population becomes, and the more urban things become, our gun rights will be in more imminent danger. Do you believe this is a reasonable concern?
Linear Mode
