celiaKitten said:
someplace said:
Actually, the AR-15 would be quite a nice hunting rifle for relatively small game (excluding birds) simply as a result of the ballistics of the round, the relatively low recoil, the light weight and the reliability of operation in adverse environments.
And here's one that is particularly salient.
And then one from a rather unexpected proponent of this freedom, someone perhaps not considered as a conservative right wing extremist:
Actually, his post is quite salient and to the point regarding defense of oneself. And based on the facts of history, there is far more often the need to protect oneself from tranny in government than against one's fellow man.
I really doubt that. I think you just hide behind that label because you don't want anyone to know you're a closet libertarian.
Your major obstacle is you have no rational, reasoned basis for your argument in light of the founders ideas. The entire reason for explicitly enumerating this aspect of the citizen's rights was to provide the citizenry at large a defense against tyranny in government. We still have government and it becomes more abusive and intrusive daily (Patriot Act, IRS, DEA, Sherman Anti-Trust, Social Security, Medicare, et al). It is against such abuses that the founders sought to provide the citizens protection when those in government abandoned their respect for the Constitutional constraints on government as they have today.
If that's the case, it merely further illustrates how intellectually and morally corrupt his arguments are because this is absolutely inconsistent with other advocacies of his, i. e., the negation of individual rights and freedoms; government running and controlling everything and everyone.
Yes, indeed. You have such a great point here. Let's model it after the DMV which has done such a spectacularly marvelous job of making certain that all holders of a driver's license are competent to operate motor vehicles which can also seriously impinge on your liberties if misused or mishandled! After all, aren't al the drivers they train and license just absolutely marvelous drivers? Competent, courteous, skilled, attentive, accident free, et al?
First, rights are innate, not divine. They are based on the nature of man as a living, sentient, thinking being. Rights relate to freedom of choice and action. The only legitimate restriction on one's actions is that they respect the equal right of other men, i. e., they not violate their equal rights. This, in essence eliminates the use of force as a means of dealing with other and nothing else. IOW, no man may initiate force against another to obtain something. The initiation of force is the fundamental definition of criminal actions.
On this irrational declaration, I challenge you to provide any reasoned support of your position.
So please explain how asking that the law be respected and enforced with respect to the second amendment infringes upon the first.Originally posted by sexy-girl
that part of my comment was slightly overboard i admit
but what i meant is the way the NRA and such organizations won't allow any kind of debate on gun control and their policy of not giving an inch because of the 2nd amendment...
In fact, rights are applicable only to an individual. There is no such thing as collective rights. Thus any right is to the individual citizen, hence, Amendment II is a guarantee of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
This should never have existed as law because it implies state ownership of the lives of the citizenry which is blatantly in contradiction to the fundamental principles identified in the Declaration of Independence as the right to "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ..." and the protection of which was the reason for the formulation of the Constitution (from the Preamble: secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America). That such laws ever existed is testimony to the corruption of our elected officials and their lack of understand or perhaps respect for our Constitution and the freedoms it is designed to protect.
Wrong here: my opinions as expressed are correct because they are based on and coincide with the men who actually created the document under discussion. To declare my opinions are only right because I hold them is to declare that the opinions of the founders are no more right than are mine. The opinions expressed here are those regarding the intent of the founders and they were explicit in their intent.
You are right about the Civil War (misnomer, in fact). The states did have a right to secede from the Union and Lincoln's primary and major motive was to prevent that secession by force of arms in direct contravention to the Constitutional authority of his government.
I think the point is that those most prominent in the Democratic Party, the party's leadership, are gun control advocates whereas the rank and file Democrats are not.
Criminals do not abuse their Amendment II rights. What they abuse or violate is the rights of others to life, property, etc. And because they are criminals, they demonstrate that they do not belong among free and peaceable men, thus a legitimate and proper government segregates them from society by imprisonment.
You really should be a bit better informed about your history if you want to cite it to support your argument. The Civil War (misnomer) began more over taxation than anything else. Slavery was only a minor part. Even Lincoln stated that his motive was to "save the union" and he was intent on that as a primary goal. He also stated that he would free some, all or no slaves if it would achieve that goal. So much for the nobility of Mr. Lincoln with regards to slavery.
Your argument, as usual, is inane to insane. Rights have to do with choices. People are equally free to choose NOT to own firearms. Your parting company with the right wing begins when it reaches the point of thinking.Originally posted by REDWAVE
Although I support the Second Amendment, one practical problem with it is that most of the guns in this country are owned by a relatively small number of people, who each own a lot of guns. These people are overwhelmingly rich old white men. Women, minorities, and poor and working class whites all need to arm themselves too!
I suspect here is where I part company with the right wing.
C'mon, PC. Don't annoy him with facts. He don't need no steenkin' facts!
Regarding firearms, one of the best books (More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr.) was written by an avowed anti-gun proponent. He admitted that the motivation of his writing was to debunk the idea that free possession of arms was beneficial for a society.
