How about the people who did this?
Bill Klinton said after the 1993 WTC bombing that it was a matter of law enforcement....worked well now, didn't it?
Posted on 11/17/2004 1:55:47 PM PST by neverdem
I understand in application it only applies (for the most part) to US citizens. But by saying that gun ownership, and all weapons ownership, is an inalienable right - then our government (as the actor) should not take any action infringing on any person's (citizen or not) of owning any arms. If nukes are included, then any individual should have the right to bear nukes.
In your hypothetical - our government should not do anything to PREVENT a republic from forming. These rights prevent the government from taking action, not requiring affirmative action.
Consider that shooting just a few of the worst domestic enemies of the Constitution would probably be sufficient.
Now, without the ability to defeat their helicopters, armored cars and body armor, how do you expect the concerned citizenry to accomplish that?
The answer is in the 2nd Amendment.
Like life insurance, I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
How about the fact that in almost every city with strict gun control has a much higher murder rate? THAT is good for society
Hunting aside, violent crimes in countries without gun ownership is much lower
That's liberal hogwash....look at Africa & Russia. You need to look at facts, not spew what the media incorrectly tells you.
I just personally see no need for it
When someone breaks into your home to kill you and/or your loved ones....then you come tell me if you have a need for it. Oh, wait.....call the police. After all they're the ones with the guns. They'll get there just in time to tape off the murder scene & photograph the lifeless bodies.
Again - I think that is either just a delusion that there is an actual threat - or relegated to the Bo Gritz's of the world. Who do you consider the worst domestic enemies of the Constitution? And who of those cannot be dealt with through our legal system?
If it applies to everyone, we can overthrow Castro, the Iranian mullahs and the Chinese Communists tomorrow.
And we didn't need any reason to oust Saddam. It's right there in the Constitution.
If the 2nd applies to everyone on earth, so does it require the U.S. Government to provide everyone on earth with a republican form of government.
Or maybe it just applies to U.S. citizens and it takes an act of the Congress to authorize taking on a foreign country.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you get to enforce.
How about the people who did this?
Bill Klinton said after the 1993 WTC bombing that it was a matter of law enforcement....worked well now, didn't it?
Look at Britain - that is a MUCH more accurate comparison given its level of technology and educated citizenery. The facts there bear out differently.
I'd like to see the data that compares similar cities and murder rates. That might be persuasive - although I have never seen such data that was not easily explained by other factors.
And I hate that argument with a passion - "When someone breaks into my home"...If a sniper shots me from a sidewalk as I am walking - a gun will do me no good. If my family gets in a car accident - I'll have no need for a gun. If I die of cancer - a gun will do me no good. These are all more probably acts that will occur. I'll take the .0001% chance.
Okay - how about the National Guard? Or the CIA or FBI? We have enacted reforms to fix what glaring holes existed.
Granted, I will give you if every person on that plane was allowed to carry a gun things might have been different. Of course, we don't know that because then the terrorists would have guns, also.
You hate it because it runs counter to your argument.
If a sniper shots me from a sidewalk as I am walking - a gun will do me no good
Here's the point you're missing.......being in possession of a gun, while not a panacea, affords one a chance to save ones own life. Not everyone wants or should have a gun, however law abiding citizens should have the right to make that decision themselves.
I'll take the .0001% chance
Tell me...WHAT are you so afraid of?
If gun ownership is sooo evil, where are all the news stories of LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS, killing people, hmm? You think the MSM would pass up that chance?
The Constitution is a restriction of the US government's power - that is always how it is interpretted and that is why I do believe the 2nd Amendment prevent gun control laws by the US government. Other governments never signed on to our Constitution. It doesn't not require the US government to affirmative promote those protections around the world.
My point was, if the right to bear arms is a right that goes beyond those just provided by the state (or an inalienable right), the Constituiton would prevent the US government from infringing that right to any person. It's not picking and choosing .
Really? Well, before you talk, take a look at this site & see just how many times that .0001% occurs.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
You are correct that aw-abiding gun owners are not the problem. My problem is, by examining other societies, the infuson of guns into society appear to have a negative effect.
But, again, I am defending your right to have one under our Constitution - I just do not think it is a right that comes from God.
Well - I know of now one personally that has had their home broken into and shot. No one ever in my family has either. So, based on personal experience, the chance is nill.
Religeous belief, or belief in a Higher Power is a personal issue and one that I think should be respected regardless.
The possibility that such a threat can arise is a sufficient reason to have the ability to deal with it.
I'm sure that the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto were wishing that they had had something like the 2nd Amendment. The fact that Adolph Hitler was elected should tell us that simply having a democratic system is no guarantee that our system will always work.
And I have no intent of naming names. I think that there are some government officials that for a very long time have abused their authority and have actively worked to corrupt the meaning of the Constitution.
I think that, currently, they are not of sufficient numbers to present an immediate threat that would require violence to correct. Our current system of elections, courts and legislation have something of a check on the worst offenders.
But should such a situation arise where an immediate threat materialized, I certainly want myself and my fellow citizens to have the means to combat it. As citizens, it is our government. It's our? responsibility, our duty to see that it works the way it is supposed to.
And the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that I and my fellow citizens can do something about it if it goes haywire. As long as it's there, anyone who might think about a coup or some other nonsense will have to take that into consideration.
Without it, they can just march us all off to the re-education camps.
And yeah, it seems a bit far-fetched. But I'm sure that Jews of Germany in 1930, the Ukranians in 1915 or the Cambodians in 1970 probably considered genocide a bit far-fetched too.
Do you base all your decisions solely on your personal experience? Do you not believe "things" because you or others in your sphere of influence haven't personally witnessed them?
I won't own a gun. I won't allow a gun in my house. You can own a gun. I don't care if you own a gun - I just want my right to have a gun-free home and workplace (though that is because I really don't trust my coworkers ;) I am convinced many of them are crazy...)
But, you should be able to stock-pile all the weapons you want. That is what our Constitution guarantees you - sorry, but I won't ever own a gun as long as I live in what I believe is a safe, civilized area.
Perhaps - but the safeguards in those countries where not 1/1000th of the safeguards we have in this country. It would take someone so shrewd that we wouldn't even know it is happening. Our rights taken away bit-by-bit under the guise of something else. Even in that case, we have very good fallbacks.
And if it happens - I'll be the first in Belize ;P
So, if I'm to accept your premise that the 2nd applies to citizens of other countries, then the entire Constitution must as well and we better get busy overthrowing dictators.
But then, I don't happen to think that the 2nd, or any of the Constitution, applies to anyone beyond our borders.
And our courts seem to think that way too.
However, it does apply to me, and we need to get busy overturning 70 years of un-Constitutional gun laws.
Sorry - I don't think I was clear. There are rights are granted by the government, such as gun country. Then there are other rights, "human rights", that are universally applicable to all humans be the very nature of being human, such as political determination. The later is what I mean by "right that comes from God".
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.