Posted on 05/18/2006 6:22:58 AM PDT by freepatriot32
"the innocents of which I spoke were involved in no fight and often were not even aware of one"
Has not this life ever been thus?
I would remind you of what Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers (paraphrasing from memory here): "Protestations for the public welfare have been more responsible for the installation of tyranny than all other mechanisms". Or something like that. What you are saying here is a rephrasing of the political left's "It's for the children!" agitprop.
And then you write:
"Punks are not targeting them but their firepower is so great and so out of their control that they endanger others."
I must point out to you that this line of thinking is, in essence, allowing the actions of criminals to dicate what freedoms are allowed the law-abiding. Is that the basis of law for a truly free nation?
By the way, accusing DC of "wanting to arm thugs". That's the argument ad hominem; an indicator that you realize that you are losing the debate.
While one should not be surprised at what comes from the "brain" of a Dead Corpse I do believe that it is against the rules of the forum to call someone "perverted" because they do not agree with you.
The rest of your lying BS is obviously the result of dementia which all can recognize. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam etc. are the products of fanaticism which is far closer to your mentality than mine.
There is NO fundamental right to bring a machine gun to a classroom or the 50 yardline.
It is my desire to not be DISARMED by gun haters like you so that if attacked by a thug, who won't disarm no matter what you do, I'll be able to defend myself and my family.
Sorry if you are too deranged in your hate of an inanimate object to see it that way.
I do not believe that private individuals should be allowed to possess bazookas, nuclear weapons, RPGs, Abrams tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter planes, B-52s, intercontinental ballistic missiles or anthrax. Nor is it practical to allow heavy weaponry within highly congested places.
There is no "right" possessed by individuals to endanger others. A gangbanger under attack by another gangbanger has no right to shoot a little girl because he is firing back at someone shooting at him.
Militias of which the Second amendment speaks were to be "well-regulated" not a haphazard mob of devotees. They were to be officered by men appointed by the State and drilled to federal regulations.
That is NOT what the Absolutists are about.
They are your words. If you don't like them, recant them.
You have lost your mind. What little of it was left.
Sign. Amen to your post.
The second amendment is right there after the first, so that sort of implies IMPORTANT.
Sigh. Not sign. Sigh.
I hate it when that happens!
You are wrong here, good sir. Here is a passage from author John Ross (emphasis mine):
"the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
You are correct about the incredible level of industrialized slaughter that a modern military such as our own possesses. From my own stint as a USN Medical Corpsman with the Marines, it is safe to say that any unit given orders to attack American citizens would instantly lose unit cohesion. They wouldn't "not fight", they'd tear each other apart. Something the brass knows full well, rest assured. Free societies are troublesome that way.
Those are the ones you are talking about banning. You think that it is just peachy for States to do away with despite being signatories to the Constitution and bound by it's limits. As you stated quite clearly in 186 and again in 188.
A citizen militia was one reason for not infringing arms ownership and carry. It wasn't the ONLY reason.
I have seen no indication that Dead Corpse is willing to concede that there are places in which guns are justly not allowed.
There is a new story here on FR wherein a 92 year old woman shot her grandson and his wife with a powerful handgun because she believed them to be home invaders. The shot she fired went through one and into the other. Should this woman be allowed to possess this gun? Should one who is demented? Or just plain evil? Should Islamic militants be allowed to purchase heavy weapons and practice with them as has been the case in several instances in the last few years?
Not all actions taken for the public welfare are excuses to grab power or the result of tyrants. Hamilton would be the last to dispute this. And the Constitution he fought for so valiently explicitly says that Congress can legislate for the "general welfare."
It is not I who is so deranged as to LIE about what is said or intended. You have repeatedly done this in your responses to me.
And you are truly clueless if you believe the punks would stop pulling drive bys should the population be more armed. But that is what happens when you allow ideology to control your though processes.
My words are as I wrote them NOT as you incorrectly distort them.
Adding yet more LIES to your pile does not make it any more acceptable.
Your words. Supportin unConstitutional State bans on weapons you are also on record as saying are too powerful and not suitable for civilian ownership.
You are the liar here. Your anti-Rights agenda is clear.
Oh, I have no fear of the US military acting against our citizens. It is of interest in this discussion that IT strictly controls the possession of its firearms. When my son goes onto his nuclear submarine he is not allowed to take a gun with him.
BTW your quotation does not refute what I said. While there was some difference in earlier times it just pales in comparison to that of today as I said. And militias often had their own artillary even privately formed militias. Private vessels also could be heavily armed.
And the newspaper analogy is not very convincing. Though it is true that even the First amendment is not and Absolute either and papers can be legally and legitimately shut down or censored in time of war. As can the right of assembly.
I also note that you have dropped your insistence that you want to "ban" modern firearms, and I am still waiting for the term you would apply. Do you have one, or will you continue to ignore the fact that this is what you are advocating?
As far as the old lady goes, accidents happen. Unfortunately. Does the fact that one accident occured with one firearm mandate the restriction of them all? Sounds like you think so. And you know what? You can make all the laws in the world, and accidents will still happen. Unfortunately.
Your intepretation of the "general welfare" clause again betrays a mindset tutored by the political left. At this juncture in American history, it's safe to say that clause can be renamed the "anything goes" clause.
I think that you have been living in a "blue state" too long, and have allowed to much leftist-think to penetrate your thinking. I can sympathize, having lived in California for almost 20 years. It was hard to resist.
Your Islamic mutterings are beneath contempt, and are unworthy of response, as you doubtless already realize.
Why do you keep lying about what I said? Does it turn you on?
The ONLY reason given in the Constitution for the right to bear arms IS precisely because of militia requirements.
So school kids should be allowed to bring guns into the classroom?
You really must move out the Northeast. I must say that I am sincerely glad that you do not author legislation, dictate policy, or sit in a position to "interpret" the law. Our human freedoms are the better for it.
Good day. I'm off to work now. Post one more time so you can think you have won the debate.
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.