Nice statement, but not realistic. There is a balance to be obtained in which both can be protected. And that means putting reasonable restrictions on some rights in order to permit a secure society. It's just a matter of how deep those restrictions go. Most here even though they disagree with my thesis, agree that nuclear weapons should be kept out of the hands of citizens, and 6 year old children should not be carrying.
The only social structure worth fighting for is freedom. That's the condition where all men respect the rights of their fellows. If the social structure respects neither rights, not freedom, it deserves to fall, and fall hard and fast.
I hate to break this to you, but the Constitutional Convention in 1787 decided that there was essentially a tad too much freedom, resulting in the Constitution we now have. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but a secure society is also important. The freedom that exists today in Iraq at the expense of a secure society illustrates what can happen if the 2d Amendment were treated as some here want.
What bunker mentality? Obviously the fact gunowners are not known to be criminals engaged in criminal enterprises doesn't matter to the grabbers. It seems our rights and freedom in general is rubbish to them. MOLON LABE is not a bunker mentality, the line's been drawn in the sand and it's a promise, not a threat.
Right.
Reasonable is an arbitrary and empty term. It's used as euphoric head candy by con men to sway their marks.
Yeah, sorta like MOLON LABE....
This is about maintaining freedom and protecting rights in a free country. The only anology I see with Iraq is that some clowns are insistent on abolishing freedom and installing their own arbitrary socialist rule.
BINGO! You think Iraq is different from any other group of people? You think this Country does not have groups who would oppose other groups? The only difference is that here we don't permit the unlimited arming with every conceivable weapon so that these opposing groups can engage in civil conflict and even endanger the government.
If you're so worried about peacable gun owners in a free country, then there must be something you're hiding that you'd like to do to them that they would appreciate.
Not at all. Peaceable and law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. But that right is not unlimited. The government has the duty to ensure that only law abiding citizens have guns and that some weapons are not permitted to be kept by private citizens.
Ah. I see now. We're all potentially homicidal lunatics itching to kill our neighbors, and are only restrained by the mighty and goodly power of the State to restrain our murderous impulses.
Kinda like the blood that flows in the streets every day because some states have been foolish enough to believe that citizens are perfectly capable of being armed, yet restrain themselves from erupting in murderous rage every time we're cut off in traffic.
They decided no such thing. They had determined that they didn't have the power to protect rights and effect fairness in the interstate marketplace and other such problems. Most of them valued Freedom and the constitution would never have been accepted w/o the promise of the Bill of Rights. The 1st amend of which included a complete and absolute prohibition on infringing on the free speech rights of the people and exercise of religion. The 2nd Amend provided for an absolute and complete prohibition on infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
"Most here even though they disagree with my thesis, agree that nuclear weapons should be kept out of the hands of citizens, and 6 year old children should not be carrying."
You just don't know and understand why the restrictions are valid and why they don't apply to adults and personal arms whatsoever.
Re: "Security is never obtained by violating the rights of the people.
"Nice statement, but not realistic. There is a balance to be obtained in which both can be protected. And that means putting reasonable restrictions on some rights in order to permit a secure society. It's just a matter of how deep those restrictions go."
No. There is no security at all except for the rights violators. There is no freedom, except for the rights violators to do as they see fit. Even the meaning of words is determined by the rights violators.
Re: Reasonable is an arbitrary and empty term. It's used as euphoric head candy by con men to sway their marks.
" Yeah, sorta like MOLON LABE...."
No. The word reasonable as the grabbers use it, is just what I said. MOLON LABE maeans come and get them, I will not hand them over. If you get them, it will be over my dead body. There's nothing arbitrary, or empty about that notice. There is also nothing contradictory about it as there is with the grabbers use of the term reasonable, since there is nothing whatsoever reasonable about disarming a free and peacable people that support and stand for freedom.
"Freedom is a wonderful thing, but a secure society is also important. The freedom that exists today in Iraq at the expense of a secure society illustrates what can happen if the 2d Amendment were treated as some here want.
As I said, there is no security w/o freedom, except for those in power. Your comparison with Iraq is rubbish, because the fractions fighting in Iraq are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting to subjugate and dominate their fellows, just as the socialist grabbers are fighting to do here. There is a big difference between fighting for freedom and fighting on behalf of some authoritarian scheme, whatever the color and flavor of that acheme is. The only justificaiton for fighting is to protect and promote rights and freedom, not "safety and security". Safety and security, as I said are arbitrary and their meaning when used by rights violators is empty.
"Peaceable and law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. But that right is not unlimited. The government has the duty to ensure that only law abiding citizens have guns and that some weapons are not permitted to be kept by private citizens."
The US law that governs the matter is the 2nd Amend. It says, "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right is unlimited and the govm't is forbidden, by that law, from placing any limits on exercise of that right. Where in "shall not be infringed" do you find, "can limit"?