Posted on 03/14/2003 5:35:36 PM PST by Pitchfork
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's … you get the idea.
The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to chatterbox@slate.com) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.
Sheesh. First an NEA teacher. Now a leftwing attorney.
You two are demonstrating vividly what is wrong with this country.
You obviously were taught reading comprehension by a professor like Mr. Pitchfork.
Why then was it included in an enumeration of INDIVIDUAL rights? Why was it listed so highly upon that list?
You cannot ignore that context. If the Fourth Amendment grants a "Right to Privacy", despite NOT featuring ANY words to that effect, then the question should not be, "How does the Second confer an individual right?", but, "How does it NOT?".
Recall, a right surrendered is a right lost, permanently. Any errors made regarding the Bill Of Rights should be biased towards the INCREASE, not the decrease, of Rights. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the banners, as it is THEY who wish the curtailment or decrease of rights.
Well, I see you ignored #93. It says, along with several other posts, that sodom controls the ammo. Sodom's butt boys know who has the guns and they weren't issued to some dangerous folks that might get uppity. IOWs sodom has gun registration. The purpose of registration is so the authorities can control those who might get uppity. Folks have known this for all of history. That's why the 2nd Amendment was penned.
As far as registration having a crime preventative benefit, it does not. Criminals will not register their guns and they don't need much ammo to violate the rights of their victims. Ammo is only needed to protect the condition of Freedom from the big time rights violators that wield the power of armies.
" Sadly this has degenerated into a 2nd ammendment debate where, rather than engage an argument about the societal benefits of guns, the pro side simply assert a right to close the debate."
The societal benefit is Freedom. That's it in a nutshell. The other considerations are all details contained within the concepts of Freedom, individual rights and the protection of those.
"I hoped to have a debate regading the veracity--in light of evidence--that an armed citizenry could protect its liberty from a determined tyrant. It seems in the face of a modern army that it could not (only the most obstinant will refute this point).
What is the face of a modern army and what is it's soul. What is the nature of the will in command of this army and what is it trying to force. If it's intent is the destruction of Freedom and the subjugation of individuals to some form of authoritarian will, those of us obstinate bastards who love Freedom more than the life of a well kept slave, will assuredly destroy it. So, all those that desire the Free to bow should ask themselves, "DO THEY FEEL LUCKY?" Are you afraid of these folks that proclaim their arms are none of your friggin' business? Of course you are, that's why you're takin' it one small step at a time. You're a coniving bunch.
MOLON LABE!
LOL! I wish..
The way of thinking is "why do you need that?"
Thus, all you must do to master the situation is define the word "need"
Anyway, on Greta Van Susteran's show on FOXNEWS tonight, she had on a Turkish reporter who just came back from Iraq and she reports that the VAST MAJORITY of the Iraqi people would see the Americans as liberators when we finally get around to removing the "BREW DALL" dictator. Boy, are the liberals going to be pissed when they see the Iraqi people so happy to have been liberated from this "BREW DALL" dictator. And will the Iraqi people ever be pissed with the liberals who were so adamant about keeping the "BREW DALL" dictator in power.
I have posted a long list of clear quotes by our founding fathers on the clear intent of the 2Amd and the RKBA.
Please list your opposing founding fathers' anti RKBA quotes which render mine merely interpretational, or slink back to your hole like a cur.
Certainly a teacher of "American Government" must have quite a long list of anti-RKBA founding father quotes to counter mine?
Post them now, or get the hell off this board with your lies.
The word "need" appears nowhere in any Amendment, thus, it is irrelevant to any discussion of ANY such Amendment.
The "need" nonsense could be as easily applied to most any object or luxury, I imagine. Like, for example, sports cars, SUV's, large houses, powerful computers, televisions with 51-inch screens...anything at all. My "need" for any of these things is, to be blunt, nobody's fu**ing business but my own.
Are privacy rights needed to maintain democracy? How about property rights?
The second amendment is irrelevant, unregistered guns are a natural right like any other.
To be sure, it was deliberately politically ambiguous about various governmental powers in order assure its ratification. But its basic intent has always been clear. - To guarantee maximum rights to life, liberty, & property for individual citizens.
The second ammendment is one of those unclear points. Is it an individual right? A state right? How important is the militia clause? What constitutes a militia? None of these questions has a diffinitive answer.
Not at all, if looked at with an eye to the basic liberty to possess property, free of unreasonable state restrictons. Weapons of mass destuction can certainly be 'regulated' to the point of prohibition. But infringements upon the ordinary arms of a 'well regulated milita' were never meant to be tolerated, since the security of liberty in a free republic depended on them.
Here is the reality: The meaning of consitution is, was, and always will be contested. Constitutional interpretation is not an act of Hermeneutics it is a political contest. Some time your side will win, sometimes it won't!
Our constitution, our liberties, are not subject to political games. 'Your side' insists that it is, at their peril. - That is reality.
Not valid reasoning.
What actually is of issue is whether or not Americans can keep themselves free while armed against the US Military. Other examples in geography and history aren't relevant.
Could we defeat an invading army as powerful as our military, without having heavy weapons? Maybe. Ask the Afghans and the Russians about that one....
One rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter can get you lots of other neat toys like anti-tank weaponry....
The other part of the argument would be : Could the citizens of the US stop the US military if used against them.
Your whole premise is faulty, because it presupposes many things such as :
1. That no domestic military would revolt and fight with the populace, taking weapons with them.
2. That citizen combatants would stand in a field and engage the US military head to head. And so, rifles would be useless.
This is the main weakness of your argument. The tactics used internally in revolt would be of attrition, sniping, etc designed to gain weaponry and support, while demoralizing (the immoral at this point in our scenario) military that would be fighting the people.
Additionally if such a conflict were ever to occur, at some point we'd be using hmm...how can I say this... assymmetric tactics against things of value to those supporting the corrupt regieme that is target of overthrow. So those supporting the regieme would end up having everyone and anything they cared about in bunkered positions, seperated from the populace...
In short, the weapons allow us to obtain a political victory.
Someting else, some other "power" which cannot be found in our constitution.
I looked and I can't figure it out... What's the logic behind this?
O.K.I can buy that the evidence might be weak. Would any of you be prepared to abandon your dogma if it weren't?
What you lack here is a basic understanding of history and human nature. Human nature controls human history...and because human nature is predictable and relatively unchanging so is history.
More specifically, people are selfish and greedy. Our very nature is one of selfishness. Those few pieces of human trash that have a certain mix of required attributes (a few of them being greed, leadership abilities, management abilities, ruthlessness, and lack of strength of conscience) have the ability, drive and desire to gain power at the expense of other people. Happens throughout history. It will continue to happen. The best desires and wishes of such people like yourself that this not happen anymore is predicated on a fundamental hope that human nature can be changed.
Tyrants gain power through succession or oppression of the masses. Tyrants understand human nature and can apply adequate controls in order to manipulate the people and keep them in submission. The only human nature trait they ignore is that of the need for FREEDOM...which must be ignored because it is incompatible with their objectives. Like it or not, the great equalizer is the gun. The gun allows those with less of a command of the dark side of human nature the ability to overcome those that do.
I will challenge you to add up the human death toll at the hands of an armed and free society and compare it to that of civil control efforts of and wars of liberation from tyrannical regimes. Do it if you have the courage. The facts do not lie.
The only way a population can be controlled is if they do not have a reasonable means with which to effectively put down tyrants. This is logical and natural. Your attempt to sidestep the naturally occurring condition and replace it with a fantasy scenario as shown above can not lead to a natural and logical answer. Obviously if a tyrant's constituent population is armed and he attempts to torture their children, as Saddam does, a revolt would result. To try to take the situation out of reality and suggest...'well what if they didn't revolt?' is simply an illogical question because human nature would not support that as a reasonable situation. Therefore your silly twist and repost of the above quote is nonsense.
Human nature can not be changed; It won't be changed no matter how hard liberals like you try to push our children's heads through your liberalist key hole of societal understanding. Human nature is like a handful of Jell-O...the harder you try to squeeze it one way, Unintended Consequences squish out the other. You try to develop a Utopian society where all of us work for the same wage, no one wants to work because there is no incentive to satisfy selfish desires. You want everyone to be unarmed and run around like children in a playground, but there are always bullies around to take advantage of the situation. You try to educated children on homosexuality and push it down their throats saying it is acceptable and mentally healthy to accept it..then when the children commit suicide because they can't live with what you have pushed them into in their vulnerable ages you cry louder. You socialists want to protect the environment at all costs, but it is still ok to satisfy your selfish need to wipe your butts with tree generated toilet paper produced by companies that you just got done demonstrating against while other working people were at work generating the power that your home coffee maker uses. You socialist are a bunch of walking, talking contradictions....no wonder your all messed up and interfering in our lives! You are a bunch that refuses to accept and understand human nature. You always feel guilty for something and attempt to relieve your guilt over being an imperfect human being by making other people's lives miserable by trying to 'help' everyone!
Get a clue. Please. Human nature is what it is. We were created the way we are for a reason. We were created imperfect so that we would acknowledge that we need God, give Him a place in our lives, accept the things in this life as He leads us through it, and serve His mission as we are called to do so. This life is short. Liberals love to ignore God. They LOVE to concentrate on this life as though it is the only thing in existence. This life is but a single point at the beginning of an infinite line. That line is your spiritual existence. It goes on forever. The only question is which side of the line will YOU fall on? Will you be in paradise or will you be in hell? That all depends on where you place your attention in THIS life. Stop worrying so much about fixing this life...and fixing other's lives. Fix your OWN spiritual life and your eyes will be opened and your grip relaxed. Your white knuckle ride on earth will be over as you have given your load to Christ.
LOL! Down Travis, Down! :)
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.