Free Republic

MarkTwain reposted my article before I added the following paragraph:

“I’m suggesting the Third Amendment opens a window to the context and mindset of the Framers regarding a standing paramilitary police department embedded among the people — beyond the literal and narrow text of the Third Amendment. The Supreme Court might well call this the “penumbra” of the Third Amendment.”

Dutchboy88 wrote:
“’The American solution is to let a free people defend themselves — and that certainly applies to the American army.’

“If this is that pot-smoking hazy America of Woodstock, then we don’t want any. Hold hands and sing KumByYa with the Dums.”

Wow. It sounds like you’re an army officer who hates America almost as much as Major Hasan.

Billthedrill wrote:

“While I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of allowing anyone who is capable to bear arms, the ban didn’t originate with Clinton. It was like that all during my active duty service from 1970-1980 and on every base I can recall during the next 15 years spent working for the Navy in one capacity or other. It isn’t new. Frankly I don’t care whose fault it was. Fix it. Fix it now.”

Before Clinton it varied by service and by post. I think you’d find Army and Marine bases had different policies than Naval and Air Force bases

But I agree with your bottom line. Whether it’s DoD policy or command SNAFU, it needs to be stopped.

Dutchboy88 wrote:
“’He wouldn’t have opened fire in the first place if he knew armed soldiers in the room would immediately shoot back.’

Then arm every man woman & child under the same logic.

I say we isolate the Islamocists. We did something like this in WWII with the Japanese because we did not know if they were going to do something or not. If they don’t like the isolation (until the war is over in 25 years), let them leave the country. Otherwise, you are inviting the trouble from every kook ball that gets mad at the traffic. One guy here in AZ just drove up to the photo radar car and shot the attendant through the window. He was mad at photo radar. So, is this better?”

Even the Supreme Court found that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s detention of American citizens of Japanese descent was unconstitutional. That you would recommend that makes me think you’re as much of a fascist as FDR.

The American solution is to let a free people defend themselves — and that certainly applies to the American army.

As for your traffic-light incident, for each of these there are ten times as many cases where a defensive gun use saved a life or stopped a crime. You must be reading only the Brady campaigns lying anti-gun propaganda.

kittykat77 wrote:
“What was the policy before the Clinton directive? Were all soldiers allowed to carry weapons at all (or some) times on US bases? What was the policy regarding personal (civilian) guns on US bases?”

I’m not 100% but I believe it was up to the base commander.

Dutchboy88 wrote:

“The guy that pulled the trigger is a terrorist. He would have gotten 4 armed men by the time they unslung their weapons and fired. Would you then be happy?”

He wouldn’t have opened fire in the first place if he knew armed soldiers in the room would immediately shoot back. But if he was dumb enough to do so, four casualties is better than fifty-two.

Obviously only a person who worships the State like you do would dissemble and try to divert the issue, which is that it’s the individual victim who wants her rapist set free.

And you — who don’t even have standing, except on the Communist premise that a crime against one is a crime against all — wants punishment where the actual, real-life, and sole victim wants none.

Maybe you’re not a Communist. Maybe you’re just so incapable of reason that you don’t even understand the communist principles you’re using to argue.

Oh, so you believe in collective State rights rather than individual sovereign rights. Individual victims mean nothing to you, just pawns for the greater glory of the State. Useful to know there are communists on Free Republic.

That’s why there was an American Revolution — to get rid of kings. To make the individual sovereign. Polanski’s victim here was Samantha Geimer and no one else. Her desire is that Polanski’s original conviction/plea-bargain be voided because of judicial misconduct. That quashed, flight from jurisdiction to avoid sentencing also goes away. Screw the king.

TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed wrote:

“I was reading the article, pretty much agreeing with the author’s points, until he listed “Abortion is murder” as a lie. At that point (#3), he lost me (my interest in reading any more of his article).”

So you stop reading when you reach something you disagree with.

C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called “On Watchful Dragons.” He was talking about how some people stop reading or listening the moment they see the word “Christian” or “Christianity” or “Jesus.”

You have your own Watchful Dragon that prevents you from reading or listening.

Robert A. Heinlein said, “You can only learn from someone you disagree with.”

If you stop reading because you reach a point of disagreement, you’ve decided that you’ve learned all you’re going to learn, and you might as well put an “Out of Business” sign on your brain.

JNS

Human rights adhere to self-conscious beings capable of making volitional moral choices.

How these beings got that way is a matter of debate between those who believe in creation and those who believe it happened by a series of natural accidents.

I believe in both. God created the universe and natural law did the rest ... with a little Divine tweaking once in a while.

Republic of Texas wrote:

“If you aren’t sure, then NOT killing the baby seems to be the prudent choice. If you aren’t sure and still kill the baby because you THINK the soul hasn’t entered yet, you are simply a murderer with a good rationalization.”

If you’re not sure, where do you get the balls to impose your guesstimate on others by force of law?

The American position is individual freedom of conscience because one man’s opinion is another man’s snort of derision.

“Just curious. Absent a police force paid by taxes, how are the free market investigators paid?”

I see. You favor robbing Peter to Pay for Paul’s protection. Good to know there are socialists here on Free Republic.

“Most crimes are committed against poor people, who don’t have the money to pay for an investigation.”

Let’s compromise and give the poor gun stamps.

carmody wrote:

“You’ve declared unborn babies have no soul based on your personal belief and then use that belief to justify abortion.”

I’ve done no such thing. The burden on a person using religious premises to outlaw abortion is to prove by that a soul is present. Whether or not a majority interprets their religion’s scripture or church fathers as supporting their view, those who disagree should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Rights are individual, not collective.

You don’t want to have an abortion you have the right not to have one. The individual conscience of someone who disagrees with you should have no less standing under any theory of human rights.

Your right to decide a fetus is human rests only with you and your life. Your opinion is binding on no one else.

carmody wrote:

“True. I should have phrased it another way: if the secular government determines that none of us have a soul (separation of church and state) what would keep the government from passing laws to kill old people who are sucking up resources and infants who are disabled? For that matter, why not forced abortions to keep the population in check?”

You answered your own question. If the people delegate enough of their power to the government to forbid abortion, they have delegated enough of their power to the government to do all the rest of the things you list.