Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 218 (550236)
03-13-2010 6:51 PM


A simple question that will progressively get more complicated as we go:
Is it fundamentally a better idea or a worse idea to allow citizens the right to bear arms?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Flyer75, posted 03-13-2010 7:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2010 7:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 7:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 6:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4 of 218 (550247)
03-13-2010 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Flyer75
03-13-2010 7:17 PM


One, guns are here to stay. Obviously it'd be better if there were no guns at all (although we still find ways to kill each other, because we did before the invention of the gun).
I've made the same argument. One has to be realistic when viewing the debate.
Now, even with all these laws, criminals are always going to find themselves in possession of a gun, if they so desire. Why? Because they are criminals to begin with and could care less about the law anyhow. They will buy a stolen gun off the black market, steal a gun themselves, have their "girlfriend" legally purchase a gun in her name and then he takes possession, ect, ect, ect.
If you pass a law preventing guns from being legally purchased, how would that stop a criminal when a criminal, by definition, is someone who breaks the law?
It appears at first glance that you and I are aligned in this topic.
Thanks for your input!

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Flyer75, posted 03-13-2010 7:17 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 218 (550253)
03-13-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AZPaul3
03-13-2010 7:40 PM


From the US perspective, at one time it was essential. On the edge of an untamed continent personal arms were necessary for personal protection and to form a citizens' militia in times of strife. The founding fathers also knew, having just rebelled, the power of an armed populous in the cause of freedom and keeping a government, even one of, by and for the people, honest.
Along the same lines is the necessity to shirk off the tyranny of an own oppressive government. After what the government did in Waco and Ruby Ridge, killing innocent people for no good reason, there seems good reason to always be neither trustful or mistrustful of the government, but always alert.
Today personal protection is arguable either way.
A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away.
A police force is little consolation for most people. I agree that there needs to be a police force, but I feel sorry for anyone reliant on them. It's a false sense of security. You have the inalienable right to defend yourself from harm. If a firearm best facilitates that need, then so be it. It should be the individual's right to decide that themselves. If others feel that it is more dangerous to possess a firearm in their home, they should be afforded the right to abstain.
The issue is people legislating for me that I take exception to.
If this government becomes (more?) abusive there are plenty of state-level forces (National Guard, Police, etc.) to form a considerable force of resistance.
Who's to say they would side with either the citizenry or the government? You should never really rely on other people, IMO. No one cares more about your personal rights than you.
And having been in the Officer Corps of the standing national armed forces I can attest to the profound seriousness of an officer's oath to the Constitution instead of to the President, the Nation or even the People.
Agreed, completely. I work for the Department of Homeland Security, which means I work for the government. I am in essence a part of the government of the United States. I believe in the necessity of government, but sometimes they go astray. Who could have foreseen what happened in Nazi Germany could have transpired so quickly? That could happen anywhere at any time.
Whether it is "fundamentally better" or not is a subjective political issue
Indeed it is subjective. But that's why we're discussing it now!

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2010 7:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 03-13-2010 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 11 by Vacate, posted 03-15-2010 1:58 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 218 (550254)
03-13-2010 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
03-13-2010 7:48 PM


Re: Should this be at the politics forum?
Is this a question about what is good social policy? Or is this a question about the second amendment.
Both.
And shouldn't this discussion have been opened at the Politicus Maximus forum?
Yes, I know that there are few members at PM. But why would anybody bother to join if there is no debating going on? Don't you need some contentious topics to get things rolling?
Perhaps, but the lackluster debut prevents people from even visiting it. I haven't been in PM for months. I just haven't thought about it.
I think perhaps we can drum up some interest for a few pages and then take the debate over there. That might be a good way to get the ball rolling, because I do essentially agree with you.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 7:48 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 03-13-2010 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 218 (550284)
03-14-2010 12:09 PM


ATTN!!!
Be advised that for all participants interested in this thread, it has been moved to Politicus Maximus, a subsidiary of EvC incorporated; all rights reserved, copywrite 2009.
http://www.politicusmaximus.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg...

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 218 (550401)
03-15-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Vacate
03-15-2010 1:58 AM


Re: Bad Example?
Are those good examples to support your point? In both those cases the innocent people had an arsenal of weapons. Though I may agree the government was wrong in how they handled the situation, it does seem that the situation began due to law enforcements knowledge of a huge arsenal of weapons.
For the Waco siege, the precipitating event was based on suspected child abuse. That was used to gather whether or not they had illegal arms, which they didn't. The ATF investigator stated during the trial, however,
"I know based on my training and experience that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle practically identical to the M-16 rifle.... I have been involved in many cases where defendents, following a relatively simple process, convert AR-15 semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic rifles of the nature of the M-16. ... Often times templates, milling machines, lathes and instruction guides are used by the converter." -- David Aguilera
Basically he just preemptively assumed they would eventually convert them in to illegal arms with no evidence whatsoever. Last I heard you can't charge people with a crime because they potentially could violate a law. Last I heard you have to actually commit it or there is sufficient evidence that someone has taken steps (intent) to commit an actual crime.
As for Ruby Ridge, they entrapped Weaver for a sawed-off shotgun to use as probable cause. They thought he was a White Supremacist and spied on him and his family's home. They noticed he was frequently armed (not an uncommon or illegal thing in the high mountains). They eventually surrounded the house and ended up unlawfully killing Weaver's dog, his son, and his wife who was at the time carrying his other son who was an infant. In any event, the courts ruled in favor of the Weaver family.
The point is that the government overstepped its boundaries big time and killed a lot of people for no good reason. I'm not siding with or agreeing with the wacko's in Wacko, but the law was skirted and men, women, and children died at the hands of federal agents.
Do you possibly have examples where the government did similar actions on people without any guns? I cannot think of any here in Canada; any situations that are comparable all had guns.
Sure, but what is the point if this thread is specifically about gun laws versus gun ownership rights? That would invalidate the premise of the thread.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Vacate, posted 03-15-2010 1:58 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 218 (550421)
03-15-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
The real question is whether firearms actually make one safer.
And all of the evidence points to "no, they do not." Rather, gun ownership escalates any situation involving firearms. If an armed intruder is in your home, you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun as well - because the intruder knows that if he doesn't fire first, you might. Most intruders are not looking to add a murder charge to whatever their original purpose was.
Or that the intruder is going to get shot. People shouldn't be expected to acquiesce from tyranny in their home.
In fact, gun ownership increases several other unpleasant statistics as well. Children can't consider Daddy's gun a toy, for instance, when Daddy doesn't have a gun. Obviously Daddy shouldn't be leaving his gun where a child can get it - but the fact is, it happens,a nd it wouldn't happen if guns were banned.
Then that is the parents fault and responsible gun owners should be penalized because someone else's daddy is a moron.
In 2001, 401 children died due to gun accidents. Those kids would be alive today if their parents didn't own guns.
44,122 people were killed in car crashes in a single year in the US. If there were no cars, nobody would be in car crashes. 3,046 people were killed from accidental falls. If there were no stairs, nobody would have fallen down them and died.
That's tantamount to what you are saying. I trust you understand why it is asinine and vacuous.
The homicide rate per capita in the US is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. We're number 24 among nations. In teh UK, where personal gun ownership is banned, the homicide rate is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people - they're number 46. The Netherlands are 0.0111538 per 1,000 people, and they're number 51. Japan is number 60, with 0.00499933 per 1,000 people.
According to Reuters, behind Yemen and the US, Switzerland and Finland have more gun owners per capita than any nation on earth. Switzerland is also ranked the 7th in the world as the safest country in relation to murder. Comparing murder to handguns is silly, since one has nothing to do with the other. Source
Japan has some of the most stringent gun control policies in the world.
Saudi Arabia has some of the most lax gun laws in the world, and they are ranked 2nd as the safest country from homicide, higher than even Japan.
Murder and gun ownership don't parallel one another. There are social factors that determine violence and murder.
It is undeniably true that fewer people die as a result of homicide in nations where private ownership of guns is banned.
Clearly not true, as I've evidenced. In fact, the District of Columbia got less violent once the SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional anti-gun ban.
In the case of a home invasion without guns, it is entirely possible that an invader will be armed with a knife instead of a firearm, and you could be left defenseless. However, the mortality rate from a stab wound is significantly less than that of a gunshot wound - it is better, statistically, to have no guns and risk being stabbed, than to have guns and risk being shot.
I apologize for being so blunt, but this is easily one of the dumbest justifications for stricter gun control I've ever heard. Maybe even the dumbest. If a citizen was allowed to own a gun in their own home, they could defend themselves against another gun or a knife!
And why are you comparing knife wounds to gunshot wounds anyhow, as if we choose either one? You know that knives and guns don't kill, right, but rather the crazy bastards who wield them menacingly?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 12:35 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 2:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 50 by Peepul, posted 03-17-2010 9:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 218 (550448)
03-15-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
the objective fact is that if you own a handgun, you are more likely to be shot.
What statistic proves that you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun? There are way too many factors for why someone would be in your house: what time of day it is (is there an expectation of an encounter with the owners), what their motive is to even be there (murder, rape, theft), what kind of psychological state the intruder is in, etc, etc.
I know from anecdote that in countless armed robberies, people brazenly kill the clerk on sight, whether the clerk was armed or not. It just depends upon the person and NOT the gun.
That is what is constantly overlooked by many gun control or anti-gun lobbyists -- the individual's actions and mindset over the inanimate gun.
In nations where access to firearms (and handguns in particular) is legally banned, there are fewer homicides.
I already have proven that false. Guns aren't the problem, people are, which is often culturally dictated.
Your emotional "tyranny in their own home" tripe is nothing but an appeal to emotion
It's absurd to suggest that people should just roll the dice on their life. Fuck that! Stay the fuck out of people's home's and you won't get shot. Bottom line. I mean, you are complicit in the increase of crime by sending the signal, "We won't fight back." Well, then what incentive does a criminal have to stop?
If Daddy didn't have a gun, little Timmy would still have his brain contained within the confines of his cranium, instead of being repurposed as a mural on the living room wall.
And if little Timmy wasn't taught not stick metal objects in the light socket, he'd still be alive too. Should we get rid of electricity to accommodate shitty parents or should we just hold shitty parents accountable?
He should have been trained, and should have been more responsible
Agreed, and that's all it comes down to. Not taking away everyone's right.
Guns have no purpose except to kill.
Yes, that is the primary purpose, but by that we rationale we should also do away with anything that exists expressly to kill. That's not going to happen. Weaponry has always existed with man, and the unfortunate fact is it will always exist as long as people cannot behave civilly in a civilized society.
Handguns != rifles. There is a reasonable purpsoe for rifles outside of killing human beings. That is not the case with handguns. It is almost impossible to conceal a rifle for the purpsoe of committing a crime. That's not the case with handguns.
I find this ironic. In America they ban automatic rifles as being "unnecessarily dangerous," and opt for handguns as a reasonable compromise. Now when it comes to Switzerland you defend rifles because you see no ostensible reason why not to have them.
Secondly, that guns were used more prolifically as murder weapons doesn't vindicate what you stated. You stated that guns essentially equal more murder and more deaths. That's obviously not true, being that the UK is ranked 46 and Switzerland ranked 56. It's only the method of murder that changes. But if higher murder rates is caused by guns, then why is their no real disparity between the strictest countries on guns versus the the countries who are lax? They are all jumbled, pointing to cultural reasons and not the amount of guns.
Saudi Arabia also has some of the harshest criminal penalties on Earth.
Immaterial.
DC is irrelevant. It's a city. A local municipality. You could drive a few miles, buy a gun legally, and then drive right back.
Then why did both their murder and crime rate go down if it is irrelevant? Is that abysmal 30-year trend all of a sudden stopping when the gun-ban lifted just a coincidence? Or is it a deterrent?
Owning a gun DOES. NOT. MAKE. YOU. SAFER.
Yelling it won't make it more or less true.
In "defending yourself," you're MORE LIKELY to cause that which you are trying to prevent, that being your own death.
Yes, Rahvin, just like riding in a car more often would naturally increase your chances of getting in to a fatal wreck. That being the case doesn't invalidate the indispensable good that comes from it, namely the protection of your person, family, and property.
And if we restrict the crazy bastards to less lethal means of expressing their craziness, then fewer people die as a result.
Criminals by definition are people who flout the law. Gun laws don't apply to criminals nearly as much as they apply to law-abiding citizens.
the primary supplier of black market arms is, in fact, legitimate weapons sales, whether the arms are stolen (rarely, around 10-15% of them) or purchased legally through a proxy or corrupt legal firearms dealer (the vast majority of the time)
Are we speaking about the United States or the world?
without legal firearms sales, the supply of guns and ammunition will drop to what currently exists (which will be worn down by attrition as guns break or are confiscated, and as ammunition is used or confiscated), and what can be illegally imported from other nations (likely Mexico).
No, as evidenced by Mexico itself. Mexico highly regulates firearms, and yet their murder rate is the 6th highest in the world. It is even more strict in Russia, and their murder rate is a notch higher than Mexico.
It's like prohibition or the drug trade. When you make something illegal, you thereby become complicit in the wholesale underground trade of the commodity. It is simple supply and demand. With the greater the demand, somebody will always find the supplier.
With a more limited supply of new guns and ammunition, the black market will be unable to supply as many arms to the criminal element as it currently does.
Did it work with liquor? Does it work in nations who have strict gun laws? If there is value in the trade, people find ways.
Fewer deaths ethically supercedes any possible argument regarding the "violation of the sanctity of one's home" or "standing up to tyranny in one's own home" or "it makes me feel safer" or "semi-automatics give me a hardon."
Nope, otherwise any number of nations with a higher crime rate than the US with far more restrictions would vindicate you. That it has the opposite effect only proves my point.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 2:22 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 218 (550490)
03-15-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
03-15-2010 6:09 PM


Re: It's about rights, not control
You don't want citizens to own them? Stop making them. BUT, if they are made and sold legally, then what right does anyone have to restrict citizens who want to purchase them? The restriction should be placed (as with cigarettes) on the manufacturer...not the people buying a legally sold product.
An interesting angle you take here. In the spirit of this, what are some suggestions you might have for manufacturers?
With that said, I'm all for stricter gun control laws - as I have argued in the past.
What I would add to gun control is a national and possibly international database for people who have been clinically determined to have serious psychological problems.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 6:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 218 (550506)
03-15-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
03-15-2010 8:25 PM


Bloody revolution
An argument for the necessity of owning a gun seems rather weak if you're making an argument that you need a gun to rise up against the government.
Why, if that's the reason why the amendment was created at all? That is the main purpose of the amendment, which for them was borne out of necessity. The other reason is protection in general.
Or as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
And why? Again, Thomas Jefferson:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Because, it would just be you doing it or, you and a small handful of people you get to join you (those who don't break under pressure or sell you out for leniency).
Quite simply I am saying that there is a checks and balances system between the People and Government. If most every citizen were armed, and if the time ever came for a revolution, they would think very carefully. Because a few people can turn in to a few million overnight depending on the circumstances.
And this really isn't conspiracy babble, it's just a simple safeguard in the event it is ever necessary. There are Germans out there right now scratching their temples, wondering how the Nazi's not only took power so quickly, but brainwashed so many of their brethren to resort to unspeakable crimes.
And that should home for you to some degree. One day you're with Batista, the next Castro comes charging in forever altering the lives of the Cuban people.
Unfortunately, this shit happens for real, regardless of how infrequent. History testifies to it.
If the police force - who is already organized, trained and paid to do the job of protecting it's citizens - in your opinion, is a "false sense of security," then how on earth are you and a couple of local yahoos with guns a true sense of security?
I'm saying that you need to be reliant on yourself more than any other person. Oh, the cops will show up.... often to take your crime scene photo.
I am not diminishing the need for an organized police force, I am just saying that you cannot assume that you will always be able to rely on them. If you go out on the water, sure the Coast Guard is there and they will do everything in their power to find you. But there is no substitute for a savvy sailor who plans ahead and relies on himself first, and the Coast Guard as a backup. That is the false sense of security I am referring to.
You could then try, if someone like Rahvin wanted to, to legislate the manufacturers. But this is a worthless fight, with no outcome. It's too strong of an industry (politically) that trying to shut it down is next to impossible.
They have a very big lobby to be sure. America since the time of its inception has been armed. Right or wrong, it is so ingrained within the culture that not only is it the 2nd amendment (the amendment which ensures the protection of the 1st, in my estimation), but it has become a way of life. To take that away now would be met with armed resistance. We're not talking a couple hillbillies in Montanta, we're talking millions. It will not be a matter of the silent majority acquiescing to the demands of a government, it would be as bloody a revolution as any in its history. Even people in the government (like me) are servants of the citizen and are citizens themselves above all. It is doubtful they would ever relinquish their rights so quietly. Shame on them if they do.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 8:25 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2010 11:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 03-16-2010 2:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 218 (550540)
03-16-2010 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
03-15-2010 10:46 PM


Re: Bloody revolution
Because it's not then, it's now. 2010. It's not a good argument anymore.
It's always relevant, just like free speech.
There are other arguments that are actually relevant. Like: Hey they legally sell the gun, fuck you, I'm buying it.
Yes, but it is only legal in the context of the amendment itself.
I presented this question before, who would "they" be who is thinking twice?
Whomever may want to subvert your rights, foreign or domestic.
The government is not a dictatorship, and any uprising of a dictator would be crushed by the military.
The government is always in danger of over-stepping its bounds, freedom is always a step away from being lost, etc. The "it can't happen to me" mindset is something people always say when they develop cancer, or are in the midst of a bear attack, or just lost a child in an auto wreck. It can happen.
Do you think in either case, people owning a gun would have prevented these situations?
It would certainly help push negotiations along. A bunch of ragtag, malnourished, not-well-trained resistance groups have been killing thousands of Americans for 2 separate decades (Vietnam & Afghanistan) for two sole reasons.
1. They're armed.
2. They're willing to fight for something they believe in
quote:
America since the time of its inception has been armed.
...had slaves, considered women second class, considered gays second class, didn't let minorities vote, segregated people...yeah, shit changes. I'm not armed. My parents were never armed. A lot of people I know live unarmed, a lot of people period live unarmed. So times have changed as far as that goes.
It doesn't bother me if you don't want exercise a portion of your freedom for whatever reason, but I do. Every now and again I like to take a consensus on how many people stand up for the right and how many people want to take it away.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 03-15-2010 10:46 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 03-16-2010 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 218 (550554)
03-16-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Theodoric
03-15-2010 11:00 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
He never said it. If you can show me the exact source of this quote I will retract this. But I know you can't. It is not an actual Jefferson quote.
I am going to assume that you are right since I cannot find a reputable source. Thank you for pointing that out. I suppose this would be a good addition to Percy's thread.
Your next Jefferson quote
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Is actually quite taken out of context
You are right to say that it was not explicitly about guns, but that is not what I was referencing at that particular time. I was referencing how it is considered virtuous to not trust in the government to always be on its best behavior. Besides, it is not a mystery that Thomas Jefferson was very much in favor of an armed citizenry, and that fact is well-sourced.
Here is a quote that I doubt you would disagree with its veracity or its context:
"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson
Actual document

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2010 11:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 10:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 218 (550606)
03-16-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 10:43 AM


Re: Bogus quotes
So you are calling for a rebellion?
No, I just want to have that available to me if the need ever arises.
It is funny how people love to quote things that support them, but don't want to hear anything that goes against their beliefs.
What is that in reference to?
Do you think John Adams and George Washington would support this view?
Based on what is historically known of them, yes.
Quotes from the 1700's have very little bearing on the society we have today. People like Jefferson had no concept or experience of what became or is now the United States of America.
But he knew history, and history has repeated itself many times since then.
This letter is a prime example of rhetoric. Did he actually believe this at the time? Who knows. But his later actions do not show he truly believed this. Do you know what he was doing 20 years later? He was President of the country which you seem to think he wanted to overthrow.
Why don't you actually read what I've written throughout this thread instead of misconstruing it. I've worked for the government for 8 years now. I don't want to overthrow anything as there is no need for it. HOWEVER, should the time ever arise when that is necessary, like taking away the 2nd Amendment, I want the resources available to me in the event the government ever goes astray from its historic beliefs.
But has nothing to do with guns or arms. It has to do with educating the people.
Read what he said. He said that in his experience governments, ever so incrementally, tend to go closer towards tyranny. Whatever the cause of that tyranny may be is irrelevant that it is still tyranny. I happen to agree with him.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 10:43 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 6:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 218 (550623)
03-16-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 6:37 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
OK, so your contention was that John Adams and George Washington would agree that a revolution every 20 years or so would be a good thing.
No, not every 20 years to the date, Theo. Let's be realistic. That is hyperbole. The greater question (and obviously what I thought you were inquiring about) is if they would they support revolution? Yes, obviously, since they did.
Washington was a reluctant revolutionary. He was motivated by economic factors. Nothing as heady and abstract as liberty democracy. He was a member of the American aristocracy. Yes he was a jumped up member but it was something he sought to attain his whole life. The idea of the armed rabble was but a necessary evil to him.
Yes, and as best I can tell it still is a necessary evil. I agree that Washington was burdened by the thought of having to fight a war, particularly with what was his own countrymen, but he still fought in the highest capacity possible.
And what exactly is your point anyhow? We have the 2nd Amendment. That George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson signed, and thereby endorsed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, means that they agreed. So what exactly is your point?
quote:
:To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
Did you not see where he said except in private self-defense? The 2nd Amendment calls for two things: That an organized militia be created and that the right of the People to bear arms will not be infringed. That he endorsed the 2nd Amendment, that he was explicit in having private citizens armed, means that he is in favor of it.
What exactly is the point you are making? Is this your way of disapproving with the 2nd Amendment? Do you think it is antiquated and needs to be changed? What are you personally seeking?
Now how about you try a legitimate quote and actual backing to your assertions.
I did, Theo. I even posted the original document along with it. And for the first two quotes you pointed out, I conceded and even thanked you for pointing the error out. You didn't even acknowledge it. So please explain why you are being so scornful. You against the 1st Amendment too?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 6:37 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 8:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 218 (550644)
03-16-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theodoric
03-16-2010 8:05 PM


Re: Bogus quotes
You stated(if you want me to go back to the original message I will) that Adams and Washington would have supported Jeffersons statement about a revolution every 20 years.
Theo, give me a break. The "20 year" commentary is obvious hyperbole. Nobody has a revolution as a 20-year anniversary. I obviously thought you were referring to revolutions in general. The answer is, yes, if a revolution is necessary then I applaud it. If it is not necessary, then there is no reason for one.
You're splitting hairs.
You are now backpedaling and misrepresenting my response. I did not say anything about them being against the tight to bear arms. I was showing that your assertion was a load of crock.
I presented an argument showing why it was crock. Now you claim you didn't mean what you said? Maybe you should think before you hit that submit button.
Thus far you have misconstrued nearly everything I said, trying to get me to say one thing and supplying your own meaning to it. That's your failing, not mine.
Or are you saying Adams and Washington thought the US should have a revolution in some indeterminate time in the future
Theo, have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War??? They stand for revolution when it is necessary, not just for shits and giggles. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'd love to see your sources on this. Maybe you should just admit it is something you pulled out of your ass?
Listen Theo, I have stated in no uncertain terms that I believe all the founding fathers stand for armed revolution in one form or another for the sole fact that they fought and supported, in one capacity or another, a revolution against the, then, strongest military in the world. You apparently want me to unilaterally say that they all want to massacre people for the sake of massacre.
Secondly, again, when I was wrong about something I not only admitted it, but thanked you for it. So, why don't you stop being hostile and get to what you really want to say. Because as best I can tell, you just want to argue with me for the sake of arguing.
Thirdly, what is your point? Where are you going with this? What are your personal feelings on the topic?
Classic Hyro. When caught throwing bs around you change the argument. Deflect and attack the person you are debating with. Poor form, poor form.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth. You have yet to answer a direct question and you say I'm using poor form?
You care to back your statements about Adams and Washington or not?
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." -- John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818
"I give my signature to many Bills with which my Judgment is at variance.... From the Nature of the Constitution, I must approve all parts of a Bill, or reject it in total. To do the latter can only be Justified upon the clear and obvious grounds of propriety; and I never had such confidence in my own faculty of judging as to be over tenacious of the opinions I may have imbibed in doubtful cases." -- George Washington, letter to Edmund Pendleton, September 23, 1793
Washington was the General of the Revolution, whom was appointed by Adams. That they not only fought a bloody war for so long, but also commanded it, they clearly felt the necessity so great for revolution, that they did not abandon the hope.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 8:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2010 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024