Subject:
|
Re: The Blood of Patriots & Tyrants (was Re: Sticking my gun...etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:38:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
883 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
I’ll concede that we could go ‘round and ‘round about the 2nd and what it
really says, so we wont--for the purposes of this, and only this discussion,
it says exactly what you think it says, but you can’t go adding that
‘preserving democracy’ part to it *at all*. Those words aren’t even there.
|
Are you joking? “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.” What the heck do you think it says? Well allow me to translate this
into modern day English for you. “A well regulated militia...” “Every able
bodied citizen...” “being necessary to the security of a free state,...”
“for the purpose of preserving the democracy,...” “the right of the poeple to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “has the right to own weapons.”
This is backed by all of the historical refrences which Hop-Frog already sited.
You keep stating that we are ignoring 30 people dying a day. We are not ignoring
it we simply recognize that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not
stop those 30 deaths a day. Punish the lunatics that commit the crimes not the
inantimate object they happen to use. The only way to make your assertation that
‘removing guns will reduce crime’ true is to remove every gun from the face of
the planet, including those owened by the various militaries and police forces
of the world. Good luck with that.
You keep appealing to the “power of the vote” and you seem to be ingoring where
that power is derived from. You keep giving numerous examples of instances where
everything worked as it should ‘without guns.’ Yet you ingore the fact that the
people had the ability, if it would have been required.
You keep reciting phrases out of context like “outta my cold dead hands” and
“brain lead.” Yet you ignore the fact that those statements are made in defence
of freedom and the democracy that preserves it. If you are unwilling to kill to
protect your freedom that is fine. No one is requiring you to keep a gun or kill
to protect your freedom. What I can’t figure out is where you get off telling
people they shouldn’t reserve the right to kill to protect freedom just because
it is unlikely that we will ever need to resort to such desperate measures. Did
it ever occur to you that the reason it is extremely unlikely that we will have
to resort to such measures is simply because we do have the ability to do so? Of
course for some odd reason you actually believe that the military is somehow in
a position of god-like superiority and we don’t have the ability to do so, when
in fact the military could easily be neutralized by an overwhelming force in its
own bases on American soil. (That is a worst case senario mind you, in all
likelyhood if things got that bad, the military would be busy fighting itself.
Either way its presence is irrelevent.)
I am going to take a wild guess and say your going to ignore all that and just
think I am a ‘gun totin yahoo.’ I wonder if you realize that we are technically
arguing for the same thing; protecting the innocent and preserving our rights
and democracy.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
111 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
