Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:18:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > Strange, but my idea of freedom is not living in constant fear of being
> > shot. That's why each of you wants a gun - to defend yourself against all
> > the others who have guns. It doesn't even occur to you that everyone else
> > wants a gun because they don't trust you with one either. It's a culture of
> > incredibly selfish paranoia. There's anything noble about it.
> This is distortive and false. You're not thinking deeply enough, you're just
> buying the line fed you.
By whom? However deeply you or I think about this subject, the majority of
gun owners (legal or illegal) do not. However noble your or the founding
fathers' intentions, purchasing a gun for the purposes of home or personal
defence, or carrying it on a daily basis, do not align with the priciples
you're espousing.
> The absolute level of technology is not the important point (remember:
> swords were regulated by oppresive governments back when they were the best
> tech available) it's the relative level. The founding fathers seemed to
> intend that the populace be able to be armed at the same level as soldiers
> they might face. At that time, it was muzzle loaders and cannon. Now it's
> automatic weapons, anti tank weapons, night vision goggles, etc.
I presume there were other factors to considering such past governments
oppressive, but I do not see the regulation of offensive weapons as
oppressive in itself. I see it as preserving the peace and safety of the
population as a whole. It may limit the actions open to an individual, but
freedom does not mean doing what you will without consequence.
Are you suggesting that individuals equip themselves to go up against the
army? These principles pre-date an official army. Other countries consider
a militia redundant (or at least surplus) to a standing national armed
force. Yet, you believe that you should at all times be prepared for civil
war against your own national forces.
As an aside, where are the annual statistics on soldiers killed by civilians
with hadguns?
Thinking more about it, it even suggests naïvety in the original document.
It allows the arming of the population to defend against (a) invasion (for
which you now have a standing armed force) and (b) civil insurrection. Yet,
you've just had it written that the rebel element have the right to arm
themselves too. So, rather than provide for a right to protest, you've
enshrined a right to civil war in the constitution.
Anyway, what particularly sickens me* is the way in which people cling to
the constitution or a particular ammendment as the absolute authority (Larry
- I acknowledge this is not you - you continue to make your own principles
clear). It is supposed to be the absolute basis of American freedom. Yet,
freedom is about taking responsibility for your own actions - not just doing
what you will, when you feel like it. To justify behaviour by referring to
words on a piece of paper rather than any personal standpoint is ducking
one's own responsibility in these issues. How can someone claim to be a
free man when they refuse to take responsibility?
The constitution was a flawed document. If anyone doubts this, then ask
yourself why it was necessary to make any ammendments. So, is it perfect
now? Probably not. To ammend it takes great will and determination, but
also puts the burden of the consequences of that ammendment on the people.
What seems to be lacking is the understanding that to abide by it is to take
on responsibilities too. To accept its guidance should be to agree with it
and take it to heart, not to use it as a quick cop-out answer or easy ride
through life.
I acknowledge that it gives guidance to those who do not wish to concern
themselves with the underlying issues (as with any guiding document - from
statute law to LEGO instructions), but to use it as authoritative when its
very content is being discussed is ludicrous. It's like discussing the
existence of God, and someone saying 'well, the bible says so, so it must be
true'.
Now, what would be your standpoint on training? On the one hand, you need
to be sure that you are not putting guns in the hands of irresponsible
individuals, but on the other hand, who could hope to control the training,
certification and regulated distribution of weapons in a way you would not
regard as oppressive? The Government? A commercial enterprise?
Jason J Railton
P.S Could you link or give titles of particularly relevant sections of the
Federalist Papers?
*besides the unneccesary suffering, death, maiming, fear, etc., obviously.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Yes, absolutely, and I don't think that's any misinterpretation. Quoting from the opening of the Declaration of Independence: (...) I think it's pretty clear that the founding fathers recognized that governments can and will become so corrupt (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) This is distortive and false. You're not thinking deeply enough, you're just buying the line fed you. (...) Again, distortive. Read the Federalist Papers before you comment further, would be my suggesting. The absolute level of technology is (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
