| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while
> skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing!
Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread...
...check out: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html
that looks like the government printing office to me, and should be
reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around
questions of what kinds of arms are protected and what kinds of persons
constitute a militia. In the end the Supreme Court can decide whatever it
likes, as it often does, but that is not the final word on the subject.
I don't care to explain it here (unless someone really needs it explained),
but there is all ways the matter of "jury nullification" and the ability of
the people to retain rights recognized de facto and by historical tradition.
Historically, I don't think there can be any dispute that individuals have
the right and duty to keep and bear arms. This right and duty comes down to
us from times at least as ancient as those of the Magna Carta. If my
assertion that this is true is actually false, I should like someone to
prove it with historical evidence of some kind.
We keep and bear arms in the U.S. because there is a well recognized freedom
and duty to do so. Whether this is good or bad is really not up for grabs
-- it would require a fundamental shift in our historical perspective in the
U.S. to do away with the right altogether. I can well see that the states
have been trying to regulate the possession of firearms, esp. as relates to
convicted felons. Who can argue with that overmuch? Felons have lost some
of their rights by their own actions. I wouldn't even mind laws regulating
a certain requisite training in the use and keeping of firearms. Again, who
could argue with reasonable regulations like that? I have no problem with
such things.
To do away with the right to keep and bear arms, esp. of the type needed for
civil defense -- or even insurrection, is clearly and historically
forbidden. If anyone ever tries to take away this fundamental right, I will
certainly have a problem with that.
I don't know why we go around and around with this issue. The U.S. is not
Europe. The U.S. is not the U.K. Everyone else can offer their silly
opinions and then shut the hell up. If you don't live here, you don't
understand our problems or our needs. For those of you "in country" that
want to complain of our rights concerning arms, first tell me how you intend
to modify perception of something so fundamental that it allowed for the
formation of this country in the first place? We would have stayed under
the thumb of George III except for a violent rebellion. Is it everyone's
assertion that such a need will NEVER arise again?
The histories of almost every country in South America tells me you would be
wrong. The Warsaw Ghetto tells me you would be wrong. All the failed
rebellions of the world tell me you would be wrong. Where sufficient arms
are maintained by the populace, countries generally remain free. Look at
Israel. Look at Switzerland
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1566000/1566715.stm --
which Scott A. has also cited).
If anyone has something truly intelligent and substantive to say, beyond
minute bickering about stastics and so on, bring it on. I SERIOUSLY doubt
anyone can actually refute my fundamental assertions about rights concerning
arms in the U.S.
I guess I am annoyed at the nitpicking and stupidity that surrounds the
subject on both sides. Y'all just argue around the fundamental issues and
rarely get to the heart of it. Most countries wouldn't exist except by force
of arms. Consider it a necessary evil and be done with it.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: [massive snip] (...) Probably wouldn't exist as they currently are, no. Who's to say what society would be like without firearms (or the fists, rocks, and swords which preceded them). Doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Sorry, gotta nitpick: Canada and Australia had no violent rebellions against British rule, yet both became de facto independent by roughly 1900. [1] A failure to revolt against British rule would not have kept us under anyone's thumb, it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, in terms of Constitutional interpretation, it *is* the supreme word on the matter, until either congress legislates a higher law or another case before the Supreme Court results in an overturning of Miller. (...) Here's the text: (URL) I (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing! (...) Many who live elsewhere do regard ours as an amazingly libertine society (isn't that one of the reasons they hate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 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
|
|
|
|
