Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:13:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1050 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William R. Ward writes:
> "David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> writes:
> > Furthermore, as sometimes I am prone to doing, *if* I concede your full
> > understanding of the 2nd, can't we all just say it was a dumb-ass ammendment
> > written in a time before street lights and police, and it should be stricken
> > from the books? The frontier *has* been tamed (yes is quoted from WW--get
> > over it ;) )
>
> The US Constitution is designed to ensure a reasonably fair government
> that doesn't have too much power over the people. But if that were to
> break down, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide the people a last-
> ditch method of regaining the control over the country. Because in
> the philosophy of the DoI and Constitution, the people hold the
> ultimate power. Not a king or tyrant. This is as true today as it
> was in the 18th century.
If the US gov't were to break down, laws are irrelevant, and we're back
to... who said it, Lock, Hobbes? can't remember polisci 101 (such a long
time ago)...'natural law' or, as I like to think of it, 'He who has the
biggest stick, rules' The constitution and any law on the books cannot be
enforced when there is no system in place to enforce them. So the 2nd
ammendment would be irrelevent, along with the rest of 'em. Telling me that
laws are in place *in case* of the situation where there may be no law...
Hmmm, a law to tell us what to do when there's no law... Whatever.
>
> Honestly speaking, it would be an uphill battle: the U.S. military
> against the ragtag collection of people who own guns (i.e. the "well-
> regulated militia"). It may not be a fair fighting chance, but it's a
> chance. And with enough deserters from the Army it *could* succeed.
In one sentence--a ragtag collection is a 'well regulated militia'--To me, a
complete contradiction in terms. If, again, the US gov't were to disappear
tomorrow there would be no such way to enforce the 2nd ammendment and it
would be everybody for his or herself.
I can't even believe you went there--'with enuf deserters from the Army it
could succeed'... Hey General Custer, two things--if there comes a time in
the future when you have to worry about using this line of defense, then the
United States doesn't exist anymore, and therefore the 2nd ammendment is
irrelevant, and 2--they have nukes.
>
> I'm not advocating that this should happen; I think that despite the
> erosion of civil liberties that has been going on for some time, and
> that has accelerated significantly since September 11, 2001, there is
> still a great deal of power left to the people without an armed
> uprising. But the bottom line is, that there is always the potential
> for an armed uprising as a backup, in case the mechanism of democracy
> were to break down. The threat of such an uprising makes it less
> likely the government will try to declare martial law, cancel an
> election, or take other steps that have occurred in many democracies
> (especially in Central & South America).
An armed uprising as a backup--this fits right into the line of 'gun toting
yahoo' thinking a la Koresh.
What makes the government *not* declare marshall law is not the threat of
bodily injury from getting shot by you and your gun, it's the thought that
democracy doesn't work during marshall law, nor does capitalism and whatever
else the US has as foundational principles, and therefore, marshall law =
the end of the United States, which again, makes any law null and void.
>
> I do not subscribe to the idea that all citizens are members of a
> "well-regulated militia" however. I do think that all citizens are
> *potential* members of such a militia, in case the democratic system
> should fail. This is what the misguided fools who were battling the
> ATF in the late '90's were thinking. I disagree with them that the
> time has come. I hope it will never come. But if it did, the 2nd
> Amendment provides a way to ensure the "Security of a Free State."
Yes, everyone has the potential to be in the militia--is called signing up
for service and/or joining the police force. When you're in said
organizations, you can ensure the 'security of a free state' by standing up
against the forces that threaten what you so hold dear. Your gun in your
house does not help to accomplish that. I disagree with you that the 2nd
ammendment ensures the security of a free state. You're not out there,
helping to protect your neighbours place, or your town, or your state, or
your country, by having that gun in your house--It's the armed services and
the constables on patrol that are protecting your rights and security in a
free state. You're doing nothing to protect the rights of your country. As
a matter of fact, you're hindering the rights of others, the right to life
to anyone who is shot by your gun for starters.
It's as delusional as those people who throw trash out their windows along
the highway, 'I'm making work for those that have to pick up the garbage
along the road, so I'm helping them earn money' (don't laugh, I've heard
people use that excuse to litter). Well, put the trash where it belongs, I say.
"I'm keeping the country free from tyrants by keeping this gun in my house."
Sounds, to me anyway, pretty delusional. It sits there and does nothing.
In a bad situation, some thief breaks into your house and steals your gun
and goes and shoots someone with it. Yeah, that helped. Best case
scenario, it never leaves your house and causes no harm to anyone else in
the life of that piece of metal--I can hope for that. However, not having
the gun in the house in the first place, I don't even have to think about
it, and we all can go on, living in our democratically driven society, and
not worry about getting shot.
>
> --Bill.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| Let me say it again, but more concisely: Only an armed population can fight back against a totalitarian regime. The 2nd amendment is meant to allow the population to be armed for just this reason. Yes, if democracy failed and a totalitarian regime (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
