Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:37:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1601 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > I don't care if you own a gun--it comes with a free society. But don't
> > think it comes from the 2nd. Here's the point: The 2nd says "In order to
> > maintian a well regulated militia, people have the right to bear arms."
> > (whatever, is close)
>
> No, not close, in fact completely wrong.
Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I
didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a
response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout
that--but now that you have it, *everything* I said *still* applies--Timmy
and Melissa (age 5 and 4) are still *people*, and yet they're still not
allowed to own guns... and all the rest of my points--don't say I quoted
wrong, therefore all points that followed are wrong--my points were there
right from the beginning from the exact wording of the 2nd--prove to me my
points are wrong.
I like to think I keep an open mind. I like to think I can adapt and
change--so show me where each and every point I made is hogwash. Don't be
like, "Oh he got that one wrong so the rest are gonna fall like a house of
cards..." It's like the OJ simpson trial--all evidence pointed to him but
oh no, the gloves didn't fit so the rest must be malarky as well.
As I stated in the last post (and many before)--People here have said that
the "important part" is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed", and if we really want to look at it, "a citizen is
part of a well regulated militia"-- but when questioned, like when Crazy Joe
Shootist goes for a gun, he's not allowed 'cause he's not part of a "well
regulated militia". So I wanna know--who is part of this "well regulated
militia"? Well, how about institutions and services that are, well, ummm,
well regulated? That'd be a start. Where was I wrong in showing that?
Where was I wrong when I said that the first part is not only an explanation
as some suggest, but is also part of the equation as to who gets a gun, as
in who has the "right to keep and bear arms"?
Where was I wrong in saying that Joe, Richard, Chris, Larry and now Mike are
*not* part of a well regulated militia unless they belong to a *well
regulated* militia such as a branch of the military or in the police
services? That going down to the corner gun store and picking up a Colt 45
doesn't make you part of a militia at all, yet alone *well regulated*--it
just makes you the 'proud' owner of a gun--no more, no less.
Where was I wrong in the idea that even taking a course on guns, where
there's a test and a certificate, and that only then, and after being
vetted, would you be even allowed to buy a gun? That would even be
admissable as 'well regulated' because, well, it can be regulated by the
state, and not every yahoo that wants a gun can then get a gun.
Where was I wrong in saying that the moment that the gov't becomes
tyrannical, the 2nd is completely and totally useless? Heck, from here,
right now by listening to this thread, it seems thge 2nd is pretty useless
anyway, 'cause y'all just looking for *any* excuse to have a gun to
overthrow the gov't at the least provocation. But I could be wrong on that,
and maybe I'm a little harsh, but there you go.
Where was I wrong in saying that the 2nd *may be* a dumb-ass archaic
ammendment written before streetlights and the services of the police and
that someone should look into a process in which to try and strike it from
the books. But that's least of my worries for, imho, for my 'proper'
interpretation is good 'nuff.
Where was I wrong in saying that the people that are in the police force,
that are in your armed services are also *citizens* of your country, are
your very own brothers and sisters, who have just as much a stake in what
happens to your country as you do, that they are out there *defending* your
right to freedom from those that would see an end to your country, an end to
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", that they're laying it on the
line--giving their very lives to defend the United States of America and all
it stands for. We should not treat that as if it's unimportant, either.
> The 2nd says "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."
But thanks for getting the exact wording right, thus reinforcing my entire
point. Much appreciated. Maybe I should have just cut and pasted it from
the eariler thread--my laziness draws out the conversation into new realms
of hashing the same points out--points that have yet to be addressed but I
like throwing easy hooks out there for you guys to grab on to, thus leaving
the "real points" untouched. I like giving y'all more ways for the thread
to go off into "what's wrong with democracy", or "how was Dave stupid in
past threads", or "Let's dredge up something that Dave wasn't even
addressing and make it sound like it's the point of this entire
conversation", or even "Oh look, he spelled Martial wrong (he's Canadian, he
only has a *minor* in poli-sci, he doesn't use sesquipedelian words,
whatever), we can disregard everything he says..." to name but a few.
>
> [snip]
> > You cannot have it both ways--you cannot uphold the ideals of democracy and
> > say at the same time, 'if they don't listen to me I will shoot them' for
> > that's *not* democracy, that's tyranny.
>
> If you bother to read...
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17657
And if you bother to really read my post that you just replied to (or this
entire thread), you would see that I had some points there, which you tossed
aside with 'oh you got the quote wrong (i didn't--paraphrase is a
*wonderful* thing--remember english lit--putting things in your own words?
You get the general concept, then you build on it or critique it--you're
suppose to critique the *concept* and I did just that.)
> The point of the second amendment is to allow the people to overthrow the
> government when it becomes tyrannical and REINSTATE the republic.
Show me where it says that. I don't see *any* of those words in the 2nd...
I don't see even an implied meaning close to what you're saying. It seems,
to me anyway, that, as others pointed out here, these ammendments were
written pretty specifically. If you want to go 'interpreting' this
ammendment your way in order to have your security blanket locked in a
closet in your house, then I want my daughter to have funding for her little
"I love Jesus" group on par with the football team--both valid bonafide
after school activities, 'cause her little group certainly isn't a "church",
so there certainly is *no* infringement on the separation of church and state.
As it stands for me, keep your guns--free country and all that, you can buy
'em. Remember this--when the 2nd was written, the most powerful weapon was
the gun. I reiterate--not even close to being the most powerful today.
Not only are you interpreting the 2nd wrong, imho, but owning a gun because
of your bad interpretation of the 2nd is also pointeless, for the law isn't
worth the paper it's written on if you have to invoke your twisted
interpretation and even Joe 'Crazy Gun Guy' Yahoo can have a gun--there's no
law to stop him.
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
The point of the 2nd is to allow a well regulated militia to have guns to
protect your republic from enemies foreign *and* domestic--and that is,
imho, what the police services and your military is *trying* to do. Sure
they screw up once in a while--I'm not an apologist for stupidity--find the
guilty parties and hang their sorry heinies from the yard arm--or follow the
law and see what kind of restitutuion that can offer, whatever... prob'ly
the law is an easier avenue 'cause not too many yard arms anymore.
Once again, *none* of my points were refuted. None of my points was even
looked at. "Oh look, he got the wording wrong... the 2nd obviously meant
this..." Yeah, I saw your interpretation, and I disagree.
K, well, whatever.
I also reiterate--I have *faith* in 50.1 percent of your fellow people, that
they'll do the right thing if they have the information needed to do the
right thing. I have faith in the *process* of democracy. Yes things have
been bad, but let me tell you--in the past 200+ years, there has been a far
greater example of *good* from your country than bad. "We believe these
truths to be self evident..." Don't just read these works as an
intellectual excercise, looking for ways to get what you want... take these
words to heart. Kennedy said it when he said, "Ask not what your country
can do for you--rather ask what you can do for your country..." You have a
proud history, and you have a bright future--fix the bugs that plague you
but for the love of all that's good in this land, don't throw the baby out
with the bathwater and don't sell your fellow citizen short--Have faith.
It's worked for 200+ years.
The faith of which I speak is the same faith that it takes to move
mountains--it carries a shovel. If I have faith that I can move mountains,
I carry a shovel to do the work. Take that as you like--I think it's quite
clear.
If you feel that your ideas are not being addressed--convince 50.1 percent
of your fellow voting district members.
"Power to the people!"
Again, thanks for letting me get my points even more clear. The more
'errors' you find, the better I can adapt, update, clear up, change my way
of looking at this issue and hopefully come up with an even better way of
looking at it.
Dave K.
(born in the wrong generation--would have made a wonderful 'flower-power'
guy :) )
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (22 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
