Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:42:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
You know you still have not replied to
this
-Mike Petrucelli
|
You didn’t say anything new in there at all, Mike. Lets have a looksee--
“
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...” ”
And we’ll start disagreeing right here. Show me how an abled bodied citizen
constitutes a “well regulated militia”. Show me how a bunch of able bodied
citizens constitute a ‘well regulated militia” when they are not part of any
regulated military forces.
|
Well, as Hop-Frog has pointed out numerous times, our founding fathers stated
quite clearly when asked that a militia was anyone that is not a government
offical.
| |
Since you’re into defining things your way, let’s look at the definition of
“well regulated” and “militia” in this context. Well regulated--under the
purview of officers, regimented, trained and certified. None of which is the
lone gunman in his house. Militia--a military force. Again, does not
include you and your gun in your house.
|
Perhaps that is the modern day definition, but what does that have to do with
reading a 200+ year old document. You have to use the definitions from when it
was written.
| |
“
“being necessary to the security of a free state,...”
”
Sure armed forces are there to secure a free state. I haven’t said that
scrapping of the army, navy, air force, marines would be a good thing. On
the contrary, I support the troops--the work that they do is what is actually
protecting our freedoms. I’d like cites that say the same for your gun in
your house. But there aren’t any or you would have rolled them out by now.
You don’t have one shred of proof that can equate guns in homes with
defending democracy, not one cite showing that guns in homes preserve
freedom. I have shown many cites to the contrary--first, guns aren’t needed
in homes to preserve democracy, vigilant people are needed to preserve
democracy. Second, people’s freedoms are ended at the point of a gun in the
thousands.
“
“for the purpose of preserving the democracy,...” “the right of the poeple to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ”
I have the right to jump off a cliff and kill myself--suicide isn’t against
the law--how can it be? I have the right to marry whomever I choose, though
if I don’t choose wisely I’d end up miserable. There are many rights open to
us on account of the freedom we have. I don’t dispute your right in your
country to own a gun. Legally you are allowed ot walk into a gunshop and,
with a little bit of paperwork and hopefully a security check, purchase a
gun.
“has the right to own weapons.” This is backed by all of the historical
refrences which Hop-Frog already sited.
Again not refuting. If you drop the first part about the well regulated
militia out of your arguement, for you are not, and therefore the first part
doesn’t apply, then we can go on.
But the bigger issue is, should you? Should you own a gun? I have shown
that guns are, in fact, a detriment to your society today.
|
Really where?
| |
You have not
shown that guns in the hands of the private citizen is good for society. You
have ‘faith based’ reasoning to justify your ownership, vis a vis the
politicians in America will turn tyrannical, with no concrete evidence
supporting said claim.
”
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. ”
And you keep ignoring the fact that guns in law abiding homes kill people.
Take away the guns and the criminals (and the kids and the jilted lover,
etc.) can’t get at ‘em. I think that the armed forces have tighter security
such that guns getting into the hands of the ordinary citizen is much reduced
from these venues. It’s not a valid arguement and we’re back to 5 year old
logic--“If timmy can get his hands on a gun, I should have the right to get
my hands on a gun.” forgetting the simple fact that timmy has relatively no
chance to acquire a gun smuggled out from armed forces, and that you have a
high chance of getting a gun at the local gun store
|
Actually it is easier to illegally purchase a Russian made AK-47 machine gun
than it is to legally purchase a U.S. made handgun. Something you continue to
ignore.
| |
--a gun that can then be
used to justify Timmy actually going out and getting one of his own.
”
You keep appealing to the “power of the vote” and you seem to be ingoring
where that power is derived from. ”
I don’t see guns voting, I see people voting in Amewrica
|
You have yet to show a single instance in which a country with an unarmed
citiznery has the right to vote in the first place. (Of course there isn’t one
but hey who cares about minor things like that. Just because an idea is
completly unproven doesn’t make it any less appealing to you for some odd
reason.)
| |
--more later but boss wants a ride to pick up his vehicle :)
|
Okay then. :-)
-Mike Petrucelli
| |
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 has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
