Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:23:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Not to really be flippant--so gov’t officials aren’t allowed to own guns?
Any time I’ve heard of bills being presented to “regulate” the sales,
distribution, or ownership of guns in your country, a huge furor erupts. Guns,
or the use thereof, in your country are not “well regulated” at all.
| |
| |
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.
|
If you “have to use the definitions from when it was written”, hhen you have to
use the civilization that these definitions pertain to. America 200+ years ago
is not America today. Your society has evolved since 1776, and, as such, so
should your understanding. I’ve said it before--there has been specific
sections of your laws written 200+ years ago that have been found to be archaic
and were subsequently stricken or modified as your society evolved. You’ve just
stated the reason why. Yet you don’t wish to see it where your guns are
concerned.
| |
| |
“
“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?
|
Okay Mike, we are done. Neither one of us is going to win this one.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
