Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:13:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1282 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
This has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with your
selective interpretation. Either the 2nd is archaic, for you do not supply
militia members as needed from ‘the people’ anymore, the people who join the
militia today are supplied with training and arms as needed from the
resources of the militia (you don’t bring your gun to basic)--which was the
original intent of the 2nd, or you dismantle the standing armed forces you
have now for they are ‘unconstitutional’. Stop with the wiggling.
|
What does my opposition to a standing army have to do with the need, or right,
to a militia? The militia is de facto -- it is the people themselves. There is
no wiggling. I am not telling you that we are currently doing things in strict
accordance with the Constititution as amended to the present day -- I am merely
trying to define with as little error as possible what the thing means.
BTW, I take great offense at your conflation of the term “militia” with the idea
of a professional army after I have taken so many steps to show that they are
not the same thing in either archaic or modern parlance. That’s just you being
idiotically stubborn.
| |
I have a feeling that more people die due to wrongdoings committed with
privately owned guns than people saved by private gun ownership.
|
Great! Have any facts? Cites? Anything?
| |
And we’re back to this, which doesn’t have anything to do with the 2nd, but
let’s dwell here for a moment. This is your arguement now? Because the
police are made up of fallible people and can’t be sued? So if you had the
ability to hold the police forces accountable for every misstep, would you
then give up your gun? Of course not--this is a staw man--you’d come up with
another thinly veiled excuse.
|
No, you misunderstand. I am attempting to deflect a presumed argument on your
part -- that the police are sufficient protection. I don’t care about the
ability to sue them or not -- that’s just recovery after the damage has been
done. I don’t want to take the damage in the first place. My means to avoiding
the damage is self-reliance, self-defense, and as a last resort -- access to a
gun for a final means of protection.
| |
Hey, I have an idea--how about we give the cops the resources they need to do
their jobs properly for a start. This contempt you have for the men in
blue--from where does it arise? “Oh the corruption in the forces!”
|
Well Canada must be the most civil and peaceful society in existence. Some of
the places I have lived over the years were rife with violence of various kinds.
I don’t think the police are much of an answer to anything except the creation
of more fake criminality. The U.S. is already the most incarcerated place on
earth per capita -- does it make it any safer? Nope.
How many police could possibly be enough? Who will pay for these overkill
services? I know you haven’t thought any of this through...
| |
The reason that people had guns was that they may be called up to form the
“well regulated” militia--the people would, of course, have to bring their
own guns for there were no permanent armies to supply the armaments. Unlike
today, where the armed services gives you the tools and training you need.
|
That’s an interpretation, and not a literal one. Where does it say “you can
have either a standing army or a militia, but not both”? That’s just your
opinion. The Constitution allows for both.
C’mon Kooties! No cites, no references, no nothing. I know we each have our
opinions.
You are showing me a losing hand.
| |
Language is imprecise? No, really? And yet you stand ever so firm on your
interpretation thereof.
|
Yes, because I can show both an historic and ordinary modern basis for my common
every day meaning for things. Your holding nothing.
| |
I’m talking specifics, you’re talking semantics. If ‘the people’ are to make
up the ‘well regulated militia’, ‘the people’ should be subject to the same
‘well regulation’. There’s no semantics about it--you’ve made the excerpts
from the founders, framers, fathers, and they expressly state it. Yet you’re
arguing against it. Why?
|
What the hell are you talking about? In the other post on this topic, I state
explicitly that the militia is ideally under the authority of someone recognized
to be in a position of authority.
But let’s not forget the context here. The people that wrote this stuff just
committed treason and fought a bloody war against their former king. I think
they were keen to allow some wiggle room between utter subservience to authority
and some ability to call for a revolution without any appeal to authority
whatever!
You have proof to the contrary?
| |
| |
| |
When a 4 year old shoots people, that, at least to me, shows neither
discipline nor proper training, nor any reasonable sense of regulation
thereof.
|
|
|
Well, cry me a river then. Parents can absolutely prevent these occurances.
| |
I have no idea where you keep your gun--for where’s the regulation.
|
I think you picked this post to respond to because it’s actually murkier than
the other one. You know damn well that I already argued that you could regulate
the people within the militia, but that the right to bear arms was specifically
protected. Such protection means no restriction. Sorry.
Telling people how to march, or how to properly ambush and capture a suspect is
another matter. I think that’s just a nod at properly organizing a militia -- a
recognition of the necessary hierarchical chain of command.
| |
That doesn’t happen anymore. Therfore, there could be a very good arguement
that the 2nd is archaic--If you’re not going to be called up into a milita
group and bring your gun with you, the right to bear arms isn’t there, with
regards to the 2nd. It’s not semantics, it’s not imprecise wording. The
words are there, you just choose to ignore them.
|
No, you are choosing to ignore the meaning of Hamilton’s comments in Federalist
Number 29. The militia as a means to revolt was protected and openly discussed
by these men that had just fought a bloody revolution.
You’re ignoring context, again.
| |
As also stated, I’d go so far as to say that if the private gun owner was
subject to the same rules and regulations and training that the armed forces
has, then sure, keep your gun--I could possibly see even that little bit of
‘well regulated’ reducing gun related crimes.
|
I don’t actually have a problem with STRONGLY advising people to seek training
in the use of armaments. But it seems to me that the law forbids forcing them
to do so. It’s not that we disagree on what should be done, it’s that the law
forbids regulation at the level at which it would, or could, effectively
abrogate the right to bear arms.
| |
See, it’s the possible reducing of deaths that is my main drive.
|
Again, we don’t disagree. I just don’t think U.S. laws can accomplish it
without a fundamental revision of some of the fundamental rights of freemen as
pointedly protected in the Constitution and by social tradition.
| |
As for the rest, someone once said to me that “‘Mericans want their guns in
defiance of all logical and rational debate”. You, sir, have proven them
right.
|
I’d have to disagree.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
