Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 20:49:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
724 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Ed Jones wrote:
>
> > The founding fathers intent was clearly for the residents of America
> > to be able to defend themselves against the British and any other
> > possible "invaders". To be able to easily and quickly assemble armed
> > forces for any impending attacks.
>
> No, sorry. You're wrong. Not possible to convince you that you are, but
> you are, nonetheless. The intent was to be the final check. A disarmed
> populace falls victim to tyranny much more easily, no matter what the
> source. Read the federalist papers, study why the revolution happened.
> Remember that the British (the lawful government of the colonies) were
> an oppressive regime that was busily enforcing gun control, among other
> tyrannies.
>
> The second amendment clearly states in the language of the 1790s that it
> is there to allow the people to take arms against their lawful, but
> tyrannical, government. The first step of a tyrannical government is to
> disarm the populace.
Something I'd like to add is that I recently read some historical
accounts of April 19, 1775 (British march on Concord, Paul Revere, shot
heard round the world and all that). Almost all of the colonial
casualties that day were civilians rousted out of their homes and
taverns by the out of control British soldiers retreating from Concord,
they were unarmed civilians brutally murdered by the British soldiers.
I'm not sure exactly how much of the basis of the 2nd amendment is April
19, but it is quite clear to me from studying the history of April 19
where the 2nd amendment comes from. The British were marching on Concord
to take the guns from the restless population.
The British were also using the army to quell demonstrations
(incidentally, by some reasoning, the first person killed by the British
was a Crispus Atucks, a black man killed in the Boston Massacre).
One of the things which is difficult for me is the fact that a recent
chain of events leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing occured on April
19, and are tied up in 2nd amendment issues. I personally think that the
various groups involved were out of control, but I also agree that the
government overstepped its authority, or at least got awfully close to
the slippery slope. I wish we could have found better ways to resolve
these issues.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) No, sorry. You're wrong. Not possible to convince you that you are, but you are, nonetheless. The intent was to be the final check. A disarmed populace falls victim to tyranny much more easily, no matter what the source. Read the federalist (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
