Tweet
I bet the majority had criminal records haha.
-
-
I don't see how. I was describing an extreme stereotype which in reality comprises a portion of our population, made up of just regular, rural or suburbian working-class people who get up every day, go to work, obey the laws, pay their taxes, and want to be free of meddling government intervention which restrict their human rights in small, almost imperceptible, insidious ways.Originally posted by Thai Bri
"Yes. the beer bellied red necks you spoke of. Kind of undermines everything you've said, on all levels.
These are usually not the kind of people who are out to hurt me. These people are usually not the stressed-out criminal psychopaths who make the news of the day.
What can be more basic than the right to protect yourself? If someone with a gun decides to use it against me I sure would appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond in kind!Comment
-
A majority considered a 3 day waiting period ( to check if the buyer doesn't have a criminal record) a restriction of their rights
Toudi, it IS a restriction of rights.
Compare what you just said about firearms ownership to the subject of voting.
Does the phrase 'Jim Crow' ring any bells? It is a guaranteed right for American Citizens to both own personal firearms AND to vote in the regular election cycle.
Thanks to some creative 'testing' (akin to your psychological fitness tests) that discouraged huge numbers of blacks from voting after the Civil War until the 1970s. All of this was legal. All of this was backed by the state and local governments.
By there very nature, rights cannot be denied without due process of the law. Innocent until proven guilty. Many still believe (and are probably correct in some cases) that on some level voter discrimination still exists.
In the US you cannot be denied your basic right to vote, under penalty of law. The Democratic Party is huge at propagandizing voter disenfranchisement, racism, sexism etc etc. In cases where this can be proven and under due process of the law they should pursue acts of this nature and punish them accordingly. The ACLU, NAACP, Black Congressional Caucaus, NOW and many other groups exist soley for this purpose: to make sure citizens are not denied their rights.
However, these same groups wish to deny my ability to own a firearm. What they do not understand (or maybe they DO understand) is that without the ability of individuals to resist the will of larger groups our democratic republic stands for nothing.
Once they repeal the 2nd amendment, then all others will follow.
As Osopardo put it succintly:
"[Y]ou give up the right to say no after you give up the means to back up your refusal."
SpankyComment
-
Spanky, I still do not see how a 3 day waiting period works against the right to bear arms.
btw isn't it so that convicted criminals lose this right?
If I were a criminal and I kwew that my victom is likely to be armed, I would shoot him strait away, makes taking the money so much easier.
EU and US mentality differs to much for this to understand eachother
Europe had Robin Hood, Wilhelm Tell and the Scarlet Pimpernel, who broke the law to help the opressed (spelling?) the US has Frank and Jessie James and Billy the Kid, who broke the law for the sake of themself
It is why you call me commy, because of the communal thinking vs the individual thinking in the US
Somehow even after WW II we have a deeper trust for democracy then you seem to do
One last remark, I think that US police should be armed with heavy handguns instead of .38's or 9mm as well as automatics (submachine)for the feds because I think they are outgunnedComment
-
In my mind any person caught commiting a crime and convicted of it should have certain rights taken away. Owning a gun is one. The problem with that is that the punishment has to fit the crime. Now I would not want someone to lose their right to bear arms because they shoplifted as a kid but people who commit violent crimes definetly should not get their hands on guns. Its a balancing act that unfortunetly is too fine a line to walk on for most people.Comment
-
but these rights are unalianating rights aren't they?Comment
-
Would 3 days be long enough to wait for your right to vote? Probably not right? How about 2 weeks? 6 weeks? 6 Months?
True change starts small and grows over time. When the stated purpose of a movement is to strip away my right to own a firearm is clearly stated from the onset, ANY infringement is to be fought with all my strength.
If I stated openly that I was going to kidnap your prized poodle. Then I said I only want to come over and give her a snack once a day. Then I said I would walk her once a week for you to give you more time to do other things. Then I said I would babysit her for you when your gone for the weekend. Then, when you go on vacation next year, I'll watch her for the two weeks while you're gone...
Do you notice the trend in my ridiculous story? Little by little I keep taking your time away from you and your pet poodle.
The second amendment does NOT give me the right to bear arms. The second amendment guarantees that the US Government shall not infringe on the right I ALREADY POSSESS.
The Bill of Rights (and the Constitution) does not give me anything. This work only outline specific rights that I already have and limits the role of the government.
I do not possess Life, Liberty, and Property (as John Locke initially phrased it) by the generosity of the government. On the contrary, the government only exists because I (and my fellow citizens) allow it to exist. Support it's existence.
In short I do not exist for the sake of the body politic, the body exists for my sake. Somewhere along the lines (around 1861) the country forgot that.
Point two: Convicted Criminals do lose some of their rights, but only by due process. By defualt they are free to choose their own path. It is only after they have violated the rights of others do they lose their own.
Point three: If you were a criminal it would be against the law for you to have a firearm. Yet somehow you manage to still have one no?
It is highly unlikely that were you a criminal bent on simple crimes that you would go around shooting people because they might be armed... That would attract unwanted attention of other armed folks in your direction. Not to mention the authorities.
Look at natural predators, they don't hunt the biggest and the strongest in the herd. They separate the weak ones less likely to fight back. No criminal in his right mind walks into the police station and goes guns ablazin.
And finally:
I suggest you read up on your John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and James Madison.they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
SpankyComment
-
Szczepankiewicz is my new hero for the day.
When the day comes to dig up the guns in my back yard, I'll be sure and kick you down a couple, sir.Comment
-
Oh, man, Spanky! I couldn't agree more on all points of that last post. I mean, I can't even add to it! Yeesh, I'm getting goosebumps!Comment
-
Well, I was going to write somthing but what could I say now. Good post Spanky, as Tyson would say, "I take my hand off to you."Would 3 days be long enough to wait for your right to vote? Probably not right? How about 2 weeks? 6 weeks? 6 Months?.....The second amendment does NOT give me the right to bear arms. The second amendment guarantees that the US Government shall not infringe on the right I ALREADY POSSESS....It is highly unlikely that were you a criminal bent on simple crimes that you would go around shooting people because they might be armed...
KenComment
-
I have seen it, and I don't agree with Moore's methods. I felt his treatment of Charleton Heston was mean spirited. However, he pointed out some interesting correlations.Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
...nothing. Moore has an agenda and this is NOT a documentary.
I haven't seen it yet, and I'm not going to pay to see it.
A previous poster mentioned the dramatically lower incidence of gun-related crimes in Canada despite the "fact" that Canada has as many gun owners as the US. (I'd want to see where these stats came from, but they're the ones he used in the movie.)
That said, I'm not against gun ownership. I have a 9mm at home. I don't keep ammunition in the house and would be more likely to defend myself with my bokken if the need arose.Comment
-
I'd merely be concerned about the kind of relationship you were developing with my poodle.Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
Then I said I only want to come over and give her a snack once a day. Then I said I would walk her once a week for you to give you more time to do other things. Then I said I would babysit her for you when your gone for the weekend. Then, when you go on vacation next year, I'll watch her for the two weeks while you're gone...
Comment
-
Of course you would.
That's because you're ok with the idea of having the collective make your decisions.
Comment
-
If you say so....Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
Of course you would.
That's because you're ok with the idea of having the collective make your decisions.
Comment
-
Apparently so. You keep voting for the socialists... Do you not?Comment
Comment