The Gov. to try to take our guns.

[icemncmth]

The idea that other objects can cause more accidental deaths is irrelevant. More people die from getting kicked by mules than do by airplane crashes, does this mean we should prioritize our focus on mule safety? One must consider both how the objects are utilized as well as the negative consequences of a failure to regulate their use properly.

Hmm...You do have a way with words but in doing so you left your opinion wide open...

One must consider both how the objects are utilized???.....Red herring as you like to put it...

Lets take cars...many are used to kill...but I don't hear you beating your drum over cars...

Knives...many are used to kill.......I don't her you
Hammers...
baseball bats...
a person's hands....

You are very versed in the English language and you seem to love giving you opinion on guns...lets hear a nice verse on global warming since in the end it will kill more people than guns...according to Al Gore ...

 

[patrisVII]

....the fact that we might in the future is certainly indisputable ....

The wording in the original post lends itself to a definitive future state I would say.

The point of contradiction is this:

We fear the state so we need arms to protect ourselves against it, but we desire that self-same body to restrict our use of these weapons to only that moment when they have overstepped their power.

The antelope say to the lions "here are our hooves and horns, but we want them back to defend ourselves when it looks like you may want to eat us."

 

[AandW]

......My idea was that you'd have to keep the gun locked up at all times. That means no taking it out just to handle. No permits for carrying. No hunting. Nothing. Clearly many gun enthusiasts and libertarians will find this objectionable, but I'm really only addressing constitutionalists and those concerned about gun control in the hope of coming to some agreement with which the two sides can be reasonably satisfied.

Annnnnnnnnnd..........Who will enforce??? Is someone going to come into my house and check to see if my gun is locked up? If someone breaks into my house, will I have to fill out some bureaucratly controlled form in triplicat before I unlock my gun.

Just another useless, feel good, gun control law.

There are more important issues the government needs to worry about rather than worry about what I buy. As long as I and others use a gun responsibly and within established laws, then they need not worry about the type of gun we use.

Punish only those that break laws and leave those alone who abide by them.

 

[Xert]

Hmm...You do have a way with words but in doing so you left your opinion wide open...

One must consider both how the objects are utilized???.....Red herring as you like to put it...

Lets take cars...many are used to kill...but I don't hear you beating your drum over cars...

Knives...many are used to kill.......I don't her you
Hammers...
baseball bats...
a person's hands....

You are very versed in the English language and you seem to love giving you opinion on guns...lets hear a nice verse on global warming since in the end it will kill more people than guns...according to Al Gore ...

Other issues are other issues, and we should be able to talk about the second amendment without clouding the questing with other herrings, as you point out. You're right that my point in considering their use was poorly phrased, but when cars or anything else exists for the sole purpose of intentionally causing injury and yet are constitutionally protected then perhaps they'll be comparable to guns.

The wording in the original post lends itself to a definitive future state I would say.

The point of contradiction is this:

We fear the state so we need arms to protect ourselves against it, but we desire that self-same body to restrict our use of these weapons to only that moment when they have overstepped their power.

The antelope say to the lions "here are our hooves and horns, but we want them back to defend ourselves when it looks like you may want to eat us."

The operative word in that quote being "MIGHT", which quite emphatically precludes any definitive future state whatsoever.

The solution is relatively simple. Fear does exist when considering the state, but we don't absolutely or exclusively fear the state - we don't always fear the state, and we fear other things as well. It seems perfectly reasonable to attempt to balance those fears by using the state to protect us from one another while still reserving the right to rebel against it in case we feel it's overstepped its place.

Annnnnnnnnnd..........Who will enforce??? Is someone going to come into my house and check to see if my gun is locked up? If someone breaks into my house, will I have to fill out some bureaucratly controlled form in triplicat before I unlock my gun.

Just another useless, feel good, gun control law.

There are more important issues the government needs to worry about rather than worry about what I buy. As long as I and others use a gun responsibly and within established laws, then they need not worry about the type of gun we use.

Punish only those that break laws and leave those alone who abide by them.

Nope, not useless at all. And no triplicate forms either: if someone broke in, you wouldn't be allowed to use your gun. That's the point.

And it makes very little sense to say "Punish only those that break laws and leave those alone who abide by them", since the matter under discussion is on what the laws should be. No one's suggesting that laws go unenforced.

 

[AandW]

Nope, not useless at all. And no triplicate forms either: if someone broke in, you wouldn't be allowed to use your gun. That's the point.

Like I said, USELESS. The government will waste time and money to come up with some law that allows people to spend money to buy a gun but not use it. In line with your rationale, the appeasement of right to bear arms constitutionalists, will the government let us know when it will be allright to use my firearm? I don't want to appear to be in open rebellion against the government by unlocking my firearm too early.

And it makes very little sense to say "Punish only those that break laws and leave those alone who abide by them", since the matter under discussion is on what the laws should be. No one's suggesting that laws go unenforced.

Dancing around all this doublespeak, my comment is 100% accurate. Trying to enact some "new" feel good law that that takes away my right to buy a gun and restrict its use, contrary to as I see fit to use it in accordance with already exhisting laws, punishes me and other law biding citizens. Where, in any of my comments, do you infer that laws go unenforced?

For the government to debate and pontificate in front of tv cameras in a feeble attempt to make the general public feel good that they are doing something about guns to "protect their safety" is a waste of time and money.

What is the goal of gun control laws???? Anyone?

 

[JohnP]

As always, I loved reading your post John (despite the fact that your comments on video games reflect a current moral panic that I think to be rather ridiculous, but that's a whole different argument).

Hi again Stephen, perhaps you are right to an extent about the moral panic you speak of, but it is interesting to me, that the very industry claiming their movies etc. have absolutely nothing to do with violent acts that make the news are the first to proclaim loudly that it is the fault of the weapon, somehow, that people do these things. My feeling is that people need to be conditioned to kill, programmed, if you will. Killing is not something that comes naturally, or armed forces boot camps would consist of handing new recruits a gym pass, a uniform, and a rifle. I would argue that the inanimate object is NEVER at fault, and the person weilding it to do harm to another IS. I also think responsibility lies heavily with those who have helped condition the killers toward murder in the first place... Why, when after a movie about a computer programmer finding out he is the "chosen one" who then discovers everyone and everything around him are computerized "drones" "agents" and the like, is then portrayed inflicting massive violence with various weapons concealed inside a black trenchcoat (perhaps due to the cinematic appearance...) do they not make the connection when school children who no doubt identify with similar characters, walk into their school, wearing black trenchcoats, and large amounts of ordnance. They stumble over themselves blaming the weapon, never mind they just planted the idea in the minds of millions...that dealing with one's problems in an excessively violent way is a "cool" way to go out. I think entertainment like this is great, but it needs to be countered by upbringing, as well. The line between fantasy and reality is not emphasized enough, sometimes, and I feel parents need to be re-empowered to do just that.

Particularly stimulating, however, was your straightforward point that "If we disarm now, while things SEEM safe, what makes you think you can suddenly RE-arm, when the people NEED to." Now, while you know from our past discussions that I don't share your strong distrust of the powers that be to the point of needing revolutionary weapons, the fact that we might in the future is certainly indisputable and therefore the preservation of gun ownership seems quite important in that case. While recognizing the importance of this principle, I still quite strongly agree with many of Mitch's sentiments on guns. The idea that we'd all be better off if EVERYONE had guns just seems to keep social peace through an arms race.

Actually, I disagree; it only takes ONE firearm in a home to serve as a deterrent; knowing that EVERYONE has one is even more of a deterrent. Someone considering ill toward a given homeowner (regardless of the government issues mentioned above) will often weigh the likelihood that the occupants are armed prior to forcing entry, etc. but if he KNOWS there is a weapon there, guaranteed...the deterrent level raises even more. Making sure everyone who owns one is trained in its use (vis a vis Switzerland, again) increases that even more still. Multiple weapons might be nice to own, but the reality is a citizen is only likely to be able to use ONE of them at a given time. While there are collectors of almost anything you can imagine, including firearms, the idea of an arms race is not really valid here, I think. Firearms are not cheap, and a person can only use one at a time, anyway. Criminals do not generally seek out the most difficult target in town. They go for the unlocked house with people they known they can overpower inside, that they have a good idea are unarmed...no need for an arms race. Just one is fine.

But out of these dichotomous concerns I have a rather simple hypothetical proposition that I'd appreciate both your thoughts on: what if we let people have their guns, but prohibit their use. That is, the weapons can be owned, but must be kept locked up in secure storage at all times. Of course, any upkeep necessary to keep the weapon in working condition would be allowed for, but that's absolutely it. If their right to own a gun is constitutionally protected in order to prevent the oppression of the government, so be it, but in that case anyone who carries/uses their weapon will be presumed to be in rebellion against the government. Period.

Actually I would consider this move unconstitutional and a further restriction, as the 2nd amendment we all love to debate gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Which means carrying it and using it. There are of course restrictions already in effect which I have no issue with, such as firing a weapon inside the city limits...unless one's life is in danger, firing a weapon inside a metropolitan area puts other citizens at too much of a risk outside of controlled ranges and the like, where the projectile is not allowed to keep moving and cause unintentional damage to anyone.

Of course, it would be important to establish firing ranges where people could ensure that they'd have the skill to use their weapons if the day ever came that they were necessary, for without such arrangements the right to own the gun would be pointless, but this sort of a scheme would uphold the second amendment while still strongly controlling the danger that the possession of such weapons presents. What do you think?

I think we have so many laws already that it is ridiculous, most of the things you are mentioning are in all practicality already in effect. One is usually not allowed to carry a weapon in his/her vehicle with ammunition in the same area, and some areas have even more draconian laws that I won't go into. The simple matter is, I think a lack of honest knowledge about firearms as well as massive disinformation by political entities against firearm ownership and the media, is causing much of the problem as well as the hysteria about the supposed problem. Had I not grown up with firearms, I would think they routinely go off, for no reason, regardless of whether or not they are loaded/charged/cocked/whatever, and kill (if you watch TV, always an innocent child or bystander), I would also believe that if I had a firearm in the house, that it was no doubt going to be used against me if there were an intruder.
None of the above is true, and I think the numbers are lacking in one point, which is prevented crimes. For every drug deal gone wrong, how many times have citizens defended themselves with a firearm, regardless of if they actually had to FIRE the firearm. How many murders, robberies, rapes...have been prevented by the simple SOUND of a 12GA pump shotgun being racked. I know of a couple instances myself.
I think the real issue isn't citizen ownership of firearms, I believe they should have them if they want. In fact I would PREFER that all citizens first received TRAINING (which I think would be in keeping with the intent of the second amendment) and owned at least one firearm. No, I believe the problem is the breakdown, whether intentional or not, both in the schools, the media, and eventually it had to have some effect, society...of what is right, and what is wrong. Parents are not allowed to discipline children, those same children see appalling things happen on the screens portrayed as "cool" and the mindset of "ends justifying the means" is prevalent. "He's a hard worker" becomes more important than "He came into the country illegally and stole an honest citizen's identity to allow him to work". "I have a great car" becomes more important than "I didn't work to EARN the car".
I think what we have is not a firearms problem (when they decide to take them all, unless they continue to be really really sneaky, is likely when the shooting war would start, just like at Lexington-the American revolution was not a tax revolt specifically....the tax revolt was the Boston Tea party...the shooting didn't start until British troops were sent to disarm the colonists....) sorry...rambling....
What I think we have, instead, is a SOCIETY problem,
and it's roots are deeper than any gun law might reach. Politicians screaming gun control are offering a placebo, that not only does not solve the inherent problems people REALLY worry about (no doubt most aren't afraid of the gun so much as a drug dealer USING it on them), but actually makes things a bit worse. They are stirring up hysteria amongst the uninformed citizens, so they can have a new "bogey man" to in turn be seen as protecting those same uninformed masses from. Nevermind that they are assaulting the rights of honest citizens, and demonizing people who are simply honest citizens with no ill will towards anyone.
Rambling, again,
concluded.
John P.

 

[patrisVII]

None of the above is true, and I think the numbers are lacking in one point, which is prevented crimes. For every drug deal gone wrong, how many times have citizens defended themselves with a firearm, regardless of if they actually had to FIRE the firearm. How many murders, robberies, rapes...have been prevented by the simple SOUND of a 12GA pump shotgun being racked. I know of a couple instances myself.

DOJ survey of private gun owners in 1994 found that firearms stopped crime 1.5 million times in a year period.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

I remember a weapons show on A&E with a quote by an LA sheriff, I believe, that the sound of the pump resulted in more surrenders than anything else in his experience.

 

[qhsdoitall]

I remember a weapons show on A&E with a quote by an LA sheriff, I believe, that the sound of the pump resulted in more surrenders than anything else in his experience.

I think I read somewhere that the number one recommended home defense firearm is a short barreled 20 or 12 gauge pump shotgun with #4 shot. Very intimidating, easy to aim and enough to do the job without shot going through walls to hit innocents.

 

[mrob]

JohnP,

I bow to your energy and quantity of posts--I simply don't have the time or energy to read all the way through your posts, but respect the time and thought you obviously put into your writing--thanks.

I think where we differ is in the fear of our government, and in the belief that having a gun in your house or on your person will do anything to stop the government if it does indeed try to do whatever it is that you are afraid it will do.

The way that governments work nowadays, the kind of abuse of power it seems that you fear from your government will be much more insidious in its approach than the kind of overt action that is defensible with a weapon. The taking away of rights happens not through force but by edict--and you can't shoot a law with which you don't agree.

If the "revolution" you seem so fearful of actually does come to pass, I'm afraid that a gun won't be of much help. The erosion of rights that you fear will be addressed much more appropriately and effectively by becoming policially active--perhaps dad06 can give you some tips on how he hopes to do that without voting.

 

[JohnP]

JohnP,

I bow to your energy and quantity of posts--I simply don't have the time or energy to read all the way through your posts, but respect the time and thought you obviously put into your writing--thanks.

Thanks, and likewise, although I've attempted not to be as completely drawn in (this time anyway as I have in the past). My posts shouldn't be that much reading...

I think where we differ is in the fear of our government, and in the belief that having a gun in your house or on your person will do anything to stop the government if it does indeed try to do whatever it is that you are afraid it will do.

Mitch, perhaps we actually agree here more than it would seem. I do not so much fear our government (present tense) so much as distrust it. Will having a firearm in my house stop a government tank? perhaps not, but ultimately power comes from the people, and an armed people is much harder to dominate against its will. I think having the people armed is in itself a form of check. The people need not fear a government that doesn't mind them being armed. When a government wishes its citizens to be disarmed, however, one has to consider what the motive behind that might be, or at least, the outcome.

The way that governments work nowadays, the kind of abuse of power it seems that you fear from your government will be much more insidious in its approach than the kind of overt action that is defensible with a weapon. The taking away of rights happens not through force but by edict--and you can't shoot a law with which you don't agree.

Mitch, I actually agree with you completely here. Such is the way things work, even back to the Romans, with every generation thinking they are above such actions, and unfortunately, failing in that hope. Even our own revolution, that gets so often mentioned in these debates, did not happen immediately. The rights were taken slowly and insidiously, just as you say, until people were being hanged for making steel shovels in the colonies, instead of importing shovels from Sheffield. Even THEN it didn't sink in to most until perhaps the Tea tax, when it hit the people living in more metropolitan areas. To be honest, the revolution was too little, too late, and without the help of European states already in global conflict with the British (France, for instance) we would have been soundly beaten, I believe. Were something similar to happen today, I honestly believe it would be the same. People do not take drastic action until it is generally too late, and short of perhaps China, who I doubt would help anyway, I'm not sure who could be the "France" in any future such revolt. It all indeed starts so insidiously that the people initially clamor to give up their rights, for a little more "protection".
I guess I could've just said I agree...

If the "revolution" you seem so fearful of actually does come to pass, I'm afraid that a gun won't be of much help. The erosion of rights that you fear will be addressed much more appropriately and effectively by becoming policially active--perhaps dad06 can give you some tips on how he hopes to do that without voting.

Mitch, IMHO a "revolution" is only a very very last resort; however much reference has been made to the U.S. revolution and break from Colonial British rule, (happens every time the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is discussed, it would seem) and therefore comparisons to modern times and events are pertinent, I think. As I see it, even during said revolution, contrary to what some may think, the shooting didn't start when King George III raised the tax on tea (and various other issues). That was one of the things sparking much heated debate and discord, perhaps riots, and even the famous Boston Tea party which I've already mentioned. Yet even after all of that, and the loss by the colonists of freedoms enjoyed by other British subjects, they still flew the flag of Great Britain. It wasn't until after tragic events had already spooled people up (troops shot unarmed rioters in Boston-makes one think perhaps of the historical context of the Kent State shootings) that not much later, British troops ordered colonists to "lay down your arms or be shot like dogs" (I think is the quote) in Lexington, that the shooting started. Even THEN, many felt that this would blow over, hoping King George or the colonial governors would see the unfairness of their ways (do politicians ever?) and they could fly the Union Jack again. It did not happen, of course. Politicians almost never admit they are wrong unless they absolutely, positively have to, and are cornered like a wild animal. The same could be said today.
Wow. I'm rambling again.
To be honest, I pretty much agree with your whole post; I don't think open revolution is likely unless things get REALLY bad; I do wish, however, that we would have a few true leaders running for office, instead of the types both parties are offering us up these days....
While some may see it as "throwing away a vote" I wish people would get that idea out of their heads. Not voting, because you don't like the bright shining stars paraded in front of us by the major parties, doesn't help, unless there really is no candidate from any party who supports what you believe. Voting for "lesser of two evils" because you think one crook is not as bad as the other, is also something I have issues with. Vote for the man or woman who DOES support your beliefs, no matter what party. Otherwise I feel people have been duped into supporting the 2 party monopoly. Just because a person registers one way or the other doesn't mean that the party candidate is the one who supports his or her ideals. To me, people who vote the party line might as well stay home, because I'd rather have officials elected by people who actually THOUGHT about it, first...
I'm a sucker for this sort of topic
John P.

 

[Xert]

Sorry John, but I'm at a particularly busy spot at the moment and I won't have time to respond to that massive text until Thursday!

Like I said, USELESS. The government will waste time and money to come up with some law that allows people to spend money to buy a gun but not use it. In line with your rationale, the appeasement of right to bear arms constitutionalists, will the government let us know when it will be allright to use my firearm? I don't want to appear to be in open rebellion against the government by unlocking my firearm too early.

Certainly there would be scheduled times for unlocking your firearm for maintenance, but I'm not sure what you mean by "use" it. If you mean "fire" "show off" or anything other than simply cleaning and maintaining it, then it simply would be prohibited.

Dancing around all this doublespeak, my comment is 100% accurate. Trying to enact some "new" feel good law that that takes away my right to buy a gun and restrict its use, contrary to as I see fit to use it in accordance with already exhisting laws, punishes me and other law biding citizens. Where, in any of my comments, do you infer that laws go unenforced?

For the government to debate and pontificate in front of tv cameras in a feeble attempt to make the general public feel good that they are doing something about guns to "protect their safety" is a waste of time and money.

What is the goal of gun control laws???? Anyone?

"Doublespeak"? Next time use logic instead of insults. If you think my words are misleading, then break them down and demonstrate how they are so, but I was merely pointing out the immensely significant point that your comment that we should "Punish only those that break laws and leave those alone who abide by them" was obscuring. The question is what laws should exist, not whether or not laws that exist should be enforced. If a law like the one I proposed was enacted and you broke it by using your gun, then you would be, by-definition, no longer a law-abiding citizen. And, if you'll read my hypothetical proposition above once more, you'll clearly see that I did not suggest to take away your right to buy a gun.

 

[JohnP]

Sorry John, but I'm at a particularly busy spot at the moment and I won't have time to respond to that massive text until Thursday!

Massive? that's nothing. I can ramble for days if I think anyone's listening
I've not been posting as much (this time anyway) on this subject as usual, so when I do, I want it to count....but unfortunately am time limited so I may not make my points quite as well as I like to.
I really don't like your idea of (nonviolent) use of citizens' arms being considered open rebellion against the government, but will read your thoughts on such a system, of course. Personally, I think if you are going to rebel against any government while carrying a firearm, you might as well fire it, as they are definitely going to fire theirs at you given the chance...
This all has me wanting to buy a shotgun (never mind the home invasions we've suffered recently and I've mentioned on here). I've always liked them, and I've been trained in them as well as carried them on duty (a few years ago-mostly Mossberg or Remington pump 12 Ga...) but never actually owned one. Just a thought.
Lots of toys I don't have, can't afford, etc etc. but am glad that (for now) somewhere in the U.S. people can own them.
John P.

 

[TimmyBoston]

I'm not a gun guy, I've never shot one and I don't have any desire to own one, but I find these bans to be so totally and completely asinine. The number of crimes committed with registered weapons is so minuscule compared to those committed with unregistered, why don't the politicans go after those instead of taking guns away from responsible citizens, oh yeah, because would involve Congress actually tackling an issue and attempting to do something rather than spouting rhetoric.

 

[patrisVII]

...perhaps dad06 can give you some tips on how he hopes to do that without voting.

The only impact voting has on the erosion of rights is to speed up the process.

EVERY politician who seeks office WILL place further restrictions on the populace - it is the reason he runs to begin with. Something is 'wrong' with the current state of affairs that private activity cannot correct (or perhaps even enables) therefore the state must intervene and right the course of society (that is force people to change). It's axiomatic. As has been written by many, many advocates of human freedom (not the least of which, our nations own founders), democracy is inherently illiberal and will inevitably lead to despotism. Don't believe it? Look at history and compare the multiple layers of state control over the lives of US subjects to the worst the Caesars or Bourbons came up with.

What do we 'do' about it? Same thing everyone else has done throughout history, we either obey the state or face the consequences. Not voting is another thing we can do, not to send politicians a message, but rather to not willingly support the erosion of rights. And most important of all, we can point out the moral illegitimacy of the state itself and perhaps eventually rid all mankind of the notion that a small band of ultra-violent men stamping their will on everyone else is somehow a necessary and good thing.

 

[rhymes]

Massive? that's nothing. I can ramble for days if I think anyone's listening
I've not been posting as much (this time anyway) on this subject as usual, so when I do, I want it to count....but unfortunately am time limited so I may not make my points quite as well as I like to.
I really don't like your idea of (nonviolent) use of citizens' arms being considered open rebellion against the government, but will read your thoughts on such a system, of course. Personally, I think if you are going to rebel against any government while carrying a firearm, you might as well fire it, as they are definitely going to fire theirs at you given the chance...
This all has me wanting to buy a shotgun (never mind the home invasions we've suffered recently and I've mentioned on here). I've always liked them, and I've been trained in them as well as carried them on duty (a few years ago-mostly Mossberg or Remington pump 12 Ga...) but never actually owned one. Just a thought.
Lots of toys I don't have, can't afford, etc etc. but am glad that (for now) somewhere in the U.S. people can own them.
John P.

John P. I just wanted to say thank you for your service as well as your posts on this subject.

Mark - Navy Vet. NRA Life Member

 

[mrob]

The only impact voting has on the erosion of rights is to speed up the process.

This is just a silly statement, and not worthy of a response.

EVERY politician who seeks office WILL place further restrictions on the populace - it is the reason he runs to begin with.

You know, dado6, its easy to be cynical and smug, and offer superficial platitudes like the statement above. It must be great to be so sure of the motives of every person, and to assume only the worst in everyone but oneself.

Something is 'wrong' with the current state of affairs that private activity cannot correct (or perhaps even enables) therefore the state must intervene and right the course of society (that is force people to change). It's axiomatic. As has been written by many, many advocates of human freedom (not the least of which, our nations own founders), democracy is inherently illiberal and will inevitably lead to despotism. Don't believe it? Look at history and compare the multiple layers of state control over the lives of US subjects to the worst the Caesars or Bourbons came up with.

With this kind of nihilistic attitude and belief in society, its no wonder you have chosen to not exercise your right to vote.

Its much easier to give up and rationalize that your non-vote actually means something, right?

What do we 'do' about it? Same thing everyone else has done throughout history, we either obey the state or face the consequences. Not voting is another thing we can do, not to send politicians a message, but rather to not willingly support the erosion of rights. And most important of all, we can point out the moral illegitimacy of the state itself and perhaps eventually rid all mankind of the notion that a small band of ultra-violent men stamping their will on everyone else is somehow a necessary and good thing.

You don't "point out" anything by doing nothing. Refusing to vote is at best a sympton of apathy or laziness, and at worst simply an act of cowardice--nothing more, nothing less.

If you put a fraction of the energy and pseudo-passion you expend in these posts into expressing your policial beliefs through exercising your franchise to vote, you'd actually make a difference.

What a tragic waste of intelligence and energy.

 

[jazzman]

I'll defend dad06's right to express his unusual views. They are thought-provoking. But comparing "state control" over US citizens in 2007 to anything that happened under the Roman emperors, French kings, or more-recent dictators just doesn't make any sense to me. Our freedoms are vast, as are the limitations placed on us by the modern world, including our government, corporations, and culture. Dad06 is helping us to see both sides.

 

[jmhUT]

You don't "point out" anything by doing nothing. Refusing to vote is at best a sympton of apathy or laziness, and at worst simply an act of cowardice--nothing more, nothing less.

Mitch,
I won't bother with another attempt to move you off your condemnation of non-voters. You are very well dug in and not really that open to considering this alternate point of view. I will, however, express disappointment with your persistent need to disrespect and belittle this point of view. Why is it not enough for you to simply disagree and move on? Read the terms of usage. As a moderator shouldn’t you be promoting a positive atmosphere?
Please lighten up.

 

[patrisVII]

This is just a silly statement, and not worthy of a response. .

I know this topic can raise emotions, but I honestly try to deal with the facts.

We have more restrictions on our activity now than those who lived when GW was in charge. Period. Every single federal legislative session and executive term since that time has brought into existence new laws that demand obedience (very few of which have been repealed). All these legislators (and every president since Jefferson’s second term) got their jobs via the popular vote.

You know, dado6, its easy to be cynical and smug, and offer superficial platitudes like the statement above. It must be great to be so sure of the motives of every person, and to assume only the worst in everyone but oneself. .

I don’t assume anything about folks motivations – I am referring the history of their actions (see above). I don’t deny my cynicism when it comes to politics, but I really don’t think of myself as smug - pedantic yes, but not smug.

With this kind of nihilistic attitude and belief in society, its no wonder you have chosen to not exercise your right to vote.

Its much easier to give up and rationalize that your non-vote actually means something, right? .

I have great respect for society; my issue is with the state.

My non-vote means a lot to me and, I imagine, to all those who consequently are not forced to do what I think they should.

You don't "point out" anything by doing nothing. Refusing to vote is at best a sympton of apathy or laziness, and at worst simply an act of cowardice--nothing more, nothing less.

If you put a fraction of the energy and pseudo-passion you expend in these posts into expressing your policial beliefs through exercising your franchise to vote, you'd actually make a difference.

What a tragic waste of intelligence and energy.

At the risk of being really offensive, I think voting is the more cowardly option in as much as the voter is requesting someone else actually carry out the violence needed to enforce his will.

My political belief is that politics is wrong so I choose the market as the arena to express my opinions.

I am flattered you think I’m smart and energetic. I’ll make sure my wife sees that.

 

[Dave B]

This is a long thread and I only read the first and last page, but I didn't see anyone actual list the whole amendment, just took parts of it and it is used for benifit of a particular stance. So here it goes:

"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."

The old way of writing (without parenthesis) would be to use a comma, as above. If you put in the parethesis, it shows that the militia's right shall not be infringed. There was no full time, regular army (or Marines) at the time, only militias.

If people want to use the fully automatic weapons in defense of our country, there are many spots available to be filled using those very weapons. We need as many as possible, and I promise you, you will get to use all the available auto's you want. You will even get to hunt with some of them, a double bonus.

Enjoy.