Abuse of rights
This is a discussion on Abuse of rights within the Off Topic forums, part of the Sniping Related category; A Constitutional right by its own definition is infinite. Therefore, it cannot in any way, shape, or form be abused. If I have the right ...
Abuse of rights
A Constitutional right by its own definition is infinite. Therefore, it cannot in any way, shape, or form be abused. If I have the right to own a firearm and it clearly states in the Constitution that that right cannot be infringed and since the Constitution is the â€śSupreme Law of the Landâ€
.308 SPS Tactical McM A5 Gap
"Give me liberty or give me death!"--Patrick Henry
On the whole I like it!
What I have read as being the position of those who are anti-gun or in favour of stringent (restrictive?) gun laws are that the 'Miltia' referred to in the 2nd are met with today's National/State Guard and therefore, there is no need for a well armed private citizenry. Their argument goes that the 2nd was in place to guard against a tyrannical Federal govt and that States to be the counter-balance. Therefore, if the States have a militia then the terms of the 2nd are satisfied.
This however is utter silliness. There are innumerable, and some present-day, scenarios where the States would be unable to stand up to a tyrannical Federal Govt. Look at today - many States are near-bankrupt, they need the Federal Govt. for bailouts and subsidies, they need the govt. for the large govt. contracts - be they defence, construction etc. therefore, the counterbalance of States vs Federal has been corrupted essentially. It is not unreasonable to argu therefore, that the only true and lasting counter-balance to tyranny at the Govt or even State level would be the well-armed private individual.
I also like your statement that one can change the unreasonable with patient dialogue - this is something I need to work on myself!
Many people are anti-gun becuase they think all deaths in America are somehow gun related. I had this discussion with people and they say - but so many people are killed by guns. OK, so if preservation of life is the diriving force then guns should be way down the list - mis-prescribed and mis-filled prescriptions kill far more people in the US than guns! And then look at car accidents due to speeding, drunk driving etc. Swimming pools are the leading cause of child-death in this country over guns. It's just that a child killed by mishandling a gun makes for shocking headlines and news coverage. A poor kid drowning does not.
Anyway, I enjoyed your writing.
"What we do for ourselves, dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal." Albert Pine
I thought this would be appropriate here.
http://www.epinions.com/kifm-review-24B ... A239-prod1
I never used to care that much about guns, pro or con. Guns were a tool, a little more interesting (and dangerous) than most, but just a tool. Being anti-gun was as dumb as being anti-bicycle. They are there, we have them, some people get hurt or killed by them. Same goes for everything else in life. As a kid I owned an air rifle, and I have been duck and boar hunting (not with an air rifle!). My first gun safety lesson was administered by my best friend's dad after I turned around while holding a gun and swept the muzzle past him. My ear only hurt for a day, but I never made that mistake again.
I am an immigrant, and as part of becoming a citizen I have immersed myself in the history and origins of this country. Those of you who were born here sometimes don't realize how good you have it. The reason is: you are armed. Oh, I am not necessarily referring to you as an individual, but as a society. You might say- "No, it is because we live in a free democratic country". But you would be wrong. A democracy can enact any restrictions the majority agree on, so it only seems free as long as you are one of the majority. The United States is as free as it is because you have one freedom that virtually no other country in the world allows their citizens- the right to be armed. The government does not act for you, the courts don't protect you, the legislature is not creating laws for your benefit. Government acts mainly in the interests of society, which are almost always to the detriment of individual freedoms. For this reason it is important to maintain a balance, between freedom and acceptable limits for the continued functioning of society. However certain inalienable freedoms can never be taken away, and you are free because the Founding Fathers realized that.
If you are of the opinion that guns are bad, then you are entitled to that opinion. You are free to choose not to own a gun. You can prevent your children from owning a gun, while they are still minors. And I will fight to support your right to your opinion. However, if your opinion includes infringing on other's rights, it becomes indefensible. Everyone else could feel that Judaism is immoral, but Jews have the right to practice their beliefs free from interference, and you do not have the right to advocate (using your freedom of speech) the persecution of Jews. Rights are not subject to the will of the majority, if they were they wouldn't be called "rights".
The Constitution is a remarkable document. The Bill of Rights was added after the Constitution was written, because the document is a restraint on Government, not on the People. Initially it was not seen as necessary or desirable to enumerate the rights of the people, because they "owned" all rights not specifically given to Government. Why create a list that might be interpreted as being the only rights we had? However, some of the state representatives made it clear that the only way it would win ratification was if the Bill of Rights was included, their fear was that without those rights spelled out, the government would ignore them. They realized that governments will always try to limit freedom, not expand it. The whole document is as relevant today as it was 212 years ago, because although technology and the world have changed, human nature and the nature of government are still the same.
The most important thing about the first 10 Amendments is: they grant nothing.
That's right, they do not "grant" rights, they are not given to us by the government, or the Constitution. Instead they list important rights that you have just for being born. We call these "human rights" now, but in the Founding Fathers' time they were rights "endowed by God". Not every natural right is listed either, you have a right to breath, and someone passing a law making it illegal does not take away that right. Having a right without any legal channel to exercise that right is meaningless. You have the natural right to be free, to speak your mind, to own property. Most important, you have the right to protect your life, your property, and your freedom.
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.
If "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th applies to individuals, then "the people" in the 2nd does also. The Militia clause is not the right, it is only one justification. The Founders believed the Militia (the citizen soldier) was essential to our freedom so the language was included to reflect the obvious fact that without an armed citizenry the Militia could not exist. (The Militia Act of 1789 defined the Militia as all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 with their own arms.) This predated the National Guard by about 110 years, so the arguments that "the Militia" is the National Guard are rather disingenuous. Their intent was that free men keep the arms of soldiers, and were not commanded by the Federal Government. For this, not to mention the more compelling natural right to self-preservation, the citizens cannot be disarmed.
OK, for arguments sake- forget about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let's say that Handgun Control, Inc. has its' way and the 2nd Amendment is repealed. What do you think that changes? Natural Human Rights are not subject to repeal! Where in the Constitution, apart from the 2nd Amendment, is there any mention of personal arms? Where does it say that people are not allowed to defend their own lives and the lives of their children? Where does it say that the government has the right to pre-emptively infringe on any person's "god-given rights"? Banning gun ownership serves no societal good, it makes as much sense as cutting out a person's tongue because he might yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
We live in a world that contains violence. We can see the injustices inflicted on the weak by the strong, by tyrannical governments on the people they should be protecting, on a daily basis. These are things that have not changed in thousands of years of human civilization. As long as any man wants to take something from someone else, be it at knifepoint or by sending in the troops, then we must be prepared to fight to protect our freedoms (including our life). The strongest force a citizen has to resist criminal depredations or government injustice is personal arms, it is the last line of defense once talking and the ballot box have failed. The police are not your bodyguards, they carry out society's wishes so their mandate does not necessarily coincide with your personal well-being.
The right to life is the first right we have. If someone wants to take your life, you have the right to defend it. The most effective tool at your disposal is the modern firearm. It is as natural as the right to breath, and should no more be licensed as the right to read a book. I am not talking about owning cannons, but personal arms for self protection are your, and every man and woman's, birthright.
If you are dismayed by the gun violence and wish to somehow help its victims, the answer is not to prevent lawful citizens from buying guns free of government interference. The answer is to punish criminal and negligent use, and to educate people to respect human life, and understand the responsibilities of firearms ownership.
Most people have only a emotional response to guns, usually out of fear. The debate about guns angers me, because so much of the public discourse comes from the media's use of lies and emotions instead of facts to try to sway public opinion. It is irrational to believe that Gun Control laws and restrictions will affect anyone apart from law-abiding, honest citizens, or to believe that infringements are not just the beginning. Crime is not affected, New York City has a ban on private ownership of guns, and has higher crime levels than any city except for Washington DC (where guns are also banned). The ultimate cost to freedom when all the guns are owned by the government are too terrible to imagine. Why would you trust a government that doesn't trust it's own citizens?
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries
I chose to make this country my home, because it is free. If freedom does not suit you, then you are free to leave. The people who live wherever you might go would think you were nuts though.
By SpaceGoD in forum Off Topic
Last Post: 02-04-2011, 05:14 PM
By ReflectionsBurn in forum Off Topic
Last Post: 12-24-2010, 11:12 AM
By SpaceGoD in forum Off Topic
Last Post: 10-09-2009, 05:32 PM
By Xelera in forum Off Topic
Last Post: 02-23-2009, 03:29 AM
By skirmishline in forum Off Topic
Last Post: 10-15-2005, 09:29 PM