I did not mean it to be persuasive. Merely something I thought you would have an interest in reading.
You mean like members of the left and gun control lobbies are doing on "assault rifles"?
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
I did not mean it to be persuasive. Merely something I thought you would have an interest in reading.
You mean like members of the left and gun control lobbies are doing on "assault rifles"?
I find you position (that the reason for the existence of a right has absolutely no bearing on the scope of that right) to be fundamentally unreasonable. Therefore, I shall not not reason further on that.
As was made clear in the Federalist Paper linked to earlier, Madison thought it protected the people from a tyrannical federal government by creating stronger state militia, with which to resist the federal government. That is how it was meant to protect the people.
No one makes money off an assault weapon ban, so the members of the left don't wind up with the sort of deep pockets it takes to create a disinformation campaign.
You are confusing the reasons with the actions. I never siad their reasons are the same. Just that their actions are. They are using "true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case". Their motives are different but the tactics are the same.
OK. As mentioned earlier the National Guard is out since they are now federal government controled. So now you have an increasing number of malitias forming and members joining them. They are using many of the weapons as their arsenal that the federal government is now seeking to ban. So again we are back to square one. They are infringing, or attempting to, on that right.
Not to mention that the "assault weapons ban" should be changed to the "cosmetic features ban".
A response here to the OB / Stoked remarks above.. . . .
The fundamental kernal notion of the "American" experiment in government, at it's bold beginnings. . . . was the notion that human beings have inalienable rights, including their right to deconstruct their government if they saw fit. A Communist ideologue would therefore call his brand of "revolution" just as justified, and our modern progressives, while variously invoking "history", or "mother earth", or "the children", or any of a hundred of social justice issues as being cause sufficient to deconstruct our Constitution, does in fact agree with this kernal notion.
The fundamental kernal notion behind the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from in way restricting or defining that right, is that people are possessed of the natural right to replace their government by force of any arms.
Many states have copied the Second Amendment into their state constitutions, as Utah has.
Having the capacity to protect ones' life and property from other threats, other than the Federal government, is merely a collateral human right that nobody should imagine they have any business or right to deny to others.
Sometimes, talking to brainwashed ideologues is like the rain in the redrock country. . . . . . nothing is ever going to sink in. The fact that it just runs off explains the Grand Canyon, and the fact that some people are willing to be owned, mind and soul, explains human slavery, and socialism in all its forms.
The fundamental kernal notion of the "American" experiment in government, at it's bold beginnings. . . . was the notion that human beings have inalienable rights, including their right to deconstruct their government if they saw fit. A Communist ideologue would therefore call his brand of "revolution" just as justified, and our modern progressives, while variously invoking "history", or "mother earth", or "the children", or any of a hundred of social justice issues as being cause sufficient to deconstruct our Constitution, does in fact agree with this kernal notion.
The fundamental kernal notion behind the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from in way restricting or defining that right, is that people are possessed of the natural right to replace their government by force of any arms.
Many states have copied the Second Amendment into their state constitutions, as Utah has.
Having the capacity to protect ones' life and property from other threats, other than the Federal government, is merely a collateral human right that nobody should imagine they have any business or right to deny to others.
Sometimes, talking to brainwashed ideologues is like the rain in the redrock country. . . . . . nothing is ever going to sink in. The fact that it just runs off explains the Grand Canyon, and the fact that some people are willing to be owned, mind and soul, explains human slavery, and socialism in all its forms.
My point was that a serious disinformation campaign (one that hires specifically biased experts, creates specifically biased studies, produces specifically biased position papers, etc.) requires serious money. The less-gun-control lobby has two groups with deep pockets, whose revenue will be put at risk (manufacturers and the NRA), the more-gun-control lobby has no such organizations supporting them.
I actually don't have a problem with that, as long as there is some oversight to make sure they don't go from militia to criminal cartel. I agree that in organizations with such oversight, the Second Amendment protects their right to keep more effective arms than revolvers.
Serious money or the support of media outlets. For example: The term "assault weapons". The media is knowingly using a disengenous term to skew public opinion of a weapon. There are recordings of AWB supporters admitting that it will do nothing to stop gun violence. And yet we are having hearings and what not on it in an attempt to pass a bill that they know will do nothing.
This is being pushed by democratic politicians, the media and gun control groups like the Brady campaign. (generalized statement to allow room for those amoung those groups that are not in lock step with teh AWB)
I would agree with that statement if you limited it to "deconstruct their federal government".
So then you oppose the AWB? Or do you oppose it for those that are part of a militia? Does that now mean that you have to register as a militia member? That would an easy way for the federal government to keep tabs on those they consider the most dangerous citizens. (see that DHS report). Also who is doing this regulation and oversight? The federal government? That will lead them down the road to becoming the same thing as the National Guard.
Some media outlets are biased, certainly. However, none of them will see their profits rise with any sort of increase in gun control. Whatever their motives and actions, there is no profit motive mixed in.