Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
If the first amendment was repealed would you watch what you say?
DutchJazzer
Banned
ussr had also some great u8topian ideas.
also the fuhrer and the third reich had some really really really great ideas
Well, I don't consider myself a right winger, nor do I hold abiding by the law in particularly high regard in and of itself. I would not voluntarily turn in my guns.
First, I don't believe it is the constitution that grants me my individual rights. I believe the constitution is a document that forces the government to recognize my individual rights and restricts them from violating them.
I believe individual rights stem from the fact that as human beings we are all capable of understanding the world we live in and making our own choices as to how we want to interact with that world. Since we are capable of individual self determination it is our right to exercise individual self determination. How can any system be justified that involuntarily strips an individual of the ownership of their own self? How can any state, community or society claim a greater right of ownership over an individual than that very individual has? So, each of us, as owners of our own existence, have certain rights that stem directly from that fact. One of those rights is the right to self defense. In accordance with that right is the right to posses the tools that one sees fit to adequately provide for their own self defense. In this case those tools are firearms. I do not recognize the government's authority to strip me of my individual rights. If (when) they do so they do so illegitimately. If the second amendment were to be repealed I would not change my opinion on my individual rights one bit, as my individual rights do not require the constitution of the U.S. to be self evident and legitimate.
The limiting factor on my individual rights is that my rights cannot be used to limit the same rights others enjoy. In other words, as long as my free exercise of my rights does not interfere with anyone else's freedom to exercise their own rights then as far as I'm concerned I'm good to go and I'm not going to worry about the law in a moral sense. In a practical sense I'm going to do what I have to do to stay out of the legal system. Also in a practical sense I'm not going to throw myself into the works in protest of imperfection. I'm willing to live in a society I don't fully agree with and play along for the most part. While I consider gun rights to be important and a pretty basic freedom for any people who consider themselves the equals of those in the government and not simply their loyal subjects, it isn't an all or nothing freedom for me.
Stupid regulations that don't accomplish anything useful as far as gun violence are offensive in my opinion. The ban on magazine capacity and specific rifles based on their popular styling are meaningless in regard to the tragedies that are being used to justify them. Unfortunately they are not meaningless in regard to the people's ability to resist oppression or to defend themselves in the wake of a natural disaster or civil unrest. So I don't support those measures nor do I consider them "reasonable" or "common sense" in any way.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
I live in Canada. We already have more restrictions on free speech than you do. I'm quite comfortable with it.
Well that right there is the difference. I most certainly am not. No I woul not voluntarily turn in my guns. Attempting to take people's guns away would lead to civil war.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Attempting to take away people's slaves also led to a civil war.
you are profoundly ignorant of American values, and history.
For example, I have found credible accounts and documentation that both the Abolitionists and the Secessionists in the run up to the Secession of the Southern or Confederate States, that implicate British foreign agents in financing and promoting these causes.
The British, for the convenience and profit of the British Far East Trading Company imposed laws and taxes on American businesses that in any way competed with the BFETC, and denied to American colonists their common British rights under the Magna Carta, including restricting their right to possess arms.
The banking folks who financed and promoted Lincoln in his run for the Presidency chose him because his views on slavery were especially provocative to the Southern slaveholders, but they expected when the Southern States seceded, Lincoln would just let those states go their own way, thus weakening the United States to make it more vulnerable to British exploitation once again. But as much as he believed in ending slavery, Lincoln believed more in the basic liberties vouchsafed by our Bill of Rights. And regardless of all attempts to get him to do otherwise, he stood for the Union as the best hope for human rights in the United States.
It is a point in proof, that when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he made it effective only in the States which had seceded. Slaveholders in Missouri and West Virgina for example, did not release their slaves because of that Proclamation. Eventually that became the sense of the public sentiment and legal interpretation of the Emancipation Proclamation.
But the whole reason we are the United States is just that we rejected British rule, and chose to uphold human rights against British arrogance and the imposition of the those elitist values the British royalists, which a whole lot of Americans will fight to the death for once again if stupid dupes of British influence, as the UN folks are, try to destroy American concepts of human rights.
You obviously have drunk the Brit cool aid, and I hope perhaps you will wake up to the facts.
I was going to reply but babe already took care of it.
Not just British, but French as well. Both wanted a CSA.
However, it is the height of folly to think that slavery was not the central issue of the civil war. There had forty decades of political fighting over slavery preceding the war. To my knowledge, only four Confederate states produced a document explaining why they were fighting for independence, and the provisions of slavery, the fugitive slave act, fear that slavery might be ended, etc., were central to all four of them.
The British, to their credit, did end their trade in slaves without a civil war. All it took was public remonstrances, protests, from religious folks who found it abhorrent.
I'd say it is rather "the height of folly" to ignore the kind of agitations and manipulations that drove us to war, and to disregard the fact that it was foreign manipulations, well-financed, behind the rhetoric and discord intended to ruin us as a nation.