Quote:
I think Ant's question is: why should that in particular be a right.
Well, not to be cheeky or answer a question with a question, but why shouldn't it be a right? Historically has always been and we have been fine with it. Murders and killings will still happen with or without guns. Knives are also used for killing, so we also outlaw those under Knife Control?
Now, having said that. "Because that is the way we have always done it" is probably one of the most abhorrent expressions and "reasons" I have ever heard. More on this later.
Quote:
I know there's a lot of argument about this but to my mind that quite clearly conditions gun ownership on belonging to a militia. At the very least it links the two, gun ownership being intended to protect a state's right to secede should the federal government become tyrannical. Not for fun or to compensate for a small penis nor even for personal protection.
Well, this is where Constitutional interpretation becomes difficult. If there is a ruling on this, being that there are two versions (and the arugument that because of this the 2nd should be thrown out for procedural errors), there then would be a lot of problems and not just with guns. At that point, we would have to revisit every bit of contradictory language in our entire government to see if it would be valid in view of throwing out the Second Amendment due to ambiguous and confusing language. I just don't think it can be done.
How so, you ask? Well we had a decision by the Supreme Court that was based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists that supports the notion of "separation of church and state" yet that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. So great importance was ascribed to Jefferson's "opinion" as it was interpreted. In this case then, the same equal weight given should be given to Jefferson's statement which can only be interpreted as being
the correct one Since being ratified by 3/4 of the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.
But first:
Quote:
We use three documents to describe a "proper" government.
The Declaration of Indepedence, the foundation upon which the Constitution was constructed.
The Constitution, the "walls" that surrounds that proper government and the framework for the walls.
The Bill of Rights, that buttress the walls.
Three parts of a "whole" that tells us we have an unconstitutional government.
Some amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights and apply only to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was ratified to correct, clarify and fill omissions in the text of the Constitution.
Now:
Quote:
In the preamble there appear the words "we, the people", implying a "democratic" majority" of people established the Union when in fact it was formed by a democratic majority of states and what the states agreed to form was a Federal Constitutional Republic with a Constitution under the full control of only a majority of states.
We are not a democracy.
Then:
Quote:
"I have the highest veneration of those Gentleman, -- but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of the confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one of great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States." – Patrick Henry, 1788 Virginia debates, stated on June 4, 1788
Quote:
"Had it said, We, the States, there would have been a federal intention in it. But, Sir, it is clear that a consolidation is intended." – Mr. Joseph Taylor during North Carolina debates stated July 24, 1788
The 10th Amendment corrected that implication, judged an "error" in the Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So actually, it is not a Federal issue then, it should go to the States or to the people for a vote on how we handle guns. I am not sure we are ever going to do that though.
Quote:
I don't really fancy your chances going up against that with a few AR-15s and pistols.
Me neither. But then again, my hope is that by keeping my munitions; however small they be or however few in number, that the Federal government or whatever rogue entity might try to threaten the People's existence, they would think twice about going up against a possible 100 million people with small arms. It is almost silly to think about in those terms anyway.
Quote:
The right is archaic and needs either revising (to give the states Apaches and ICBMs) or removing.
In your NSHO, but I disagree. There is no evidence that suggests that fewer guns lowers the crime rate, rather to the contrary.
I searched for "fewer guns fewer murders" and saw the above. The facts do not seem to bear this out. Our murder rates have been in decline since 2007, despite a large number of individuals owning guns.
Quote:
I understand that guns are hugely symbolically important in your culture and that is unlikely to change any time soon.
You are likely quite right.
Quote:
Why the fuck would I want one?
You wouldn't. I cannot and would not force you to own one. Why are you so vehemently opposed to my having one if I should so wish, within legal limits? You aren't going to be forced to have one and I should not be forced to give mine up.
Quote:
And that your country was established in a violent revolution against a tyrannical government which, had firearms not been widely available, would've been far less likely.
And do not forget within our own country. North vs. South.
Quote:
And the resentment caused by the sneering, snobbish way anti-gun people look down on pro-gun people probably does more for the pro-gun lobby than any of the constitutional or practical arguments.
Large measure of truth to that. Who do the anti-gun people want in front of them when they are threatened? A guy with a gun. I know that somebody is not going to bother me if they think there is a possiblity that breaking into my house or threatening my family is likely to get them shot - hurt, killed or maimed. They will go to my unarmed neighbor's house instead.
Quote:
These differences are deeply ingrained in our cultures, we're so diverged that we're barely even talking about the same thing, really. Which makes discussions like this all but pointless.
Agreed. You have been without guns so long, you've learned to hate them because you were taught to hate them. We've always had them and for the most part have been taught to respect them. Not much is going to change, because even if you decided that I was 100% right after all (which I am not suggesting you might even consider), you would not be allowed to have a gun anyway.
 |
Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son? |
|
