|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Gun Permits for the Blind (9/16/2013 6:21:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Cynic, or realist? I do not hide my disdain for the connection of money to the US Government. I also do not hide my belief that the best way to sever that connection is to limit how far into our daily lives the US Government is allowed to get. I don't blame Wall Street for buying Congress. I blame Congress for being for sale.
The latter, which usually means everyone else interprets it as the former, so I just pre-emptively went with the flow.... lol
Btw, on polly perks, I neglected to mention the jewel in the crown. The privately funded, overseas "study trip". First class everything, natch, for polly and partner. We the people get all kindsa benefits flowing back from that - apparently. [:-]
I can't imagine any politician would take a taxpayer funded trip without there being economic benefit for the Nation. [8|]
lol
quote:
quote:
Your public made an outcry, and your government responded. Was your right to bear arms coded in your founding documents?
Gun laws were the responsibility of individual states, each with their own particular statutes making them ripe for cross-border exploitation. One (of the many) Port Arthur reforms was to federalise gun laws such that there are no differences now.
And as with most other democracies outside of the US, our personal rights are pretty much what's left over after the different tiers of government have taken what they need. That said, Oz is hardly a Police state. In fact, if there's a more free and stable country on the planet, I've got no clue which....
And, this is where the US was (or is, depending on how accurate your statement about most other democracies outside the US) the "exception." All rights emanate from the governed. The Constitution was supposed to be a framework stipulating the few authorities the Federal Government was allowed. Our Declaration of Independence states that to secure the inalienable rights of the citizens, governments are created. That's the only reason for government. The preamble to the US Constitution gives a more detailed description: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." The meat of the Constitution describes the specific authorities the Federal Government is to have. The 10th Amendment states that anything not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the respective states or the people.
Based on the idea that you can not give something away that you don't have, all rights and authorities are within the people, unless given to government. The idea is to allow government only the authorities necessary to secure the inalienable rights.
quote:
quote:
Perhaps the Aussie public also trusts their government more than the US public, too.
Well yeah, from what I've read in CM gun threads in general. Seems one of the many anti 2nd amendment reform arguments (ie, citizens needing to retain their weapons) is in case you need to overthrow your own government. If I've understood that correctly?
I've always just fobbed it off as redneck paranoia, but there is that fear of your own government? Or is it just something else dating back to a time when the 2nd was first drafted?
We were still working on our Nation. The original idea behind the Constitutional Convention was to improve the Articles of Confederation that inadequately ruled the Country. Because we had just finished the Revolutionary War, getting out from under the thumb of England, the original government of the US wasn't given enough authority to be effective. When the men assembled to fix it determined that a Confederation of Individual States wasn't going to reasonably solve the problems they were having, a new form of government was crafted. In the preamble, the first reason given for the Constitution was the "form a more perfect Union." That is, it was to be an improvement on the Articles of Confederation that established the first post-Revolution Union of States. The US Constitution was accepted by Congress in 1787. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) were passed as a group, and ratified by the required # of States in 1791. Fifteen years after we declared our independence from England, we had our second National government and the Bill of Rights.
quote:
As of 9 days ago, we did get rid of a federal government that seriously needed to go. Fired for gross incompetence and mismanagement - fair dinkum, a party of bona fide dopes, flakes and even a few crooks. And that god-awful woman who was leading them was just plain embarrassing. No shots fired by the citizens or military but....
Focus.
Actually, did you really get rid of a federal government that needed to go, or did you just get rid of the people running the government? The Revolutionary War ended governance by England, giving way to a loosely united group of states each governing itself and little more. The US Constitution ended that original US Government, and created the Constitutional Republic we still have governing us today. Changing the President doesn't change the system of government here.
One of the self-evident truths listed in the Declaration of Independence is: quote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It continues to state:quote:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If the populace isn't armed, there will be no ability to throw off a despotic government, if it becomes a necessity.
|
|
|
|
