joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote:
He who gives up freedom for security gets, and deserves neither. Yes, I know. I really do know that, Bama, be assured. I'm talking about the freedom to walk around without getting shot and killed by some fuckwitted gun-toter who claims I was doing something 'aggressive'. I don't think you're getting this. I *understand* your point about the US Constitution and the contract between citizens and the State. But the point of a constitution - the *much more essential point of a constitution* than that of any right to carry a gun - is to guarantee the physical safety and freedom of citizens from arbitrary killing. That's true of any constitution that I know of, including that of the USA. It trumps any right to carry a gun, even in the US Constitution, as far as I can see. I'm well aware that you're finely in tune with the constitutional rights of people who want to be able to shoot. But you either won't, or can't, transpose your views of rights, freedoms, Constitutions and social contracts, onto those people who desire *not to get shot*. Maybe this will help you understand why some feel the need to protect themselves. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014303260024 I'm not sure why you seem to focus on the fuckwits like zimmy and ignore the ones like this. Last I checked, armed vigilantism is OUTLAWED within the United States of America. I believe that's his point. Mr. Zimmerman did a huge number of bad pieces of judgement that led to the death of another person. Mr. Dunn shot up an SUV full of teenagers. In both cases, the individual display a complete lack of intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom when handling a firearm. No one should have to live with the fear of being shot at by someone that is 'taking the law into their own hands' because they distrust or hate the government. There are examples in which a person defended themselves or others with a firearm. And those people were usually scared shitless at the time....BUT....kept their head about them. Unlike that one firearm owner that shot a kid that was invited into the house by the firearm owner's daughter. Or the guy that left the security of his dwelling to confront a possible intruder outside, in the open, at night, without a flashlight; and kills an old guy that needed some serious help from a friendly person. Yeah, Zimmerman and that guy could afford firearms and not flashlights? They could afford working bullets but not batteries? How often does one use a flashlight compared to a firearm around the house? An there are examples in which people have defended themselves in a situation in which a firearm would have either done nothing or created more problems. A firearm is not a magical item that instantly resolves all problems for the one holding it. That silly belief has placed a number of good people behind bars with lengthy sentences. There is one example of a woman that felt she was being threaten with serious harm/death by an ex-husband (if memory serves). She discharged the weapon into the ceiling/floor (cant remember which), but kept the other person from attacking here. She's now serving a criminal sentence. From what I read of the case, I felt she acted in the best interests to resolve an already bad situation as peacefully as possible without injury to herself or the other person. That is why these matters have to go to a court to handle properly. And the court is not always going to hand the verdict you or I want in a particular case. But there are clear laws that state all manner of subject material as it relates to firearms in each of the states. Some are strict and others are lenient. So it comes down to, how does society (i.e. local, state, federal groups of people, not necessarily limited to government), deal with firearms at the individual level? Not an easy question to answer.....
|