joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
If 'concern citizens' and 'gun owners' were ever to get together, discuss things, and agree on things; we'd have better gun control laws that actually work in our favor, rather than against. Because the underlying understanding is the trust and faith both groups of US Citizens have in the other. When you trust someone, and that trust is returned in good faith, good laws often get developed.
No Joe, your definition of concerned citizens are people who want to pretend that there is no right to bear arms, that it is a privilege of being in a militia.
Since I'm the one whom created the concept of 'concern citizens', I do have the sole right to define the entity. Concern citizens are folks whom may or may not own a firearm. The majority most likely doesn't. Just as there are some 'gun owners' whom really dont want the gun, but need to for legitimate threats on their life. Concern citizens under the 2nd amendment about as much as most other average Americans. Which is about as equal to the understanding of the whole ACA. They dislike the mass murders by firearms. They were horrified of Sandy Hook. They would be more willing to be considerate of others with firearms, if those people with firearms were considerate of them in return. Ironically, the 'gun owners' would like the same, but are just as afraid as the 'concern citizens' from taking that action.
The reason is 'lack of trust'. To build trust, requires taking someone whom you don't trust by faith alone. Not a religious faith, but the faith of 'this person will not screw me if I do something'. An it takes alot of patience and understandings to build that trust. Once the trust is established, the lame gun laws that dont work or really are a pain to follow; are either removed or re-engineered to make sense (that both concern citizens and gun owners can agree on).
You cant see any of that vision. Your driving down the metaphorically road looking at anything immediately in front of your front bumper. Maybe four to eight feet in front of that bumper. As you know, when driving, its good to look far down the road and to make adjustments to changing road conditions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Were that the case it would have stated that only militia members enjoyed that privilege and it would not have been a right.
Oh, I'm sorry, your not reading the correct 2nd amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What are those first four words, BamaD? That is the reference of 'whom' protects the freedoms of the free state. Not 'farmer bill', 'hunter ted', nor 'drunkard peter'. That's whom gets the guns and the rules that go with it. When people bitch about police forces obtaining military arms, armor, vehicles, and other equipment; I point out its allowable under the 2nd amendment. They look at me strangely for the remark, because they have been brainwashed so well to think the amendment refers to something else.
I've stated it before, and I state it AGAIN. You can not ignore or reinterpret any part of any of the amendments, because it violates your political beliefs. The 2nd amendment has...NOTHING...to do with the individual dude/dudette to have a firearm; UNLESS, they are part of said militia. Farmer Bob and Hunter Luke each have a rifle. Farmer Bob is part of his local militia, Luke is a loner. If the Federal Government issued a law, outlawing the rifle from ownership and usage, whom would be effected and why? Farmer Bob would not be effected, as his rifle is part of his duties as part of the militia. If he miss uses said rifle, or has trouble with the law in any way, that could place him at odds with owning/using the rifle (i.e. much like modern day police officers). Hunter Luke, would have to either find a new way to hunt, or find a new career all together.
The founding fathers never intended the 2nd to be used by anyone, for any reason, with little to no responsibility. If they knew how firearms would develop over the years, I'm sure they would have defined the 2nd much further. No one has any problem with the 3rd amendment. Nor the 7th. Because those are dealing with tangible concepts. The 'militia' is a is a tangible concept. How arms are used, were also a tangible idea. You would have me believe that the concept went from tangible to intangible in the time since? In which case you'll need to disprove that the US Army Field Manual does not exist; Since I got one sitting on my shelf next to the Boy Scout Field Manual and the 'Zombie Survivial Guide' by Max Brooks!
We can play these games. Eventually, you'll run out of an argument. Since you are defending that 21 year old's right to have a firearm shortly before he killed nine US Citizens in a church. Or another young adult from killing twenty kindergarderns at Sandy Hook. How many US Citizens, involved in mass murders, have to die, before you consider that the situation presented to this nation has some really deep rooted problems? That putting our head in the sand and hoping it goes away, willing likely never happen? How many funerals must we attend before we say 'enough is enough'?
We dont have to worry about external terrorist threats, BamaD. We seem to do a pretty good job of it already in the nation. Imagine if we had legal and logistical systems in place that could head off these troubled individuals in society before they detonate in a horror show? That its sadly easier to obtain a firearm, than find a counselor to help someone work through their difficulties.
And I say all of this, not to get your blood boiling, BamaD. My intention is not to give you grief or suffering. The present path this nation is on, is not a healthy one. We are always given the option everyday to switch that path. But we dont. So I see two possible futures for the nation:
1 ) The mass killings draw enough people from the 'middle' or even the 'right' to the 'left's' side to revoke the 2nd amendment as the 28th amendment. The process before, during, and after which would be horrible. A black hole for us as a nation. Filled with anger, hatred, suffering, and torment. It would pit friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor. We did that, it was called the 'American Civil War'. Even to this day, we still feel as a nation some of those painful memories and events.
2 ) Life becomes so cheap, no one really gives a shit about anyone else. That our freedoms can more easily be silenced by the use of a firearm. Peaceful protesters for an unpopular war some US President is waging, are shot and killed. The media doesn't report it, because there is no more shock value to it. That if you don't like someone, you can kill them. Or be killed by someone that doesn't like you. Yes, we tried this too, it was called 'The Wild West'. The 'rule of the gun' broke civility down to warlords controlling sections of America and keeping US Citizens near-to or exactly as property (i.e. slaves).
For this nation to deal with the problems before it on this particular issue, will take changing the path before #1 or #2 fate befalls us.
|
RE: Leftist Anarchists - More Dangerous Than ISIS? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread