loner w/a boner Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Just my thoughts on the issue: I'd rather be tried by 12 (jurors) than carried by 6 (poll bearers). Tyrants love unarmed peasants. There is a law higher than the law of man--the law of survival. The second amendment isn't about hunting. It and militias are about overthrowing governments deemed tyrannical. Where the line is drawn between legitimate revolution and illegal rebellion--often open to interpretation. I used to be rather liberal on most issues: pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun control, etc... One afternoon I opened the door to my home only to have two men, both with guns, point them at my head. Before their robbery was complete, I had a complete change of heart on my position on gun control. It was soooooo simple to me then. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals don't follow laws, including gun control laws, which means law-abiding citizens are at their mercy. Practically speaking, since the robbery was a surprise I likely never would have had time to retrieve a gun. Even so, my attempt at using such a weapon could have resulted in my death. But, for me, as the victim of violent, armed crime, it is the principle of the thing. At the very least, with a firearm, I would have had a fighting chance, if I had chosen to do so. Bottom line: It's all about the "F" word: FREEDOM. Either I need your permission to do something or I don't. Sheep to the left; bull rams to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 << The high court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, ruling that Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense. It was the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment. [color:red]But the court said the right to bear arms is not absolute and suggested that the ruling should not affect federal restrictions on the sale of guns or who may own them and where they may be carried.[/color] "In limiting its opinion to the matter of self-defense, and in saying the right is not absolute, the United States Supreme Court decision today is an explicit statement of support for cities all across America who are creating reasonable measures to limit the ability of those who will do harm, who will maim, who will buy, carry weapons illegally," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said. >> Rink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Looks pretty clear to me that it is exactly the choice they made. What part of "shall not be infringed" does Stevens not understand??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 The fight for the defense of liberty is never-ending. Totalitarians and social engineers never give up their quest to control all aspects of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Just my thoughts on the issue: I'd rather be tried by 12 (jurors) than carried by 6 (poll bearers). Tyrants love unarmed peasants. There is a law higher than the law of man--the law of survival. The second amendment isn't about hunting. It and militias are about overthrowing governments deemed tyrannical. Where the line is drawn between legitimate revolution and illegal rebellion--often open to interpretation. I used to be rather liberal on most issues: pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun control, etc... One afternoon I opened the door to my home only to have two men, both with guns, point them at my head. Before their robbery was complete, I had a complete change of heart on my position on gun control. It was soooooo simple to me then. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Criminals don't follow laws, including gun control laws, which means law-abiding citizens are at their mercy. Practically speaking, since the robbery was a surprise I likely never would have had time to retrieve a gun. Even so, my attempt at using such a weapon could have resulted in my death. But, for me, as the victim of violent, armed crime, it is the principle of the thing. At the very least, with a firearm, I would have had a fighting chance, if I had chosen to do so. Bottom line: It's all about the "F" word: FREEDOM. Either I need your permission to do something or I don't. Sheep to the left; bull rams to the right. Freedom is real nice, if you know what to do with it.....sadly the majority don't, that's why we have laws.... Curiously, 3 large black guys, with guns, marched into my house whilst I was in bed one night. They tied up my friends, hit them on their heads with the guns, causing lots of bleeding, stole various things and made their getaway. I came downstairs to find the house in darkness and my friends tied up and bleeding. I think the only reason they didn't disturb me was because I was 'with' my then girlfriend. It didn't have the effect on me as it seems to have had on you. My friends all upped and left. I stayed, finished my degree. Lived alone. I've never had any desire to own a gun. As someone who used to treat and assess violent offenders (murderers, rapists, wife batterers, child abusers etc), I've been threatened with all sorts. I guess I have no fear. Maybe I should, but I see human life as precious. I've no desire to be in the position of deciding someones final destination. Owning and carrying a weapon designed for one purpose only, to kill, means you might use it, when other choices are available. One of the most important things told to violent offenders is don't carry a weapon, as you might use it. You have your opinion, I have mine. Nothing will make me change my views on this. The UK has always banned guns...gun related deaths are very low in comparison to the USA. I think this speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 [...I've no desire to be in the position of deciding someones final destination. Unfortunately you may some day find yourself in exactly that position whether you desire it or not. And if you don't decide his final destination, he will decide yours. Access to weapons is a fundamental right of survival. The weak is slave to the strong. I too have no desire to be in the position of deciding someone's final destination. But in some confrontations it is not "if" someone will die, but "who". My belief is that I have not only the "right", but the "responsibility" to defend my "sacred" life. Owning and carrying a weapon designed for one purpose only, to kill, means you might use it,a when other choices are available. So true. As the choice I made the day I was robbed probably kept me alive. But it was MY choice, and without adequate weapons, how many choices do I really have? Passivity and submission, begging for mercy, possible flight? Every option except armed resistance. Every option except directly confronting and fighting evil. It seems to me that applied on a large scale, the world would be lawless total chaos or an intolerant police state. In my opinion, people who are willing to be slaves deserve to be slaves. I find no virtue in impotence, passivity, and weakness. Your point about "other choices", I certainly agree with. Had I "gone for a gun" that fateful night, I may just be dead. For those such as yourself, who hold "all" human life in such high regard, I mean no disrespect. People such as myself seem to learn different lessons from history. Yours Respectfully, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 " People such as myself seem to learn different lessons from history." I'm sad to hear that. I guess the little folks of the UK haven't learnt the correct lessons. We do have a bit of history to refer to though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 It didn't have the effect on me as it seems to have had on you. Of course it did not. You slept through it and were thank the gods not attacked. Had you been beat up and your gf raped 6 ways to sunday however..... I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 can we vote to give away our constitutional rights? interesting question and debate... Not an interesting debate because the answer is so clearly "no". To take away a Constitutional right requires a Constitutional Amendment. Period. Otherwise the minority would have no basic rights at all. The classic example of this would be the Jim Crow laws that discriminated on the basis of race and were supported by the voters who elected the legislators who promulgated them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.