T
TonyM.
Guest
Your security analyst doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality. I don't honestly believe they should have that job.
Security Analyst anti-gun?
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"Tgace said:
And that was basically the reason as I understand it.
The British controlled America with a standing army. The American people armed themselves and fought back as an organized militia. Not wanting history to repeat itself they decided that a militia was a better solution then a standing army, that way the people would remain "free" and be able to destroy any standing army that tried to take shape.
Now, does that logic still apply? The US has the most powerful standing army in the world. No number of citizens with guns is going to put up a good fight against a modern army. And there is no organized militia, just individuals with guns.
The standing army DOES rule in a sense. "National Security" is being used as a cover to take more and more control away from the people and into the government.
So the question is, are those reasons valid today?
Not entirely, but it was there. Those tend to hint that it was a fear of their own government doing the same thing the British one did. They where smart folks those founding fathers of yoursTgace said:
I think at this point anyone trying to organize a militia to take control back from the government would be labeled a "terrorist" and not last long enough to get a sizzable force organized...Tgace said:
The people have been "disarmed", they just don't know it yet
Tgace
Grandmaster
Our politicians pander so much to the public interest for their re-election that I doubt that revolution will ever be necessary in the foreseeable future. We do get what we ask for in this country. Try to take away our cars, television, beer and guns though and see what happens.
Public or corporate?
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Andrew,
No, Canada is not fascist. I would actually commend Canada for not getting as caught up in the corporate fascism that we have been proponents of here in the U.S..
However, when you are willing to take away the rights of the individual for the "better good of the nation" or for some sort of collective good, then that is an element of fascism. Individuals should have the right to do whatever they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anothers rights. You can't say "I have the right to be in a public place were no one has a gun on them." Individual rights do not work that way. You do have the individual right to not be shot at in a public place, or not have a gun displayed in a threatning manner in a public place, however, other laws and penalties can protect you from these violations.
Then, you are dealing with the rights to defend oneself and innocents from Bad Guys, as well as ones one government or invading nation. To take away that right via gun control is fascist.
I don't think that Canada is fascist. I don't think that the U.S. is fascist either. But I do think that both countries have elements of fascism in the system that need to be combated.
Paul
No, Canada is not fascist. I would actually commend Canada for not getting as caught up in the corporate fascism that we have been proponents of here in the U.S..
However, when you are willing to take away the rights of the individual for the "better good of the nation" or for some sort of collective good, then that is an element of fascism. Individuals should have the right to do whatever they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anothers rights. You can't say "I have the right to be in a public place were no one has a gun on them." Individual rights do not work that way. You do have the individual right to not be shot at in a public place, or not have a gun displayed in a threatning manner in a public place, however, other laws and penalties can protect you from these violations.
Then, you are dealing with the rights to defend oneself and innocents from Bad Guys, as well as ones one government or invading nation. To take away that right via gun control is fascist.
I don't think that Canada is fascist. I don't think that the U.S. is fascist either. But I do think that both countries have elements of fascism in the system that need to be combated.
Paul
I've no desire for a symantic argument, but I can find nothing in the definition of fascist (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist) that would indicate a weapons ban by congress would fit.
I don't agree here either. The second ammendment never clarifies what "arms" are, nor that access should be universal. We must look at the rest of the ammendment to answer those questions.
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.
We see that the stated purpose of to maintian the security of a free state (nation). We could make an argument that this should allow private posession of the weapons of war (ranging from pistols to long-range missiles), or we can try to rationalize what would be appropriate for that purpose. Interestingly, this would seem to favor assault rifles over most any other type of weapon, as they are the most prevelent / useful of the millitairy firearms. In saying that "guns must be allowed, but nuclear bombs can be proscribed", we must realize that we are drawing an arbitrary boundry (a "line in the sand"), and cease to simply appeal to "the constitution says so". (BTW some of the quotes in your link are self-conflicting, unless you advocate that no law shoudl stop prisoners, felons, the insane, or children from having guns).
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
How true. The situation is this. Guns are a part of Amercian culture. Good and bad. So in order to maintain good, we need them against the bad.Tulisan said:
Tgace
Grandmaster
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
-George Washington
-George Washington
47MartialMan
Master of Arts
Bloody Yanks-they're firearm crazy!Tgace said:
Crap,crap,crap.Jerry said:
At the time the Second Amendment was written, "the militia" consisted of all free and able men.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good ... " -George Washington
"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private self-defense." - John Adams
As far as "Constitutional interpretation" goes:
Thomas Jefferson:
"On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
And, of course, the various Supreme Court decisions, as well as Justice Department analyses that make it pretty clear that the 2nd Amendment applies to all.
A 1982 Senate Historical Study of the 2d Amendment concluded that the 2d Amendment means everyone is supposed to be able to have guns....end of story.
http://hematite.com/dragon/senaterpt.html
The Surpreme Court, our ultimate arbiters on Constitutional matters, has consistently come down on just this side of all 2d Amendment cases in all of its history.
The Bill Of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, are considered to be a collection of rights guaranteed to the people on which the government cannot intrude. The court has ruled that it sees the words the people in the bill of rights referring to all of the people of the United States and that it is the same "people" referred to in the First (free speech, worship, press) as in the Fourth (searches, warrants) and Fifth (speedy trial, self-incrimination) as in the Second (right to arms).
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right. For example, the government may not require people to have a license to practice free speech, or to attend a church. Likewise the government may not require record keeping of those who practice a right or those who participate. Like the post-civil war era poll tax levied on blacks to prevent them from voting, the government may not require the people to pay any fees or taxes to exercise a right. This does not mean that any right is free from regulation or fees however. But the basic right must be unfettered. Claiming the government can't make you pay for a FCC license for a radio or TV station won't work, simply because the Court will remind you that you can retreat to a soap box or print up leaflets (or Web Pages!) and still exercise your right to free speech.
You do not have a right to own a car, or to drive one. There is no constitutional guarantee for you to own or possess an automobile, truck, car, motorcycle, bicycle or even a skateboard. If any of these products were deemed to be illegal you would have no constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (except, perhaps, that of due-process before you must give up your vehicle).
(of course, you're quite right about the definition of "arms." We all should be allowed machine guns-I want my Thompson!):supcool:
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Jerry...
#1. As I already explained: Part of what fascism entails is exalting the "nation" or "collective good" over individual rights. Not allowing people the individual right to own or carry for any sort of collective good or betterment of the "community" or "state" or "nation" is fascist....no matter how good it sounds or how it is spun.
#2.
If one advocates taking away the right to carry a firearm, then one is advocating taking away the only effective means of self-defense against a firearm, and therefore one faces a logical dilemma if claiming to be "pro self-defense" while being an advocate for gun control. One can personally choose to not carry a gun, but the above reality cannot be ignored if one considers himself logical.
And that is the point that Phil and myself were trying to make.
#3. You have made reference to the "line in the sand" with which what we should be permitted to carry and own. I have trouble myself at times figuring out where that line should be. I think that the line of what we should be permitted to carry lies with what will equalize a criminal, considering what we could reasonably expect a criminal to carry. A large portion of crimes are committed with firearms. The only thing that can equalize a gun wielding assailent at this time is our firearm.
Now, could we carry, say, a rocket launcher? No. Why is that over the "line in the sand?" For one. a rocket launcher is not needed to equalize a weapon wielding criminal unless it was reasonable to assume that we were going to be invaded by armored cars. Since it is not reasonable to assume that a rocket launcher would be needed or even applicable in stopping a weapon wielding criminal, then this would not be included in what we should be allowed to carry.
Pretty much if one takes every instance to where the line should be drawn and applies this logic, one will get a pretty clear picture of what should be permitted in public and what shouldn't.
#4. You made reference to this, so let me explain: You may think it is unreasonable to put it on myself that if something happened causing injury or death and I wasn't able to stop it because I left my gun at home. But, considering that I am trained with a firearm and that I am in a profession at the moment where I am expected to protect others, I don't think this is unreasonable. If something were to happened, I would want to know that I did everything I could to protect the good people around me, my family, and myself. Leaving my firearm at home because it doesn't go with my outfit, or I just forgot it that day is not doing everything I could, in my opinion.
#5.
I just wanted to point this out, because this seems like one logic trap that I believe people fall into, especially those who do oppose guns. Being "anti-violent" is not a good reason to oppose guns, because guns are not violent. Inanimate objects cannot have personal characteristics as such. And, there are plenty of people who don't carry a gun who beat their wives, or do other such violent acts. And...there are plenty of people who oppose violence (like myself) who carry a gun every day.
"Violence" and "gun carry" are exclusive of each other.
Paul
#1. As I already explained: Part of what fascism entails is exalting the "nation" or "collective good" over individual rights. Not allowing people the individual right to own or carry for any sort of collective good or betterment of the "community" or "state" or "nation" is fascist....no matter how good it sounds or how it is spun.
#2.
If one advocates taking away the right to carry a firearm, then one is advocating taking away the only effective means of self-defense against a firearm, and therefore one faces a logical dilemma if claiming to be "pro self-defense" while being an advocate for gun control. One can personally choose to not carry a gun, but the above reality cannot be ignored if one considers himself logical.
And that is the point that Phil and myself were trying to make.
#3. You have made reference to the "line in the sand" with which what we should be permitted to carry and own. I have trouble myself at times figuring out where that line should be. I think that the line of what we should be permitted to carry lies with what will equalize a criminal, considering what we could reasonably expect a criminal to carry. A large portion of crimes are committed with firearms. The only thing that can equalize a gun wielding assailent at this time is our firearm.
Now, could we carry, say, a rocket launcher? No. Why is that over the "line in the sand?" For one. a rocket launcher is not needed to equalize a weapon wielding criminal unless it was reasonable to assume that we were going to be invaded by armored cars. Since it is not reasonable to assume that a rocket launcher would be needed or even applicable in stopping a weapon wielding criminal, then this would not be included in what we should be allowed to carry.
Pretty much if one takes every instance to where the line should be drawn and applies this logic, one will get a pretty clear picture of what should be permitted in public and what shouldn't.
#4. You made reference to this, so let me explain: You may think it is unreasonable to put it on myself that if something happened causing injury or death and I wasn't able to stop it because I left my gun at home. But, considering that I am trained with a firearm and that I am in a profession at the moment where I am expected to protect others, I don't think this is unreasonable. If something were to happened, I would want to know that I did everything I could to protect the good people around me, my family, and myself. Leaving my firearm at home because it doesn't go with my outfit, or I just forgot it that day is not doing everything I could, in my opinion.
#5.
I just wanted to point this out, because this seems like one logic trap that I believe people fall into, especially those who do oppose guns. Being "anti-violent" is not a good reason to oppose guns, because guns are not violent. Inanimate objects cannot have personal characteristics as such. And, there are plenty of people who don't carry a gun who beat their wives, or do other such violent acts. And...there are plenty of people who oppose violence (like myself) who carry a gun every day.
"Violence" and "gun carry" are exclusive of each other.
Paul
Ok...Tulisan said:
So, not allowing public nudity... even public sex, drug use, Public drunkeness, Drinking and driving, speeding, mating with farm animals, etc. Is all also fascist behaviour?
Some of those are illegal for moral reasons... Does the government have any right to dictate morals? I'd say that is a bigger issue then allowing you to carry a gun..
Some are for public safety, and that is where guns fall under.
Things don't break down nice and neatly into fascist, communist, socialist, capitalist, etc.
Balancing the good of the community with the good of the individuals is the job of any government, regardless of what grouping you assign it too.
