| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2004 10:26:11 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
And, no you cannot earn constitutional rights over time, second amendment or otherwise. Some people are granted American citizenship and the rights that go with it. That is very much a privilege.
--Mick |
Again, you can earn constitutional rights over time. You can even just buy citizenship if you have enough money. Or you can spend the time to earn the privilege of citizenship. These are not 'inelienable rights' but are a privilege no matter what you were taught at school. Your government can just remove them from you if they want - it's already happened to several post 9/11 suspects (not convicted of anything). You can just buy them as a foreign citizen. The things you think of as rights are a privilege - they are not automatic for everyone and as such are an actual privilege.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:27:32 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by Aaron:
The contradiction I believe that Gordon is eluding to is with your statment that there is a big difference between rights and a privilage, however you state that only living in America grants you the "right" of bearing arms. |
I did not state that âonly living in Americaâ grants you anything. I said that law-abiding American citizens have the right to bear arms. The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants them that right.
Originally posted by Aaron:
A right would be universal to mankind and not subject to national boundries, ethnicities, or citizenship. |
What makes you think that? If you look up the word ârightâ in a dictionary you will find that the definition does not include anything like âuniversal to mankindâ, or ânot subject toâ anywhere.
--Mick |
The original point was that someone claimed that 'rights are not privileges - this is obviously false, but you keep arguing that it isn't.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:31:34 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, my mistake. the sixth commandment is: Thou Shall Not KILL
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
|
|
Are you trying to make a point? Are you recomending that if someone tries to kill me, I should curle up in a ball on the ground and apologize for doing what ever I did that made him/her want to attack me... Thats basically what many liberals think we should have done after 9/11.
Also: There is a greater context and more depth than just that one line/quote provides.
edit: I find it odd that right after I post a bunch of debunking facts, the thread wondered off into new corners...
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 10:32:38.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:32:01 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
HOGWASH, You will find no factual studies that prove this!
Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.122 For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
⢠Twice as likely to suffocate on a swallowed object
⢠Seven times more likely to be poisoned
⢠10 times more likely to die falling
⢠And 31 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
Also, in the anti gun studies that do show that say handguns are say 30% more likely to kill a family member: Well those staticstics count things like suicide and justifiable homicide! |
Where does 'likely to die from terrorist attack' fit in to that scale ? Does it make the current actions an appropriate response or a whole lot of fear mongering by the media ?
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:34:05 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Where does 'likely to die from terrorist attack' fit in to that scale ? Does it make the current actions an appropriate response or a whole lot of fear mongering by the media ? |
Wow, and people actualy get angry when I reply in complete disbelief to your utterly stupid posts!
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:34:52 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Are you trying to make a point? Are you recomending that if someone tries to kill me, I should curle up in a ball on the ground and apologize for doing what ever I did that made him/her want to attack me... |
Sounds a lot like the 'turning the other cheek' teachings to me. Though the bible is a bit inconsistent - is it an 'eye for an eye' or is it 'turn the other cheek and be the better person - I could never get it straight (amongst many other parts that contradict - not surprising for so many authors with so many individual political agendas though)
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:38:18 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Where does 'likely to die from terrorist attack' fit in to that scale ? Does it make the current actions an appropriate response or a whole lot of fear mongering by the media ? |
Wow, and people actualy get angry when I reply in complete disbelief to your utterly stupid posts! |
Why ? about 18,000 people die each year in alcohol related car deaths in the US. (In 2001, the CDC estimates that 17,448 people died in alcohol-related car crashes)
In the same year, 3000 people died from terrorist attacks.
You think trying to maintain some sense of perspective and proportion in life is utterly stupid ? Having lived in a country under constant terrorist attack for 25 years you'd think I might have some better perspective than the current hysteria gripping the place I now live.
Or it could just be that you are an easy target for people to get angry about, when you try to start trolling like this thread yet can't muster rational arguments to support it.
From your own figures, you are more likely to be poisoned, or die by falling. Yet the US media is gripped in panic. Never mind the number of Americans who die from weight or smoking related illness that is a whole lot more preventable and controlable.
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 10:46:38.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 10:48:07 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That might have to do with the fact that there are (in the US) several times more "accidental" deaths (usually kids) and killings by family members of other family members, than there are of citizens defending themselves with guns. It wouldn't surprise me if they are higher by one or two orders of magnitude. |
HOGWASH, You will find no factual studies that prove this!
Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.122 For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
⢠Twice as likely to suffocate on a swallowed object
⢠Seven times more likely to be poisoned
⢠10 times more likely to die falling
⢠And 31 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
Also, in the anti gun studies that do show that say handguns are say 30% more likely to kill a family member: Well those staticstics count things like suicide and justifiable homicide! |
You do know you didn't actually address the actual claim that more accidental deaths occur than intential deaths with your 'facts', don't you ? Any idea how many people are intentially killed with guns a year in the US ?
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 10:48:42.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:02:05 AM · #59 |
Well, not so much trying to make a point as understand how someone with Christian beliefs (I always thought that Jesus stood for peace and love) could reconcile their religious beliefs (which clearly state do not kill) with what seems to me to be an obsession with death and destruction.
Iâm wondering what the chances are of being assaulted with the type of situation that would condone use of a firearm is. It seems to me that overall, depending on where you live, the chances of coming upon that situation is rare, but I may be wrong. It also seems to me that a situation where guns were pulled on both sides where a gunfight breaks out could be real disastrous for both sides. A person using a gun for self defense, according to the law of justifiable homicide, has to be absolutely sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she is being threatened in a way that warrants equal force. In a situation with such high emotion, I can see judgement being clouded.
Also, would you please explain about the second amendment and militias? Are militias for the purpose of defense against ones own government?
Also, I don't believe that liberals do not want to "curl up in a ball and do apologize" after 9/11.
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, my mistake. the sixth commandment is: Thou Shall Not KILL
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
|
|
Are you trying to make a point? Are you recomending that if someone tries to kill me, I should curle up in a ball on the ground and apologize for doing what ever I did that made him/her want to attack me... Thats basically what many liberals think we should have done after 9/11.
Also: There is a greater context and more depth than just that one line/quote provides.
edit: I find it odd that right after I post a bunch of debunking facts, the thread wondered off into new corners... |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:05:20 AM · #60 |
Old Testament vs. New Testament. I'm no theologian (not even a practicing Christian) but it seems the 'eye for eye' teachings in the old testament are more prevalent in today's society than the forgiveness taught in the New Testament. To be honest if there's one derivative of this that is really intriguing it's the Mennonite (and Amish etc) practice of non-violence. I have a good friend who is Mennonite and it's interesting to hear his perspective.
As for the fear-mongering media, it seems that the real fear isn't of death but of the loss of control, and the fear of the unknown. About 30,000 kids on the planet die every day from poverty-related issues. That's 10x the WTC every day. Where's the damn outrage over that? Why aren't we giving more aid to AIDS prevention in Africa? Relieving 3rd world debt? Cause they're normal and boring. Nobody's scared of that stuff because it's everyday boring crap which happens elsewhere, and which you can ignore by swapping the channel over to NASCAR.
Do some reading about the birth of fascism in Nazi Germany and then take a good hard look around at the elements of fear that have struck the US. There are some critical differences, but the trend towards ultra-conservatism in the States is rather alarming. I can't believe how often I've been watching a Seattle television station and the teaser line before a commercial has been something like 'Is the water that you're drinking safe? Find out next...'. Fear tactics for ratings, plain and simple. Same thing the gov't is doing.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Are you trying to make a point? Are you recomending that if someone tries to kill me, I should curle up in a ball on the ground and apologize for doing what ever I did that made him/her want to attack me... |
Sounds a lot like the 'turning the other cheek' teachings to me. Though the bible is a bit inconsistent - is it an 'eye for an eye' or is it 'turn the other cheek and be the better person - I could never get it straight (amongst many other parts that contradict - not surprising for so many authors with so many individual political agendas though) |
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 11:05:59. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:19:24 AM · #61 |
Jimmy...I agree with you almost completely, except for one point. The trend in the US govt, is not for conservatism but for extremism, even to the point of being reactionary. There is nothing conservative about the Bush administration or of the corporate culture that backs him and his gang. They are imperialistic and militaristic.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Old Testament vs. New Testament. I'm no theologian (not even a practicing Christian) but it seems the 'eye for eye' teachings in the old testament are more prevalent in today's society than the forgiveness taught in the New Testament. To be honest if there's one derivative of this that is really intriguing it's the Mennonite (and Amish etc) practice of non-violence. I have a good friend who is Mennonite and it's interesting to hear his perspective.
As for the fear-mongering media, it seems that the real fear isn't of death but of the loss of control, and the fear of the unknown. About 30,000 kids on the planet die every day from poverty-related issues. That's 10x the WTC every day. Where's the damn outrage over that? Why aren't we giving more aid to AIDS prevention in Africa? Relieving 3rd world debt? Cause they're normal and boring. Nobody's scared of that stuff because it's everyday boring crap which happens elsewhere, and which you can ignore by swapping the channel over to NASCAR.
Do some reading about the birth of fascism in Nazi Germany and then take a good hard look around at the elements of fear that have struck the US. There are some critical differences, but the trend towards ultra-conservatism in the States is rather alarming. I can't believe how often I've been watching a Seattle television station and the teaser line before a commercial has been something like 'Is the water that you're drinking safe? Find out next...'. Fear tactics for ratings, plain and simple. Same thing the gov't is doing.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Are you trying to make a point? Are you recomending that if someone tries to kill me, I should curle up in a ball on the ground and apologize for doing what ever I did that made him/her want to attack me... |
Sounds a lot like the 'turning the other cheek' teachings to me. Though the bible is a bit inconsistent - is it an 'eye for an eye' or is it 'turn the other cheek and be the better person - I could never get it straight (amongst many other parts that contradict - not surprising for so many authors with so many individual political agendas though) |
|
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:44:05 AM · #62 |
What a nutty world - I am actually agreeing with Russell on this one!! :D :D
I think Russell is correct about the intent of the framers about the whole idea of why they put in the 2nd amendment.
It is there to protect the right of people to keep guns, which would not be confiscated by the government.
The words "militia" and "regulated" have much different nuances now then when they were used in the Bill.
BUT,
It all means squat when you look what you got.
I don't think we actually have any constitutional right to own a firearm in the U.S. according to Supreme Court case law.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 11:56:42 AM · #63 |
So then what I'm getting from this thread is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of arming a militia, which seems to me, to be for the overthrow of the gov't??? Am I correct in assuming that?
Where does one stop with the aquisition of firearms? When and what is enough for self defense? Does one say that it's enough to have an AK-47, or would it be ok to own a tank, a surface to air missle, or nuclear weapons??? I think all of this just leads down a very bad path.
Message edited by author 2004-05-28 12:02:19. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:05:08 PM · #64 |
To me at least, the second amendment is much like all the others. The framers wanted to alway maximize an individual's liberties.
Here it seems they inserted a justification for the freedom. Hence all the confusion.
Obviously, firearms were a more essential part of life back then than nowadays. Most folks needed them for personal protection and hunting, not just fighting off tyrannical governments.
So, I guess I'm saying the purpose of the 2nd was to protect gun ownership, not to arm militias. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:12:01 PM · #65 |
| But when is enough enough? The US gov't has ok'd for use in military operations anywhere in the world to use tactical nuclear weapons. Like father like son...like govt like civilian? The weapons just keep mounting and mounting and I"m not even sure the threat is truly there. Eventually, with all these weapons something has to happen...someone wants to use them. This is all very depressing and cynical. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:18:55 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, my mistake. the sixth commandment is: Thou Shall Not KILL
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
|
|
No mistake. Depends on what translatin / interpretation you use. King James says "Thou shalt not kill", NIV says "You shall not murder". The Greek word is RATSACH meaning murder.
On another note. The 2nd amendment has a parallel in the Old Testament book of Esther. King Xerxes was duped by a man named Haman into issuing a decree to destroy the Jews ( not knowing that his wife, Esther, was, in fact, a Jewess ). When Xerxes found out, he couldn't rescind his edict, so instead issued another decree - one that authorized the Jews to assemble and defend themselves with impunity. Namely, the Jews, under a grave threat, were given the right to bear arms in their own defense. It's possible that this historic event inspired our own 2nd ammendment.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:23:44 PM · #67 |
Thanks Ron...I just read your other post in another thread on this issue. Thanks for clearing it up.
But again, when is enough enough? when does the escalation of weapon accumulation and power stop? Seems to me that it will all lead to Armageddon. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Actually, my mistake. the sixth commandment is: Thou Shall Not KILL
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Ten Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER |
Self defense is not murder!
|
|
No mistake. Depends on what translatin / interpretation you use. King James says "Thou shalt not kill", NIV says "You shall not murder". The Greek word is RATSACH meaning murder.
On another note. The 2nd amendment has a parallel in the Old Testament book of Esther. King Xerxes was duped by a man named Haman into issuing a decree to destroy the Jews ( not knowing that his wife, Esther, was, in fact, a Jewess ). When Xerxes found out, he couldn't rescind his edict, so instead issued another decree - one that authorized the Jews to assemble and defend themselves with impunity. Namely, the Jews, under a grave threat, were given the right to bear arms in their own defense. It's possible that this historic event inspired our own 2nd ammendment.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:32:13 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what I'm getting from this thread is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of arming a militia, which seems to me, to be for the overthrow of the gov't??? Am I correct in assuming that? |
As far as I understand it, and based on the situation and times of when it was written, it is so that citizens have the option of overthrowing their government, when and if they disagree with it enough.
After all, that had just happened to the previous government.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:38:25 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Thanks Ron...I just read your other post in another thread on this issue. Thanks for clearing it up.
But again, when is enough enough? when does the escalation of weapon accumulation and power stop? Seems to me that it will all lead to Armageddon. Am I wrong? |
Not as I see it. The escalation of weapon accumulation, in and of itself, is not a causitive agent, since weapons do not discriminate, but the quest for power certainly is and does. However, Armageddon would not occur without the weaponry to support that great battle. But, if one believes in biblical prophesy ( that is, prophesies ALWAYS come true ), then we are helpless to prevent it - all we can do is try to postpone it.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:41:30 PM · #70 |
That's what bothers me so much about the quick and easy use of the word militia. As if one civil war in this country was not enough. And as if any one group could do something like that and create havoc and chaos and destroy the good lives we have here.
Personally, I don't think having guns makes one any safer from threat.
I was mugged in 1992 in the subways of NYC. Two guys with knives assaulted me and threw me to the ground. My wits and quick action got me out of that jam. Had I confronted them with a weapon of my own I may not have been here to tell about it. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:46:04 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then what I'm getting from this thread is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of arming a militia, which seems to me, to be for the overthrow of the gov't??? Am I correct in assuming that? |
As far as I understand it, and based on the situation and times of when it was written, it is so that citizens have the option of overthrowing their government, when and if they disagree with it enough.
After all, that had just happened to the previous government. |
I don't see it that way at all. The keyword in the ammendment as far as I am concerned - that is, the REASON why citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms - is "SECURITY". The right is granted because the framers of the Constitution deemed that the right was "necessary to the security of a free State". I don't see how "security" implies overthrow, or coup. Rather, I see it as providing for resistance to attempts to impose conditions that would make the State less "free".
Ron |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 12:56:58 PM · #72 |
You have a good point, Ron...the two go hand in hand. How does that saying go? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? when power is concentrated in such a small minority of people we are in trouble. That's what's been happening since 1980 and maybe that's why people feel so threatened.
The only way I see to overcome all this paranoia and fear is to embrace our differences with tolerance and love. Otherwise, we may be headed down the slippery slope of that biblical prophecy.
But your statement about believing in biblical prophecies and being helpless to prevent it is a very scary notion that has me worried. Does it have anything to do with the "rapture?"
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Thanks Ron...I just read your other post in another thread on this issue. Thanks for clearing it up.
But again, when is enough enough? when does the escalation of weapon accumulation and power stop? Seems to me that it will all lead to Armageddon. Am I wrong? |
Not as I see it. The escalation of weapon accumulation, in and of itself, is not a causitive agent, since weapons do not discriminate, but the quest for power certainly is and does. However, Armageddon would not occur without the weaponry to support that great battle. But, if one believes in biblical prophesy ( that is, prophesies ALWAYS come true ), then we are helpless to prevent it - all we can do is try to postpone it.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:03:39 PM · #73 |
one day, after everyone alive now is dead and turned to oil, the earth will be a haven for quality life when humans realize they arent alone in the universe and we rejoince in the glory our humanity, all colors and flavors of it.
those people will look back at these times and say "wow.. we were || close..." |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 01:44:01 PM · #74 |
Message edited by author 2004-10-20 02:08:56. |
|
|
|
05/28/2004 02:12:41 PM · #75 |
What kind of situation could, in this day and age, provide a threat to the security of the free state of the US, that a militia would be needed and that our paid professional regular military services not be able to handle??? The professional military services of the US would far out number any citizen militia and they would far out-gun them as well. So why do we need a militia? As far as I know of these militias, they are usually fringe groups, with extreme idealogies who are white supremicists. Am I wrong?
Also, as far as you know, does the president believe in biblical prophecies such as Armageddon? Does he believe it's inevitable?
Originally posted by RonB:
|
I don't see it that way at all. The keyword in the ammendment as far as I am concerned - that is, the REASON why citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms - is "SECURITY". The right is granted because the framers of the Constitution deemed that the right was "necessary to the security of a free State". I don't see how "security" implies overthrow, or coup. Rather, I see it as providing for resistance to attempts to impose conditions that would make the State less "free".
Ron [/quote] |
|
