I'm totally with you....it's the same dude alright...
What I mean is that evolutionarily, the non working systems are falling away as we speak. What this means is that those who continue to maladapt will live the consequences. The 'new' systems are all around us, for when people start to wake up, or for those who are adaptive right now.
Hint: new, adaptive systems are not about majority rules at the expense of the minority.
...
But when your sons were 12, 11 and 9... it was okay to put someone else's kids in that situation?
I am not anti-War. I am anti-THIS War. We should put our sons and daughters at risk out of necessity, such as Afghanistan... not of our choosing, as with Iraq.
No, no no, really NO.
I don't mean that. I just mean it is easy to say something like that when it doesn't pertain to me. I was just admitting my human weakness.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Here's the rub as i see it. The second amendment states this:
"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."
It appears, at least to me, that the second amendment refers to "militia", not necessaily all individuals. Everyone screams about their constitutional right to pack heat in their waistband or stowed away in the glove compartment of their car providing a feeling of safety while driving through "shady" neighborhoods, while citing the second amendment, which just may be a gross misinterpretation.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Here's the rub as i see it. The second amendment states this:
"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."
It appears, at least to me, that the second amendment refers to "militia", not necessaily all individuals. Everyone screams about their constitutional right to pack heat in their waistband or stowed away in the glove compartment of their car providing a feeling of safety while driving through "shady" neighborhoods, while citing the second amendment, which just may be a gross misinterpretation.
People need to go back to the writings of the founders to understand what the founders were talking about. The 2nd amendment declares that individuals have the right to bear arms, just as the other amendments in the bill of rights declare other individual rights unless they specifically talk about the state. The supremes upheld this notion with their recent ruling. There have been no rulings from the supremes backing the notion that the right to bear arms is only granted to government forces. That would be completely counter to original intent. Go back to the bill of rights and read about "right of the people", "right of the people", "consent of the owner", "right of the people", "no person", "rights of the accused". Chock full of declarations of individual rights, rounded out with the 9th saying that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people, and the 10th stating that the powers not delegated are reserved to the states, or the people.
The gross misinterpretation is made by people who want to deny individual liberty and cede that liberty to the state.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
People need to go back to the writings of the founders to understand what the founders were talking about. The 2nd amendment declares that individuals have the right to bear arms, just as the other amendments in the bill of rights declare other individual rights unless they specifically talk about the state. The supremes upheld this notion with their recent ruling. There have been no rulings from the supremes backing the notion that the right to bear arms is only granted to government forces. That would be completely counter to original intent. Go back to the bill of rights and read about "right of the people", "right of the people", "consent of the owner", "right of the people", "no person", "rights of the accused". Chock full of declarations of individual rights, rounded out with the 9th saying that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people, and the 10th stating that the powers not delegated are reserved to the states, or the people.
The gross misinterpretation is made by people who want to deny individual liberty and cede that liberty to the state.
...
Yes... but going back to Colonial Times when we were colonies under English Rule, we were not granted the right to arm ourselves according to the King of England. The English said their Army was our security over here and used their Army to enforce English Law.
The Second Amendment, as stated:
"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."
could easily be interperted as the creation of an Army of American citizens to enforce the newly created laws of the United States of America. The basic premise was, the government was to be comprised of American Citizens... elected by American Citizen (albeit, in the 1700s it was white landowners that were all created equal)... so, the government was a governing body of the people, for the people and selected by the people of this nation.
...
It is similar to the First Amendment's creation regarding the supression of the press in this land... because the English wanted us to only hear what England had to say... and the freedom of Religion... during a time when the Church of England played a great part of English government. We wanted the right of the press to question our government and the freedom to choose which Religion we wished to believe in.
There is a reason WHY those arethe first two Amendments.
...
Add... why was the freedom to refuse the quartering of troops in your home drafted as the Third Amendment?
Because the English Army would regularly takeover landowner's property to house their troops, commendering resources such as food, water and horses that belonged to the Colonists. That's why it is ranked so high.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Also, I don't get this obsession some Americans seem to have with the founding fathers. Both liberals and conservatives. What's up with that?
A belief in rule of law rather than rule of will. We're not big on kings decreeing things. So we have law. That law is created based on a framework laid out in the constitution that was created by the founders. So when we try to understand the constitution it is often helpful to look at the original intent of the founders to understand the meaning. We are free to change the constitution, but there is a process involved which should be more complicated than just allowing king gw bush & congress to create things like the Patriot Act. This sort of act went completely counter to what the founders envisioned, so that's why you heard a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of the gov't wiretapping its citizens which appeared to be a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Same thing with people who want to ban a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If we don't want citizens having access to guns, there's a way to do it - amend the constitution. But don't try to change the meaning of the consitution through semantics and expect people to thank you for taking their liberties away.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
A belief in rule of law rather than rule of will. We're not big on kings decreeing things. So we have law. That law is created based on a framework laid out in the constitution that was created by the founders. So when we try to understand the constitution it is often helpful to look at the original intent of the founders to understand the meaning. We are free to change the constitution, but there is a process involved which should be more complicated than just allowing king gw bush & congress to create things like the Patriot Act. This sort of act went completely counter to what the founders envisioned, so that's why you heard a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of the gov't wiretapping its citizens which appeared to be a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Same thing with people who want to ban a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If we don't want citizens having access to guns, there's a way to do it - amend the constitution. But don't try to change the meaning of the consitution through semantics and expect people to thank you for taking their liberties away.
Look, I understand the need to preserve and protect the constitution. What I don't understand is the obsession some people seem to have with the founding fathers and what these people might have wanted. That doesn't seem necessary at all. We're rational people, I don't need to know what the founding fathers thought about guns 200 years ago, I'd say their opinion doesn't mean much today. They lived over 200 years ago.
A person who lived 200 years ago cannot understand today's world, they couldn't have guessed what would come. Why fall back on their archaic opinions and use that as a sort of basis. Why not discuss things rationally with these core principles in mind.
Didn't the original constitution says black people were property? I mean, things change, more intelligent people come along...
If it's about all about these core principles, which I believe it is otherwise it's even more absurd and insane than I thought, why not mention these principles and act upon them and use those as guidelines rather than suggesting what these fossils might have wanted?
Look, I understand the need to preserve and protect the constitution. What I don't understand is the obsession some people seem to have with the founding fathers and what these people might have wanted. That doesn't seem necessary at all. We're rational people, I don't need to know what the founding fathers thought about guns 200 years ago, I'd say their opinion doesn't mean much today. They lived over 200 years ago.
A person who lived 200 years ago cannot understand today's world, they couldn't have guessed what would come. Why fall back on their archaic opinions and use that as a sort of basis. Why not discuss things rationally with these core principles in mind.
Didn't the original constitution says black people were property? I mean, things change, more intelligent people come along...
If it's about all about these core principles, which I believe it is otherwise it's even more absurd and insane than I thought, why not mention these principles and act upon them and use those as guidelines rather than suggesting what these fossils might have wanted?
How would you like to see things handled today? I'm curious... Also, I think we could debate the "more intelligent people come along" statement. I'm not at all convinced that people in general are getting any smarter, but that is probably a discussion for another day.
Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
I'm a liberal with more firepower than most small nations.
I saw what our country can do it's own people in Waco and Ruby Ridge.....
Nice. I agree. FBI agents like Lon Horiuchi can put a bullet through an unarmed mother's head while she's holding her baby, and not be held accountable. Fieldmarshall Janet Reno can burn down compounds with federal armies, but not be held responsible. There is a reason we need to hold fast to means of protecting ourselves from those who would do us harm, including the government.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Look, I understand the need to preserve and protect the constitution. What I don't understand is the obsession some people seem to have with the founding fathers and what these people might have wanted. That doesn't seem necessary at all. We're rational people, I don't need to know what the founding fathers thought about guns 200 years ago, I'd say their opinion doesn't mean much today. They lived over 200 years ago.
A person who lived 200 years ago cannot understand today's world, they couldn't have guessed what would come. Why fall back on their archaic opinions and use that as a sort of basis. Why not discuss things rationally with these core principles in mind.
Didn't the original constitution says black people were property? I mean, things change, more intelligent people come along...
If it's about all about these core principles, which I believe it is otherwise it's even more absurd and insane than I thought, why not mention these principles and act upon them and use those as guidelines rather than suggesting what these fossils might have wanted?
I guess I could not disagree with you more strongly. History is a very important teacher. We must know and study history to understand how things happen, what works, and what doesn't.
The founders had just fought for independence against tyranny. It was fresh in their minds. Today we are complacent, and apathetic. We don't know more about tyranny than the founders did. They lived it, they fought it, and they wrote a document to protect us from it. And yet today people sit idly by while Republicans and Democrats continue to pass laws which allow that tyranny to creep back in little by little.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Nice. I agree. FBI agents like Lon Horiuchi can put a bullet through an unarmed mother's head while she's holding her baby, and not be held accountable. Fieldmarshall Janet Reno can burn down compounds with federal armies, but not be held responsible. There is a reason we need to hold fast to means of protecting ourselves from those who would do us harm, including the government.
It's pretty much a fight that can't be won in today's America, but hey, I can think of worse ways of going out than in a hail of bullets.
Idaho's Premier Outdoor Writer
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
Also, I don't get this obsession some Americans seem to have with the founding fathers. Both liberals and conservatives. What's up with that?
It's because they had HUGE FUCKIN BALLS. They battled the tyranny of the most powerful country on the planet, and then wrote a document which pretty much stated, "If we ever get to be jackoffs like the British were to all of us, protest, grab your guns, and over throw us."
Anyone powerful enough, tough enough, or crazy enough to pull the stunt that was the American Revolution could have just as easily created another system that would have raped the public with taxes similar to the former tyrranical government that was overthrown. Didn't they try and make George Washington KING, and he refused? I wasn't there, but history shows that these guys, for the most part, stuck to their guns. That being said, they probably got whatever they wanted anyway without taking advantage of the new American citizens-- the people were probably happy to hook them up. Booze, tobacco, slaves, "crops," etc... I bet John Adams caught way better dome from more women than Bill Clinton ever did.
They did have a vision of freedom and the way things should be run, in my eyes. I don't think anyone would complain if our elected officials actually followed The Constitution to a 'T.' The rest of us have to follow the black and white print of the law. These guys wrote the law so that the Federal Government would remain as small, and least intrusive as possible, and it was law that was meant to be followed.
The simple language of that document is all is pretty admirable too. BAM! Right to the point. See the laws that are written today? Or contracts of any kind? They're all complete garbage, legal mumbo-jumbo, that is 10,000x harder to interpret than anything written in the Constitution. People like these guys because they wrote that simply beautiful liberating piece of paper.
Well, that, and in some cases, people don't really give a fuck about the founding fathers, and try and use them as guilt-trip items against the current-day politicians who wipe their ass with their responsibilities to serve us. "What would the founding fathers say, if they saw you were wiretapping us, W????" as if they really care about the framers when they say that-- but who knows, maybe it touches a nerve in some of these otherwise soul-less people in Washington.
Yes they were slave owners, potheads, drunks, cheats, etc... Do you see any difference in today's world? Are they really dinosaurs? Have we gotten smarter? We've gone from Beethoven to Soulja Boy and Britney Spears in the last 300 years. If anything, our principles have eroded quite a bit.
I'd say I'm a big fan of them for all the right reasons-- and not for any of their moral double standards.
...
No one says you cannot express your rights to support president Bush. You do so at your own risk. People will argue points on why they don't like President Bush... but, no one is forcing you to not like him.
...
You can practice Christianity (or any other religion). That is your personal choice and no oneis out to restrict you from practicing it. But when you try to pass legislation that forces me to obey Christian (or any other religion) belief, then it imposes a restriction on my Constitutional rights. Also, there is a difference between reading the Bible and shouting out Biblical passages through a bullhorn. If I were on the street, I would expect the police to stop me if I was singing, 'Porch' at the top of my horrible singing voice or shouting out the book of 'Leviticus' through a bullhorn. It's not what I'm saying... it's the fact that I am disturbing the peace.
...
And it is your right to support the death penalty. I oppose the Death Penalty because I do not believe the justice system is perfect.
...
And freedom of sex? I don't pay for sex.
Like I have said before, many of us claim to want our rights; be it conservative or liberal but then we bash others for not agreeing; that's what I was meaning. On any of the points I was bringing up, I meant that these are my beliefs and while not everyone is the same, i.e., I am a Christian and yet pro choice big time, there are many times when my group which I don't even know what that would be because I don't fit really well in either one, but if you put me with the Christian group, let's say, then there are those on my side as well as the other that would bash each other for not joining. I don't care what others hold dear; as long as we all are adult enough to agree to disagree.
and the sex part was a joke, just to make light of things and to point out that for me casual sex or serious realationship sex both had prices I paid.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
How would you like to see things handled today? I'm curious... Also, I think we could debate the "more intelligent people come along" statement. I'm not at all convinced that people in general are getting any smarter, but that is probably a discussion for another day.
I think how I'd like to see things handled today is also a discussion for another day.
I guess I could not disagree with you more strongly. History is a very important teacher. We must know and study history to understand how things happen, what works, and what doesn't.
The founders had just fought for independence against tyranny. It was fresh in their minds. Today we are complacent, and apathetic. We don't know more about tyranny than the founders did. They lived it, they fought it, and they wrote a document to protect us from it. And yet today people sit idly by while Republicans and Democrats continue to pass laws which allow that tyranny to creep back in little by little.
I completely agree with your first statement. And your second statement is definitely true.
History is indeed a teacher, and we must study it, but that doesn't mean we have to repeat it or cling onto it.
Yes they were slave owners, potheads, drunks, cheats, etc... Do you see any difference in today's world? Are they really dinosaurs? Have we gotten smarter? We've gone from Beethoven to Soulja Boy and Britney Spears in the last 300 years. If anything, our principles have eroded quite a bit.
They were slave owners, black people were considered property. That's who they were. Now, I don't know where you live but the only people here who believe they should be able to enslave other people and own them, as property, are fascist, racist, ignorant neo-nazis.
And yes, I do believe we're smarter. We've gone from Beethoven to Leonard Bernstein and from bloodletting to removing tumors and open heart surgery. The problem is that some people believe an intellectual maximun was reached 200 years ago.
I'd say I'm a big fan of them for all the right reasons-- and not for any of their moral double standards.
So you just turn them into mythical figures?
Why put so much faith into these people, why rely on them instead of what they wrote and your own intelligence?
Whenever people mention them, I can't help but think how the founding fathers would be clueless in today's world. They missed two hundred years of history. The industrial revolution was just beginning, for example.
Why put so much faith into these people, why rely on them instead of what they wrote and your own intelligence?
What they wrote shows you who they were. I liked what they wrote, quite a bit. I think we're saying the same thing?
You're right that people add a mythical element to these people, and I explained why they did it in my first post. It's more about pointing at the current jerks in power, and asking them to be more like our "great" founding fathers.
Again, I give them credit for a lot of the good they did, and what they wrote. For those things, they are worthy of some credit. They weren't saints, nobody is.
I'm also a big fan of a guy named Eddie Vedder, and quite a bit of what he writes, yet I vehemently disagree with quite a bit of other stuff he says and believes. I'm sure I'm not the only one, yet I feel like letting people know about the good that this guy does. That's just how I do.
The founders would be out of place in our world today, for some obvious reasons which you mention, and right at home for others. Again, the balls on these guys! I'm sure that they would fear the current system no more than the won they fought. I'm sure they'd be extra pissed due to the fact they set this country up to be a really be free (for all those who were eligible to be free, of course) and it has been hijacked once again.
What they wrote shows you who they were. I liked what they wrote, quite a bit. I think we're saying the same thing?
You're right that people add a mythical element to these people, and I explained why they did it in my first post. It's more about pointing at the current jerks in power, and asking them to be more like our "great" founding fathers.
Again, I give them credit for a lot of the good they did, and what they wrote. For those things, they are worthy of some credit. They weren't saints, nobody is.
I'm also a big fan of a guy named Eddie Vedder, and quite a bit of what he writes, yet I vehemently disagree with quite a bit of other stuff he says and believes. I'm sure I'm not the only one, yet I feel like letting people know about the good that this guy does. That's just how I do.
The founders would be out of place in our world today, for some obvious reasons which you mention, and right at home for others. Again, the balls on these guys! I'm sure that they would fear the current system no more than the won they fought. I'm sure they'd be extra pissed due to the fact they set this country up to be a really be free (for all those who were eligible to be free, of course) and it has been hijacked once again.
And that, may I add, is also the reason that none of us can agree 100% on all things, (like I said, I am a Christian, and yet there are very few people who think of Jesus in the radical way I do and yet still claim to love Him and follow Him) nor can we say very often that any one person is all bad or all good. Or that we are in agreement with all that someone proclaims.
And in our History, that of which I have cared to seek, many of the people we have named our "heros", may have well done many many things that we would not agree with if they were made known to us.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Yes very true liberals don't like the patriot act (nor do I) that takes away our civil liberties but want to take away our right to own guns that is in the constitution(like eddie).anyway ask him if he knows the first thing a dictator does is take away your gun so you can't defend yourselfs.
Yes very true liberals don't like the patriot act (nor do I) that takes away our civil liberties but want to take away our right to own guns that is in the constitution(like eddie).anyway ask him if he knows the first thing a dictator does is take away your gun so you can't defend yourselfs.
so, what chance does a guy with a gun have against say a tank? an F-16?
so, what chance does a guy with a gun have against say a tank? an F-16?
The Iraqis are doing a pretty good job of frustrating one of the most powerful armies in the world. It depends upon the objective. If the US govt wants to completely raze a town and kill everyone in it, then a gun will have no chance. But if they want to impose marshall law, and not kill everyone, then guns and guerilla tactics can be quite effective. I imagine, like in Iraq, the army would be given political objectives that would frustrate them and keep them from really using their full force. Either way, would you like to cower like a little kitten while the government marches through, or would you rather take your chances and fight for your liberties. I'll chose the latter when the shit hits the fan.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The Iraqis are doing a pretty good job of frustrating one of the most powerful armies in the world. It depends upon the objective. If the US govt wants to completely raze a town and kill everyone in it, then a gun will have no chance. But if they want to impose marshall law, and not kill everyone, then guns and guerilla tactics can be quite effective. I imagine, like in Iraq, the army would be given political objectives that would frustrate them and keep them from really using their full force. Either way, would you like to cower like a little kitten while the government marches through, or would you rather take your chances and fight for your liberties. I'll chose the latter when the shit hits the fan.
You said it. It depends upon the objective. It depends on how your government wants to oppress you, how many are being oppressed...
You talk about Iraq but look at what happened during nazism or communism. First of all, many people just supported the system, it was popular. So many gun owners would support the system in the US as well. Then there were other methods of stopping you of course; denying your children education, have you fired if you do not cooperate, smear campagnes against you... But worst of all, retaliation. Just read what happened after Reinhard Heydrich was murdered by opposition in WWII.
"Upon Himmler's orders, the Nazi retaliation was brutal. About 13,000 people were arrested, deported, imprisoned or killed. On 10 June all males over the age of 16 in the village of Lidice, 22 km north-west of Prague, and another village, Ležáky, were murdered. The towns were burned and the ruins leveled."
wikipedia
Could the gun owners stand the idea that whenever they kill someone, hundreds if not thousands of innocent people are killed as a result?
I think it's extremely naive to think guns will save you during oppression.
I think it's extremely naive to think guns will save you during oppression.
Right, but it comes down to alternatives. I don't know that guns will save me during oppression. Maybe they'll give me a 20% chance. Maybe 10%. But allowing my guns to be confiscated by the government gives me 0% chance. So rather than act like cattle going to the slaughter, I'll at least take my chances where I can get them and that starts with protecting our current liberties from encroachment.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I still don't get this one...
...
"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."
...
Are gun owners all part of a Militia? Or is the Militia our Army? If the people are part of the militia... doesn't that justify the acts of Timothy McVeigh against an oppressive government?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I still don't get this one...
...
"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."
...
Are gun owners all part of a Militia? Or is the Militia our Army? If the people are part of the militia... doesn't that justify the acts of Timothy McVeigh against an oppressive government?
You could also type it like this:
"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."
Here's an excerpt from the latest decision, written of course by the majority:
On the Meaning of “the Right of the People”
“[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology . . . . All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . . In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . . Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is ‘primarily collective in nature.’”
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
"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."
Here's an excerpt from the latest decision, written of course by the majority:
...
So... Militia and People are not synonymous in the First Amendment? Does this mean that as individuals.... we have a right to arm ourselves against our own police and Army?
If that's the case... then, why don't we only allow American Citizens to join the Army? That way, the Army will be comprised of American Citizens who would never oppress American Citizens... right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
So... Militia and People are not synonymous in the First Amendment? Does this mean that as individuals.... we have a right to arm ourselves against our own police and Army?
If that's the case... then, why don't we only allow American Citizens to join the Army? That way, the Army will be comprised of American Citizens who would never oppress American Citizens... right?
Not sure what you're asking in your first sentence. They aren't synonyms. Individuals have a right to arm themselves, and they can form militias. So I suppose if you want to form a militia and arm yourselves with a large vocabulary to engage in a war of words, you could apply it to the first ammendment. Do we have the right to arm ourselves against the government? Yes, that was an original intent of the ammendment. To protect us from tyranny.
I don't understand the last question, either. Are you suggesting that American citizens would never harm other American citizens? I think there's evidence to the contrary reported daily.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Totally get what you are saying
No, no no, really NO.
I don't mean that. I just mean it is easy to say something like that when it doesn't pertain to me. I was just admitting my human weakness.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
"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."
It appears, at least to me, that the second amendment refers to "militia", not necessaily all individuals. Everyone screams about their constitutional right to pack heat in their waistband or stowed away in the glove compartment of their car providing a feeling of safety while driving through "shady" neighborhoods, while citing the second amendment, which just may be a gross misinterpretation.
People need to go back to the writings of the founders to understand what the founders were talking about. The 2nd amendment declares that individuals have the right to bear arms, just as the other amendments in the bill of rights declare other individual rights unless they specifically talk about the state. The supremes upheld this notion with their recent ruling. There have been no rulings from the supremes backing the notion that the right to bear arms is only granted to government forces. That would be completely counter to original intent. Go back to the bill of rights and read about "right of the people", "right of the people", "consent of the owner", "right of the people", "no person", "rights of the accused". Chock full of declarations of individual rights, rounded out with the 9th saying that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people, and the 10th stating that the powers not delegated are reserved to the states, or the people.
The gross misinterpretation is made by people who want to deny individual liberty and cede that liberty to the state.
Yes... but going back to Colonial Times when we were colonies under English Rule, we were not granted the right to arm ourselves according to the King of England. The English said their Army was our security over here and used their Army to enforce English Law.
The Second Amendment, as stated:
"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."
could easily be interperted as the creation of an Army of American citizens to enforce the newly created laws of the United States of America. The basic premise was, the government was to be comprised of American Citizens... elected by American Citizen (albeit, in the 1700s it was white landowners that were all created equal)... so, the government was a governing body of the people, for the people and selected by the people of this nation.
...
It is similar to the First Amendment's creation regarding the supression of the press in this land... because the English wanted us to only hear what England had to say... and the freedom of Religion... during a time when the Church of England played a great part of English government. We wanted the right of the press to question our government and the freedom to choose which Religion we wished to believe in.
There is a reason WHY those arethe first two Amendments.
...
Add... why was the freedom to refuse the quartering of troops in your home drafted as the Third Amendment?
Because the English Army would regularly takeover landowner's property to house their troops, commendering resources such as food, water and horses that belonged to the Colonists. That's why it is ranked so high.
Hail, Hail!!!
Actually, it's quite sad.
Also, I don't get this obsession some Americans seem to have with the founding fathers. Both liberals and conservatives. What's up with that?
naděje umírá poslední
Why, pray tell? I wonder what assumption you might be jumping to...
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
A belief in rule of law rather than rule of will. We're not big on kings decreeing things. So we have law. That law is created based on a framework laid out in the constitution that was created by the founders. So when we try to understand the constitution it is often helpful to look at the original intent of the founders to understand the meaning. We are free to change the constitution, but there is a process involved which should be more complicated than just allowing king gw bush & congress to create things like the Patriot Act. This sort of act went completely counter to what the founders envisioned, so that's why you heard a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of the gov't wiretapping its citizens which appeared to be a direct violation of the 4th amendment. Same thing with people who want to ban a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If we don't want citizens having access to guns, there's a way to do it - amend the constitution. But don't try to change the meaning of the consitution through semantics and expect people to thank you for taking their liberties away.
Look, I understand the need to preserve and protect the constitution. What I don't understand is the obsession some people seem to have with the founding fathers and what these people might have wanted. That doesn't seem necessary at all. We're rational people, I don't need to know what the founding fathers thought about guns 200 years ago, I'd say their opinion doesn't mean much today. They lived over 200 years ago.
A person who lived 200 years ago cannot understand today's world, they couldn't have guessed what would come. Why fall back on their archaic opinions and use that as a sort of basis. Why not discuss things rationally with these core principles in mind.
Didn't the original constitution says black people were property? I mean, things change, more intelligent people come along...
If it's about all about these core principles, which I believe it is otherwise it's even more absurd and insane than I thought, why not mention these principles and act upon them and use those as guidelines rather than suggesting what these fossils might have wanted?
naděje umírá poslední
How would you like to see things handled today? I'm curious... Also, I think we could debate the "more intelligent people come along" statement. I'm not at all convinced that people in general are getting any smarter, but that is probably a discussion for another day.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
I saw what our country can do it's own people in Waco and Ruby Ridge.....
Nice. I agree. FBI agents like Lon Horiuchi can put a bullet through an unarmed mother's head while she's holding her baby, and not be held accountable. Fieldmarshall Janet Reno can burn down compounds with federal armies, but not be held responsible. There is a reason we need to hold fast to means of protecting ourselves from those who would do us harm, including the government.
I guess I could not disagree with you more strongly. History is a very important teacher. We must know and study history to understand how things happen, what works, and what doesn't.
The founders had just fought for independence against tyranny. It was fresh in their minds. Today we are complacent, and apathetic. We don't know more about tyranny than the founders did. They lived it, they fought it, and they wrote a document to protect us from it. And yet today people sit idly by while Republicans and Democrats continue to pass laws which allow that tyranny to creep back in little by little.
It's pretty much a fight that can't be won in today's America, but hey, I can think of worse ways of going out than in a hail of bullets.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
It's because they had HUGE FUCKIN BALLS. They battled the tyranny of the most powerful country on the planet, and then wrote a document which pretty much stated, "If we ever get to be jackoffs like the British were to all of us, protest, grab your guns, and over throw us."
Anyone powerful enough, tough enough, or crazy enough to pull the stunt that was the American Revolution could have just as easily created another system that would have raped the public with taxes similar to the former tyrranical government that was overthrown. Didn't they try and make George Washington KING, and he refused? I wasn't there, but history shows that these guys, for the most part, stuck to their guns. That being said, they probably got whatever they wanted anyway without taking advantage of the new American citizens-- the people were probably happy to hook them up. Booze, tobacco, slaves, "crops," etc... I bet John Adams caught way better dome from more women than Bill Clinton ever did.
They did have a vision of freedom and the way things should be run, in my eyes. I don't think anyone would complain if our elected officials actually followed The Constitution to a 'T.' The rest of us have to follow the black and white print of the law. These guys wrote the law so that the Federal Government would remain as small, and least intrusive as possible, and it was law that was meant to be followed.
The simple language of that document is all is pretty admirable too. BAM! Right to the point. See the laws that are written today? Or contracts of any kind? They're all complete garbage, legal mumbo-jumbo, that is 10,000x harder to interpret than anything written in the Constitution. People like these guys because they wrote that simply beautiful liberating piece of paper.
Well, that, and in some cases, people don't really give a fuck about the founding fathers, and try and use them as guilt-trip items against the current-day politicians who wipe their ass with their responsibilities to serve us. "What would the founding fathers say, if they saw you were wiretapping us, W????" as if they really care about the framers when they say that-- but who knows, maybe it touches a nerve in some of these otherwise soul-less people in Washington.
Yes they were slave owners, potheads, drunks, cheats, etc... Do you see any difference in today's world? Are they really dinosaurs? Have we gotten smarter? We've gone from Beethoven to Soulja Boy and Britney Spears in the last 300 years. If anything, our principles have eroded quite a bit.
I'd say I'm a big fan of them for all the right reasons-- and not for any of their moral double standards.
Like I have said before, many of us claim to want our rights; be it conservative or liberal but then we bash others for not agreeing; that's what I was meaning. On any of the points I was bringing up, I meant that these are my beliefs and while not everyone is the same, i.e., I am a Christian and yet pro choice big time, there are many times when my group which I don't even know what that would be because I don't fit really well in either one, but if you put me with the Christian group, let's say, then there are those on my side as well as the other that would bash each other for not joining. I don't care what others hold dear; as long as we all are adult enough to agree to disagree.
and the sex part was a joke, just to make light of things and to point out that for me casual sex or serious realationship sex both had prices I paid.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I think how I'd like to see things handled today is also a discussion for another day.
naděje umírá poslední
I completely agree with your first statement. And your second statement is definitely true.
History is indeed a teacher, and we must study it, but that doesn't mean we have to repeat it or cling onto it.
naděje umírá poslední
They were slave owners, black people were considered property. That's who they were. Now, I don't know where you live but the only people here who believe they should be able to enslave other people and own them, as property, are fascist, racist, ignorant neo-nazis.
And yes, I do believe we're smarter. We've gone from Beethoven to Leonard Bernstein and from bloodletting to removing tumors and open heart surgery. The problem is that some people believe an intellectual maximun was reached 200 years ago.
So you just turn them into mythical figures?
Why put so much faith into these people, why rely on them instead of what they wrote and your own intelligence?
Whenever people mention them, I can't help but think how the founding fathers would be clueless in today's world. They missed two hundred years of history. The industrial revolution was just beginning, for example.
naděje umírá poslední
What they wrote shows you who they were. I liked what they wrote, quite a bit. I think we're saying the same thing?
You're right that people add a mythical element to these people, and I explained why they did it in my first post. It's more about pointing at the current jerks in power, and asking them to be more like our "great" founding fathers.
Again, I give them credit for a lot of the good they did, and what they wrote. For those things, they are worthy of some credit. They weren't saints, nobody is.
I'm also a big fan of a guy named Eddie Vedder, and quite a bit of what he writes, yet I vehemently disagree with quite a bit of other stuff he says and believes. I'm sure I'm not the only one, yet I feel like letting people know about the good that this guy does. That's just how I do.
The founders would be out of place in our world today, for some obvious reasons which you mention, and right at home for others. Again, the balls on these guys! I'm sure that they would fear the current system no more than the won they fought. I'm sure they'd be extra pissed due to the fact they set this country up to be a really be free (for all those who were eligible to be free, of course) and it has been hijacked once again.
And that, may I add, is also the reason that none of us can agree 100% on all things, (like I said, I am a Christian, and yet there are very few people who think of Jesus in the radical way I do and yet still claim to love Him and follow Him) nor can we say very often that any one person is all bad or all good. Or that we are in agreement with all that someone proclaims.
And in our History, that of which I have cared to seek, many of the people we have named our "heros", may have well done many many things that we would not agree with if they were made known to us.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
The Iraqis are doing a pretty good job of frustrating one of the most powerful armies in the world. It depends upon the objective. If the US govt wants to completely raze a town and kill everyone in it, then a gun will have no chance. But if they want to impose marshall law, and not kill everyone, then guns and guerilla tactics can be quite effective. I imagine, like in Iraq, the army would be given political objectives that would frustrate them and keep them from really using their full force. Either way, would you like to cower like a little kitten while the government marches through, or would you rather take your chances and fight for your liberties. I'll chose the latter when the shit hits the fan.
You said it. It depends upon the objective. It depends on how your government wants to oppress you, how many are being oppressed...
You talk about Iraq but look at what happened during nazism or communism. First of all, many people just supported the system, it was popular. So many gun owners would support the system in the US as well. Then there were other methods of stopping you of course; denying your children education, have you fired if you do not cooperate, smear campagnes against you... But worst of all, retaliation. Just read what happened after Reinhard Heydrich was murdered by opposition in WWII.
"Upon Himmler's orders, the Nazi retaliation was brutal. About 13,000 people were arrested, deported, imprisoned or killed. On 10 June all males over the age of 16 in the village of Lidice, 22 km north-west of Prague, and another village, Ležáky, were murdered. The towns were burned and the ruins leveled."
wikipedia
Could the gun owners stand the idea that whenever they kill someone, hundreds if not thousands of innocent people are killed as a result?
I think it's extremely naive to think guns will save you during oppression.
naděje umírá poslední
Right, but it comes down to alternatives. I don't know that guns will save me during oppression. Maybe they'll give me a 20% chance. Maybe 10%. But allowing my guns to be confiscated by the government gives me 0% chance. So rather than act like cattle going to the slaughter, I'll at least take my chances where I can get them and that starts with protecting our current liberties from encroachment.
...
"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."
...
Are gun owners all part of a Militia? Or is the Militia our Army? If the people are part of the militia... doesn't that justify the acts of Timothy McVeigh against an oppressive government?
Hail, Hail!!!
You could also type it like this:
"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."
Here's an excerpt from the latest decision, written of course by the majority:
So... Militia and People are not synonymous in the First Amendment? Does this mean that as individuals.... we have a right to arm ourselves against our own police and Army?
If that's the case... then, why don't we only allow American Citizens to join the Army? That way, the Army will be comprised of American Citizens who would never oppress American Citizens... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
Not sure what you're asking in your first sentence. They aren't synonyms. Individuals have a right to arm themselves, and they can form militias. So I suppose if you want to form a militia and arm yourselves with a large vocabulary to engage in a war of words, you could apply it to the first ammendment. Do we have the right to arm ourselves against the government? Yes, that was an original intent of the ammendment. To protect us from tyranny.
I don't understand the last question, either. Are you suggesting that American citizens would never harm other American citizens? I think there's evidence to the contrary reported daily.