Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balefire88
So, basically if both sides has guns, then they can both committ massacres?
I point you to the Indian struggle for independance. There were many massacres, especially in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Please read up on it. It actually proves your point, but so what? Indians could have picked up guns and fought back, but they chose not to, atleast most of them. Non-violent civil disobediance is a way of life, and has been successful against men with guns. I also point you to the conflicts going on in Africa. There both sides have guns, neither side seems morally just after all the massacres committed by both sides. Guns aren't always the answer.
|
I wasn't referring to warfare, I was referring to things like ethnic cleansing and genocides.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a
shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over
20-million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one
million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan
Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians
were rounded up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . .
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balefire88
So because the bill of rights mentions nothing about these two mistakes, but was written soon after the Constituion, which does allow these two mistakes the bill of rights is clearly above any possible mistakes. I'm not saying they are mistakes, I love the bill of rights, I'm just saying they're not above reconsideration and rethinking, especially after 200 years.
|
well, heres the deal about the bill of rights. They were written as the debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists grew concerning a central government. They were initially not going to be written because the federalists said it would be assumed that all rights are inherently belonging to the people. As a compromise, they were written in to the constitution with the express purpose of declaring that these rights are pre-existing, with or without a constitution, and that no government body can ever take them away. Of course with the courts siding with the government as of late, the judicial tyranny has certainly whittled away at them, but they are supposed to be pre-existing or 'natural law' rights belonging to all people. To write them away or consider them outdated seems a foolish concept to me, and I believe that it would seem that way to them as well.