Quote:
Originally posted by Kadath
You know, I come back to the politics section, see you've responded, and I'm filled with weariness. This feels like round 15 of a 50 round bareknuckle boxing match. Ding.
|
I'm sorry, I can't help you with this one.
Quote:
|
Okay. So the onus is on me to fix what has become a flawed and incorrect document, something we have done a few times over the years, that it no longer provides people with weapons too powerful for the common man to possess. I accept the onus.
|
No, the onus was on you to show why my rights should be taken away inspite of what that exceptional document says. "Fixing it" as you say, is not your or any one viewpoint's responsibility.
I'll add as an aside that the fact that the Constitution has survived over 200 years with relatively little revision is a testiment to how well it was actually written. If you have an arguement, perhaps it is with SCOTUS, because they are the ones that interpret what the constitution means.
Quote:
Being as you accept that the only purpose of a gun is to put a bullet into a living target(practice shooting being nothing more than preparation for that event), I must now only refute your need to do that very thing. War. You want to shoot someone in a war, you join the armed forces, they issue you your gun. You give it back when your hitch is up. Self-defense. We could go on about this one forever. Carrying a gun in self-defense cuts both ways. If a guy pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, you can either give it up peacefully, or pulled your concealed firearm, for which you possess a permit. Now you are faced with the situation where one of you has to get shot to solve the situation, when you could have just handed over fifty bucks and forced no one to die. Hunting I am not currently quibbling with. I would propose that, in a perfect world, you keep your hunting rifle at the game preserve in a locker akin to a safety deposit box, you get it out when you go into hunt, you check it back in when you leave. Same for target shooting.
|
I can pull it up (but am lazy at the moment) but every able bodied man is defined as part of the 'unofficial militia' in some USC subsection or another. Not important tho. Germany and Japan knew an invasion of the US was next to impossible because as the Germans put it, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Very true, and they weren't talking about the army.
Armed guards will shoot you for trying to rob banks and armored cars of hundreds to thousands of dollars. By your logic they shouldn't. After all, isn't a life priceless?
But back to your "cuts both ways". Your basic assumption is that if I give him my "50 dollars", all will be well. Too frequently, the victim still gets severly beaten, raped (women) or killed. This is supposed to be an attractive alternative? Perhaps for you and you do have the option of cooporating. Why won't you give ME the option of defending myself?
You have of course left out the basic reason for the existance of the 2nd amendment: protection from a tyrranical government. I understand that you feel it is impossible for the United States Government to become like that of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia and I pray to God you are correct. The difference between us is that I am not willing to discount the possibility.
We could of course argue that the US military would put down any uprising that used "mere guns". I accept that we simply won't agree on this point.
Quote:
|
As for your statements concerning the gang member. Great, he's breaking the law. That helps the people caught in the crossfire. Maybe we can try the guy's corpse for illegal gun purchases after we finish with the murder one beefs.
|
So is it safe then to interpret this as saying that your solution to criminals who ignore and break laws is to pass more laws?