Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
I'm sorry, I can't help you with this one.
|
You know, I'm just trying to add some levity here. Lighten up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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.
|
I think a problem here is your worship of the constitution. Maybe if you could admit that our founding fathers didn't know everything and weren't really that spectacular, but rather mere human beings with human fallacies, we could get somewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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.
|
I think I might have to request you pull it up when you get the chance. It might be important. As for the motivations of World War II-era powers, you've brought them up before. Let's pretend I'm living in the now, a world where a world ground war is no longer feasible nor likely. And no, I don't want to debate that point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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?
|
You've put words in my mouth here. Unappreciated and unwarranted. There is a difference between carrying a gun in order to do one's job and carrying a gun to feel safe.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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?
|
First, men get raped too. Deal with it. My "basic assumption" was, in fact, a hypothetical situation, not a description of how all crimes happen. I've no problem with self-defense. Do you need a gun if your assailant doesn't have one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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.
|
Lord, paranoia. Why give the government any power at all? Look, Nazi Germany came about not for lack of guns but due to the fact that Germany was ina severe economic depression and citizens felt very resentful of the world, and Hitler came along and gave them something to believe in, to get behind. Stalinist Russia had a similarly complicated beginning, as did Cambodia. You filter everything out but what matters to you -- namely, that they didn't have guns, and then pin the country's ills on that lack.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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.
|
Agreed. To disagree. Which is good, for us.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
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?
|
Sure, if that makes you feel better. That's a pretty glib interpretation. But I suppose we have to simplify things to our comfort level. Could I then say that your solution to criminals who ignore and break laws is a steel-jacketed .44 hollowpoint to the face? I don't think so.