Someone GETS IT!

[lazs2]

You guys that think the time for people to defend themselves is past crack me up.   If we are past needing firearms then we are past needing police and courts... we are past needing armies because.. well.. there are no bad guys out there trying to do us harm... we are past needing elections because... since everyone thinks of the good of everyone else only.... anyone will do..  in fact.. why even have a government?  just the golden rule will work.


mav put it perfectly.... "The concept of what the 2nd amendment does not revolve solely on one situation, that of either self defense or defense from tyranny. It revolves on all events where a weapon, properly used can and does have a beneficial outcome. "

In some respects.. we may not need the second as much.. say from our government... yet... I would say that it hasn't hurt knowing we were armed tho...

In other respects... if is a far more dangerous place now than when the framers pointed out our right to defend ourselves.... women are far more endangered than they ever were in colonial times as are the old and the infirm... They weren't preyed on like they are now.

The people that carry guns every day for a living... cops.. they all believe that there is a real need for any citizen to defend himself with firearms.

lazs

[VOR]

Hap, despite all the political hullaballoo in this thread I respect the fact that you're doing some research on this issue. I think you'll find the writings to be informative.

As for poirtions of the Bill of Rights being outdated or unnecessary, bear in mind that you have some unlikely allies. There are a few guys at the top who believe that in this dangerous age, the safety of you and the nation can't be guaranteed without a few wiretaps and cases of being held without charges here and there.

 

[lazs2]

how many of the other amendments are outdated?   How many fundamental rights of people are no longer needed?   When did government get so utopian?  When did the bad guys go away?  

lazs

[moot]

Yep.. I don't know what it is exactly, but Hap (from what he says) just seems to live on a different planet.
No offense eh?  The 2nd is definitely an essential part of the constitution.

Substracting guns from everyone but the criminals that'll dodge that law, as every other, will surely deminish gun crimes.. but how much?  I don't think by much, definitely not enough to warrant disarming people.
Probably by a negligible margin.

[Viking]

lol Russian!

[FiLtH]

Originally posted by Hap
Sorry to break it to you, but it ain't so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In other words, the citizenry consents to delegate or elect folk.  

From that act of consent, power stems.

The power of those elected/appointed exists to secure "unalineable Right," and 3 are listed.  The others aren't.

As to who is in charge, it's the folks we place there by our "consent."

One of the bald faced lies that has become all but gospel in the last 25 years is "we the people are in charge."  We aren't and never have been per se.  We have a direct address via the ballot of course.

I for one am VERY glad the mob isn't in control and that they were never desired to be in control by Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and Co.

All the best,

hap

p.s. there was a guy in Germany in the 30's who very successfully tapped into the mob's errors and weaknesses.  Read the 1st third of Shiller's "Rise and Fall."  If you're honest with yourself, you'll find yourself reacting in ways you did not anticipate.  Evil and lies are powerfully seductive, and none is 100% immune.

  Nicely said hap. But one thing is for sure is that without the arms, we would never have the opportunity to grasp the power if we ever needed to.

[Hap]

Originally posted by FiLtH
But one thing is for sure is that without the arms, we would never have the opportunity to grasp the power if we ever needed to.

My opinion is those who arm themselves as a means to ready themselves for what you said are delusional.  Not a good mix -- guns and disproprtionate thinking.

Regards,

hap

p.s.  Imagine the time to "grasp power" is now.  Sketch out for us how you think things would shake out over the next 4 years.  I picked 4 years just because that's how long the Civil War lasted.

[john9001]

no one knows how it would turn out, if they say they do , they are speculating.

[lazs2]

hap..  I find it kind of ironic that the same people who think that we can't possibly win against a few thousand ill educated and starving terrorist "insurgents" and have to give up...

That these same people feel that an army who is forced to fight a few million all the way to 80 million Americans would prevail with no problem.

lazs

[Maverick]

Hap also forgets the Armed Forces are also made up from the citzenry and swore to "support and defend the constitution", not those who try to render it irrelevent.

[lazs2]

mav..  yes indeed.. that is what I meant by "half hearted".

The other thing I find interesting is that all the liberals like hap have nothing but contempt for the red voters yet... they will do everything in their power to keep us from dropping out of the union..  

lazs

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Hap
My opinion is those who arm themselves as a means to ready themselves for what you said are delusional.  Not a good mix -- guns and disproprtionate thinking.

Regards,

hap

p.s.  Imagine the time to "grasp power" is now.  Sketch out for us how you think things would shake out over the next 4 years.  I picked 4 years just because that's how long the Civil War lasted.

Unlike the civil war where both sides of the conflict are equally armed, the amount of guns for this conflict will be rather skewed.


3 Days to victory.

[Kieran]

As to they "wanted to be sure the population could not be disarmed" I do not think they ever gave it a seconds consideration. It wasn't even part of their thinking. Owing a firearm was too important to basic survival.

Hap, I still find myself disagreeing with this thought. It is a convenient way to lay  the groundwork for removing a principle right of the Constitution. The problem is it totally ignores the history of the amendment, in fact ALL of the first 10 amendments.

Since you didn't look up the Intolerable Acts (I assume), I'll give you a concise version:

1. Closed the port of Boston, depriving the city its main source of income and sustenance
2. Removed self-government
3. Disallowed groups to gather
4. Forced colonists to quarter soldiers in their homes

In addition:

1. Colonial militias arsenals were to be seized (Lexington and Concord?)
2. Speaking out against the government was punishable by jailing (those jailed might languish for months or years without trial)
3. No representatives of the colonies were allowed in Parliament
4. Search and seizure of private property was commonplace for little or no reason (was intended to stop smuggling, but of course extended way beyond that point)
5. Britain established a state-sponsored monopoly in the form of the East India Tea Company, depriving many colonists of their livelihoods

Now check that list over and tell me the first 10 amendments didn't apply almost directly to each and every point here. Try to tell me again how the 2nd amendment was not written specifically to prevent the public from being disarmed.

What is patently clear is that each and every one of the first 10 amendments was designed to prevent something that had already happened from happening again.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lazs2
The other thing I find interesting is that all the liberals like hap have nothing but contempt for the red voters yet... they will do everything in their power to keep us from dropping out of the union..  

lazs

Parasites always need a host.  

[Kieran]

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? *Pay close attention here* I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

That's from the Federalists Papers #84. First, I believe it makes clear the intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent certain rights from being taken away; secondly, it shows Hamilton's clear thinking about the dangers of codifying those rights inasmuch a clever group might use these very amendments to deprive the citizenry of those rights. Sound familiar?