There's a famous saying that, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

 

I can't recall the originator - but with recent events in America - and the resulting pathetic rhetoric about political behavior, ignoring the smoking gun/elephant in the room - can America ever shed its historical feudal right to bear arms? Does anyone else think its about time it did?

 

There really is no need for a civilian to bear arms in the modern USA and despite all the laws - and the impenetrably powerful gun loonie lobby - isn't it about time American politicians grew spines and decided that this really is enough.

 

A little girl, born on 9/11/2001 lost her most basic and precious right, life itself because another man had the right to carry a gun. Americans you have Megan's law - how about a law to remember this little girl and abandon your primitive right to hold a tool which serves no purpose than to take life.

 

I note the the people most pro guns are also the most right-wing, pro-Life and pro-God - and if that doesn't prove what an anachronism this law is, I don't know what does.

Tags: gifford, guns, murder, politics

Views: 49

Replies to This Discussion

The 2nd Amendment isn't so much a law as it is a declaration of an existing right.

When the Constitution was created, the men who created it didn't see the need for a Bill of Rights because they knew that the Constitution was like a contract creating a corporation or a management company, and they felt it was redundant to spell out rights held by the people.
This right to defend oneself was never taken away. I can't understand why anyone, other than a criminal or a tyrant would want this right violated?

You can certainly choose to not keep and bear arms. I personally don't keep any firearms in my house. I feel like they are too unsafe and prefer the personal approach afforded to edged weapons. That's the thing about rights; They're ours to exercise as we see fit.
@Joseph P 22 hours ago
Former felons who have shown they are no longer criminals should be allowed to exercise their right to go armed.
A psycho or criminal can get a weapon easily.
If your idea to "fix" this problem is to put some more layers of regulations and bureaucracy on top of what's already in place, the United States government has a war on drugs for you to win as well
@Josh Trott on January 12, 2011 at 2:56pm I'm not a Xtian zealot or a right-wing fundy & I'd want to go bat-shit postal on anyone who would revoke any rights of Americans.

Do you suggest that we should put our lives in the hands of government police? Do you want only the police and the criminals to be armed? After all, the right to ingest the substance of our choice has been stripped from us by your kind...nanny wannabes who believe you have some inborn power to know what is best for me...and we all know that because dope is outlawed, there no longer are any problems in America with drugs.

The Right to bear arms has less to do with militias than it is to do with the right of the people. It cannot be revoked within the present system of government. You'd need a police state to accomplish your wish, and like those Poles in '43, we'd rise up against you with the very weapons you forbade us to have.

I expect this type of authoritarianism from Christians and similar. After all, they dream of a perfect Theocracy where their god is king and His subjects bow and scrape and do what they're told. I live in The White Trash Mountains of east Tennessee and Jesus people are in abundance. They too want a strong government to force you to pray at their alter and tow their line. A government strong enough to take away your guns is a government strong enough to make you say you love its gods. I'd rather be free and take my chances.
"Isn't it just common sense to make it as difficult to own a gun as it is to own and drive a car?"

Um no.
You guys seems to be really into using force to accomplish your goals.
Just who has the right to "make it difficult" to purchase anything? Oh that's right, NOBODY has that right.
So, Microsoft should have the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons, if Bill feels that Steve Jobs is getting a little too uppity?
"So, Microsoft should have the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons, if Bill feels that Steve Jobs is getting a little too uppity?"

In my world of reality, Micro$oft isn't a person and so has no inalienable rights. But even it it were, using aggression to accomplish ones goals is fundamentally wrong.

The correct method of disciplining an uppity sales-hole is to not buy his wares, not beating him up or shooting him.

... which requires governmental regulation to prevent people from doing things that you consider fundamentally wrong.

 

Expecting people to be as civilized as you, if you give them complete freedom, is insane.  If you give everyone the right to own nukes, then someone is going to be 'incorrect' and stock them, then possibly use them.  This is where Libertarians fail hardcore.  They think they're dealing with a world full of civilized, rational people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"This is where Libertarians fail hardcore. They think they're dealing with a world full of civilized, rational people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Did I join the wrong site? Seems there was mention of Darwin...
You have some problem with survival of the fittest?
Your nuclear straw man tells me you don't have any logical counter-arguments to fling at me. Is he lying? You exhibit a great deal of faith in the stupidity of the common man, explain to me again why you want him in the gene pool? Also explain why you want to be killed by a thug. Don't you know that outlawing guns will have the same if not worse effect as did outlawing cocaine?

Philosophy aside, the fact is, when government outlaws a substance or an object, the substance or object doesn't go away, it just gets expensive and government no longer can regulate or tax it.

I don't begrudge you your wrong-headed philosophy :) but there has got to be a peaceful way to accomplish your goals.

If you believe that, then you don't understand Evolution.  Survival of the fittest doesn't mean you get a bunch of people built like Lance Armstrong with brains like Stephen Hawking.  Stupidity can often be a good trait for reproducing like crazy and spreading your genes.

 

The nuclear example wasn't a strawman either, just an absurd example.  If you don't think there are lunatics like that out there, then you really need to get out more.

 

So, what you're saying is that we should legalize weapons-grade plutonium and tax it?

 

And you can say 'philosophy aside' after you've touched philosophy in the first place.  You have yet to step beyond bald assertions that bear no resemblance to the world around us.

Again, when has outlawing something stopped it?
Because we can never achieve 100% containment, we should allow people to use all of the heroin, PCP, and acid that they want, and we should let them stockpile enough explosive material to blow up a skyscraper?  You're really making that argument?  That's inane.  It takes a complete subservience to a dogmatic position to not see a problem with that kind of (and I use the term loosely) logic.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service