It makes it enforceable period. -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu 2003-08-28 02:30:46
Author: Biff
Subject: It makes it enforceable period.
In reply to: Redeye 's message, "How will that make it more enforceable?" on Wed 2003-08-27 10:08:45

The right to keep and bear arms is the right that guarantees all of the other rights.

The second amendment is not about crime control. It's not about duck hunting either.

That gun ownership reduces crime is a nice side benifit, but is not the point or purpose of the second amendment. More about that later...

In the American revolution, a key factor to it's sucess was that fire arms were very common, and thus, the American people had the tools available to fight the Brits. Many Americans owned weapons that were much superior to the standard "issue" british army weapons.

The guys who wrote the constitution that we are using now were well aware of that, thus, the second amendment. They considered this so important, that the only reason that it was not first on the list, was their desire for a more elegant document, the principal of speech first, and taking up arms against a repressive government as a last resort.

Er, how was it again that Germany and Japan wound up with the free elected governments they enjoy today? Seems that was a little different from how we got ours.

As for the US becoming more dictatorial, yes, but it has certainly not been caused gun ownership. Quite the contrary, this trend is occuring hand in hand with the erosion of our second amendment rights. We have watched the left wing steadily erode our freedom and constitutional rights for a number of decades now, the second amendment along with all the rest, and that infringment on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously an essential measure if the erosion of the others is to continue unabated.

Don't you find the so called "assault weapons" ban more than a little disturbing? On the supposed premis of trying to reduce crime, (as if gun control ever reduced crime) trying to classify and ban a loosely defined, sort-of "class" of weapons, that are virtually unheard of being used for criminal activities, but are of a type likely to be most useful for reigning in an out of control government?

Now, hopefully, that will never become an issue in this nation again, which brings us back to the many other uses for firearms. There are of course the many sporting uses, hunting, competitive shooting, untilitarian uses, "varmint" control by farmers, etc., and, very importantly, crime prevention.

That gun ownership is a very effective, (the most effective) crime deterrent is a well established scientific fact. Thus, setting up a "Specialized Legislature" to leave the issue perpetually in the hands of politicians playing politics can only endanger, not help, public safety.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

I hereby refer you to http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm -- Redeye, Thu 2003-08-28 20:00:53
- P.S. -- Redeye, Thu 2003-08-28 20:02:49