Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Uncle Sam

Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen

183 posts in this topic

It amazes me to think that people believe that when they are mugged at gun point, they'll be able to reach for their gun, pull it out, aim it and pull the trigger faster than the mugger will be able to just pull the trigger.

Mugging is just The worst example you can use, I'd say

Maybe the worst, but you are missing the point of the argument there. When he carries a gun, he doesn't do so because he is looking for a fight, he is looking to be left alone. While he has his gun, he can't be forced to do something, only persuaded. Because he carry his gun, he is unafraid of anything happening to him. This includes numerous citizens who carry their guns. Let's face it, America's urban streets are dangerous places with gangs and psychopaths on the lose. I rather go out on those street armed knowing I can protect myself, than to be unarmed and constantly being afraid if I am going to get jumped, mugged, or murdered.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to see people who have an understanding what the 2nd Amendment means.


Hasina, yes it is interesting what both sides really thought back then from a historical perspective. However, they had the opportunity to write those thoughts into law and did not. So you are assigning meaning from opinion.

Malcolm, "That Every Man Be Armed," pp. 452, 466. "The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes toward these three distinct, but intertwined, issues:the right of the individual to protect his life, the challenge to government of an armed citizenry, and the preference for a militia over a standing army. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment."

Which is:

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

That last part, about 'not be infringed' is what always bothers me. Any gun control laws are infringing on the Second Amendment. Amend the Amendment first! Then these silly 'Constitutional scholars' (like me ;3) won't have a silly leg to stand on. The reason this document is called a 'living' document is because, yes, the amendments set in place our rights, but they able to be changed according to the majority view. Amend the Constitution, then go for your gun control laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert, but the 2nd ammendmant refers to 'a well organized militia'.

If I'm wrong, please educate. Where is the organized militia?

no it is not, you seem to miss dozens or so posts with modern interpretation of 2nd as per ussc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've studied up on this Second Amendment to the US Constitution and it looks to me like a few individuals who have some sort of hangup about their guns have reinterpreted it to suit their taste.

That, however, is a superficial issue; there is a deeper moral issue involved here. Is it morally right to have something that kills and is so obviously designed to be for nothing else? Now all sorts of things kill -- you can drown so having a lake is dangerous and moral considerations demand precautions. Still, guns are inherently different. They exist for only one purpose, and make the very act of living in a home where one is kept much more dangerous than otherwise. Not safer -- that they protect is an egoistic, arrogant delusion.

Yes, some guns are made for the specific purpose of shooting people. Yes, having one in your home increases the odds that someone will be shot. Filling your home with forks will also increase the chances that someone will suffer a fork related injury. What of it? In a free society, you're free to endanger yourself. I know, you're thinking, "AHA!!! But you're endangering other people because you or someone else could use those forks to run around stabbing people.", but the thing is, that's a crime and there are separate laws to address the consequences of it. It's a personal stance, but I'm not going to feel like some morally bankrupt person because I don't want to give up my forks.

Maybe everyone should read this (similar teachings are found in most religions):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

Y'know that saying Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile ? What you're saying is that it should say If they take an inch give 'em a mile . If there are actually people who want to take advantage of you, your philosophy results in your being either a slave or a corpse. Fair enough. In a free society, you have the right to endanger yourself by refusing to defend yourself. Personal stance again, but I find it morally reprehensible to want to force others to do the same by taking their means of self defense.

No one is denying anything. The constitution is amendable. It is not written in stone.

True enough. Here's the thing, the entire purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government. There were (and probably will be in the future) things that needed to be spelled out more specifically. The Constitution was amended to make more explicit the idea that free speech is inalienable. Under the law, black people and women were treated as second class citizens. The Constitution was amended to explicitly prove (legally) that the phrase "all men were created equal" includes those groups.

This brings us to the 2nd. It states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The problem phrase being "A well regulated Militia". Without that phrase, it would be explicitly clear that American citizens have the right have and carry any weapon they can get their hands on. With that phrase, there are 2 interpretations:

The interpretation that gun prohibitionists less careful than you tend to express is that it's a limit on the people. They say, "Yes, you can have guns if you're part of this completely undefined group - the well regulated Militia, and since there's no legal definition of that group, citizens do not have the right to bear arms." Maybe we're just accustomed to the nonsensical approach to legislation today and that justifies the thinking in some people's minds, but from the perspective of people establishing the foundation of the country by writing an addendum to the most important legal document in that country, it makes zero sense that they would add an explicit right and take it away in the same sentence.

The second interpretation is that the phrase "a well regulated Militia" was a further limitation on the government (or an extension of the right to bear arms, whichever way you want to look at it). This extension says not only can the government not prevent people from having weapons, it can't prevent them from organizing and practicing to become militarily effective in the use of those weapons.

Based on the fact that the people who framed the Constitution had borne arms in an organized fashion to overthrow a government they felt had overreached itself and the fact that the document itself is written specifically to establish the limits of the new government (and yes, I'm well aware our government has been chiseling away at those limits ever since) along with the fact that the personal writings of several of the founding fathers state their belief that a population has the right (or even the responsibility) to pick up those arms and overthrow a government that becomes oppressive, I believe (even if it does not state so explicitly) that entire purpose of the amendment was to allow future generations the option they themselves took - the option to literally oust the oppressive government and establish a new one in its place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noones making you stay if you dont like what this country was founded on NinjaDude. Really. Aint throwing it out.

I'm not the one advocating insurrection against the legal government. That would be you. The constitution is not written in stone. GET IT?!! It can be amended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

typical black and white thinking. And very immature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying we as citizens, so bow down to everything our government says?

such paranoia.

An gun ensures that I am able to protect my rights,, and a gun ensures I will have the ability to fight back against my government if they turn against the people.

in the 21st century, in the USA, it does NO such thing. You are a fool to believe it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Second Amendment reflects traditional English attitudes

right, from the 18th century and even before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a free society, you have the right to endanger yourself

Actually not so much. We have a great many laws preventing that. A society has a vested interest in the health and well being of its citizens.

personal writings of several of the founding fathers state their belief that a population has the right (or even the responsibility) to pick up those arms and overthrow a government that becomes oppressive, I believe (even if it does not state so explicitly) that entire purpose of the amendment was to allow future generations the option they themselves took - the option to literally oust the oppressive government and establish a new one in its place.

The personal writings from the 18th century. They are anachronistic in this respect specifically. As for your belief, they had the chance to write that into law and did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the one advocating insurrection against the legal government. That would be you. The constitution is not written in stone. GET IT?!! It can be amended.

TBH your right to live in this country is not written in stone either. Like I said you wont care till it effects you. You are single sighted and as far as Im considered deserve everything you and your "grown" sons have coming their way by continuing to line the pockets of Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually not so much. We have a great many laws preventing that. A society has a vested interest in the health and well being of its citizens.

I did mention that the government started chipping away at its limits (and therefore curtailing rights) almost immediately...

A free society was what I was talking about, not what we have now.

The personal writings from the 18th century. They are anachronistic in this respect specifically. As for your belief, they had the chance to write that into law and did not.

They did write it into law. They gave citizens the right to bear arms and organize into militias. Revolution has never occurred by an entire nation rising up and attacking the king's palace. Outside of coups within the government, they've always been a relatively small percentage of the population rising up and taking out the person(s) giving orders. Rise up and overthrow the tyrants isn't really spelled because by the time a significant portion of the population is willing to do so, they've already exhausted working within the system to their own (dis)satisfaction.

As I've said, the Constitution was drafted to limit the government. If the government followed it, not enough people would rise up to matter (there'll always be nutbags here and there). If the government doesn't follow it, what's written in it makes no difference.

They're not anachronistic, you just disagree with them. Corrupt governments have always existed and always will. One of the steps of governments in the past right before they did what we consider very bad things was disarming the populace. I can certainly accept someone not wanting to own a gun. I can't wrap my mind around the type person who says, "Since I don't want one, no one should have one."

in the 21st century, in the USA, it does NO such thing. You are a fool to believe it does.

Sure it does. Granted if every disgruntled and disinfranchised citizen got together wearing a uniform and tried to take on the military head-to-head, they'd get summarily dusted. On the other hand, if it got to the point that cops and soldiers were afraid to walk out of their own homes because someone might introduce some lead to their diet, changes could certainly occur.

Any one person would be toast to fight against the government. Any one small group would be labeled a cult or terrorist cell (or the dreaded militia) and crushed like a bug. Small groups dotting the entire country? That would be a real threat (assuming they were free people by the one rule that was common throughout history for free people versus slaves - free people could carry weapons).

Edited by sam12six

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The personal writings from the 18th century. They are anachronistic in this respect specifically. As for your belief, they had the chance to write that into law and did not.

Definition of ANACHRONISM

1

: an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other

2

: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present

3

: the state or condition of being chronologically out of place

anach·ro·nis·tic also ana·chron·ic adjective

anach·ro·nis·ti·cal·ly adverb

anach·ro·nous adjective

anach·ro·nous·ly adverb

Which defintion of anachronism are you using so we can understand better what you are trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying we as citizens, so bow down to everything our government says? Put up no resistance if they decide to put us into hard labor camps? Decide rather we should have children or not? Give up our homes so they can build another military outpost? Some things you talking about from religion... is just mind boggling how stupid you can be. Do not resist an evil person, how naive can you be? Let me put it pretty simple, I will bow down to no man or woman. An gun ensures that I am able to protect my rights, a gun ensures I am able to protect my family, a gun ensures I will have a peace of mind knowing I can actually do something, and a gun ensures I will have the ability to fight back against my government if they turn against the people. An person who doesn't do something to stop criminals is just as bad as criminals who actively seek out another person to do harm or infringe upon their rights.

If you don't want a gun, you don't have to get one. But to tell me I should change my ways, my life, to get rid of the one thing I know can protect all of the things I treasure is selfish of you. I don't tell you how to live your life, you should tell me how to run mine either.

It is hard to know how to respond to such strong feelings. I will try but no doubt will not succeed.

We all must submit all the time. We must submit to physics (I don't have the freedom to fly at will or take an afternoon stroll on the moon). We must submit to being governed (otherwise none of us would be safe anywhere, driving a car would be suicide, we wouldn't even be able to listen to the radio without competing broadcasters interrupting our station's frequency). Further, we must submit to our parents and other elders, to our employer, to customers if we have a business, to the owners of property when we are on it, and even to strangers walking down the street (we are polite and let them pass and they let us pass).

There are some who abuse this, and we have institutions that put them in jail. This is a job we are better off by far letting the state handle than taking into our own hands.

The words I quoted from Jesus are common to many religions; certainly it is the same idea that Gandhi and Martin Luther King and the Buddha taught. Don't resist evil. Bend with it. Resisting evil tends to make it worse. We may have visions of defeating the evildoer, but it is more likely that this is just wishful thinking and the reality will be the opposite.

Now a limited amount of self-defense, so long as it is not aggressive, is understood, so one can indeed ward off blows, but to hurt the other, even in self-defense, in the end does far more harm to you. We call the harm negative merit or negative karma -- but it isn't something magical, but part of the nature of things. When you resist you change the nature of your being, making killing slightly easier and compassion just slightly more difficult for you.

As far as laws regarding guns go, I have a somewhat different view. I would discourage people from having them, but I don't think private moral views should inform public law. I would also discourage abortions, but oppose laws against them, and I think cigarettes are harmful and gambling is stupid, but these are my private views and others should be given the maximum of freedom to choose for themselves. Laws should be designed in accordance with public objectives, not private morals.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

such paranoia.

in the 21st century, in the USA, it does NO such thing. You are a fool to believe it does.

Such insults. A pistol pointed at the right head can change the world. You're the fool to believe it can't.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Frank and truly as an American we strive to be there in a place where the state is taking care of itself and corruption is gotten rid of by those that govern. But it is the opposite today in America. The corrupted rule over us and we are but pawns for them to brainwash and enslave.

Truly we want to change but nonviolent may not be the way. We are a patient people in America but we are vocal. We speak and yell and today we are not heard. it is as if our leaders are deaf.

we do not want to be the scourge of the world because our economy is run on a military industrial machine maintained by foreign wars. That is not the legacy WE THE PEOPLE want to leave the world nor our own children.

My apologies but how we ultimately resolve this issue is going to have to be an American solution. Your input is appreciated as only those with the patience to listen through our anger and truly take the time to understand what the PEOPLE of American want to be remembered as will ever understand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal government is a terrible arbiter of the federal government. That's why we have inherent protections built into our rule of law like the 2nd Amendment.

If certain Americans don't like the 2nd Amendment they should use their freedom of mobility while they still have it and move somewhere where they're not so disturbed or offended by the rights they're guaranteed in the US. And if they're interested in staying after all, they should take political action in their own state to begin the arduous process of ratifying a repeal from at least 75% of the 50 States. Liberals know they don't have a miserable chance in hell of repealing the 2nd so they invent a lot of poisonous rhetoric and sheer fantasy like "if the majority wants to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, they'll get rid of it". Liberals with their noses so high in the air they can't even see straight need to understand that just because something is old doesn't mean it's no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not even certain Liberals are fully on board this gobernment train wreck. Not even the takers (Welfare,Foodstampers).

Todays daytime readiness drill occured in Houston without warning to the local population it landed on and again shots(blanks) were used. There getting serious. What do we do since they wont tell us what they are doing. But IMO this is rapid response force to domestic uprising drills, AKA zombie apocalypse drilling. I wonder if the guy that says he loves the idea works for the Goberment I cant believe him attributing this type of action to protecting children. Thats just asinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is the opposite today in America. The corrupted rule over us and we are but pawns for them to brainwash and enslave.

What makes someone "corrupted?" The plain fact is that everyone is corrupt. We certainly have plenty of corruption in Vietnam too -- its all over the newspapers all the time, so it isn't even something the government tries to deny. That doesn't mean one has to change the government; corruption is like other crimes -- one constantly struggles against it but one knows in the long run for every weed you pull another will grow in its place.
Truly we want to change but nonviolent may not be the way. We are a patient people in America but we are vocal. We speak and yell and today we are not heard. it is as if our leaders are deaf.
Of course leaders seem deaf: they are being shouted at by hundreds all the time, everyone with their own agenda, many of which are selfish. Patience and non-judgementalism goes along with non-violence. Attribute the best motives to the leaders and sometimes they will live up to them.
we do not want to be the scourge of the world because our economy is run on a military industrial machine maintained by foreign wars. That is not the legacy WE THE PEOPLE want to leave the world nor our own children.
I would hope not, and if I were to say what runs the US I would not say some mythical military industrial machine but instead the legal profession. America is lawyer-bound by legal issues and proceduralism and gazillions of lawyers using this to be wealthy.
My apologies but how we ultimately resolve this issue is going to have to be an American solution. Your input is appreciated as only those with the patience to listen through our anger and truly take the time to understand what the PEOPLE of American want to be remembered as will ever understand.

I think outside views can be helpful; those inside sometimes lack objectivity. One thing to me is for sure -- there is not going to be any sort of uprising in the US for a long, long time. Just forget about it. Edited by Frank Merton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mythical military industrial machin

This is not a myth but the top money making industry for the elite you refer too. Are we bad for wanting to stamp out the massive corruption that is spreading itself to other countries and making them suffer bringing hatred to us as a people. Using this same military industry.

Which legacy you would like us to leave the world. Because we can all hide in our homes for the next 200 years and let the rest of the world pay for our lack of a backbone to stand up to the injustices done by our government. Or we can force (nonviolently or through revolution change) and try and leave a legacy that the world will look back upon and say you know those American people were not so bad after all. Together we can make a change for the better and be a world leader in a positive way. Not what we are doing today.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We each have to work out our own destinies, and I expect that applies to each nation too. Nothing lasts forever, and the States is either at the beginning of a period of world domination or at the end of its hegemony. Probably the latter.

Change is constant.

The business about America's military-industrial complex has been around all my life, and I never gave it much credit. It's the sort of slogan that has a certain logic that gives it an appeal, but it isn't really credible when you think about it, especially when you consider who is the President at the moment, and this complex was not able to keep him out of office.

I'm not saying that I deny that the military and the big corporations have a lot of influence in the US, nor that their influence is especially good. All I'm saying is that one needs to look at things in a more balanced way. Generally when the US gets itself involved in foreign tar traps, it is not the military that pushes for it, but the ideologues.

Well this has been a disjointed response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert, but the 2nd ammendmant refers to 'a well organized militia'.

If I'm wrong, please educate. Where is the organized militia?

I think Penn and Teller explain it best
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We each have to work out our own destinies, and I expect that applies to each nation too. Nothing lasts forever, and the States is either at the beginning of a period of world domination or at the end of its hegemony. Probably the latter.

Change is constant.

The business about America's military-industrial complex has been around all my life, and I never gave it much credit. It's the sort of slogan that has a certain logic that gives it an appeal, but it isn't really credible when you think about it, especially when you consider who is the President at the moment, and this complex was not able to keep him out of office.

I'm not saying that I deny that the military and the big corporations have a lot of influence in the US, nor that their influence is especially good. All I'm saying is that one needs to look at things in a more balanced way. Generally when the US gets itself involved in foreign tar traps, it is not the military that pushes for it, but the ideologues.

Well this has been a disjointed response.

Why would they want to keep him outta office? He is every bit the warmonger that Bush was. We are talking about a man who is bombing countries we are not even at war with. You gotta stop listening to them, and instead watch what actualy happens. 0bama is as owned by the MIC as any former president.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally when the US gets itself involved in foreign tar traps, it is not the military that pushes for it, but the ideologues.

This is EXTREMELY true. The military industrial complex is the ideologues making money off this. Perhaps we were using too different meanings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is EXTREMELY true. The military industrial complex is the ideologues making money off this. Perhaps we were using too different meanings.

When I talk about ideologues I have in mind not the ones making money off these things but the ones that think the US view of things is the only possibly good view.

The American involvement in Vietnam was ideological. There were those who saw Communism as this ghoulish threat that just had to be stopped. There were others who saw S. Vietnam as the victim of aggression. Both of these groups pushed that America had the responsibility (why I don't know) to fix the world's evils, as they perceived them. I don't think many made much money off the episode, and the net cost to the US in money, lives, and reputation was horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.