"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."
On Wednesday, I posted a link on Facebook to a video on MSNBC with Chris Matthews interviewing William Kostric, the guy who showed up at a NH town hall carrying a firearm openly (legal in NH). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp=32378192�. One of my dear friends, a woman I consider to be "another mother", posted this in reply:
I think most people would agree that Europe has a far superior transportation system. ;)
I absolutely agree that rights cannot be “granted” by the government and that the only two options for the government are to deny such rights or protect them (as you said). Guns CAN be deadly weapons, yes. So can a steak knife, a hammer, or an axe. There doesn’t seem to be any laws prohibiting their use. Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people. I know that there is probably a better chance of getting shot than stabbed in some areas, however if YOU, the law-abiding citizen, have approximately the equal weapon to an attacker you have a better chance of coming out of that situation alive.
I believe that the right to personal defense is the main thing the authors of the constitution had in mind when they wrote that. Not only to defend yourself in a dark ally at night, but maybe even from a corrupt government. Why DOES Obama want a national civilian security force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s )?? The government--whether its this government or another--has to think twice or thrice before they go plowing over people when they’re an armed people. Why do you think Hitler, Stalin, etc disarmed the citizens before they took over? Because they COULDN’T take over with an armed citizenry! As you’re handing over your firearm to the government, you’re also handing the REST of your rights over with it. As Thomas Jefferson said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
I don’t think I agree with your “obvious rights” theory. It doesn’t say that you have the right to free speech ONLY if you’re saying nice things. This world has been fallen from almost the beginning. The need for self-defense has been in effect since Cain took up that rock (or stick, or whatever the heck he used ;). The human right to defend itself IS a right and all others depend on it. If you can’t defend yourself then the criminals know it and you’re dead--making your other earthly “rights” meaningless.
I don’t think that people should be able to have missile launchers or nuclear warheads, but, that‘s because there aren‘t that many people running around with them. However, if there were Klingons running around with missile launchers, I probably would want a missile launcher to defend myself from them.
The fact is, there ARE mentally challenged, crazy PEOPLE, with guns, running around all over this world. Another fact is that the more guns and the less restrictive the laws are in an area, the less crime rate you have. Its been proven time and time again. Do you really think that someone who’s willing to murder or rape someone cares whether the firearm that they use is legal?
Yes, guns can be a VERY dangerous weapon, but when used properly, can be a very fun, useful tool--not only for defending yourself but also for feeding yourself and recreation! What should be at stake here is morals, not guns. I pray to God that I never have to shoot a human being, psycho or not, but if my life or that of my child(ren) is in danger, than God give me the strength to protect us as he sees fit.
tes.htm
“You know what I think is a worser infringement of my rights than not letting me carry a gun - is not letting me take a dog on public transportation. Europe's got it all over the U.S. in that respect.My reply was:
Which brings me to another point - namely that "rights" cannot be granted by a government or a constitution - they can only be denied or protected. They are rights because they inhere by nature (i.e. God's creation) in the human person. Granted the U.S. Constitution seems to confer the right to carry deadly weapons - but is this actually a right inherent in the condition of being human - such as the right to life, property, free association, etc.? I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying it's not obvious to me that it is.
The Constitution specifies the right to "keep and bear arms" - which is not a universally applicable term. What is the real, human, by nature, right described in the relevant article of the Constitution? - the right to personal defense seems the most likely candidate - if so, what are the limits to my ability to defend myself - may I own missile launchers? May I have tigers roaming my property? May I surround my house with a deadly-voltage electric fence? May I carry a poison-dart blow gun? A hand grenade?
The more obvious rights - free speech, life, etc. - describe the condition of unfallen creation. The right to personal defense applies only in a fallen world. Therefore it is not a universal right, but a contingent one, which may be circumscribed according to circumstances - e.g. if the only threat to a citizen were unarmed, mentally challenged elves, then it would seem inappropriate to allow the right to self-protection to include the right to bear deadly weapons. On the other hand, if the countryside were beset by bands of marauding Klingons, then maybe the right to self-defense would include the right to own missile launchers. It all depends. The right to self-defense is an absolute - the means of self-defense is not."
I think most people would agree that Europe has a far superior transportation system. ;)
I absolutely agree that rights cannot be “granted” by the government and that the only two options for the government are to deny such rights or protect them (as you said). Guns CAN be deadly weapons, yes. So can a steak knife, a hammer, or an axe. There doesn’t seem to be any laws prohibiting their use. Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people. I know that there is probably a better chance of getting shot than stabbed in some areas, however if YOU, the law-abiding citizen, have approximately the equal weapon to an attacker you have a better chance of coming out of that situation alive.
I believe that the right to personal defense is the main thing the authors of the constitution had in mind when they wrote that. Not only to defend yourself in a dark ally at night, but maybe even from a corrupt government. Why DOES Obama want a national civilian security force (http://www.youtube.com/wat
I don’t think I agree with your “obvious rights” theory. It doesn’t say that you have the right to free speech ONLY if you’re saying nice things. This world has been fallen from almost the beginning. The need for self-defense has been in effect since Cain took up that rock (or stick, or whatever the heck he used ;). The human right to defend itself IS a right and all others depend on it. If you can’t defend yourself then the criminals know it and you’re dead--making your other earthly “rights” meaningless.
I don’t think that people should be able to have missile launchers or nuclear warheads, but, that‘s because there aren‘t that many people running around with them. However, if there were Klingons running around with missile launchers, I probably would want a missile launcher to defend myself from them.
The fact is, there ARE mentally challenged, crazy PEOPLE, with guns, running around all over this world. Another fact is that the more guns and the less restrictive the laws are in an area, the less crime rate you have. Its been proven time and time again. Do you really think that someone who’s willing to murder or rape someone cares whether the firearm that they use is legal?
Yes, guns can be a VERY dangerous weapon, but when used properly, can be a very fun, useful tool--not only for defending yourself but also for feeding yourself and recreation! What should be at stake here is morals, not guns. I pray to God that I never have to shoot a human being, psycho or not, but if my life or that of my child(ren) is in danger, than God give me the strength to protect us as he sees fit.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."For more really good quotes--the large majority being from our founding fathers and most of those speaking of a tyrannical government--go to http://www.pro-2nd.com/Quo
- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, MN, campaigning
for the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment