Yes, we're done. BTW, I'm not aginst gun ownership. I just don't accept your premise that handguns prevent crimes against persons and property. You don't accept mine -that it does nothing of the sort. So yes we're done. Otherwise I think unnecessary insults will result and we're not going to change anything or each other.
More of those ironic relativistic arguments, let me add them to the list ...
Having a gun makes you more vulnerable to harm (it'll be used on yourself instead of perp, etc)
I've heard it said that most of the world thinks that Americans have a real problem with irony, that we don't understand it, don't "get" irony when we hear it, etc. I've become convinced that the reason people in the world think that about us is because when we hear irony we seem to have no reaction to it. The misunderstanding, however, is that the reason we don't react to irony isn't because we don't get it, but rather that in this country we are surrounded by so much irony that it's become too mundane for us to even pay any attention to. Similar to irony, we also have to put up with relativism.
What other country in the world could come up with stuff like this ....
Killing terrorists actually creates more of them.
Killing someone on death row is bad, but aborting babies is okay.
We need more oil, but drilling and taking it out of the ground won't actually help.
Etc ...
I don't know when it was that people started using these kinds of arguments, but I have never liked it, it's just another way for people to lie. You could say anything today ... "the sun comes up in the morning" ... and some xxxx would instinctively have the knee jerk reaction to say "No, ...", and then come up with reasons to support a counter-argument that the sun doesn't actually come up in the morning at all. It's absurd. I think the only reason it works so well on people is that it's so absurd that their brain freezes up and they aren't able to think anymore, the mental equivalent of throwing sand in somebodies eyes.
__________________
What are you pretending not to know ?
Dog,
I remember hearing that story also-I believe from either father or grandfather as well! Makes one wonder what the Japanese equivalent of, what are you, effin' nuts?!!! might be. As related, there can be little doubt that Yamamoto knew and said whatever that equivalent is.
__________________ The brain is merely a knot that keeps the spinal cord from unraveling.
Justice Scalia said he was not going to preside over the dissolution of the Second Amendment. He probalby thinks the founders had it right.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
All of the above just begs the question be asked, not why we should have to defend this to a Canadian, but why we should have ever allowed such nonsense as perpetrated in DC, Chicago, and San Francisco in the first place. The Supreme court should never have had to see this case. That they did, and the fact that four of them ruled for gun control is cause for serious reflection on some people's concept of what being an American is all about. Yes, I did say that. To be a good American you have to believe in the Second Amendment. If you do not then you are tacitly, if not overtly, suggesting that the nation become vulnerable to tyranny. And you can argue that point out with the founders!
__________________ The brain is merely a knot that keeps the spinal cord from unraveling.
SA, Waco and Ruby Ridge - exactly my point and that's exactly what will happen to you when the IRS man or whatever comes knocking on your door and you wave a pistol in his face. So it's not so ludicrous that they would take you out because by the time you mobilize your resistance you'll already be dust. You seem to put faith in the military that thay would obey the law but not in the government. If anything is ludicrous it's that you believe you can stop the US government.
Regardless, even if your still stuck in the 18th century, the 2nd ammendment has evovled from it's orginal intent, to now mean the right to bear arms against your fellow citizens and the recent ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms this.
People who are willing to flout the law will always find the means to arm themselves, whether though legal or illegal channels. All gun bans accomplish, is to take them out of the hands of those who live within the law. The very same people who are most at risk from those who do not abide by the law.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
PB, makes it real easy to identify the criminals. Let me be clear here. I am not for a wholesale ban of guns. If you have a rifle or many rifles locked up in in a gun cabinet with trigger locks, you can still satisfy the 2nd amendment raison d'etre. I just think handguns whose sole intention is to kill people should not be permitted in the hands of private citizens. Let the police do their jobs. Sleep easy because the police are maintaining law and order; not because you are locked up in a gated community armed to the teeth. Good God talk about loosing freedom, what kind of freedom is that. In Canada we call gated communities prisons.
Regardless, even if your still stuck in the 18th century, the 2nd ammendment has evovled from it's orginal intent, to now mean the right to bear arms against your fellow citizens and the recent ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms this.
The 2nd Amendment has not evolved, its still black and white and the Supreme Court reaffirmed this fact. We as citizens have the right to bear arms, nothing more, nothing less.
The one major problem with that is, police react, once the damage is done, not at the moment of crisis. There is no compelling reason behind handgun bans, other than liberal orthodoxy.
Though I don't keep up with the stats, last I knew, Washington,DC, where the ban was overturned, was the murder capital of the US. That would seem to indicate that the ban wasn't very effective in reducing gun violence.
I fail to see the need to deny responsible citizens access to a means of self-defense.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Lots of interesting comments. My belief is that gun ownership is an individual right and the framers of the Constitiution intended the second amendment to protect that right. Like others have commented, I find it highly distressing that 4 Justices apparently cannot read, and don't know the historical context of the Constitution.
The arguement that the State National Guard is the modern evolution of the militia is bogus. The National Guard is equipped by the Federal Government and serves as an integral part of the US armed forces as recent deployments clearly demonstrate. The militia as the framers understood it was every one willing and able to defend the State, not a part time arm of the National standing Army.
As far as many individuals not being able to effectively use a handgun that is sadly likely true. With Rights come Responsiblities and I believe if you choose to excercise your 2nd Amendment rights by owning a handgun, you have the responsiblity to train with it and maintain proficiency.
Linear Mode
