Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

Originally Posted by yesman065

...
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
...
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Still projecting your fear and hostility on others, I see.

Hmm, another diversionary tactic trying to get away from the point at hand.
BTW, no fear nor hostility projected, you do seem to be very emotional about this and I thought harmlessly discharging a few rounds at a pic of me might make you feel better - sorry I tried to to help. (It won't happen again.)

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Maybe it's a good thing you leave your weapons in the hands of others...we wouldn't want any "accidents". (scare quotes intentional).

Uh, I think that was my whole point for leaving them there. Remember? It was only a couple days ago - if that. (See prior posts.)

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I just didn't see an explanation that made any sense. If you meant "accident", then say "accident". When you say "'accident'", it carries a different meaning. If it's a case of grocer's apostrophe", then it's an error, but you said it wasn't.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

After rereading what I wrote, I apologize. I was incorrect. It was not what I intended, but nonetheless it was wrong.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Indeed so......


(now, justwhich part of the Constition were you pickin'n'choosin' from?)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The 2nd amendment refers to the citizens right and no other part supersedes it. There is no "pickin' and choosin'".

[JayMcGee]

perhaps I was being too subtle.......


Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.



so how come there's a first let alone a second and the dozens that followed, amendment?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't be misled by the term amendment.
The Constitution was written and approved by the framers. When they were done they looked at the thing, and decided it's a good outline for running a country, now how does it apply to and effect the people? They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside. Only then was the package presented for the approval of the states, of the people.

[Aliantha]

Heroin used to be used medicinally...as a cure for cocaine addiction.

Morphine converts to heroin within 15 seconds of entering the bloodstream. One is legal the other is not. That's the only difference.

Of course, this means that we still use heroin medicinally. It's just that we've learned how to refine it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's all legal for the medical community to use responsibly, no?
Chemical versions of Superman's powers, to be used for good, only.

[Hippikos]

And I'm still waiting for an answer: do you accept the use of deadly force for self-defense? Because if you don't, and you believe killing is always wrong, this dialogue is pointless.

I thought that was bleeding obvious, unless you have a large canon in front of your head. Of course I'm against killing and I'm against the death penalty. And the discussion is not pointless, it's the very essence. But then again all discussions about someting you don't agree with you regard as pointless.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

OK, maybe not a nuke, but how about a bazooka? Hand granate? Stinger? M2 Browning? M1 36 Anti Tank weapon? Flamethrower? All portable. Remember according Maggie's Law it's the people who fire them, not the weapons itself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

What is confusing you about this statement?

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

This is what you're doing.

[Hippikos]

How broad is the right of the 2nd Amendment ( "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.")? 1791 Muskets? Or rocket launchers? Or somewhere between?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
They then wrote the "Bill of Rights" to spell out the protections of the people from the government. They were written as amendments 1 through 10, so they would never be separated from the Constitution.... so the government couldn't just cast them aside.

Very good, that's the first half of the equation. The second half entails the inalienable rights, predominantly LIFE, from which the concept of proportionality extends to protect the citizenry. The reasonable man principle is applied to determine what weapons may be owned by individuals to protect their own lives. The reasonable man's perspective being established through the Legislature and Judiciary with Executive branch enforcement. It is a continuing process just as is the Constitution a living document.

We have Armed Forces, National Guard, and Police organizations at many levels which negate the need for Joe Citizen to maintain private ownership of WMD and many other weapons of war. The government; however, does NOT provide personal bodyguards for each and every one of its citizens (to negate the need for personal arms of any sort) and probably never will as it would create an invasion of privacy situation [prohibited by the Constitution]. Even if privacy concerns were not a factor, would anyone else assigned to protect your life do so with the same dedication you have to saving your own life? Society has both collective personal security tasks and individual personal security tasks. Joe Citizen is still responsible for taking care of himself in his everyday walk of life. Those who choose not to do so have that right; but, they do not have the right to impose that choice on anyone else and it can't be done through due process without first rescinding other parts of the Constitution which would change the fabric of this nation.

At this point in our cultural and technological development, firearms are still the great equalizer between weak and strong, old and young, poor and rich ... etc. Many other forms of equalization (i.e. justice) are reactive in nature rather than proactive thus diminishing the individual's right to life. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and those who would deprive all citizens of the right to bear arms in any form are the weakest links in our society AT THIS TIME. Perhaps someday, we will become culturally and technologically advanced enough that individually owned weapons will not be necessary to secure our persons. Until then, ALL are invited to read the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations with particular attention to Article 3. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."; also, Article 30. "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Because so few here get the big picture and so few here are men or women of vision, I generally don't get involved in these tunnel vision discussions. The timing was right to make an exception. Now I'm going back to Nothingland: as I've said before "I'm only here for the entertainment".

Aren't I a stinker?! :p

[Hippikos]

Thank you NoBoxes for taking the time to decline from Nowhere and share you immense wisdom with us mortals.

If you're still around:

If this great equalizer (Lott?) works so well in the US, do you think it would work also in Europe? Would we have even less crime? Would every woman, homeless person need to buy a concealed gun in order to defend himself against the (very slim) chance being harassed?

Are for instance Iran and NKorea allowed to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves?