post #200! ill think of something to say later
Turxx
Gun control after Sept. 11th
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
Nare, you are talking about "communism" as it is applied, not as it is intended.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, Marx probably didn't intend it that way if that's what you mean. However, if you listen to the discussions about a Communist state that influenced and included Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, I think you'll find that I AM speaking about how they INTENDED Communism to be.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Ironically, people are using communism as the argument as to why giving power to the people is in error and claiming that individual determination is the only course. In effect, communism was more of an example why you DON'T want any small number of individuals dictating what is just and right.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, people are NOT using communism as an example of why giving power to the people is in error! Rather, people have been using communism as an example of how states can suppress individual rights for the benefit of the government or a perceived benefit of the group. All the arguments I've seen in this thread that have mentioned communism have been expressing why we need to guarantee that individuals are ABLE to speak.
NOBODY has argued that individual determination is the only course, and even if they were how is that the same as having a small group of people dictate the rights and abilities of the masses?
Also, I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds as if you're equating "power to the people" with "power of the majority." I often hear teenagers being given the "lemming argument," that "even if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would you jump off, too?" After all, that's just repression by the decision of the majority - people in groups are often stupid. How is repression because of the decision of the majority better justified than repression because of the decision of a minority? I'm not saying that I would prefer living under an oligarchy, but your statement sounds peculiar.
Really, I don't want to be repressed at all. I want the ability to decide my living situation by myself. If I go out and murder somebody, I realize that's harming an individual and deliberately taking away a basic right of theirs. However, why legislate HOW I committed the crime? Is that relevant?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
"Communism" as applied in modern history was anything but government of and for the people, but rather a strong statement against giving power to individuals.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right - exactly what I said. It was state over the individual.
Nare
Nare, you are talking about "communism" as it is applied, not as it is intended.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, Marx probably didn't intend it that way if that's what you mean. However, if you listen to the discussions about a Communist state that influenced and included Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, I think you'll find that I AM speaking about how they INTENDED Communism to be.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Ironically, people are using communism as the argument as to why giving power to the people is in error and claiming that individual determination is the only course. In effect, communism was more of an example why you DON'T want any small number of individuals dictating what is just and right.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, people are NOT using communism as an example of why giving power to the people is in error! Rather, people have been using communism as an example of how states can suppress individual rights for the benefit of the government or a perceived benefit of the group. All the arguments I've seen in this thread that have mentioned communism have been expressing why we need to guarantee that individuals are ABLE to speak.
NOBODY has argued that individual determination is the only course, and even if they were how is that the same as having a small group of people dictate the rights and abilities of the masses?
Also, I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds as if you're equating "power to the people" with "power of the majority." I often hear teenagers being given the "lemming argument," that "even if everybody else was jumping off a bridge would you jump off, too?" After all, that's just repression by the decision of the majority - people in groups are often stupid. How is repression because of the decision of the majority better justified than repression because of the decision of a minority? I'm not saying that I would prefer living under an oligarchy, but your statement sounds peculiar.
Really, I don't want to be repressed at all. I want the ability to decide my living situation by myself. If I go out and murder somebody, I realize that's harming an individual and deliberately taking away a basic right of theirs. However, why legislate HOW I committed the crime? Is that relevant?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
"Communism" as applied in modern history was anything but government of and for the people, but rather a strong statement against giving power to individuals.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right - exactly what I said. It was state over the individual.
Nare
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nida:
You don't mess with this girl when it comes to history and/or governmental systems. Trust me. She'll make your head hurt. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Geez, be quiet! See the problems you cause me? ;P
Nare
You don't mess with this girl when it comes to history and/or governmental systems. Trust me. She'll make your head hurt. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Geez, be quiet! See the problems you cause me? ;P
Nare
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ShaylaRose:
<B>Nitania, Lyt premised the article with "Found this on the Foxnews.com website. Go buy a gun." Sounds like an endorsement for its sentiments.
*snip*
*snip* I am not "anti-gun" *snip*Shayla</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ShaylaRose as much as I respect your oppinion,
Ever think that Lyt was being sarcastic? I guess that type of humor is lost on a lot of folks who read these threads.
Offending words are so often sprouted from the tongues of would-be pacificsts. Differing views are what makes this country so great. We all have our own oppinion and we rarely change what we believe to be moral, true, and right just for the sake of being with the majority.
I am glad Shayla, that you feel so strongly as you do. I am glad we *all* feel as strongly as we do. If we had no feelings about such an important topic we should question our values... but to be honest, saying "I am not "anti-gun" does not make it so. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...
as for anyone else who cares to read:
I enjoy this diversity and I do not want to force others to my way of thinking. There are those of us in this country who would love to take away our individual rights for the "sake of the greater good" and honestly if there were *no* evildoers in this world I would be 100% anti-gun... but let me state this; Liberty, Life, Freedom, Happiness, Success, Opportunity, Education, Religion, and Equality are all things that make me and most others greatful to be here. I feel like an actual part of this wondrous land because of my individuality.
Guaranteeing freedom for each individual is something not many countries can claim. This concept is obviously hard to grasp for the felons of this country... all of the things I listed above (and more) are huge privileges. Abusing the rights of the individual brings pain and anguish to those affected by his/her actions, thus they need to be punished by severely limiting thier rights. This is the justice system. Sometimes it works.
There are people who will always think they are right absolutely and with thier way of thinking they will try to force thier thoughts and oppinions into everyone elses head. This is called brainwashing.
Brainwashing is bad.. m'kay?
I believe that inherantly man is good. I believe that the tendancy to want to be bad comes from low morals, improper parenting, lack of trust, lack of respect and an overall selfishness.
Mental instability happens. A lot of the time people with mental problems can be treated. A lot of the time, these same people with mental problems do not *want* help. There are quite a few statistics (I dont wanna take the time to find them) which show that a large percentage of crimes committed either with guns or without guns are done so by people who have some kind of mental instability and who could easily be treated.
Until treatment is accepted and until the justice system has the capability to actually help the majority of those they confine, we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves whether by gun or by another means because these criminals (and others) seek to alienate OUR rights by forcing thier selfish "wants" on us.
If I came across as anything but grateful to be here, I applogize, so lecturing tone asside, I was just trying to clarify my posts. Everyone who has tried to pre-think thier posts (without ranting) all have valid points. Everyone is right in one way or another. It is our job to cultivate our own oppinions based on fact and how we feel on the inside. It is then the job (this is the hard part) of the governing body to discern the hearts and heads of the people and try to enforce the will of the majority.
Like Ragorn said (I am paraphrasing), right now the will of the people is to have guns. When the will of the people changes, so will the law.
EVERY day I literally thank God that I live in *THIS* country and (among other things) actually have the choice as to whether or not I get to buy/keep/fire my gun.
Nitania
edited for spelling, cuz I am horrible at it.
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
<B>Nitania, Lyt premised the article with "Found this on the Foxnews.com website. Go buy a gun." Sounds like an endorsement for its sentiments.
*snip*
*snip* I am not "anti-gun" *snip*Shayla</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ShaylaRose as much as I respect your oppinion,
Ever think that Lyt was being sarcastic? I guess that type of humor is lost on a lot of folks who read these threads.
Offending words are so often sprouted from the tongues of would-be pacificsts. Differing views are what makes this country so great. We all have our own oppinion and we rarely change what we believe to be moral, true, and right just for the sake of being with the majority.
I am glad Shayla, that you feel so strongly as you do. I am glad we *all* feel as strongly as we do. If we had no feelings about such an important topic we should question our values... but to be honest, saying "I am not "anti-gun" does not make it so. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck...
as for anyone else who cares to read:
I enjoy this diversity and I do not want to force others to my way of thinking. There are those of us in this country who would love to take away our individual rights for the "sake of the greater good" and honestly if there were *no* evildoers in this world I would be 100% anti-gun... but let me state this; Liberty, Life, Freedom, Happiness, Success, Opportunity, Education, Religion, and Equality are all things that make me and most others greatful to be here. I feel like an actual part of this wondrous land because of my individuality.
Guaranteeing freedom for each individual is something not many countries can claim. This concept is obviously hard to grasp for the felons of this country... all of the things I listed above (and more) are huge privileges. Abusing the rights of the individual brings pain and anguish to those affected by his/her actions, thus they need to be punished by severely limiting thier rights. This is the justice system. Sometimes it works.
There are people who will always think they are right absolutely and with thier way of thinking they will try to force thier thoughts and oppinions into everyone elses head. This is called brainwashing.
Brainwashing is bad.. m'kay?I believe that inherantly man is good. I believe that the tendancy to want to be bad comes from low morals, improper parenting, lack of trust, lack of respect and an overall selfishness.
Mental instability happens. A lot of the time people with mental problems can be treated. A lot of the time, these same people with mental problems do not *want* help. There are quite a few statistics (I dont wanna take the time to find them) which show that a large percentage of crimes committed either with guns or without guns are done so by people who have some kind of mental instability and who could easily be treated.
Until treatment is accepted and until the justice system has the capability to actually help the majority of those they confine, we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves whether by gun or by another means because these criminals (and others) seek to alienate OUR rights by forcing thier selfish "wants" on us.
If I came across as anything but grateful to be here, I applogize, so lecturing tone asside, I was just trying to clarify my posts. Everyone who has tried to pre-think thier posts (without ranting) all have valid points. Everyone is right in one way or another. It is our job to cultivate our own oppinions based on fact and how we feel on the inside. It is then the job (this is the hard part) of the governing body to discern the hearts and heads of the people and try to enforce the will of the majority.
Like Ragorn said (I am paraphrasing), right now the will of the people is to have guns. When the will of the people changes, so will the law.
EVERY day I literally thank God that I live in *THIS* country and (among other things) actually have the choice as to whether or not I get to buy/keep/fire my gun.
Nitania
edited for spelling, cuz I am horrible at it.
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
I'm sort of saddened to see that a few sharp words have melted your arguments. I love my country dearly, but some of the people living here make me want to pull my hair out.
I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in welfare, gun control, legalized but restricted abortions, legalized marijuana, running the hell over Afghanastan with ground troops, salary caps in professional sports, total seperation of church and state, mothers, and apple pie. If you stop calling me names long enough to ask why, my reasoning might just interest you.
I'll also point out that communism is a system of government, and calling someone a communist sympathizer is only derogatory because of the great media barrage of the past 4 decades. Communism works great on paper, but it breaks down in practice because it violates the basic human principle of trying to live with the least effort. When an individual is on longer rewarded based on his particular input to society, he is no longer motivated to perform. But this is a different argument.
I'll now back out of the discussion again, and you guys can go back to claiming how I'll have to claw your guns out of your cold, dead hands. Nobody actually refuted anything but my knowledge of history anyway, which I never claimed was anything better than sub-par.
- Ragorn
Oh PS, before anyone asks, I like apple pie because pie is teh bestx0rz.
I'm a moderate Democrat. I believe in welfare, gun control, legalized but restricted abortions, legalized marijuana, running the hell over Afghanastan with ground troops, salary caps in professional sports, total seperation of church and state, mothers, and apple pie. If you stop calling me names long enough to ask why, my reasoning might just interest you.
I'll also point out that communism is a system of government, and calling someone a communist sympathizer is only derogatory because of the great media barrage of the past 4 decades. Communism works great on paper, but it breaks down in practice because it violates the basic human principle of trying to live with the least effort. When an individual is on longer rewarded based on his particular input to society, he is no longer motivated to perform. But this is a different argument.
I'll now back out of the discussion again, and you guys can go back to claiming how I'll have to claw your guns out of your cold, dead hands. Nobody actually refuted anything but my knowledge of history anyway, which I never claimed was anything better than sub-par.
- Ragorn
Oh PS, before anyone asks, I like apple pie because pie is teh bestx0rz.
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Shayla, luv-- in black and white, she's said nothing of the sort. You're reading a bit between the lines. Rather like I've been guilty of in another less notorious thread. I'm surprised she went so easy on you. I was expecting her to whip out shit from everywhere in history from Creation to present, with whistle stops at notable examples like the pre-Meiji shogunates and the Roman conquests of western Europe. Trust me-- you got off the hook. Never mess with someone who was able to get her bachelor's and master's in four years total, especially when her focus was on the very topics you're talking about.
And Nitania-- respect, yo. ^_^ You summed it up perfectly, at least from where I stand. And continuing recognition to Ragorn for rationality.
-Nida
I'm surprised she went so easy on you. I was expecting her to whip out shit from everywhere in history from Creation to present, with whistle stops at notable examples like the pre-Meiji shogunates and the Roman conquests of western Europe. Trust me-- you got off the hook. Never mess with someone who was able to get her bachelor's and master's in four years total, especially when her focus was on the very topics you're talking about.And Nitania-- respect, yo. ^_^ You summed it up perfectly, at least from where I stand. And continuing recognition to Ragorn for rationality.
-Nida
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nida:
<B>And continuing recognition to Ragorn for rationality.
-Nida</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ragorn? Rational? He's completely ignored the well thought out posts by me and Elseenas that point out flaws in his reasoning, and grouped everyone not on his side into being some kind of republican fascists! He then claims our argument melted because of some words, just because a few people posted the usual "you can have my gun when you pull it out of my cold dead hands" argument, yet he still completely ignored the points that I brought up which call what he said into question and Elseenas's post about how LHO could have easily killed a president even if guns were illegal. This is like running away from the displacer beast but stopping to kill some goats on the way!
Sarvis
<B>And continuing recognition to Ragorn for rationality.
-Nida</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ragorn? Rational? He's completely ignored the well thought out posts by me and Elseenas that point out flaws in his reasoning, and grouped everyone not on his side into being some kind of republican fascists! He then claims our argument melted because of some words, just because a few people posted the usual "you can have my gun when you pull it out of my cold dead hands" argument, yet he still completely ignored the points that I brought up which call what he said into question and Elseenas's post about how LHO could have easily killed a president even if guns were illegal. This is like running away from the displacer beast but stopping to kill some goats on the way!
Sarvis
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
The question is "Will people still kill people without guns?"
The answer is "Yes, but it will be a hundred times harder, because acquiring and killing someone with a gun in our society is easier than breathing."
We're at an impass on this point. I'm not going to be swayed by your arguments of "It could maybe almost sort of possibly happen this way without a gun, in theory" and you're not going to appreciate my arguments that banning guns will prevent deaths.
I've stated my position. Banning guns will keep people alive. A lot of my other assertions are founded on that concept, which I believe wholeheartedly to be true. Statistics of European/US murder rates support my claim. The refuation of those statistics was to say that murderers will opt for other weapons if guns are not accessible. You're arguing fact with conjecture, which I don't acknowledge. If you believe society is safer when everybody is armed, prove it with fact rather than theory and opinion. I've heard your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. Don't interpret my disagreement as ignorance.
I'm sorry if you don't think I'm being rational. I don't put any faith in hypothetical arguments. If you can point to something real that tells me that a society banned firearms, and the crime rate failed to drop, perhaps I will take more stock in what you're saying.
- Ragorn
The answer is "Yes, but it will be a hundred times harder, because acquiring and killing someone with a gun in our society is easier than breathing."
We're at an impass on this point. I'm not going to be swayed by your arguments of "It could maybe almost sort of possibly happen this way without a gun, in theory" and you're not going to appreciate my arguments that banning guns will prevent deaths.
I've stated my position. Banning guns will keep people alive. A lot of my other assertions are founded on that concept, which I believe wholeheartedly to be true. Statistics of European/US murder rates support my claim. The refuation of those statistics was to say that murderers will opt for other weapons if guns are not accessible. You're arguing fact with conjecture, which I don't acknowledge. If you believe society is safer when everybody is armed, prove it with fact rather than theory and opinion. I've heard your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. Don't interpret my disagreement as ignorance.
I'm sorry if you don't think I'm being rational. I don't put any faith in hypothetical arguments. If you can point to something real that tells me that a society banned firearms, and the crime rate failed to drop, perhaps I will take more stock in what you're saying.
- Ragorn
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
There comes a point at which everyone realizes your views whether you realize they do or not.
We read your posts, I for one read and re-read posts to make sure mine are valid responses.
I see your points Shayla, I just dont feel the need to respond to every single one of them. Nor do I feel the need to drill what I believe into the heads of everyone who reads them. Im sure there are those of us out there who *dont* understand what you have been trying to say, but believe me..... I hear you. ok?
Nitania
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
We read your posts, I for one read and re-read posts to make sure mine are valid responses.
I see your points Shayla, I just dont feel the need to respond to every single one of them. Nor do I feel the need to drill what I believe into the heads of everyone who reads them. Im sure there are those of us out there who *dont* understand what you have been trying to say, but believe me..... I hear you. ok?
Nitania
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
Shayla, plainly put.
You managed to completely miss my point. I suppose I expected more, and am saddened by the fact that you can't see that your words can offend innocent bystanders.
I'd appreciate it if you omitted comments to me or about from now on, because it's plainly apparent you don't even want to look at the why. I will, in turn, do the same.
You managed to completely miss my point. I suppose I expected more, and am saddened by the fact that you can't see that your words can offend innocent bystanders.
I'd appreciate it if you omitted comments to me or about from now on, because it's plainly apparent you don't even want to look at the why. I will, in turn, do the same.
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
heh
Labeling people will do nothing but enrage them.
Why do it? I've said nothing enflamitory because I just dont do that. Others here *do* say things that can provoke an insulting comment... why not pick on them?
I dont think you realize what you say. A lot of what you post comes across as aggressive.
Nitania - who is sick of watching one person label everyone else.
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
Labeling people will do nothing but enrage them.
Why do it? I've said nothing enflamitory because I just dont do that. Others here *do* say things that can provoke an insulting comment... why not pick on them?
I dont think you realize what you say. A lot of what you post comes across as aggressive.
Nitania - who is sick of watching one person label everyone else.
[This message has been edited by Nitania (edited 11-10-2001).]
-
ShaylaRose
- Sojourner
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: OR, USA
Sarv-- whoops, left out some people on "my" side of the argument in that little shout-out. Basically, I just wanted to point out that there's been plenty of people that I may have agreed / disagreed with on varying levels, but they haven't yet stooped into some of the outright ridiculousness I've seen from others. Ragorn gets my vote specifically because he's been a good boy on this thread by calmly explaining his views. Zrax, Ashiwi, and you too, Sarvis, have also been nominees for the "Grace Under Fire" award issued by the Nida's Pointless Awards Program. Plenty of others that I'm too lazy to look up, too.
Shayla: Don't take it so hard, girl. I don't see malice in what you say-- just a little bit of carelessness. I tend to make people a little upset unintentionally too, so I'm not gonna nail you for that or anything. I just want to caution you to make certain that you're on the same wavelength as the people you're responding to, as a lot of your posts really did take things said by Nare, Nitania, and others out of context (or completely out of reality at least once, in the Communism bit). Happens all the time. Don't get so worked up over it. We'll still love you when the smoke clears. It just reflects worse on you when you go and delete all your posts...
-Nida
Shayla: Don't take it so hard, girl.
I don't see malice in what you say-- just a little bit of carelessness. I tend to make people a little upset unintentionally too, so I'm not gonna nail you for that or anything. I just want to caution you to make certain that you're on the same wavelength as the people you're responding to, as a lot of your posts really did take things said by Nare, Nitania, and others out of context (or completely out of reality at least once, in the Communism bit). Happens all the time. Don't get so worked up over it. We'll still love you when the smoke clears. It just reflects worse on you when you go and delete all your posts...-Nida
when I was little my parents did what they could to keep me safe. they stored dangerous cleaners and chemicals where I could not get at them. they put little plastic covers on the outlets. they padded corners and blocked stairways. as I grew and became more aware they did not need to work as hard to keep me safe. I was given more freedoms and with them responsibilities. I am grown now and I find myself in the reverse roll. looking out for my daughter. I finally understand and appreciate all those things I used to resent about my parents.
im not sure how much sense this makes but it occurs to me that a lot of you see the government as some sort of parent, a guardian and protector. here to keep us safe from all the evils in the world.
I see it in the opposite sense, the government, this country, is the child of the people. I see it as a neglected child struggling for direction without guidance. it is not the responsibility of the government to keep me from going astray, they are not here to guide me, I am here to guide them. I am the one responsible for making the decisions.
I vote.
our forefathers envisioned a country where the people, grown adults, could live free. a place where they could make there life into what they wanted it to be. the idea was to have as small a government as absolutely necessary to function. leaving the people in charge of themselves. this is why instead of one government they came up with a system of several. local, state and federal, each having 3 branches, executive, legislative and judicial. each branch charged with some authority over the other. checks and balance system.
this is good sound logic.
I have my local government to make laws for my community. therefor the state does not need to pass laws based on one communities needs or wants. the federal government does not need to pass laws based on one states needs or wants.
our forefathers came from one central all powerful government. they recognized the problems this caused better than any of us could ever hope to. they didnt want this to happen to their child, our country and brainstormed on ways to prevent that. one way was the design of the government, with different branches and levels each designed as small and with as little power as was absolutely necessary for it to function. and each answering not to one, but many, the people.
they gave the people control by giving them the vote. they also gave us a way to ensure we would never have that taken away from us. not thru a piece of paper, but thru the right to bare arms. that we will always be able to defend ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic. now I realize this sounds extreme, even unfathomable to take arms against the government and this is something I hope above hopes will never come to be necessary again. we won our freedom once, our founding fathers wanted to ensure we kept it. we the people, not we the U.S. government.
you are not the governments responsibility, the government is yours.
dont you people understand or appreciate how precious our freedom is, how important it is to make your own choice?
it is apparent to me most do not, either by lack of voter turnout or the desire to have yet another decision permanently made thru laws and yet another choice gone forever. that you may live with as little conflict and effort as possible.
I hope this made a least a little bit of sense.
im not sure how much sense this makes but it occurs to me that a lot of you see the government as some sort of parent, a guardian and protector. here to keep us safe from all the evils in the world.
I see it in the opposite sense, the government, this country, is the child of the people. I see it as a neglected child struggling for direction without guidance. it is not the responsibility of the government to keep me from going astray, they are not here to guide me, I am here to guide them. I am the one responsible for making the decisions.
I vote.
our forefathers envisioned a country where the people, grown adults, could live free. a place where they could make there life into what they wanted it to be. the idea was to have as small a government as absolutely necessary to function. leaving the people in charge of themselves. this is why instead of one government they came up with a system of several. local, state and federal, each having 3 branches, executive, legislative and judicial. each branch charged with some authority over the other. checks and balance system.
this is good sound logic.
I have my local government to make laws for my community. therefor the state does not need to pass laws based on one communities needs or wants. the federal government does not need to pass laws based on one states needs or wants.
our forefathers came from one central all powerful government. they recognized the problems this caused better than any of us could ever hope to. they didnt want this to happen to their child, our country and brainstormed on ways to prevent that. one way was the design of the government, with different branches and levels each designed as small and with as little power as was absolutely necessary for it to function. and each answering not to one, but many, the people.
they gave the people control by giving them the vote. they also gave us a way to ensure we would never have that taken away from us. not thru a piece of paper, but thru the right to bare arms. that we will always be able to defend ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic. now I realize this sounds extreme, even unfathomable to take arms against the government and this is something I hope above hopes will never come to be necessary again. we won our freedom once, our founding fathers wanted to ensure we kept it. we the people, not we the U.S. government.
you are not the governments responsibility, the government is yours.
dont you people understand or appreciate how precious our freedom is, how important it is to make your own choice?
it is apparent to me most do not, either by lack of voter turnout or the desire to have yet another decision permanently made thru laws and yet another choice gone forever. that you may live with as little conflict and effort as possible.
I hope this made a least a little bit of sense.
someone mentioned the desire for freedom as selfish. implied those who insist on choosing for themselves were brats.
to me selfish is when you believe your views, your morals to be of greater value than mine.
that you have nor see any reason for you to own a gun than neither does anyone else. i think thats selfish.
its not up to you to decide what is best for me. obviously seeing as your opinion and my opinion are so different, neither of us is qualified to define "the greater good".
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-11-2001).]
to me selfish is when you believe your views, your morals to be of greater value than mine.
that you have nor see any reason for you to own a gun than neither does anyone else. i think thats selfish.
its not up to you to decide what is best for me. obviously seeing as your opinion and my opinion are so different, neither of us is qualified to define "the greater good".
[This message has been edited by Turxx (edited 11-11-2001).]
I'm not sure if someone has said something like this before now, mostly because I haven't bothered to read every post here, so bare with me.
In my eyes, gun control is just a "quick-fix" solution to a greater problem. The people that advocate gun control don't understand the principles of why crimes like murder are committed, or at least they don't seem as if they do.
Crime as a whole is a societal problem, which can't be fixed by elimination of one or two small factors. Crime can be committed by anyone, with any motive. It doesn't require a gun to kill, end of story.
The fact is this debate is pretty pointless. Guns don't need to be controlled anymore than the people that use them. 95% of the public probably uses their guns in a very law-abiding manner. That their rights should be curtailed because of that other 5%, is facist and ignorant.
I don't own any guns, and I've never really felt the need to have them, but I fully support those who wish to exercise their rights. If someone told me I couldn't swear when I wanted to, or that I couldn't protest the latest stupidity by local government, I'd have to ask why we still stand for "freedom".
The 2nd amendment is NOT outdated, and the foresight of the founders of this country is proof of the great ideals we all look forward to each day. Without such foresight, our country would have long ago lapsed into a disordered chaos.
The constitution is the basis of our freedoms, and without those freedoms, we all lose what was fought for long ago.
Twyl "...And I'm proud to be an American" Twinshadow
In my eyes, gun control is just a "quick-fix" solution to a greater problem. The people that advocate gun control don't understand the principles of why crimes like murder are committed, or at least they don't seem as if they do.
Crime as a whole is a societal problem, which can't be fixed by elimination of one or two small factors. Crime can be committed by anyone, with any motive. It doesn't require a gun to kill, end of story.
The fact is this debate is pretty pointless. Guns don't need to be controlled anymore than the people that use them. 95% of the public probably uses their guns in a very law-abiding manner. That their rights should be curtailed because of that other 5%, is facist and ignorant.
I don't own any guns, and I've never really felt the need to have them, but I fully support those who wish to exercise their rights. If someone told me I couldn't swear when I wanted to, or that I couldn't protest the latest stupidity by local government, I'd have to ask why we still stand for "freedom".
The 2nd amendment is NOT outdated, and the foresight of the founders of this country is proof of the great ideals we all look forward to each day. Without such foresight, our country would have long ago lapsed into a disordered chaos.
The constitution is the basis of our freedoms, and without those freedoms, we all lose what was fought for long ago.
Twyl "...And I'm proud to be an American" Twinshadow
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tasan:
<B>
The constitution is the basis of our freedoms, and without those freedoms, we all lose what was fought for long ago.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I couldn't agree with you more, but consider this. The right to keep and arm bears (yes, I'm very funny) Was of greater importance when we had things like standing militias. This is no longer the wild frontier. A right which was deemed essential to the survival of our young nation some 200 years ago, is slightly out-dated today.
*GASP* Kuurg the blasphemer. Doubting the wisdom of our founding fathers? Far from it, I just don't believe they were gifted with the ability to augur the future.
The constitution was written and endorsed by the best minds in our country, so of course it's going to have relevance in most things today. The rights it strives to protect are no less important today than they were then, but the method of preserving them, in fact, defending them, cannot be written in stone.
------------------
·Kuurg·
<B>
The constitution is the basis of our freedoms, and without those freedoms, we all lose what was fought for long ago.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I couldn't agree with you more, but consider this. The right to keep and arm bears (yes, I'm very funny) Was of greater importance when we had things like standing militias. This is no longer the wild frontier. A right which was deemed essential to the survival of our young nation some 200 years ago, is slightly out-dated today.
*GASP* Kuurg the blasphemer. Doubting the wisdom of our founding fathers? Far from it, I just don't believe they were gifted with the ability to augur the future.
The constitution was written and endorsed by the best minds in our country, so of course it's going to have relevance in most things today. The rights it strives to protect are no less important today than they were then, but the method of preserving them, in fact, defending them, cannot be written in stone.
------------------
·Kuurg·
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests