03-15-2006, 07:13 PM
Hi,
"Treason doth not prosper. What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
--Sir John Harrington
As to the Second Amendment, I wish the founders had said somewhat less (left out the whole bit on militias) or somewhat more (explained just what they thought reasonable limits were). But one must take what they said into historical perspective. Handguns, which are much of the gun control problem, were rare at the time. Long guns (rifles, muskets and shotguns) were the norm. And, outside of towns (including on trips between towns) were almost an essential part of self preservation.
In reality, I strongly doubt that weapons in the hands of the population are much of a protection of civil liberties. If the government is in control of the military, then I offer small hope for handguns against battle tanks. Personal protection is a more valid point, although the lack of training and resolution in the average individual probably negates much of this. I suspect that, armed just with a pocketknife, I am more dangerous than most people with a gun simply because I know from experience that I will use that knife without hesitation.
But, ultimately, I am for personal freedom (and personal responsibility). The supreme law of the United States ensures (with some small ambiguity) the right of citizens to bear arms. If for no other reason I support bearing arms. If that law were to be further amended, my position would depend on how that amendment was worded. I doubt that I could ever support a ban. On the flip side of the coin, any crime committed with a handgun should result in the rapid execution of the criminal. The freedom to take a life can only be matched by the risking of one's own.
--Pete
roguebanshee,Mar 15 2006, 10:15 AM Wrote:I'd prefer if the police/army would do that instead."There's never a cop around when you need one."
[right][snapback]104671[/snapback][/right]
Quote:If a militia decides to topple the government because they disagree with various laws being put into effect, are they doing their patriotic duty or are they a bunch of loonies who need to be shot?Look up the definition of 'rebellion' and 'revolution'. Or contemplate:
"Treason doth not prosper. What's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
--Sir John Harrington
As to the Second Amendment, I wish the founders had said somewhat less (left out the whole bit on militias) or somewhat more (explained just what they thought reasonable limits were). But one must take what they said into historical perspective. Handguns, which are much of the gun control problem, were rare at the time. Long guns (rifles, muskets and shotguns) were the norm. And, outside of towns (including on trips between towns) were almost an essential part of self preservation.
In reality, I strongly doubt that weapons in the hands of the population are much of a protection of civil liberties. If the government is in control of the military, then I offer small hope for handguns against battle tanks. Personal protection is a more valid point, although the lack of training and resolution in the average individual probably negates much of this. I suspect that, armed just with a pocketknife, I am more dangerous than most people with a gun simply because I know from experience that I will use that knife without hesitation.
But, ultimately, I am for personal freedom (and personal responsibility). The supreme law of the United States ensures (with some small ambiguity) the right of citizens to bear arms. If for no other reason I support bearing arms. If that law were to be further amended, my position would depend on how that amendment was worded. I doubt that I could ever support a ban. On the flip side of the coin, any crime committed with a handgun should result in the rapid execution of the criminal. The freedom to take a life can only be matched by the risking of one's own.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?