08-14-2004, 09:19 AM
Hm, let's see: "tyrant of 1700" had one of the largest regular military forces in the world while the US had only a handfull of regiments, creating the need to outfit the civilian population with weapons to aid the regular forces in case of invasion;
"tyrant of 2005" unless you are talking about the combined forces of europe, russia and china (suddenly going bonkers and thinking: "Why not invade the US") there is no military force that can match the US Forces on the Battlefield. Resulting from this the danger of Invasionon the US is practically zero. So the "tyrant of 2005" must be them terrorists.
My point is that the circumstances that led to the Second Amendment no longer exist.
This does not however mean that you can not stick with the "Guns for all" attitude but I think it is foolish to base this on the second ammendment instead of the current situation.
Without the right to bear arms, all other guaranteed rights are just words on paper. The age of firearms is what brought these powers to the people in the first place, and I don't see that they can be maintained without them. Unless the citizen population itself has the ability to enforce these ideals through force if necessary, it is like a city code without any police department.
Exactly my point, it was attempted numerous times to times to verify the votes. This was done by the Democrates and was stopped each time by the Republicans. This leaves the pure fact that not all votes were verified thus the result remains questionable.
All votes in Florida *were* recounted by the standard procedures. That decision was made by the (Republican) Florida board of elections, because it is what Florida law said should be done (such a novel concept, actually following the election laws). Bush had more votes in that recount, just as he did in the original count. It should have ended there. Gore then petitioned for manual recounts only in the 3 most urban Democratic-concentrated areas of the state of Florida. For all the talk about wanting to make sure every vote counts, he apparently only wanted every liberal urban vote to count. (My memory fails me a bit here, but didn't Gore also try to get some of the military vote-by-mail in Florida thrown out on technicalities? Does that sound like someone who wanted every vote to count?) The court cases that followed got progressively more ridiculous each time. The bottom line is that Gore never proved there was an error in the voting system (as far as I can tell, he never really tried), he did not meet criteria to obtain additional recounts, and if the United States Supreme Court had allowed additional recounts to take place, the results would have been less accurate and less representative of the actual vote in Florida than the very first count or the official recount.
"tyrant of 2005" unless you are talking about the combined forces of europe, russia and china (suddenly going bonkers and thinking: "Why not invade the US") there is no military force that can match the US Forces on the Battlefield. Resulting from this the danger of Invasionon the US is practically zero. So the "tyrant of 2005" must be them terrorists.
My point is that the circumstances that led to the Second Amendment no longer exist.
This does not however mean that you can not stick with the "Guns for all" attitude but I think it is foolish to base this on the second ammendment instead of the current situation.
Without the right to bear arms, all other guaranteed rights are just words on paper. The age of firearms is what brought these powers to the people in the first place, and I don't see that they can be maintained without them. Unless the citizen population itself has the ability to enforce these ideals through force if necessary, it is like a city code without any police department.
Exactly my point, it was attempted numerous times to times to verify the votes. This was done by the Democrates and was stopped each time by the Republicans. This leaves the pure fact that not all votes were verified thus the result remains questionable.
All votes in Florida *were* recounted by the standard procedures. That decision was made by the (Republican) Florida board of elections, because it is what Florida law said should be done (such a novel concept, actually following the election laws). Bush had more votes in that recount, just as he did in the original count. It should have ended there. Gore then petitioned for manual recounts only in the 3 most urban Democratic-concentrated areas of the state of Florida. For all the talk about wanting to make sure every vote counts, he apparently only wanted every liberal urban vote to count. (My memory fails me a bit here, but didn't Gore also try to get some of the military vote-by-mail in Florida thrown out on technicalities? Does that sound like someone who wanted every vote to count?) The court cases that followed got progressively more ridiculous each time. The bottom line is that Gore never proved there was an error in the voting system (as far as I can tell, he never really tried), he did not meet criteria to obtain additional recounts, and if the United States Supreme Court had allowed additional recounts to take place, the results would have been less accurate and less representative of the actual vote in Florida than the very first count or the official recount.