Do you ever wonder why...
Do you ever wonder why it is people around here are so concerned about the Second Amendment, yet seem to view the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth with so much hostility?
A lot of folks seem to think that so long as they are not the targets of oppression, oppression is not only acceptable, but desirable. Security is an oft-cited excuse, but religion and politics prevail for the most part. We seem to think that differences in opinion, lifestyle, and politics can and should be crushed with legislative zeal and enforced above and beyond the powers allotted to the executive.
"Conservative" no longer means laissez faire - it has mutated into something that is intrusive, invasive, and omnipresent in its reach. Where reality does meet with personal political approval, it should be legislated against. Courts are the enemy because they deal in legalities, not to the convenience of tyranny.
The Second Amendment was put into place as a measure of last resort - should all others be taken away, it would stand to ensure that we remained a free people.
But as we seem to be in the process of surrendering them willingly, what would we have left to fight for should it ever come to that?
A lot of folks seem to think that so long as they are not the targets of oppression, oppression is not only acceptable, but desirable. Security is an oft-cited excuse, but religion and politics prevail for the most part. We seem to think that differences in opinion, lifestyle, and politics can and should be crushed with legislative zeal and enforced above and beyond the powers allotted to the executive.
"Conservative" no longer means laissez faire - it has mutated into something that is intrusive, invasive, and omnipresent in its reach. Where reality does meet with personal political approval, it should be legislated against. Courts are the enemy because they deal in legalities, not to the convenience of tyranny.
The Second Amendment was put into place as a measure of last resort - should all others be taken away, it would stand to ensure that we remained a free people.
But as we seem to be in the process of surrendering them willingly, what would we have left to fight for should it ever come to that?
0
-
can you cite some examples of hostility towards the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th ? 0 -
Sarcasm.
The First, Fourth Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were not meant to be individual rights, but collective rights meant for the people representing the State and Federal governments. People have proven they are not responsible enough to use these rights properly.0 -
EMM- A well worded debate, perhaps in years past you would have recieved well thought out responses for your time. Currently I'm not holding my breath that the majority of GB members will engage you with an intelligent rebuttal. 0 -
Dave W.,
Thank you much for your observation. It is unfortunate that my reputation precedes me, but I have to at least try.0 -
quote:Captplaid
Advanced Member
USA
3694 Posts
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 02:25:26 AM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Sarcasm.
The First, Fourth Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were not meant to be individual rights, but collective rights meant for the people representing the State and Federal governments. People have proven they are not responsible enough to use these rights properly
That is an absolutely horrifing statement: People have proven they are not responsible enough to use these rights properly!!!
CaptPlaid- For the love of God man, do you not think that is something an "anti second amendment" minded individual would say about gun owners? You can't think of an example where someone or some group or organization has demonstrated that they were not to be trusted with the second amendment?
***Captplaid- I really have a lot of respect for you so please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight, I am not, I simply don't agree with your wording on this one thead/issue.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:Captplaid
Advanced Member
USA
3694 Posts
Posted - 04/14/2007 : 02:25:26 AM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Sarcasm.
The First, Fourth Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were not meant to be individual rights, but collective rights meant for the people representing the State and Federal governments. People have proven they are not responsible enough to use these rights properly
That is an absolutely horrifing statement: People have proven they are not responsible enough to use these rights properly!!!
CaptPlaid- For the love of God man, do you not think that is something an "anti second amendment" minded individual would say about gun owners? You can't think of an example where someone or some group or organization has demonstrated that they were not to be trusted with the second amendment?
***Captplaid- I really have a lot of respect for you so please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight, I am not, I simply don't agree with your wording on this one thead/issue.
Cap'n Plaid was being sarcastic. But, it most certainly is at the crux of the argument against the 2nd... the 2nd is a collective right whereas the other amendments are individual rights.0 -
EMM - yawn.
Captplaid - Nice try. We know how you REALLY feel.
Dave W - Hungover ??
Spaniel - Insight, yet again.
newt - Who ??
Doug0 -
Doug,
While you're yawning, ponder this:
The 2nd Amendment did not allow folks to prevail at Waco or Ruby Ridge. If anything, it was the calculated flaunting of our other rights that set those confrontations up.
Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Waco? You're being set up for a massive disappointment if you think you can prevail against a government to whom you have given permission to do as they please.
When we no longer have any rights, nothing the government does to us will be illegal.0 -
Ruby Ridge and Waco were examples of the failure of the Second Amendment to protect the other rights of those involved because, IMO, we have allowed the Second Amendment rights to be whittled down to the notion that it protects our right to hunt ducks.
What I think it originally meant was that people should have the right to arm themselves sufficiently to throw off a tyrannical government. It does not restrict the tools with which to accomplish that--we have imposed those restrictions on ourselves, bit by bit, in the name of 'common sense' and public safety:
We won't allow citizens to own machine guns.
We won't allow citizens to own explosives, etc.
We won't allow citizens to own cannons, mortars, etc.
Why? Because we (the government) don't trust individuals to have those things. It only trusts individuals in the government's employ, acting on the government's behalf, to have access to and use those weapons.
Make no mistake: The government does not trust YOU.
Any government that does not trust its citizens is a government that itself CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
Note that Ruby Ridge and Waco spanned a Republican and a Democratic administration. It makes no difference which party is in power.0 -
poke, poke.
D.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments