thnycav
Regular Member
imported post
He happens to be on our side he does not want to ban them. So why be so picky with rifle and weapon.
He happens to be on our side he does not want to ban them. So why be so picky with rifle and weapon.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Question about the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Notso
- Start date
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
thnycav wrote:
Because it perpetuates the myth that an "assault weapons ban" is banning assault rifles, which are automatic, short-barreled rifles. It's part of the campaign of disinformation used by the anti's and the media to portray an "assault weapons ban" as designed to prevent people from pulling a trigger and spraying crowds of people will bullets, when that simply is not true.
At the worst, it's confusing to people who have a marginal knowledge of guns, and at best, it's offensive. To me, hearing someone use "assault rifle" to refer to semi-auto weapons banned solely on the basis of looking scary is like people using "nigger" to refer to black people. Both refer to historical uses of language to oppress large groups of people.
But, from what Ron Paul says, it seems like he definately knows the difference between "assault weapons" and assault rifles. It's just a shame that he has trouble properly differentiating them to the uninformed public. Don't get wrong, though, I think he's still far more correct in his views on gun control and the second amendment than any other politician of which I know.
thnycav wrote:
Because it perpetuates the myth that an "assault weapons ban" is banning assault rifles, which are automatic, short-barreled rifles. It's part of the campaign of disinformation used by the anti's and the media to portray an "assault weapons ban" as designed to prevent people from pulling a trigger and spraying crowds of people will bullets, when that simply is not true.
At the worst, it's confusing to people who have a marginal knowledge of guns, and at best, it's offensive. To me, hearing someone use "assault rifle" to refer to semi-auto weapons banned solely on the basis of looking scary is like people using "nigger" to refer to black people. Both refer to historical uses of language to oppress large groups of people.
But, from what Ron Paul says, it seems like he definately knows the difference between "assault weapons" and assault rifles. It's just a shame that he has trouble properly differentiating them to the uninformed public. Don't get wrong, though, I think he's still far more correct in his views on gun control and the second amendment than any other politician of which I know.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
Actually, at the time of writing, well-regulated didn't mean 'controlled by rules or regulations' it simply meant 'well-trained'. For me I read this as a singlestatement: the people ARE the militia and our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Actually, at the time of writing, well-regulated didn't mean 'controlled by rules or regulations' it simply meant 'well-trained'. For me I read this as a singlestatement: the people ARE the militia and our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Wynder wrote:
I can accept that angle of interpertation too
Demarest
Regular Member
imported post
The Ron Paul quotes are VERY good. I hope he's our president for at least eight years.
While I don't fully agree with the way they covered it, I think Penn & Teller's Bullshit!'s addressing of this provides an interesting insight:
"Read the words: 'A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state...' Sure, we need an organized military force to defend your country. But, '...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' This is the PEOPLE in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; It says the right of the people.
Now, why the word 'people?' Because the PEOPLE who wrote this had just fought a war for TWO YEARS against a tyrannical state MILITIA. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again. So they made the possession of weapons a right that THE MILITIA could never take away.
Now, gun control advocates say the phrasing is clumsy. And the comma separating the state from the people is just a *inhales and exhales* pause to get your breath. Hah! Strange, they can't seem to point out any other places where those 'hack framers' ****** UP the wording." - Penn & Teller
I disagree with them in that the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state simply means that we need to be armed if we are to maintain this as a free state (opposite of police state).
The other way I disagree is that our forefathers did not GIVE us the right. They enumerated the inherent rights of the free.
The Ron Paul quotes are VERY good. I hope he's our president for at least eight years.
While I don't fully agree with the way they covered it, I think Penn & Teller's Bullshit!'s addressing of this provides an interesting insight:
"Read the words: 'A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state...' Sure, we need an organized military force to defend your country. But, '...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' This is the PEOPLE in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; It says the right of the people.
Now, why the word 'people?' Because the PEOPLE who wrote this had just fought a war for TWO YEARS against a tyrannical state MILITIA. They knew the time might come when they'd have to do that again. So they made the possession of weapons a right that THE MILITIA could never take away.
Now, gun control advocates say the phrasing is clumsy. And the comma separating the state from the people is just a *inhales and exhales* pause to get your breath. Hah! Strange, they can't seem to point out any other places where those 'hack framers' ****** UP the wording." - Penn & Teller
I disagree with them in that the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state simply means that we need to be armed if we are to maintain this as a free state (opposite of police state).
The other way I disagree is that our forefathers did not GIVE us the right. They enumerated the inherent rights of the free.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
This goes back to a person being a sovereign unto themselves where, previously, the only person with rights was the King of England and he confered his will upon his subjects.
The rights are endowed by our creator. The Bill of Rights guarantees and protects them.
This goes back to a person being a sovereign unto themselves where, previously, the only person with rights was the King of England and he confered his will upon his subjects.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
According to John Locke, from whom many of the phrases in the DOI were paraphrased, the only purpose of a just king is to protect the rights of the people. The people have a right to rebel against any king who fails to do his duty as a defender of liberty. Locke wrote that in the 1600s, a couple of decades or so after Cromwell's regime was disolved and the monarchy reinstated.
The important things to note are that Locke and others believed in both a divine right monarchy and individual rights, and that they were not mutually exclusive. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with individual rights in the mind of Locke. It also shows that a hundred years before the DOI was written the concept of individual rights as a function of being human (ie. "endowed by the creator") was already established.
The jump to getting rid of the monarchy altogether and replacing it with some kind of republic with voting didn't become mainstream in the American colonies until well after the War for Independence began. A majority of the Continental Congress figured that after a few skirmishes to establish our honor, the king would restrain Parliment and we would reconcile with him. When the king sided with Parliment it became apparent that independence was going to have to happen for real.
For those of you interested, Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government is a good read, and a good start for understanding where the founders were geting their ideas.
Wynder wrote:
According to John Locke, from whom many of the phrases in the DOI were paraphrased, the only purpose of a just king is to protect the rights of the people. The people have a right to rebel against any king who fails to do his duty as a defender of liberty. Locke wrote that in the 1600s, a couple of decades or so after Cromwell's regime was disolved and the monarchy reinstated.
The important things to note are that Locke and others believed in both a divine right monarchy and individual rights, and that they were not mutually exclusive. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with individual rights in the mind of Locke. It also shows that a hundred years before the DOI was written the concept of individual rights as a function of being human (ie. "endowed by the creator") was already established.
The jump to getting rid of the monarchy altogether and replacing it with some kind of republic with voting didn't become mainstream in the American colonies until well after the War for Independence began. A majority of the Continental Congress figured that after a few skirmishes to establish our honor, the king would restrain Parliment and we would reconcile with him. When the king sided with Parliment it became apparent that independence was going to have to happen for real.
For those of you interested, Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government is a good read, and a good start for understanding where the founders were geting their ideas.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
Was Locke a Whig?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Belowis aneye-opener. Its fromthe essay, No Treason #1, section 4,para. 6, writtenby 19th century lawyer, Lysander Spooner.
"Moreover, it was only as separate individuals, each acting for himself, and not as members of organized governments, that the three millions declared their consent to be necessary to their support of a government; and, at the same time, declared their dissent to the support of the British Crown. The governments, then existing in the Colonies, had no constitutional power, as governments, to declare the separation between England and America. On the contrary, those governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown. Of course the British king never made it one of the chartered or constitutional powers of those governments, as governments, to absolve the people from their allegiance to himself. So far, therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures acted as revolutionists, they acted only as so many individual revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures. And their representatives at Philadelphia, who first declared Independence, were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply a committee of Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional authorities, or the representatives of constitutional authorities."
The entire series of essays areinteresting reading. I can't say I agree with everything he says, nor howhe says it; but, he makes some interesting points.You can read the essays here: http://tinyurl.com/2ctkt5
Tomahawk wrote:
Belowis aneye-opener. Its fromthe essay, No Treason #1, section 4,para. 6, writtenby 19th century lawyer, Lysander Spooner.
"Moreover, it was only as separate individuals, each acting for himself, and not as members of organized governments, that the three millions declared their consent to be necessary to their support of a government; and, at the same time, declared their dissent to the support of the British Crown. The governments, then existing in the Colonies, had no constitutional power, as governments, to declare the separation between England and America. On the contrary, those governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown. Of course the British king never made it one of the chartered or constitutional powers of those governments, as governments, to absolve the people from their allegiance to himself. So far, therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures acted as revolutionists, they acted only as so many individual revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures. And their representatives at Philadelphia, who first declared Independence, were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply a committee of Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional authorities, or the representatives of constitutional authorities."
The entire series of essays areinteresting reading. I can't say I agree with everything he says, nor howhe says it; but, he makes some interesting points.You can read the essays here: http://tinyurl.com/2ctkt5
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Spooner is interesting stuff. Careful reading that! You may become an anarchist! (A real rational anarchist as oposed to the communist phony anarchists who smash storefronts...)
EDIT: And BTW, I don't know if the Whig Party even existed in Locke's day yet.
Spooner is interesting stuff. Careful reading that! You may become an anarchist! (A real rational anarchist as oposed to the communist phony anarchists who smash storefronts...)
EDIT: And BTW, I don't know if the Whig Party even existed in Locke's day yet.