False arguments

You seem to miss the bit where I said:

I'm not suggesting any solutions, there are no easy solutions.

I did not suggest any solutions, and CoG et al make the normal mistake of putting words into my mouth.

I neither propose a ban on alcohol nor on ownership of guns.

I am simply pointing out the illogicality of the raw arguments.

What is really sad is how entrenched the debate is, and CoG confirms this:

What compromise is there between liberty and tyranny?

Sad, really. CoG started so well.

IBH and TDL are not worth debating with.

Whirlaway just dishes out empty rhetoric.

Remember, I choose to spend a lot of my time in the US, I am not a disinterested outsider. Originally Posted by essence

Yes, it's really sad when the only argument you proffer is hackneyed liberal sentimentalism that is void of facts.

The United States of America has become, and still is, the greatest Country on the Planet.

We became this due to what I call the unique American Experience.

We are governed by a Constitution. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and was intentionally made very difficult to change so it would not be subject to the whims of the moment.

Our Bill of Rights were added AFTER the initial document was written to insure the People's rights, not the Governments.

I consider the Bill of Rights no less than a sacred document, all Ten of them.

Let me take some quotes from the link provided in another thread. I have taken the trouble to go through that rather lengthy document, and I suggest anybody interested in the issue does likewise.

It seems many here do not have a clue what the second ammendment is all about.



The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A. D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.1 This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".


The right to keep and bear arms (a term that connotes a military purpose) stems from the English common law right of self-defense. However, the possession of guns in the mother country of the common law was never an absolute right. Various conditions were imposed. Britain today has one of the strictest gun laws in the world.

There is nothing absolute about the freedoms in our own Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is not freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is not freedom to have multiple spouses, or sacrifice a lamb in the local park, as religiously sanctioned practices. Similarly, whatever right the Second Amendment protects regarding the private possession of guns, for whatever definition of "militia," is not an absolute right. It must serve the overall public interest, including (from the preamble of the US Constitution) the need to "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." Whatever right there is to possess firearms is no less important than the right of every American, gun owners included, to protection against the possession of guns by persons who by any reasonable standard lack the crucial credentials for responsible gun ownership.

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."

There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue.

Constitutional right to keep and bear arms applies only to the right of the state to maintain militia and not to individuals' rights to bear arms. Congress had authority under commerce clause to prohibit possession of firearms by convicted felons, based upon congressional finding that such possession passes threat to interstate commerce.

As to the alleged right to bear arms, Day's claim is meritless. There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.

In short, kingship in Britain became a far more democratic affair than it would ever become on the Continent, due in major part to the individual armament of the British citizen.

While the American "right to bear arms" developed at the time of the Revolution, it grew out of the duty imposed on the early colonists to keep arms for the defense of their isolated and endangered communities. The definition of "bearing arms" as the phrase was used in legal instruments up to revolutionary times was "serving in an organized armed force."1 It did not imply any personal right to possess weapons.

The possibility, however, of maintaining a military balance within a political structure has become smaller as society has become more complex and warfare more destructive. In the words of Roscoe Pound:

In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which could defeat the whole Bill of Rights.97

Thus, after over three centuries, the right to bear arms is becoming anachronistic. As the policing of society becomes more efficient, the need for arms for personal self-defense

becomes more irrelevant; and as the society itself becomes more complex, the military power in the hands of the government more powerful, and the government itself more responsive, the right to bear arms becomes more futile, meaningless and dangerous.

The free flow of firearms across state lines has undermined the traditional view of crime and gun control as local problems. In New York City, long noted for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides of 1960 involved pistols, by 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation's largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns, mostly imported from southern states with lax laws.2 These statistics give credence to the arguments of proponents of gun control that federal action is needed, if only to make local laws enforceable.

It is one of the ironies of contemporary politics that the many of the most vocal supporters of "law and order" are persistent critics of federal firearms regulation. "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is their philosophy. Firearms in private hands are viewed as a means of protecting an individual's life and property, as well as a factor in helping to preserve the Republic against foreign and domestic enemies. Whereas strict constructionism is often the preferred doctrine in interpreting the constitutional rights of criminals, such a narrow view of the Second Amendment is unacceptable. Far from being narrowly construed, the Second Amendment is held out to be a bulwark of human freedom and dignity as well as a means of safeguarding the rights of the individual against encroachment by the federal government. It thus becomes a weapon in the arsenal of argument

In the last angry decades of the twentieth century, members of rifle clubs, paramilitary groups and other misguided patriots continue to oppose legislative control of handguns and rifles. These ideological heirs of the vigilantes of the bygone western frontier era still maintain that the Second Amendment guarantees them a personal right to "keep and bear arms."97 But the annals of the Second Amendment attest to the fact that its adoption was the result of a political struggle to restrict the power of the national government and to prevent the disarmament of state militias.98 Not unlike their English forbears, the American revolutionaries had a deep fear of centralized executive power, particularly when standing armies were at its disposal. The Second Amendment was adopted to prevent the arbitrary use of force by the national government against the states and the individual.

The United States of America has become, and still is, the greatest Country on the Planet.

We became this due to what I call the unique American Experience.

We are governed by a Constitution. This Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and was intentionally made very difficult to change so it would not be subject to the whims of the moment.

Our Bill of Rights were added AFTER the initial document was written to insure the People's rights, not the Governments.

I consider the Bill of Rights no less than a sacred document, all Ten of them. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I suggest you learn some history and see where your 'unique' experience comes from.

I also suggest you learn what your constitution and bill of rights actually says.

Sacred document? You obviously have never read the bible and what St Paul says.

Jeez.

Oh yes, the link has some stats on New York and gun crimes.

The statistical relationship between gun crime and gun control in New York is completely flawed - gun crime remained high when controls were put in place, because it was so easy to import guns from other southern states.

Just the same way the stats about mexico are completely flawed.

Hence gun control should be a federal issue, if not an international issue.

I suggest you learn some history and see where your 'unique' experience comes from.

I also suggest you learn what your constitution and bill of rights actually says.

Sacred document? You obviously have never read the bible and what St Paul says.

Jeez. Originally Posted by essence

When I'm curious about proper usage of a word. I always refer to a dictionary; I'm funny that way. It looks to me like meanings four and five fit pretty well. The Constitution is highly revered by conservatives, consequently we consider it to be sacred.

PS
When you use the term Jeez you're violating one of the Ten Commandments. Just thought I'd point that out since we're trying to be Biblically correct.

sa·cred
/ˈseɪ krɪd/ Show Spelled [sey-krid] Show IPA
adjective 1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.

3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane ): sacred music; sacred books.

4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.

5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.

The magna carta is highy revered, but it is not sacred.

Maybe it is just a matter of continents divided by a common language.

The relevance is what the practical impact of viewing documents as sacred is.

In my brand of Christianity, the bible is regarded as the inspired word of God which needs to be interpreted and understood by a God given intellect. It is not a formula cast in stone.

Hence I would at least suggest that the constitution and bill of rights merits an equivalent application of the best of human, God-given, intellect.

ps. it is possible to be educated about Christianity and admire and follow most of its precepts without being a full believer in the sacredness of Jesus. At one time I was a born again evangelical, but it is difficult to continue that when I have, let me count, a wife and currently 4 regular girlfriends.

I believe I was born with the right to own a weapon to use as a tool and to defend myself and my property. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

A gun makes a useful emergency TV remote but it only turns it off once.

The magna carta is highy revered, but it is not sacred.

Maybe it is just a matter of continents divided by a common language.

The relevance is what the practical impact of viewing documents as sacred is.

In my brand of Christianity, the bible is regarded as the inspired word of God which needs to be interpreted and understood by a God given intellect. It is not a formula cast in stone.

Hence I would at least suggest that the constitution and bill of rights merits an equivalent application of the best of human, God-given, intellect.

ps. it is possible to be educated about Christianity and admire and follow most of its precepts without being a full believer in the sacredness of Jesus. At one time I was a born again evangelical, but it is difficult to continue that when I have, let me count, a wife and currently 4 regular girlfriends. Originally Posted by essence

One of the main differences in the Constitution and the Bible is that the founders were well aware of their limitations; that's why the Constitution can be ammended. It was written in plain English with the intention of being easy to understand. The whole "living document" theory is just a dishonest way of getting around what the Constitution says by reinterpreting it rather than ammending it.

Again, loosley defined, any document that is highly revered could be considered sacred. Many conservatives believe that providence had something to do with the writing of the Constitution. That contributes to our sense of reverence towards it.

England and America are two countries separated by a common language. George Bernard Shaw

It's appropriate you would paraphrase Shaw. He was a Fabian Socialist.

where Im from, St. Paul is a city in Minnesota. He certainly couldn't have any importance for non Bible-thumpers.

Joe, you fucked up again. I think you meant to say SCARED, not SACRED.

Many conservatives believe that providence had something to do with the writing of the Constitution. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Didn't you know that God is an Englishman and the English had enormous influence over the writing of the constitution? You just borrowed from the best of English minds at the time. I think it is said that, if the British ever write down a constitution, it would look very similar to the US one.

Pace CoG.

From Wikipedia

The high quality of the delegates to the convention was remarkable. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams in London, "It really is an assembly of demigods."

Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition, and any one delegate could be found using both or a mixture depending on the subject under discussion: foreign affairs, the economy, national government, or federal relationships among the states. The Virginia Plan recommended a consolidated national government, generally favoring the most populated states. It used the philosophy of John Locke (English) to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu (French) for divided government, and Edward Coke (English) to emphasize civil liberties. The New Jersey Plan generally favored the less populated states, using the philosophy of English Whigs such as Edmund Burke to rely on received procedure, and William Blackstone (English) to emphasize sovereignty of the legislature.

But y'all know all of this. Whereas for me I am learning, so that I can identify BS.

From Wikipedia

The high quality of the delegates to the convention was remarkable. As Thomas Jefferson in Paris wrote to John Adams in London, "It really is an assembly of demigods."

Delegates used two streams of intellectual tradition, and any one delegate could be found using both or a mixture depending on the subject under discussion: foreign affairs, the economy, national government, or federal relationships among the states. The Virginia Plan recommended a consolidated national government, generally favoring the most populated states. It used the philosophy of John Locke (English) to rely on consent of the governed, Montesquieu (French) for divided government, and Edward Coke (English) to emphasize civil liberties. The New Jersey Plan generally favored the less populated states, using the philosophy of English Whigs such as Edmund Burke to rely on received procedure, and William Blackstone (English) to emphasize sovereignty of the legislature.

But y'all know all of this. Whereas for me I am learning, so that I can identify BS. Originally Posted by essence

The English were also influencial in laying the intellectual ground work for the French Revolution. Voltaire was exiled to England for several years and was greatly influenced by English philosophy and political theory. He was especially impressed by the work of Isaac Newton.

Voltaire was exiled to England because of his constant criticism of the king and because he was seen as a threat to the existing system. Exiling him to England turned out to be the worst thing they could have done.

It was America's revolution that was the spark that started the French Revolution and other revolutions unseating despots around the world.