Well your an interesting read, wrong, but interesting.
Armies are made up of SOLDIERS. Conscripted or otherwise. They are trained and obey orders under force of punishment.
Because anti-gun people wrongly attribute the right of self defense to the Second Amendment. They like to say: “you don’t need an assault rifle to protect yourself from burglars. Let the police do that.”
American Exceptionalism has nothing to do with anything but freedom and liberty.
I am not implying anything. Just stating a fact.
If my perspective is NOT representative of all conservative US citizens…it should be.
The word conservative is unnecessary.If my perspective is NOT representative of all conservative US citizens…it should be.
Good Evening Zoltan: Because we all know that the military has the ability to protect our country from foreign armies without help from home bound vigilantes, I have to assume that you mean protecting your freedom from the country that protects you, as you have in fact mentioned your perceived need to be able to protect yourself from the government if necessary. So, if I am clear, you need your gun to protect yourself from the government, foreign invaders, home invaders, random shooters, gang members, robbers and other criminals, burglars, disgruntled employees, homicidal maniacs, and so on. Did I leave any out?
Unfortunately, that’s just not true. Our army is under the control of our central government. And while that has not been an issue for over two hundred year doesn’t mean that won’t change. Two hundred years is a pretty short period of time in historical terms and historically governments tend to proliferate geometrically. So while in a frozen state I would agree with you. The world is rapidly changing. Getting smaller. Making the possibility of more and more power being concentrated in smaller and smaller spaces. I’m not an alarmist, I’m quite “normal”. But I am also a student of history and sociology… and technology is a game changer and we have just begun to scratch the surface on technologies that invade our privacy like never before imagined. Power isn’t nearly as dangerous as control. And control is like a drug. And I, for one, loathe any form of external control. (I’m a middle child, fiercely independent and responsible.) Thank God.
This is the argument that I can’t grasp. Considering that the government are just people elected from among the regular citizens and they represent the views and philosophies of mostly two different sides, republicans and democrats… how do you envisage this group called ‘government’ becoming separated from the people and representing their own collective view? Would there realistically be a situation where the democrats and the republicans government members,would lay down their differences and join forces, banded together to make a solid unity out of some plan they had and get the whole army to turn against the people that they are essentially part of, and start mowing them down with guns for the sake of the governments new agenda?
Technology is in fact a game changer, however, all of the power in the United States is in the hands of a few small and very rich families, who control industry, the media, and even the Federal Reserve, which borrows money from a handful of corporations, that are in turn run by those few families who have never worked a day in their lives. They control who lobbies for what, they control advertising and the fact that product branding has become a form of self identity for most people. We live in a society that is now built on the idea of trying to stand on the next person’s shoulder and kicking them in the teeth in order to get a piece of the remaining wealth and resources left over by the richest 1 percent who make over 40% of the money and control the lives of the rest of us. And a gun isn’t going to help you against that enemy, because that enemy never fired a shot and uses sham news outlets like “Fox News” to convince people that the real enemy is the government, when in fact the enemies of a free society are the ones planting the ideas in your heads about the government. They are the same people that put the ideas in your head as to what to buy, what’s in fashion, what our values should be and the like. They prop up false prophets of doom who get on their news outlets to scare old people about things that don’t exist like government death squads and so forth. The media is owned by these people, because the media is owned by these corporations, and these corporations are owned by those richest 1 percent that I already mentioned. Most of their bloated families live off of dividends and trust funds and have no idea what your life is like. The just think you’re dumb and lazy, when in fact most of us are just dumb. They get a charge out of indoctrinating the populous into cubicles and telling them to " think out of the box," when they’ve already got them in a box. They like to watch the rest of us scramble for what is left of the resources and consumer products that they’ve convinced us to fetishize, which only fuels the machine that keeps the other 99% as slaves. If you are a student of sociology and history as you say you are, you must have noticed this I think.
Then do not use Nazi’s illogically. Nazi’s also trained youth. Does this mean all youth training is a prelude to holocaust and we should stop ROTC programs before another Hitler abuses it? I do not believe at all in removing guns, but the mere act does not indicate a desire to kill off a race.
While you are correct about the meaning, this issue should not even have to be defended. The grammar of the Second Amendment makes the clause “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”, an absolute.
As I see it, Hitler is just the most well known of the tyrants so he is used as a sort of stand in for all the tyrants who begin their terror by confiscating guns. I say if the shoe fits wear Hitler. So go ahead and hide behind that hackneyed excuse but I think that those who wish to use it should ignore the person attempting to shut down a discussion. For those who are tired of Hitler he can use any one of the following tyrants. There are others out there too if you want to find your own.
I am strongly Pro-Gun. With that said I also feel those with mental issues that can be substantiated, not simply implied, should be denied the ability to purchase weapons. Almost all of the mass murderers using guns and even knives have been shown to have a serious mental problem.
I must have missed where God said that.
In which post did I write that it is a God given right. I do see that you qoute me but I don’t remember writing that and I’d like to see the context.
This is the argument that I can’t grasp. … how do you envisage this group called ‘government’ becoming separated from the people and representing their own collective view? QUOTE]
Might I remind you that the government is already doing just what you seem to think impossible. A single judge on the bench and even state legislators have usurpted the will of the people who voted in support of traditional marriage.
I too believe it is a right that needs protecting. I do not believe it divine, but it is a something we still need in many places to grant a reasonable self-defense.
From post 550 .
In your post #549 you quoted me as writing “For this reason, the right to bear arms is itself a God given right:” Then in post #550 I asked you what post I wrote that in. you said it was from 550. I meant what post of mine were you quoting, not which post I asked you about the quote.
I am so sorry. That would be #547 I quoted.
“Martinez said that individuals have the right to arm themselves in order to protect themselves from those who wish to take away their God-given freedoms. For this reason, the right to bear arms is itself a God given right:”
Understood. I think this latter formulation in your own words is more accurate and less rhetorical. Yes, self-protection/self-defense is a moral right we have. You believe bearing arms is the best way to fulfill that right and the Constitution makes it a basic civil right. Sounds good.