Has the right to bear arms become a symptom of allowing a government to become a force to be feared,

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

A cult of constitution would certainly be a welcome change from the cult of personality we've been seeing since 2008

A cult where everyone has the false illusion of freedom that no one can take away and where people don't apply their own brain when it comes to the country's affairs? Yeah, sounds brilliant.

What's sounds brilliant is you advocate the removing of freedom(sarcasm intended) . Newsflash genius... It can be modified to suit the population when need be. And if you understood its brilliance you'd see that it is specifically written so that people have the ability to think for themselves.

Do you see all rights to the people enumerated? Do you have a clue why they ended it with the 10th (at the time of adoption)?

Only a little offense intended here but you have no earthly clue what your talking about and are truly making a futile attempt to argue from a point of ignorance. Do your self a favor and read the 5000 year leap. It's a great primer on the subject matter which you are desperately in need of.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

A cult of constitution would certainly be a welcome change from the cult of personality we've been seeing since 2008

A cult where everyone has the false illusion of freedom that no one can take away and where people don't apply their own brain when it comes to the country's affairs? Yeah, sounds brilliant.

And if you understood its brilliance you'd see that it is specifically written so that people have the ability to think for themselves.

Why doesn't it happen then? The constitution protects nothing, it can be changed to suit people how ever they want but it's meaningless, no one has to obey what's written down. It's just there so people feel like it's protecting their freedom.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

Some of you guy come into threads like this as if you were little babies playing with dads tool set.

It might look like a cult because you are ignorant.

What a meaningless reply, it looks like a cult because you're like zombies talking about the constitution and not being able to think for yourselves. The answer is always "the constitution says", there's never any reason or logical answers to questions that oppose what it says. If the constitution said you can kill and rape would you do it? Or would that be outlawed? There's no reason why it can't be changed, you can't clutch on to the same piece of paper as the world changes.

With face in palm I grow weary. The forest nymphs do beset us. The quizings doth reign. Pan is afoot.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

A cult of constitution would certainly be a welcome change from the cult of personality we've been seeing since 2008

A cult where everyone has the false illusion of freedom that no one can take away and where people don't apply their own brain when it comes to the country's affairs? Yeah, sounds brilliant.

And if you understood its brilliance you'd see that it is specifically written so that people have the ability to think for themselves.

Why doesn't it happen then? The constitution protects nothing, it can be changed to suit people how ever they want but it's meaningless, no one has to obey what's written down. It's just there so people feel like it's protecting their freedom.

edit on 12-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Neat new tactic... When your points have been proven demonstrably wrong retreat to the safety of completely vapid statements. It worked I am no longer interested


shoo's SpearMint away like a bothersome fly>>>>

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

A cult of constitution would certainly be a welcome change from the cult of personality we've been seeing since 2008

A cult where everyone has the false illusion of freedom that no one can take away and where people don't apply their own brain when it comes to the country's affairs? Yeah, sounds brilliant.

And if you understood its brilliance you'd see that it is specifically written so that people have the ability to think for themselves.

Why doesn't it happen then? The constitution protects nothing, it can be changed to suit people how ever they want but it's meaningless, no one has to obey what's written down. It's just there so people feel like it's protecting their freedom.

edit on 12-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

It does happen. As a matter of fact as recent as 1992 with the 27th Amendment.

crises ?

what crises

please explain this to me

reply to post by GD21D

Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.

I am merely looking across the ocean at a complex situation and trying to impartially understand it.
Just going to watch the vid now,

Thanks again
Humans Eh!

Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by GD21D

 

Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.

I am merely looking across the ocean at a complex situation and trying to impartially understand it.
Just going to watch the vid now,

Thanks again
Humans Eh!

Yeah man, no problem.From me to you, the most important aspect of this debate is to understand that those rights were concessions being made, and now there seems to be a strong effort to eliminate those concessions.As you begin to become more historically astute to how governing bodies operate you walk a very fine line. On one hand you want to respect the victims and families that suffered from these recent events, and on the other hand you know that what is happening is setting a dangerous precedent. At some point the populace has to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. If the U.S. Government is able to significantly diminish the 2nd Amendment than the populace won't have the ability to draw that line in the sand. The populace won't be able to say no.There is one thing nobody in their right minds can deny, and that's the U.S. Government/military is the most powerful force (that we know for certain) that exists on this planet. The only thing that stands in it's way is it's own people. If you disarm the U.S. populace you remove the one true barrier that keeps it from enforcing it's will on whoever, whenever, where ever.Let's not underestimate the power that the U.S. Government has. Now imagine that power operating completely unchecked.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by mytheroy
The 2nd SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

2nd

It's seeming less like a country and more like some kind of cult.

A cult of constitution would certainly be a welcome change from the cult of personality we've been seeing since 2008

A cult where everyone has the false illusion of freedom that no one can take away and where people don't apply their own brain when it comes to the country's affairs? Yeah, sounds brilliant.

And if you understood its brilliance you'd see that it is specifically written so that people have the ability to think for themselves.

Why doesn't it happen then? The constitution protects nothing, it can be changed to suit people how ever they want but it's meaningless, no one has to obey what's written down. It's just there so people feel like it's protecting their freedom.

edit on 12-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

Neat new tactic... When your points have been proven demonstrably wrong retreat to the safety of completely vapid statements. It worked I am no longer interested


shoo's SpearMint away like a bothersome fly>>>>

edit on 12-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

I'm sticking right to the point, you're trying to shoo me away without a valid argument.

Originally posted by GD21D

Yeah man, no problem.From me to you, the most important aspect of this debate is to understand that those rights were concessions being made, and now there seems to be a strong effort to eliminate those concessions.As you begin to become more historically astute to how governing bodies operate you walk a very fine line. On one hand you want to respect the victims and families that suffered from these recent events, and on the other hand you know that what is happening is setting a dangerous precedent. At some point the populace has to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. If the U.S. Government is able to significantly diminish the 2nd Amendment than the populace won't have the ability to draw that line in the sand. The populace won't be able to say no.There is one thing nobody in their right minds can deny, and that's the U.S. Government/military is the most powerful force (that we know for certain) that exists on this planet. The only thing that stands in it's way is it's own people. If you disarm the U.S. populace you remove the one true barrier that keeps it from enforcing it's will on whoever, whenever, where ever.Let's not underestimate the power that the U.S. Government has. Now imagine that power operating completely unchecked.

Once again thanks for your insights, much appreciated.
Its a bit like a nuclear deterrent then, once both sides have weapons either will be afraid to use them because the consequences would be catastrophic for both. This gets back to my question about the population living in fear that without this barrier that the government would indeed abuse their power, that's a scary thought that ones government could be a threat to its own people and that the military (made up of men and women from the population) would side with the government against their own kinsmen.

Could that actually happen do you think? could young men and women turn their guns on ordinary citizens, knowing that in another city their own families and relatives were subject to the same? Am I naive in thinking that the military would side with the people if the government went nuts?

Nope; it's the crimes against it's own citizens...they don't think twice; about using us as human guinea pigs, whenever they get the chance. If they can harm newborns...What makes you or anyone else think...we are anything other than chattel to them? The constitution is a hurdle; they find difficult to over come, because with it we have certain inalienable rights; that hinder a plan we know little or nothing about.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by HumansEh

Does anybody see that there is something fundamentally wrong with a democratic system that can be used against its own people.

The US was not designed to be a democracy it was designed to be a Constitutional Free Republic. What that means is that not everything was up for a vote and majority rules every aspect of your life. But that certain rights such as those mentioned in the bill of rights and others not mentioned were inviolate and could not be voted on or infringed.

The very fact that it has become a democracy and abandoned the free Republic and principles of liberty is why it is out of control. The Founders abhorred democracy and it is not mentioned in the constitution for good reason. While there is some democratic elements to the republic they were limited to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The fact that the congress the office of President and SC act almost completely outside their scope of authority as illustrated in the constitution means they have become lawless and are in open rebellion to the people. That is where the ire is coming from and rightly so. it is time to alter or abolish government since it has become destructive to our liberties and interests! We the people created it and we are its rightful masters when it ceases to serve us it needs to be fixed or replaced.

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by GD21D

 

Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.

I am merely looking across the ocean at a complex situation and trying to impartially understand it.
Just going to watch the vid now,

Thanks again
Humans Eh!

Yeah man, no problem.From me to you, the most important aspect of this debate is to understand that those rights were concessions being made, and now there seems to be a strong effort to eliminate those concessions

OP should know that this idea about the rights being a "concession" is simply a school of thought given birth out of a way of looking at things. In fact I dont even trust anyone that puts wieght in this definition of what brought rights about. The thinking is scewed. Shows a poor foundation in the history and formation of what became the bill of rights.

Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by GD21D

 

Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.

I have a hard time believeing your posture. This OP sounds like bait or a board for you to intro some sort of subtilty. And by the way you are a clueless foreigner that seems to care more for tone that information.

But if you are for real just know that gravediggers flow is just one way, a modern way of looking at the rights. The rights were not a concession but the foundation. Like lets get this clear right up front, at the beginning before we even talk about anything else. They were rights born out of philosophy. Not bones tossed out to the angry mob with their pitchforks and torches. This idea of concessions diminishes the philosophic history behind the developments of the concept of human rights and does and will not help you understand them in full measure.

Originally posted by HumansEh

Originally posted by GD21D

Yeah man, no problem.From me to you, the most important aspect of this debate is to understand that those rights were concessions being made, and now there seems to be a strong effort to eliminate those concessions.As you begin to become more historically astute to how governing bodies operate you walk a very fine line. On one hand you want to respect the victims and families that suffered from these recent events, and on the other hand you know that what is happening is setting a dangerous precedent. At some point the populace has to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. If the U.S. Government is able to significantly diminish the 2nd Amendment than the populace won't have the ability to draw that line in the sand. The populace won't be able to say no.There is one thing nobody in their right minds can deny, and that's the U.S. Government/military is the most powerful force (that we know for certain) that exists on this planet. The only thing that stands in it's way is it's own people. If you disarm the U.S. populace you remove the one true barrier that keeps it from enforcing it's will on whoever, whenever, where ever.Let's not underestimate the power that the U.S. Government has. Now imagine that power operating completely unchecked.

Once again thanks for your insights, much appreciated.
Its a bit like a nuclear deterrent then, once both sides have weapons either will be afraid to use them because the consequences would be catastrophic for both. This gets back to my question about the population living in fear that without this barrier that the government would indeed abuse their power, that's a scary thought that ones government could be a threat to its own people and that the military (made up of men and women from the population) would side with the government against their own kinsmen.

Not to belabor the point, but as I said on the first page.....its history man. We are not running an experment over here on if the citizens should have the right.....could they handle the right to keep and bear arms.

When the second amendment was placed in it was end of discussion.....governments, as show by history from the time of the famed Renaissance up to that point, were best keep in check from bringing abuse on the porpulation if that population was armed. That governments could not be trusted as the sole keeper of arms in any society.

As you can see the 2nd amendment was not a concession but an address to reality and part of the a total package to keep government from getting out of hand as it always will if not checked. We dont bow to government over here we control the govenment was the idea. You you dig now my brother?

Originally posted by HumansEh
Who do you really want to protect yourselves from?

Got to the heart of the matter I suppose. Good for you.

Originally posted by HumansEh
Other gun owners

Probably not

Originally posted by HumansEh
criminals and people who would do you harm

Yes

Originally posted by HumansEh
or a tyrannical Government?

This above all others.

Originally posted by HumansEh
I have seen many people support the 'Keeping Government In It's Place' theory and wonder...
Doesn't it bother you that the system of democracy and concept of personal freedom that your forefathers fought so hard to forge, has been allowed to get so out of your control that you fear the very democracy that defines you as a nation.

Of course it bothers me. However, it is an inevitable cycle. History has proved this, our forefathers knew this, and here we are again. Whether or not it takes force by the citizenry to halt the cycle is still a question, but we'll keep the option on the table.

Originally posted by HumansEh
What I am really asking is, has Government been allowed to become so unaccountable and out of the hands of the people that law abiding citizens no longer feel that it works in their best interest, have the very people that you choose to lead you become ones to be feared?

I believe so. There are many that agree.

Originally posted by HumansEh
Is that the freedom that you are willing to fight for? Is the land of the free becoming the land of the fear? Or does it need a root and branch overhaul to bring government to a more accountable level. Is that what the impending battle will decide? Does anybody see that there is something fundamentally wrong with a democratic system that can be used against its own people.

Any system of government will run through this cycle--when those in power become too corrupt and self serving the population/citizenry suffers. From monarchies, to theocracies, to dictatorships, to communism, to a democracy. Democracy is just one method of government, and the theory is that if the population has a hand in their own governance this inevitable tyrranny is less likely to happen, or at least less likely to become so entrenched that a system of corruption exists for generations. It is a theory however, the intricacies of practice present a different reality. I beleive that the founders were aware of this, and that their pragmatism is part of why they were so adament about the right of the citizenry to be armed.

Originally posted by HumansEh
Has the right to bear arms become a symptom of allowing a government to become a force to be feared....

Sort of. I think that the hew and cry, and focus on it is indicative of a situation where the government has become a force to be feared.

Originally posted by HumansEh
...or is it a delusion of the existence of personal liberty?

The impression that we have a hand in our own government... that our votes and opinions matter is currently a delusion of personal liberty; our right to bear arms is encompassed by that as well. It was not always that way. We are at a point where that isn't real anymore however. Also, I'm sure the government feels that they can disarm us if push comes to shove. They would like to keep that option on the table as well no doubt.

Originally posted by HumansEh
Surely it can't be both?

Certainly it is both. As long as the population continues to feel that they still have control of their government and continue to play the partisan voting game. At this point, it will only become real liberty if the government is scared enough of the citizenry to listen. This is the nature of any power struggle, that inevitable push-pull for control. Eventually, the conflict escalates to threats, when that doesn't work there is actual conflict. I am hopeful that a threat will be sufficient, but I do not know how likely that is. At this point however, I think that at least that much is inevitable.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by HumansEh
reply to post by GD21D

 

Thanks very much Gravedigger, I really appreciate you taking the time in your reply.
That's exactly what I was hoping for from this thread, as I said as an outsider who genuinely wants to learn more about the situation and background I was wary of how to phrase my questions so as not to annoy Americans who assume that the whole world knows US history or its political process.
Say the wrong thing and it seems that you are dismissed and insulted as being a clueless foreigner.

I have a hard time believeing your posture. This OP sounds like bait or a board for you to intro some sort of subtilty. And by the way you are a clueless foreigner that seems to care more for tone that information.

But if you are for real just know that gravediggers flow is just one way, a modern way of looking at the rights. The rights were not a concession but the foundation. Like lets get this clear right up front, at the beginning before we even talk about anything else. They were rights born out of philosophy. Not bones tossed out to the angry mob with their pitchforks and torches. This idea of concessions diminishes the philosophic history behind the developments of the concept of human rights and does and will not help you understand them in full measure.

edit on 13-1-2013 by Logarock because: n

I'm going to disagree. It is simply you do not view historical events in the same fashion I do.As I stated before, there was a Bill of Rights proposed Colonel Mason to be coupled with the Constitution and It was voted down unanimously, with only the delegation of Massachusetts abstaining. This fact is somehow missed by modern scholars, as to recognize this would fly in the face of the pristine idea of American governance considering the rights of the average person above all else. Yet it is a fact that cannot be denied, no matter how you try.Second, I'm not looking at rights in a philosophical way, I'm analyzing historical events. The Bill of Rights was a concession made. It was a concession made in order to get the Constitution ratified by the colonies. Without ratification of the Constitution there is no official government recognized universally by the colonies, and without a Bill of Rights the Constitution would have never been ratified once it was pushed out to the local level.Believe what you like though.

reply to post by GD21D

As I stated before, there was a Bill of Rights proposed Colonel Mason to be coupled with the Constitution and It was voted down unanimously, with only the delegation of Massachusetts abstaining. This fact is somehow missed by modern scholars, as to recognize this would fly in the face of the pristine idea of American governance considering the rights of the average person above all else. Yet it is a fact that cannot be denied, no matter how you try.

You are absolutely incorrect. It was voted down because they feared the very thing that has happened that people with think their rights were granted by government when they believed that rights are inherent in other words a given and that by illustrating them in the constitution tyrants might use that as an excuse to deny them. it turns out there fears were justified. never the less the bill of rights was added for similar fears that is they were not tyrants would deny them. A damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Turns out those fears were justified too because tyrants do both. Politicians want to repeal the 2nd because they think it will remove the right. They also deny rights that are not listed even though the 10th amendment states specifically we have rights that are not listed.

It's clear that rights were paramount to the founders read the D of I. along with various other writings and the circumstances that led to the Bill of Rights. it does not even hint at your premise that rights were not held above all else by the founders of this country.

reply to post by redhorse


Thanks for your concise and detailed reply redhorse. I can see how it is such a complex topic and ignites passions in many people. As I said I am here to learn and appreciate you taking time to help me do so.
Watched a documentary on the gun control debate last night on TV where both sides were aired and it really brought it home to me what a divide exists and what a conundrum that the USA is.
Peace - Humans Eh!

Originally posted by Logarock

I have a hard time believeing your posture. This OP sounds like bait or a board for you to intro some sort of subtilty.

I genuinely haven't a clue what that means!

And by the way you are a clueless foreigner that seems to care more for tone that information.

Erm yeah I'm a clueless foreigner, I want to learn more about it, that's why I posted this thread but forgive me for not realising that it is a topic that can only be discussed by Americans only.

Yes, that's all us clueless foreigners want, Tone.