Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

01/24/2013 new
(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Guns do not kill on their own, but quick and easy access to them (and the ammunition), along with the a...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



Guns do not kill on their own, but quick and easy access to them (and the ammunition), along with the attitude that they are there for protection from other people, do make it so people can kill one or more people quickly.

As for your question about why do people walk out of gun shows alive, they don't always. Did you hear about the following?? guardianlv.com

--hide--


Other things can be made into weapons. The solution is not to ban the objects, materials etc. but rather to have stricter laws regarding possession or use of the items/weapons (i.e. convicted felons). To take away the rights of law abiding citizens because of the actions of law breakers is akin to banning automobiles because of drunk driving accidents. This reasoning is a slippery slope for a country.
01/24/2013 new
(Quote) Peter-189584 said: But I want to convince someone! It's lonely being the only right person here! I do pretty much agre...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:


But I want to convince someone! It's lonely being the only right person here!
I do pretty much agree with everything you said in this post. Of course bad people are going to do bad things regardless of the laws - heck, a lot of good people do bad things too. I would argue though that current gun laws do prevent gun access to SOME criminals (and potential criminals), or at least make the access more difficult. It is very nearly impossible to COMPLETELY prevent all access to guns, but just because we cannot completely prevent access does not mean we should not try to limit access, otherwise we should just hand out guns to everyone everywhere. Having said that, my issue is more with the attitude that many Americans have regarding their right to bear arms, and the fear they seem to have of each other and their government (which is a democratically elected government) than the actual gun laws or lack thereof.

--hide--


I believe I hear what you say, Peter, but I do not so much 'fear' my neighbor as much as I am realistic and know there are criminals who could decide to choose me or my home next. I am not immune from the statistics.

I also believe that we learn from history or are destined to repeat it. Governments have a propensity for increasing in size. Power corrupts. It is human nature. Revolutions, coups, riots and wars all happen and it is, again, the same story line. Law abiding citizens with arms is a wonderful defense against any government's tendency toward totalitarianism. How did countries end up with a dictatorship? The citizens were not unable to successfully take a stand for their freedom.
01/24/2013 new

The second amenment was ratified to protect slave interests in the southern states. It is fairly well established concept within constitutional law.

www.saf.org

"Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system," one scholar noted, "but more than that, it was a gigantic police system."[123] Over time the South had developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds.[124] The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.[125] Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times.[126] The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in the patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place.

Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia all had regulated slave patrols. By the mid-eighteenth century, the patrols had become the responsibility of the militia. Georgia statutes [Page 336] enacted in 1755 and 1757, for example, carefully divided militia districts into discrete patrol areas and specified when patrols would muster. The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search "all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition" and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.

In the South, therefore, the patrols and the militia were largely synonymous. The Stono Rebellion had been quickly suppressed because the white men worshiping at the Wiltown Presbyterian church on that Sunday morning had, as required by law, gone to church armed.[131] Some of the accounts of Stono refer to the body of white men who attacked the black insurrectionists as the "militia" while others refer to them as "planters." This is a distinction without a difference; the two groups were one and the same. Virtually all able-bodied white men were part of the militia, which primarily meant that they had slave control duties under the direction and discipline of the local militia officers.[134]

The militia was the first and last protection from the omnipresent threat of slave insurrection or vengeance.[135] The War for Independence had placed the South in a precarious position: sending the militia to the war against the British would leave Southern communities vulnerable to slave insurrection. The Southern states, therefore, often refused to commit their militia to the Revolution, reserving them instead for slave control.[136] Nor could the South help by sending much in the [Page 337] way of arms, for rifles were in short supply [137] and necessary to defend against possible slave insurrection.[138]

After the war, the militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats. The South's fear that the North might destabilize the slave system, weakening white control over the slave population ¾ gave anti-Federalists a powerful weapon.

That is why the 2nd amendment was ratified. It was not designed to prevent government tyranny, but to maintain tyrannical police state over a slave population.

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I don't agree with you 100%, but to some degree, I do.I don't have any problem ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

I don't agree with you 100%, but to some degree, I do.

I don't have any problem with the government wanting firearms for carry to be licensed and such, just like driving privileges are licensed. I think that it's a pipe-dream, however, to think that one is limiting firearms for the intention of preventing criminals to get ahold of firemarms. It seems to me a waste of tax payer money to attempt to go that route.

I am not for your hyperbolic statement :P that the government then should hand out guns to everyone everywhere as a logical conclusion. I take it as a joke.

Besides that, our representatives may be democratically elected, but the supreme court justices and president are not...and all of them make law to some degree. America is a very weird place...people think that the wild west died...but it seems to me very much alive in the American philosophy taught in school, music and on TV. Just listen to old cowboy/country-western songs and you'll get a taste of it. In a way it's a philosophy about as ingrained as Islam is in Muslims...which can hardly be dealt with on a rational level.

--hide--


Well at least you're on the right path towards agreeing with me tongue laughing
As I've said, it's not so much the more restrictive gun laws that I promote, but moreso the attitude surrounding them. I think that just having more guns makes it easier for criminals to get a hold of them - both those criminals who are actively seeking to acquire guns, as well as, and probably moreso, those people who can cause more serious damage quickly due to their easy access to guns.

Speaking to Meg's comment...Yes, there are lots of other weapons that can be obtained or made, but generally, there are not many, if any, other weapons that can be easily obtained or made that cause the same amount of damage to human health and life as guns. As an example, with the recent Sandy Hook shootings, if the mother of the shooter had not had such a large supply of guns, the shooter quite likely might've tried to go on a rampage, but the damage he could do with another weapon (say a knife or machete) is likely much less than he was able to do with a gun.

I may be wrong, but I thought you guys voted specifically for the president?? I know here in Canada we do not vote directly for our Prime Minister. And it may be a bit more indirectly, but if you do vote for the president, and the president appoints the supreme court justices, there is still some degree of democracy to that process (i.e. if you don't like the supreme court justices your president appoints, maybe that's a sign you voted for the wrong president, though I recognize this is a longer term thing to try to change, and it is more difficult when the people who are elected are not honest about their intentions)

And yes, my comment about handing out guns to everyone everywhere was definitely hyperbolic and a joke, but it was intended to make a point though too. :)

I think it was a brave, but pretty accurate comparison you made of Americans to Muslims. Kudos to you for that thumbsup

I'll have to listen to some Johnny Horton tonight...I remember listening to a cassette of his when I was a kid, but I likely didn't realize the politicalness of his music as a 10 year old :)

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: (Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: For Americans the tories are those wh...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

Quote:
Chelsea-743484 said:



For Americans the tories are those who did not approve of the independence of the original colonies and so fought on the side of the British in the Revolutionary war. Maybe he's suggesting that you're putting a crimp on American independence with what you're espousing. :)



Thanks for the info Chelsea. I had no idea that those fighting against the original colonies were called tories.

--hide--



Hi Peter,

In Canadian history books, as you know, they are the "Loyalists". In the British tradition, the label "Tories" represents a particular type of conservatism. So, the Tories that fled the American Revolution (the Loyalists) were conservative while the American revolutionaries were not conservative at all, they were actually quite radical in terms of their democratic liberalism. Basically, their Tories become our Conservatives, keeping the Tory label. I know, people's heads are spinning, but the American revolutionaries were NOT conservative. They tarred and feathered the conservatives. The notion of a purely American conservatism gels only after the American revolution.

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Meg-920823 said: I believe I hear what you say, Peter, but I do not so much 'fear' my neighbor as much as I...
(Quote) Meg-920823 said:

I believe I hear what you say, Peter, but I do not so much 'fear' my neighbor as much as I am realistic and know there are criminals who could decide to choose me or my home next. I am not immune from the statistics.

I also believe that we learn from history or are destined to repeat it. Governments have a propensity for increasing in size. Power corrupts. It is human nature. Revolutions, coups, riots and wars all happen and it is, again, the same story line. Law abiding citizens with arms is a wonderful defense against any government's tendency toward totalitarianism. How did countries end up with a dictatorship? The citizens were not unable to successfully take a stand for their freedom.
--hide--


Thanks for your thoughts Meg. I guess I'm still a bit confused as to how you do not fear your neighbor (or fellow persons) but you fear being a statistic? You would only become a statistic from your neighbor (or fellow persons)

I won't argue that governments (and really societies) have a propensity to grow, in size and power, and that power corrupts. I'd have to learn more about past governments/dictatorships to speak knowingly, but off the top of my head I'm struggling to think of past governments/societies where citizens were much less well-equipped with weapons than the USA. I mean if you compare the weapons that typical Americans have now (rifles, handguns, etc) to what the US government/military has (missiles, fighter jets, nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction, etc), I think the gap is wider than pretty much every government/society in the past.

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Angela-374523 said: Hi Peter,In Canadian history books, as you know, they are the "Loyalists". In ...
(Quote) Angela-374523 said:

Hi Peter,

In Canadian history books, as you know, they are the "Loyalists". In the British tradition, the label "Tories" represents a particular type of conservatism. So, the Tories that fled the American Revolution (the Loyalists) were conservative while the American revolutionaries were not conservative at all, they were actually quite radical in terms of their democratic liberalism. Basically, their Tories become our Conservatives, keeping the Tory label. I know, people's heads are spinning, but the American revolutionaries were NOT conservative. They tarred and feathered the conservatives. The notion of a purely American conservatism gels only after the American revolution.

--hide--


That is really interesting Angela! If I'm following you correctly, the American revolutionaries were NOT conservatives, but now it seems that the most ardent conservatives in the US are more conservative than our Canadian conservatives. That seems like a pretty big flip flop!

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: That is really interesting Angela! If I'm following you correctly, the American revol...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



That is really interesting Angela! If I'm following you correctly, the American revolutionaries were NOT conservatives, but now it seems that the most ardent conservatives in the US are more conservative than our Canadian conservatives. That seems like a pretty big flip flop!

--hide--
You just got to love liberal Canadians having a good time, like most libs, bashing with the normal talking points and using the same old arguments.

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: You just got to love liberal Canadians having a good time, like most libs, bashing with the norm...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

You just got to love liberal Canadians having a good time, like most libs, bashing with the normal talking points and using the same old arguments.

--hide--

Way to post something that really says nothing at all, does not contribute anything to the discussion, that could just as easily, if not more easily, be posted in opposite.

01/24/2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Way to post something that really says nothing at all, does not contribute anything to t...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

Way to post something that really says nothing at all, does not contribute anything to the discussion, that could just as easily, if not more easily, be posted in opposite.

--hide--
Well maybe you should understand most Americans don't like it, when someone including our government tries to take or change our rites. It is a rite in our constitution and it is not theres or antone elses rite to take it away. You can always make and argument about any thing. The big reason we have abortion is because they used the argument about women dying from illegal abortions and made it a rite for women. This is one of the reason we have this rite to bare arms and thank God we do, www.glennbeck.com

Posts 61 - 70 of 101