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

Jan 26th 2013 new
(Quote) Bernie-645443 said: Hi Angela, IIRC, British Naval units transported tens of thousands from the NYC area to other locations outsid...
(Quote) Bernie-645443 said:

Hi Angela, IIRC, British Naval units transported tens of thousands from the NYC area to other locations outside the US after the revolution. It would be interesting to see the history of property transfers/confiscations over the decade of the revolution.




The colonists were defending the rights of Englishmen, in a situation of increasing force applied from England to limit and rescind many of the original Charters. The Glorious Revolution had consequences in America. The Declaration lists some of the violations. It took years for most colonists to come to agree with the Revolutionaries of 1776-1783.




In re weapons, it should be noted that the Redcoats marched to Lexington to confiscate weapons, and arrest individuals speaking freely. The individual right to arms in England had been upheld through the "gamekeeper" cases for generations. The first Minutemen to respond were the local Pastor ( who was hiding two prominent colonists the British wanted to arrest ) and members of his congregation. Further, IMHO, the Revolution was kept alive through some critical battles won by the local, not Continental, units of irregulars , who had better weapons ( and tactics ) than the Redcoats.




I would agree that the colonists eventually became radical for the time, as even England was centralizing power rapidly, redefining the traditional rights of Englishmen. The "Revolutionary Constitutions" in many colonies were vastly more "democratic" than anything since ancient Greece. Just me, I suspect that the thought evolution for many slid from wanting to defend tradition to attempting to remove the oversight of a government most came to view as not the legitimate, traditional English system. The Constitutional ratification debates ( and methods ) replayed the conflict, while state Constitutions then became more "conservative".




In practice, again just me, I regard the first and second amendments as of equal importance, and symbiotic. Low ( or no ) info voters can't make informed decisions. Since the current administration claims the right to rule by non-democratic executive decree and administrative regulation, the last defense of the first amendment is the second amendment.




The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the killing of nearly 50,000,000 innocent children.




The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the Presidents to wage non-declared wars, and remotely execute people of the President's choice, without even a military tribunal.




The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the long march to cultural and political decadence.




The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the changing of the US from an authority consensus based society to a power based society. Since the advent of gunpowder enabled the lowest serf to bring down the highest lord of the land, in this one time-specific instance, once the rule of law is lost, I agree on MaOZedong's point about power coming from guns.



The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the massive accumulation of centralized government power. For nearly 45 years, firearms control legislation has mushroomed. Do actual crime stats show improvement?




There are many areas for discussion, but I am not convinced that pouring more fuel of money, power, or acquiescence into the fire of bigger , less responsive ( or responsible ), and eventually unaccountable government will benefit us.




So, on the streets today, who are the "loyalists" or "Tories" ?











--hide--


Excellent!! clap Bow
Jan 26th 2013 new

(Quote) Roystan-340472 said: I thought irrationality was an Ahmedinajad thang.Anyway:Is the mass leg...
(Quote) Roystan-340472 said:

I thought irrationality was an Ahmedinajad thang.


Anyway:


Is the mass legal availability of abortion a tyranny?


If it isn't, why not?


If it is, does it invalidate the guns-protect-Liberty idea?







--hide--


You have overtly managed to call America's current struggle about guns and gun ownership, irrational. To
an outsider it may look irrational. In America, either you are for, against, or not sure about the topic.
Irrational is not part of the struggle.

I tried to tell you that it is an American thing to have certain ideas about gun ownership, but you managed to
infer an outsider's opinion as being irrational

I also question your use of the word "tyranny?" In America, we don't call murder, tyranny.

Jan 26th 2013 new

Of note to the firearms ownership discussion : www.thecollegefix.com

Jan 27th 2013 new

We're not in Kansas now Toto.... : townhall.com

Jan 27th 2013 new

gawker.com

Your linked article seems to highlight the difference between Canada and the USA, as does the article I linked to. I know which country I'd rather live in.

Jan 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Ray-914631 said: The second amenment was ratified to protect slave interests in the southern states. It is fairly we...
(Quote) Ray-914631 said:

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.

--hide--

You are presenting a false dichotomy here; it is not a question of it written to EITHER prevent governmant tyranny OR maintain police power over slaves.

Certainly the southern states had an imperative for individual posession of firearms that the nothern states did not, but that does not exclude the fact that the Founding Fathers from ALL the states saw the militia as their preferred method of defense of liberty.

The Milita Act of 1792 (or was it 1794?) was a national law that required all able bodied white men between 18 and 45 to own a firearm. While keeping slaves in check was no doubt a side benefit as far as the south was concerned, the rest of the country had other reasons to support it.

Jan 28th 2013 new

(Quote) Roystan-340472 said: It's an irrational fear. Why would the government want to shoot you when it can...
(Quote) Roystan-340472 said:




It's an irrational fear. Why would the government want to shoot you when it can put you out of action by suing you with pockets deeper than yours, tying you up in the courts and bankrupting you?


The fear did make sense - once upon a time - when weapons technology was so primitive that the government owned the same quality of musket that you did. Now they have stuff so dangerous that even the NRA wouldn't want you to be able to buy them. As far as force is concerned, you and your Sig Sauer wanting to take a brave stand against the military (or police) might of the national security state ... good luck to you .... and don't expect anything more than pious words from your fellow enthusiasts of liberty if you do take a stand or if the government does come for you. They won't be standing next to you or between you and the government (ask David Koresh). They'll be oozing sanctimony from a media platform a safe distance away. They might speak at your funeral but one thing they won't be doing is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you against the armed agents of the state.


In any case, the rationale for bearing arms in case of potential tyranny died when Roe V Wade became the law of the land. What's the most important human right? The right to life. Are thousands of humans being murdered every year with the active or tacit assistance of the state? Yup. Is there tyranny happening now? If you're a foetus, yup. So, anyone in the NRA or the Tea Party or whoever raising a firearm against the government for violating this fundamental right? Nope. So there you go. This noble talk about packing a gun to defend liberty is horse manure, and has been so at least since 1973. After all, if you're not going to use your firearm now to protect an innocent child from being killed today, when are you going to use your firearm?


Guns are useful for practical things like protection against crime and for sport. But as a constitutional icon like the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were carved? Oh, puh-leeze.


--hide--

Roystan,

It is extraordinarily rare that I disagree with you, but this is a point where I do.

You are of course correct in that there was no qualitative difference between the weaponry available government and citizen in 1783 whereas there is a very big one today. But at the same time, Khadafi learned the hard way that tanks don't guarantee victory over small arms. Assad is having a similar problem now.

Your R v W example is interesting, but not conclusive. First, it is certainly worth pointing out that the folks who are suffering the most from it are incapable of fighting. Consequently it is an apples to oranges comparrison to conclude that because a group that is not capable of using weapons does not have its liberty protected it somehow follows that a group that is capable of using them will also not have its liberty protected either.

If anything, it afirms the principles of the 2nd Amendment; those who are incapable of defending themselves are at the mercy of others. It does not follow that because unarmed babies were unable to protect themselves, everybody else should also disarm.

You are on firmer ground in pointing out that it is not an absolute guarantee of liberty. Against a slow encroachment, it is not terribly effective. There must be a "critical mass" that upsets the population in general to the point where it is willing to take up armed rebellion. Consequently it is more of a deterrent to a sudden over-reaching on the part of the government.

Jan 30th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: gawker.com.
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

gawker.com

Your linked article seems to highlight the difference between Canada and the USA, as does the article I linked to. I know which country I'd rather live in.

--hide--


Peter,

I just read this article. I just have a few comments for the thread. I grew up close to the US border, have many friends and relatives who are Americans, but the gun thing just makes me shake my head. I do appreciate that there is an historical and constitutional backdrop to the right to bear arms in the US.

In Canada, when people approach you to ask you if you've been to Stampede, it's like someone in Texas asking you if you've been to the County Fair and Rodeo. Stampede is basically a huge party, rodeo and county fair. Good grief ... I'd hate to see how this guy would react if someone in Florida asked him if he'd been to Disneyland. Mickey Mouse is not a menace to society and no one needs a gun to protect themselves from Mickey Mouse. When people start to see menaces everywhere, maybe it's time for a time-out and some collective therapy, respectfully speaking, and not a shoot-out at high noon.

The right for an American to protect themselves from a menace when they are in their own country does not extend to other countries where the laws may be different. The US constitution does not apply in Canada, and Canadian law does not apply in the US. I honestly wonder where the escalation will stop in the wake of Newtown. I'm willing to bet that there are some pretty rough neighbourhoods in Port-au-Prince, Mogadishu and Kabul where civilians are not as armed as they are in suburban Connecticut. I'm not making a judgment or telling people their position on the issue is right or wrong, it's just mind-numbing to consider that.

Is there more or less freedom in the US because of guns? I'm not sure. I think maybe it's just a different way of living, as lots of people live in democracies where guns do not have such a sacrosanct role in community life, and they still enjoy the right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of mobility, and freedom from discrimination based on race, colour or creed. In the twenty-first century, the United States of America has many political and military allies, countries that are free democracies, among them Canada, the United Kingdom, France and others, where things are just a little bit different.

Jan 31st 2013 new

Some surprising numbers in para 4 : reason.org


Here is the full sheet, LOTS of surprises : reason.com


Is 1,000 responses valid for more than a "section", or can it be a larger indicator ? Hmmm..., is it common to weight 50-50 land-cell phones now ? This surprises me because it is an "adults" poll, not registered or likely voters.


I will be very interested in seeing results of other polls on this.



Jan 31st 2013 new

Some surprising numbers in para 4 : reason.org


Here is the full sheet, LOTS of surprises : reason.com


Is 1,000 responses valid for more than a "section", or can it be a larger indicator ? Hmmm..., is it common to weight 50-50 land-cell phones now ? This surprises me because it is an "adults" poll, not registered or likely voters.


I will be very interested in seeing results of other polls on this.



Posts 91 - 100 of 101