Post #30,542
3/3/02 7:33:13 PM
|
"Freedom". How common.
As has been discussed ad nauseum before, the fact remains that the Constitution is silent on the right of private ownership of firearms. For the less enlightened (read Rheinquist, Fat Tony, Uncle Thomas, etc.), that doesn't mean Muricans can't own guns - it just means that they have no Constitutional Right to private ownership. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list!
Now, what is far more troubling is that even Amendment 1 doesn't seem to have the political power that the mis-interpretation of Amendment 2 does. For, if 1 had the People behind it as much as the mis-interpretation of 2, then Ashcroft would have been executed for treason...(okay, maybe only removed from office).
It pains me that so many Muricans view "mah raht to keep me a gun" as a comprehensive definition of Freedom. But, what can be expected of a populace in which 80+% laud the performance of a burgois semi-literate party boy cum appointed President.
bcnu,
Mikem
-Proud member of the correct 19%
|
Post #30,567
3/4/02 7:38:20 AM
|
Well...
I'm actually trying not to express an opinion on whether or not people should own guns (or whether the Constitution says they can, etc, etc, etc).
But it seems (to me at least) fairly obvious that if the number of guns increase the likelyhood of accidents also increases (as per my car example).
Finally, I do liken it to a Freedom issue as per the more commmon Seatbelt laws & Helmet (motorcycle) laws. If we give people the freedom to ride motorcycles without Helmets - more accidents and deaths do occur (Florida is going though this right now). I'm not saying that people should be required to wear helmets or not - rather that there is a relationship between the two.
|
Post #30,578
3/4/02 9:46:32 AM
|
Understood.
And I share your concern about the slippery slope we're on. My big concern is that far too many Muricans are giving up their rights owing to a lack of sophistication on their part.
Freedom of assembly, speech, etc. is clearly far more important than the right of private ownership of firearms (otherwise that private ownership right *would* be a Constitutional right). Yet, for all too many Muricans, owning guns is the single right they are most concerned about. And they're letting the rest slide.
The disinformation is as thick in the US of A now as it was in the USSR in the '60s. The Bushes, Ashcrofts, Cheneys, et. al. continue to "scare" us with new threats so that our eye never focuses on the ball. More is the pity that this strategy is working so well. <sigh>
|
Post #30,597
3/4/02 11:03:30 AM
|
Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
How do you protect your freedom of speech or your freedom of assembly?
|
Post #30,610
3/4/02 11:20:51 AM
|
Political power
flows from something else, not a gun, but just as deadly. Actually more than one thing:
#1 Money (Got any campaign contributions? Buy/Rent a politician.)
#2 Power (Who they influence who they control)
#3 Greed (If they pass those laws, will the companies they have invested in be able to profit from them?)
#4 Sloth (Take their time, use anything to delay the law getting passed. Make it look like they are doing their job.)
#5 Lust (They spent the money on whores and booze, got caught and someone is blackmailing them to vote a certain way.)
#6 Pride (They let their pride get in the way of doing the right thing for the citizens they represent.)
#7 Envy (They envy the other states, or other group of people, so they try to get laws changed to affect those states or groups.)
#8 Hate (Goes with #7, but they hate due to their bigoted ways.)
#9 Issues (They know the issues, and usually side one way or the other. But they will waffle, if it means that they will get something from the above reasons.)
#10 Stupidity (Which is making decisions for reasons that no intelligent person can understand.)
Those are the top ten that I can think of off the top of my head.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #30,662
3/4/02 1:32:33 PM
|
And, in the end, it all comes down to one thing.
The ability to force someone else to do what you want them to do.
All of your items are a step or two above that level. They are why specific laws get passed.
But to enforce those laws, particularly with people who may be opposed to those laws, you need force.
Think back to the WTO riots in Seattle. The cops decided which areas people were not to be allowed in and then they started marching through non-rioting areas.
Even more recently, Fat Tuesday in Seattle, I was down in Pioneer Square (party central), getting a tattoo worked on and the cops, on horseback, were moving people from one area to another. If you didn't want to move, you were arrested. If you talked back to the cop, you were arrested. A lot of people just gave up on the parties and went home.
Yet the people weren't breaking any laws.
And the cops were outfitted with gas masks.
|
Post #30,647
3/4/02 1:11:25 PM
|
Sorry.
I usually agree with you on most topics political, but I really, really don't want to be in your Wild West show ;-)
|
Post #30,654
3/4/02 1:20:52 PM
|
Wild wild wild west!
"Candygram for Mongo! Candygram for Mongo!" "Mongo likes candy...."
"How about some more beans Mr. Taggart?" "I'd say you had enough!"
"You ain't getting sh*t outa me, I've been constipated for weeks and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it!"
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #30,651
3/4/02 1:17:25 PM
|
exactly
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
