I was addressing what I directly quoted, it’s my posting style. When I post, I do post thinking all sides realize generalizations have their exceptions. I think it’s unintelligent discourse to talk about exceptions to the rule.
I understand that is close to ‘as written’ in your Second amendment but I would just add that it is sensible to me to search for a proper clarification of it’s meaning and intent.
Sensible or not, I did examplify a clarity on the definition, even if my own clarification on the issue at hand.
I would refer back to our conversation on transporting a shoulder fired rocket launcher in a pickup truck to the gates of the Whitehouse. All sorts of silly examples can be imagined but when some cowboy decides to be silly then it’s probably time to try to come to an interpretation of what your Second amendment was intended to mean.
You’re certainly right that all sorts of silly examples could be applied, but I do only deal with realistic scenarios. Perhaps with you being a Canadian, you don’t realize how protected the White House is. I find it to be utterly unrealistic someone is going to even get a rocket launcher near the White House unless there’s some government conspiracy. Now, a nuclear bomb would be another issue, or even a dirty bomb; as both could be very easily disguised for something else (re: nuclear suitcase). For a realistic example, a year or two ago, a private airplane almost got shot down by 2x F-16s for flying too close to the White House.
I can’t agree with you on people becoming wild animals, although I recognize that you have expressed yourself rhetorically and that rhetoric is an expression of your anger.
Such rhetoric is not an expression of anger, but one of cold logic. Anger can never be expressed through rhetoric, but through actions and actions alone.
I would however disagree with the disenfranchizement of individuals for any reason and would be prepared to express my views on that issue in an appropriate place and time. Being new to this forum I won’t take the liberty of straying off topic too much at this time with you by elaborating on that issue.
Then create a new topic, I’m not exactly a veteran here myself.
The question at issue for me and as I have expressed with Fantasy, is that granting too many special liberties to some can take away liberties of others.
While true, and I won’t deny that. But the same is true of free speech and the essential unalienable liberties our forefathers gave us…
I think we also need to take into consideration that equality and fraternity need to be considered more relevant in your country. I believe the balance has been lost somehow.
I find the balance still exists, and I think there’s plenty of proof of that in the current transition between president Bush and president-elect Obama. That coming from someone that will never accept Obama as president.
I guess you know nothing about political realignments? PM me later then.
Those comments lead me to thinking that you are saying that your government would coerce your people into becoming sympathetic to the government’s cause and then when they are sympathetic the people would hand over their guns. That’s the only interpretation of what you say that I can imagine at the moment. This really does seem to negate the nedd for a gun doesn’t it? Perhaps you can explain further what you imagine happening? Can you present a scenario where your government would attempt to ‘skin the cat’ in another way?
I am saying that’s a valid scenario. But what you’re not seeing is that would be a violation of Individual liberty. You yourself in this quote used the keyword, coerce. So long as people value liberty and, ultimately, their labor (in other words, think for themselves), Marxism simply is not possible for full implementation without tyranny (which Marxists argue themselves is what becomes Communism).
Comment above well taken but I don’t see how it is relevant to the question until you lay out the scenario you imagine happening.
Marxism met America with Woodrow Wilson, then laid eggs with FDR as president. Right now, Marxism is still waging war against America. But most of Europe and South America have become or are closely becoming Marxist. Often times the people cannot defend themselves, so they’re forced into giving their labor to the “common good” of their country. Meanwhile, here in America there’s still tons of resistance precisely because they (the Marxists) know Americans are too Individualistic still. Furthermore, if they were to go to war against America they know they’d lose. So, how else are they supposed to make America a socialist nation? Gain sympathy through the public. Without a gun, there’s absolutely no way to defend yourself against a government or a mob for that matter…
I would have to respectfully disagree with that notion. Suffice to say that we all fought them over there so we didn’t need to fight them over here. Neither Canadians nor Americans being armed was a factor in the outcome of the war or the method in which the war was fought and won.
It isn’t my notion, it was a Japanese military notion upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, as far as I can recall some generals even noted that “America, not Japan, is the one true dragon.” I know another referred to America’s power as “a grizzly bear raged upon learning about the murderer of her cubs.”
You’re right that we fought them over there, but because they didn’t attack us earlier I think. They didn’t want to go to war with America in the first place, probably because many Japanese did fear America’s power. But they thought by bombing Pearl Harbor they would keep us from going to war. (I know that many think it was because of the oil embargos FDR had placed earlier…)
[Also, they had no plans to invading us. The Japanese military were a force to be reckoned with, not because of their strength, but because of they knew how to manage a war. They knew, unlike Hitler, that you cannot fight a war on multiple fronts and expect to win without a high cost of casualties. But we all know why they lost, America played Japan’s own game of deception even better than they could. Perhaps that’s why America is the great dragon.]
Thank you for your comments. respectfully, CC.