I often wonder if the same people who believe that the ideas of the 18th century cannot be improved upon would prefer to have the same medical theories and practices used on them today in the event of a heart attack, or if they would like to continue the same standards for sanitation, bridge building, communication devises, transportation, and of course we musn't leave out the perfectly legitimate act of of owning slaves or the illegality of women voting....it is beyond lunacy to continue to cling to the remedies and practices of the 1700's in the 21st century...please crawl out of the caves and let go of Neaderthal logic.
the particular ideas of the 18th century that you are speaking of are significantly important for the following reasons: a legal concept called stare decisis (i'm not going to explain it to you, go to law school and figure it out) the basis for ALL legal disputes, the INTENT of the framers with regard to the basic design of this country, the freedoms (slavery being one that the framers had intended on dealing with and made plans to deal with later, an issue that needed to be left alone at the time or the southern states would not ratify), the idea was an idea that changed the world by introducing it to the ONLY workable solution to preserve civil liberties while maintaining a strong centralized government... just to name a few.
here's the truth about the American situation, the frame and foundation is what is truly important. a structure in which cannot be compared to a highly fluid technological industry based upon the fact that the biggest and best ideas save the most lives. we're talking about a basic standard of government that is necessarily unchangeable. if you don't get it, don't worry your empty little head about it. if you do get it, congratulations, you're one step closer to being worthy of the rights that are guaranteed to you whether you like them or not.
lastly, the structure of this country is a strong unbending contract full of many great ideas and even more great rights, one of which is your right to leave. if you're not a fan of the republican form of government we all live and die by, i suggest that you use the afformentioned right and take the next flight to Afghanistan and enjoy your sharia law where your rights are limited to your religion and gender.
Excuse me if I do not stand in the same degree of awe of yourself as you do, what I referred to was not the concept of the frame and foundation of the of a representative republic but rather a particular right that was viewed as being necessary in an 18th century society that is no longer viable in today's reality. The single shot musket of the day is a far cry from the weapons available today, whereas a militia of that time armed with those muskets could offer a reasonable resistance to an army of that day the situation today is vastly different, a single Apache gun ship would quickly eliminate an entire field of idiots armed with AR-15s, AK 47s, or Uzi's, and to hold the belief that those same idiots provide some degree of deterrence to any foreign enemy is absurd.
You know absolutely nothing of my education or experiences and put that ignorance on full display with your post,...now, as per your suggestion that I could leave if I did not agree with your particular interpretation of what our form of our govt is, let me remind you of something, that door swings both ways, you too sir are free to leave if you find my views not to your liking.
first off, i'm not understanding of the "awe of yourself" comment... i speak only of the framers of this country and those who intend to protect their vision. so, i apologize for not making your connection.
next, the rights you are referring to are rights that an EXTREMELY learned man once referred to as, "self-evident" and believe me when i say that they are just as "self-evident" today as they were 200+ years ago.
moving on... a comparison of weaponry is not necessary, i understand that, as a progressive friend of mine once stated, "times are a-changin"... fair enough. but understand this, you and i both have a right (an existantial one, not a republican one) to life and the protection of said life to whatever extent we deem is necessary. in other words, you would do whatever you had to do to protect yourself. and yes, idiots are going to have guns and lots of them. idiots are also going to use those guns in a manner that idiots use them. its unfortunate. but taking away OUR 2nd amendment right to attempt to protect ourselves from idiots (be they private citizen idiots or government idiots) in any way we possibly can. perhaps, my AK-47 is no match for an Apache. thats a fair comparison.
but lets clarify this situation... there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the gov't is going to use an apache in an attempt to extinguish me and my tiny argument against them. its bad for PR. on education: i made no remarks about your level of education. the only education remark i made was in reference to my lack of interest in explaining a legal concept, the way a doctor would feel if trying to explain why chemotherapy may not be a suitable treatment for a particular form of cancer... its exhausting explaining every detail of ones argument, if you care to elaborate for yourself, one would urge his fellow man to investigate for himself rather than subject him to a lengthy discussion of a topic that may prove to be boring or useless.
lastly, the door does swing both ways, understood - if you and your politically vague constituency succeed in destroying the America that the forefathers envisioned, i will gladly leave. i will not live in a country that does not stand on its principles... but, prepare yourselves for a fight. my family came here, only recently, to escape the tyranny of a country shrouded in truly archaic political rhetoric. i will certainly not sit idly by and watch as others flush my family's dream of freedom down the toilet. so, if thats the plan, tell them to bring apaches... they will need them.
The Founders were afraid of a tyrannical central Government seizing power from the People by force and becoming a Dictatorship. There is of course "NO" chance such a thing could happen today.
Thanks to the Patriot Act and other Executive Orders the Government now has the right under certain circumstances to search and seize WITHOUT a Warrant & hold a person WITHOUT benefit of Habeas Corpus. There is MORE of a need for the Second Amendment today than in ANY other time in the history of this country!
Gun control is the Mozambique Drill in < 1.5 seconds. There should be no debate in this matter. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed". Pretty concrete to me. End of discussion.
In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to Hale DeMar's case who shot an intruder in his house, this bill had provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.
Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.
On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.241-242 Aug 1, 2008
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
And for the record it Thomas Jefferson foresaw a dozen law abiding people being gunned down by a weapon he could carry under his coat then maybe he would rethink the impact of the second amendment. We have come a long way from black powder.
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use
of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to
keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against
tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
not everything in the constitution is flawless. why is this amendment still iron clad?
the army and the citizens in the 18th century ALL had muskets. This guy in AZ had a better gun situation than the cops. The trio of thieves that hit a North Hollywood bank in the 90's and semi-automatic guns the cops couldn't compete with.
why do citizens need such powerful weaponry, and the military has ALL the weapons, so if it's in case they have to the fight the tyranny of the government (which really, how will there ever be a tyrannt in this country? they wrote the bill of rights in response to the monarchical government they had... there's no way a king or dictator is ever gaining any momentum towards power in this country) do you really think your right to have glocks and semi's is going to stop a tank rolling down your street?
people who want to protect EVERY gun under the 2nd amendment are just being spiteful assholes.
Yes and today the so called need to use guns against tyranny is frankly laughable as armed citizens would be no match against tanks and aircrafts. I do agree that handguns and hunting rifles should remain legal but many of the things in between aren't necessary. Why does someone need an M4 or an Ak-47 in the house aside from maybe possession for historical purposes? Also, the current laws in place are either not enforced effectively and or remain in a state of confusion as all states have their own laws on gun control. It would make more sense to minimize purchases to hand guns and hunting rifles and to create a unified gun registration system that attempts to better uproot mentally unstable individual from gaining a handgun as well as those with criminal records. Finally, it would stop the problem of illegal trafficking of weapons across state lines and would make it legal. The Jefferson argument is irrelevant to the modern era as technology has changed and society in general has changed from the time of Yeomen farmers.
I’ve heard this talking point over the years and to be honest it is just that, a talking point. 18th century guns by comparison might seem primitive but that does not automatically mean they were any less dangerous or that an individual of the day did not fear or respect them to the same degree we do now. Take for instance the picture I uploaded. That’s an .69 caliber 18th century muzzle loading pistol.
A lot of people today look at pistols as purely defensive weapons but in the time that is relevant to this issue they were more than that. The evolution and development of the pistol was for a time tied directly to cavalry based warfare. In short many pistols of that day were developed to not only kill you but also kill the horse you rode on.
Another important aspect that invalidates this claim can be found when you compare current to 18th medicine. Getting shot back then meant a whole lot more than getting shot now, horse and rider killing gun excluded. Think about it, around the time the constitution was drafted most people would rather go to a barber than a doctor for surgery. Medical practitioners would example dead bodies barehanded and then deliver a baby without washing their hands in between.
So the idea that the founding fathers could not conceive of how deadly guns could be is in part bullshit.
Why is this directed at President Obama? He did not come up with the gun ban. Maybe your cheesy, ignorant, hypothetical, badly produced cartoon should be directed at those who actually banned guns in DC. I guess if your goal is simply to attack the President in every manner possible then this makes sense. If your goal is defend the rights of gun owners, then you fail.
That was a actually a direct Obama quote. I don't believe the Republicans are the answer either. If this were a few years ago I'd be making a video of Bush. Our Left/Right paradigm is the problem. Politics are nothing more that a mere distraction. Both parties are bought and sold and we're left w/ nothing but an illusion of choice and our dicks in our hands.
Yes it is a direct quote but I ask again why target Obama? Shouldn't your comments be directed against those that put the ban in place? Obama does support the right of people to bear arms and, as far as I know, has not sought to ban guns.
saying that because Obama is not the architect of gun bans and therefore immune to responsbility simply by association is like saying that the SS is not responsible for the attempted extermination of the jews because Hitler was the architect of Nazi propaganda, the SS was simply associated. understand the contradiction, ideology that is acceptant of bad legislature is not disassociated because of its locality in the chain of propaganda. promotion and acceptance of fascist propaganda is thus directly related and therefore responsible. Obama supports and promotes anti-gun rhetoric and legislature. the purpose of his vague responses is to obscure his position enough to retain the illusion of neutrality, a common tactic of presidential candidates.