“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such law make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
OK! Who said this and when and who was he quoting.
He also said: When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
and: " I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
N
Ken Brunt said:
I’d like to see you put that on a large yard sign in your front yard. 
TonyWalsham said:
David. I don't care what you comment on.However, I would respectfully suggest that you do something about preventing the murderous gun rampages that still happen regularly in the USA, before you start lecturing other countries about how they should behave.
Tony, I am doing something, I carry a loaded firearm daily for the protection of myself and my family, I’ve trained my wife and children in the safe use and handling of firearms, I’ve assisted in training of young people in my community in the proper gun handling and marksmanship. I also speak out at rallies, community events and with my friends and neighbors on our God-given 2nd Amendment Right as a free people.
If you would take the time you have excoriated me about taking to research the issue, you would notice that none of those “murderous rampages” happened at a rifle range, gun show, gun shop or anywhere that guns are in possession of law-abiding citizens. In each and EVERY case the “murderous rampages” took place in areas and town that restricted the law-abiding citizens from carrying a weapon, and in some of those cases the “murderous rampages” were curtailed by a law-abiding citizen with a personal firearm, sometimes retrieved precious minutes after the incident began from their automobile.
You should worry about your own government’s lack of trust itr has in you to own a tool for protecting you life.
Deleted
Where do you get the idea that the 2nd amendment is a “God-given” right?
Seriously–there are no guns in the Bible. What kind of gun did Jesus carry?
There is no mention of God in the Bill of Rights–none. There is only one mention of a deity at all in the entire Constitution and that is the phrase “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”
Can you explain or show me where God gave Americans a right to own guns?
The 2nd amendment refers to a legal right derived from the necessity of self-defense.
Also have you noticed this phrase: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That would certainly seem to make gun regulations not just legal, but a Constitutional requirement! The phrase MANDATES gun regulation
David Hill said:
Ken Brunt said:
I’d like to see you put that on a large yard sign in your front yard.
Not on your life…that’s meant for the anti-gun crowd who should put their money where their mouth is…
Here’s the one in my front yard…
I have the same stickers on my entrance doors. Proud to know another “sheepdog”.
In this part of the World politicians take private gun ownership very seriously and figure it into every decision they make. Do a little research on the “Kirkwood, Missouri City Council Shooting of February, 2008”. Openly, there will be talk of gun control and watching out for the crazy people. But in “Zoning Meetings” and other dealings with the populous, almost every meeting has an ora of compromise and questions of “have you idiots really thought about the consequences of what you are doing to these people?” If you back a person into a corner like a dog, he may get tired of being beaten. When he has no recourse, he may fight back.
Now, here in Illinois its much simpler - we accept that all politicans are crooks.
mike omalley said:
Where do you get the idea that the 2nd amendment is a "God-given" right?Seriously–there are no guns in the Bible. What kind of gun did Jesus carry?
There is no mention of God in the Bill of Rights–none. There is only one mention of a deity at all in the entire Constitution and that is the phrase “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”
Can you explain or show me where God gave Americans a right to own guns?
The 2nd amendment refers to a legal right derived from the necessity of self-defense.
Also have you noticed this phrase: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That would certainly seem to make gun regulations not just legal, but a Constitutional requirement! The phrase MANDATES gun regulation
What planet are you from, or have you been asleep for two-hundred and some years. Have you heard about the 2008 united States Supreme Court ruling on the definition of militia and our Right to keep and bear arms?
“Rights” by definition are something that is God-given, not bestowed by governments, those are privileges. Reading only the US Constitution and not any of the notes, letters, books, articles written by the men that wrote the Constitution is a bit shortsighted.
MILI’TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.]
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Jesus, Luke 22:36 ’
David Hill said:
"Rights" by definition are something that is God-given, not bestowed by governments, those are privileges. Reading only the US Constitution and not any of the notes, letters, books, articles written by the men that wrote the Constitution is a bit shortsighted.MILI’TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.]
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Jesus, Luke 22:36 ’
Ok, so we will have to rename it “The Bill of Privileges” then! And reconsider the "privilege"of bearing arms. There is no “God-given right” to own a gun.
And if you want to argue that the milita as described in the 2nd amendment no longer exists, then the justification for gun ownership given in the 2nd amendment no longer exists.
Now I’ve got to go sell some garments and buy a sword. Although as I read that Bible passage, there is nothing whatsoever about a right to own a sword. But then reading the Bible literally is a bit shortsighted
Do you not believe you have a RIGHT to defend yourself and/or you family against an attacker? You obviously do not know that 2040 years ago, firearms were not available. IIRC, it wasn’t until about 400 years ago that firearms came into use.
The laws on Militias are still in force today and estimates are there are more organized militias in the US today than in 1776.
If you wish to change the Bill Of Rights to the Bill of Privileges, go for. Let me know how that works out for you.
David, YOU are the one who described the bill of rights as mere privileges, bestowed by government, not me.
YOU are the one who has argued for the literal truth of the Bible, not me.
The right to self-defense does not specifically mandate or require guns. It includes all kinds of forms of defense, including all sorts of physical and legal means. But no one would argue that the right to self-defense should be unregulated. We regulate it by conducting a criminal investigation and evaluating the act under the terms of law. Otherwise, anyone could claim “self-defense” under any circumstance: I could shoot my neighbor because he annoyed me and call it self defense. The rght of self-defense is, therefore, a regulated right. We have regulations, laws, about what constitutes self-defense and what does not.
As I said before, i have no problem with people owning guns, and I have no problem with regulating that right. Just as I have no problem with regulating the right to self-defense.
And again, “regulation” is built into the second amendment. If you want to argue that the right to own a gun is a right given by god and that the Constitution is irrelevant to it, then there’s no point in invoking the Constitution. It’s the same logic used by Muslim fundamentalists, interestingly.
Gentlemen, the GOD given right is Freedom. The Second Amendment is to guarentee against tyranny and the right of free speech. I was always taught the Bill of Rights were put in the order they were put in as to their importance.
Mike, it is the same logic used by the Muslim fundamentallists. It is the supposed enforcement by any form of government, whether it is a Chicago Political Thug or a Tribal Leader, that differs.
Ric Golding said:
In this part of the World politicians take private gun ownership very seriously and figure it into every decision they make. Do a little research on the "Kirkwood, Missouri City Council Shooting of February, 2008". Openly, there will be talk of gun control and watching out for the crazy people. But in "Zoning Meetings" and other dealings with the populous, almost every meeting has an ora of compromise and questions of "have you idiots really thought about the consequences of what you are doing to these people?" If you back a person into a corner like a dog, he may get tired of being beaten. When he has no recourse, he may fight back.Now, here in Illinois its much simpler - we accept that all politicans are crooks.
Ric I wonder if you would take this position if the people holding the guns were, say, members of Greenpeace? You are arguing here that people have a right to resist, by violence, laws they find morally objectionable. OK, Jefferson made that argument, lots of people have. So if members of Greenpeace started shooting guys on oil rigs, or loggers, or breaking into local government meetings and shooting people who passed laws they objected to, would you make the same argument? Would you want to know which members of Greenpeace owned guns? Would you want to regulate their ownership of guns?
mike omalley said:
David, YOU are the one who described the bill of rights as mere privileges, bestowed by government, not me.YOU are the one who has argued for the literal truth of the Bible, not me.
The right to self-defense does not specifically mandate or require guns. It includes all kinds of forms of defense, including all sorts of physical and legal means. But no one would argue that the right to self-defense should be unregulated. We regulate it by conducting a criminal investigation and evaluating the act under the terms of law. Otherwise, anyone could claim “self-defense” under any circumstance: I could shoot my neighbor because he annoyed me and call it self defense. The rght of self-defense is, therefore, a regulated right. We have regulations, laws, about what constitutes self-defense and what does not.
As I said before, i have no problem with people owning guns, and I have no problem with regulating that right. Just as I have no problem with regulating the right to self-defense.
And again, “regulation” is built into the second amendment. If you want to argue that the right to own a gun is a right given by god and that the Constitution is irrelevant to it, then there’s no point in invoking the Constitution. It’s the same logic used by Muslim fundamentalists, interestingly.
Well then mike, you totally misunderstood me. I DO NOT believe the BoR is anything about privileges (Maybe re-read my post where you believe I said that.) They “Rights” were spelled out to limit any gov’mint interference with those Rights, not to bestow them upon citizens.
The literal truth? Now you my friend are grasping at straws. The truth from the Biblical quote had nothing to do with swords but with self-defense. Most people would understand that, I assumed you either did and are nit-picking, or…
For the final time, what part of “…shall not be infringed.” do you not understand?
Quote:
. . .INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj’. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]
- To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
- To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
- To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
..CONTRAVENTION, n. Opposition; obstruction; a defeating of the operation or effect.
The proceedings of the allies were in direct contravention of the treaty.
.TRANSGRESS’, v.t. [L. transgressus, transgredior; trans and gradior, to pass.]
- To pass over or beyond any limit; to surpass.
- In a moral sense, to overpass any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; to break or violate a law, civil or moral. To transgress a divine law, is sin. Legislators should not transgress laws of their own making.
TRANSGRESS’, v.i. To offend by violating a law; to sin.
Chron 2.
.HIN’DER, v.i. To interpose obstacles or impediments.
This objection hinders not but that the heroic action of some commander–may be written.
.EF’FICACY, n. [L. efficax.] Power to produce effects;production to the effect intended; as the efficacy of the gospel in converting men from sin; the efficacy of prayer; the efficacy of medicine in counteracting disease; the efficacy of manure in fertilizing land.
.
Sure do. We need more like her to stand up a make the politicos squirm. Recommend viewing associated clips on the above site.
N
Mike,
People should be responsible for their actions. If a member of Greenpeace fires a weapon, he should expect someone to return fire and probably with a lot bigger and more weapons. If people are willing to die for their convictions, it will be hard to stop them. People do not obey laws because it is the law. People obey laws for fear of the consequences. Once the fear is gone, the consequence sometime happen. If all avenues of compromise are through, expect results.
Would I want to know which members of Greenpeace own guns? No. I would expect every one of them to own a gun and prepare myself that they might use it.
Mike,
The Second Amendment exists to protect self from external threat, and from unreasonable attack by government. It does not give me the right to attack “guys on oil rigs, or loggers, or break into local government meetings and shoot people who passed laws I objected to(sic).” Yes, I took some editorial liberties with the quote.
Note that the actions denoted by Mike are those of attack, not of defense. It does make a difference. If I were to do those things, I would expect to face at SWAT Team at the very least, and so would the Greenpeace guys.