gun control - what are we waiting for ?

[HeyYou]

 

In any case taking people's guns now wouldn't work since most wouldn't give them willingly and even without guns evil always finds a way untill it's stopped

 

Taking guns would work if Americans had respect for their own laws, and by extension, themselves. But, as your comment implies so eloquently, Americans have no respect for their own laws and will excuse; and even abet, any abhorrent behavior in the name of "freedom".

 

And that is what Thomas Paine feared and railed against, an armed citizenry with no control or oversight. An uncontrolled, armed mob without regard or respect for societal norms and morality; the rule of law and the law itself; and the rights of others. Exactly what the American Supreme Court created.

 

Congratulations America, you routinely sacrifice your school children to the almighty GUN on the Alter of Freedom.

 

And once again, your statement is based on how you interpret those laws/amendments.

 

I would also point out, that Tommy once said: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

[Deleted92948618User]

Their law says that they have a right to bear arms. I believe everyone should have a right to it, even your leftist hands croc. I have no idea who this thomas is and don't really care but normal people who want to have a gun for protection or hobby has nothing to do with an uncontrolled mob

 

Your kidding, right? You do not know who Thomas Paine is?

 

John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were the authors of America's Constitution. These four gentlemen were the ones who formed and shaped what America is today. They are the Founding Fathers most quoted to America's Supreme Court when arguing "what the founders really meant" when they wrote America's Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Thomas Paine was the author of Common Sense, a pamphlet which was instrumental in formulating the ideologies which led to the American Revolution. Thomas Paine, through his other writings, shaped the thinking of many of Americas First Presidents, including George Washington and John Adams. By way of example, everyone in America should be able to quote this from the Preamble of the American Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Here is the same thought penned by Thomas Paine years earlier. "Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another. It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man". I will admit that Thomas Jefferson phrased it better, but the idea behind that line in the preamble was originally Thomas Paine's.

 

How is it that I, a Canadian knows this, and you do not? Could it be that this "leftest" has bothered to open and read books which were not of the coloring variety? Could it be that this "leftist" has deliberately taken time to think and contemplate differing positions and determine which is the more rational, instead of just following the loudest flatulence in the mob? Could it be that this "leftist" actually reads newspapers and has refrained from laziness and the practice of simply swallowing the crap spewed by some erstwhile leader? Could it be that this "leftist" has become truly free from other peoples thinking and has taken to following his own conscious? Or could it simply be that this "leftist" can express his thinking and brings those annoying "leftist" truths and facts into the discussion, so he must be a "leftist" and publicly labeled such.

 

Well, here is one last "leftist" fact for you. America's Founding Fathers were "leftist", radicals, free thinkers, idealists, and men open to new and different ideologies. They were not the myopic, narrow minded, constipated thinkers that the "not leftist" has become.

[Deleted92948618User]

 

 

In any case taking people's guns now wouldn't work since most wouldn't give them willingly and even without guns evil always finds a way untill it's stopped

 

Taking guns would work if Americans had respect for their own laws, and by extension, themselves. But, as your comment implies so eloquently, Americans have no respect for their own laws and will excuse; and even abet, any abhorrent behavior in the name of "freedom".

 

And that is what Thomas Paine feared and railed against, an armed citizenry with no control or oversight. An uncontrolled, armed mob without regard or respect for societal norms and morality; the rule of law and the law itself; and the rights of others. Exactly what the American Supreme Court created.

 

Congratulations America, you routinely sacrifice your school children to the almighty GUN on the Alter of Freedom.

 

And once again, your statement is based on how you interpret those laws/amendments.

 

I would also point out, that Tommy once said: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

 

 

Where in that comment did I "interpret" any law or amendment? Did you actually read what I wrote, or is your response based on some imagining?

 

And you took Paine's comment out of context. The larger context warns against the perils of an armed citizenry becoming a vigilante culture, capable of self destruction. But that larger context would not support your argument, so you were right to leave it out.

[DanteRedfield]

Haha you really hate being called a leftist, I thought that's what you guys call yourselves. Nevermind that and I think it's funny I've heard of john, jefferson and BF but never about paine, and why are you as a north american lording over a scandinavian an obscure history fact about some name as I should know it as if he was as important as george washington or something I'll never know. Founding fathers free thinkers, idealists and open minded probably, but leftist? those qualities are not exclusive to any ideology

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

In any case taking people's guns now wouldn't work since most wouldn't give them willingly and even without guns evil always finds a way untill it's stopped

 

Taking guns would work if Americans had respect for their own laws, and by extension, themselves. But, as your comment implies so eloquently, Americans have no respect for their own laws and will excuse; and even abet, any abhorrent behavior in the name of "freedom".

 

And that is what Thomas Paine feared and railed against, an armed citizenry with no control or oversight. An uncontrolled, armed mob without regard or respect for societal norms and morality; the rule of law and the law itself; and the rights of others. Exactly what the American Supreme Court created.

 

Congratulations America, you routinely sacrifice your school children to the almighty GUN on the Alter of Freedom.

 

And once again, your statement is based on how you interpret those laws/amendments.

 

I would also point out, that Tommy once said: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

 

 

Where in that comment did I "interpret" any law or amendment? Did you actually read what I wrote, or is your response based on some imagining?

 

And you took Paine's comment out of context. The larger context warns against the perils of an armed citizenry becoming a vigilante culture, capable of self destruction. But that larger context would not support your argument, so you were right to leave it out.

 

There are two sides to every coin. On the one hand, here you are trying to convince us that Tom didn't want anyone to have guns, yet, above we have a statement where he says disarming the populace isn't a good idea. So, which is it?

 

Not to mention that Tom was one guy, a couple hundred years ago. Laws evolve over time, as do interpretations. I am going to stick with the Supreme court on this one. Mainly because, Who ARE 'the militia'? Back in the day, the militia was every able bodied man over the age of 14........ They weren't part of the continental army. They were volunteers, that supplied their own weapons. If the people didn't have those weapons, the militia disappears with them.

[Deleted92948618User]

 

 

 

 

In any case taking people's guns now wouldn't work since most wouldn't give them willingly and even without guns evil always finds a way untill it's stopped

 

Taking guns would work if Americans had respect for their own laws, and by extension, themselves. But, as your comment implies so eloquently, Americans have no respect for their own laws and will excuse; and even abet, any abhorrent behavior in the name of "freedom".

 

And that is what Thomas Paine feared and railed against, an armed citizenry with no control or oversight. An uncontrolled, armed mob without regard or respect for societal norms and morality; the rule of law and the law itself; and the rights of others. Exactly what the American Supreme Court created.

 

Congratulations America, you routinely sacrifice your school children to the almighty GUN on the Alter of Freedom.

 

And once again, your statement is based on how you interpret those laws/amendments.

 

I would also point out, that Tommy once said: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

 

 

Where in that comment did I "interpret" any law or amendment? Did you actually read what I wrote, or is your response based on some imagining?

 

And you took Paine's comment out of context. The larger context warns against the perils of an armed citizenry becoming a vigilante culture, capable of self destruction. But that larger context would not support your argument, so you were right to leave it out.

 

There are two sides to every coin. On the one hand, here you are trying to convince us that Tom didn't want anyone to have guns, yet, above we have a statement where he says disarming the populace isn't a good idea. So, which is it?

 

Not to mention that Tom was one guy, a couple hundred years ago. Laws evolve over time, as do interpretations. I am going to stick with the Supreme court on this one. Mainly because, Who ARE 'the militia'? Back in the day, the militia was every able bodied man over the age of 14........ They weren't part of the continental army. They were volunteers, that supplied their own weapons. If the people didn't have those weapons, the militia disappears with them.

 

 

You avoided my question about my "interpreting" any law or amendment. Was that deliberate, so you wouldn't have to admit your falsehood?

 

Like I said, your were right to take Paine's comment out of context. If you had bothered to quote the whole article you would have defeated your own argument, and we both know your argument can't stand if you are honest and factual. Much better to omit inconvenient facts and truths, mislead and obfuscate.

 

Laws do not evolve. People evolve, or devolve. Then people change laws to fit their new understanding, or lack thereof. And that has pretty much been my point all along.

 

And with that, I will leave this discussion to the Americans. I have to man a post at the border to keep their "ideology" from oozing North.

[HeyYou]

Hokey Doke. Here is the rest of the article.

 

“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; . . . the weak will become prey.”

 

Seems to me, Tommy understands that there is evil in the world, and that they will take advantage of those that cannot defend themselves. Depriving people of the ability to defend themselves, pretty much assures that evil will triumph. Sure, if NO ONE had arms, we would all be on an even playing field, and then the 2nd amendment wouldn't be needed. The problem with that is, it simply isn't going to happen. The bad guys are always going to have access to arms, regardless of what laws are passed. Thus, banning civilian ownership of firearms, would only ensure that the law-abiding would be unable to defend themselves against the law breakers.

 

Quite honestly, it looks to me, you like are misinterpreting what Tom has to say. You wouldn't be the first to do so, nor will you be the last.

Edited April 2, 2021 by HeyYou

[Perraine]

No, Salty is correct I believe. What you are possibley (conveniently?) forgetting is that, at the time Paine wrote that, the biggest threat was from OUTSIDE invaders, miscreants and conquerors, be they British, French, Spanish or whatever. I don't believe he was referring to your next door neighbour, as at the time, they were pretty much all like minded individuals, in the same circumstances, Nor could he have even imagined, in his wildest dreams, that America would become a country of 350 million denizens, with a VAST disparity of cultures and beliefs.

 

So yeah, people have re-interpreted what was said, and re-written the laws to suit their current needs and desires, but NO-ONE can know for certain their original intent or context, but a small amount of research and critical thinking can help.

[HeyYou]

No, Salty is correct I believe. What you are possibley (conveniently?) forgetting is that, at the time Paine wrote that, the biggest threat was from OUTSIDE invaders, miscreants and conquerors, be they British, French, Spanish or whatever. I don't believe he was referring to your next door neighbour, as at the time, they were pretty much all like minded individuals, in the same circumstances, Nor could he have even imagined, in his wildest dreams, that America would become a country of 350 million denizens, with a VAST disparity of cultures and beliefs.

 

So yeah, people have re-interpreted what was said, and re-written the laws to suit their current needs and desires, but NO-ONE can know for certain their original intent or context, but a small amount of research and critical thinking can help.

Not really. Bear in mind, this was the late 1700's. The west was still the frontier, and it wasn't that far away. The ruffians, invaders and plunderers where right there handy. They didn't need to cross an ocean to be right on your doorstep.

 

Irregardless, there were threats then, and even more so today. So, having the citizenry armed, and able to defend themselves when necessary, was then, and is still today, a right that the people need, and should have. Passing laws to disarm the public, will only disarm the law abiding, the 'bad people' will still have their weapons, and being assured that their victims won't have the ability to fight back, will only make them bolder. Look at Chicago. They had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet their crime rate was still higher than most other places. Or washington DC for that matter. They outright banned public ownership of firearms, and they were the murder capitol of the nation, for many years.

 

And as I have pointed out earlier in this thread.... I you remove five Democrat run cities, with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, from the statistics, the US becomes just as "safe", if not more so, than any European nation, that doesn't allow it's citizens to own firearms.

 

Laws only affect the law-abiding, and by their very definition, criminals, are NOT. They won't care that they are breaking yet another law, they will still have their weapons. Disarming the law-abiding doesn't make them safer. It makes them victims.

Edited April 3, 2021 by HeyYou

[Gracinfields]

 

Some words on self defense from a victim of a mass shooting. That shooting she lived through is why Texas reopen conceal and carry permits. Though will make a small correction from HeyYou's post removing those five cities from the statistics US becomes safer than any European nation. As last time I saw global crime report, couple years ago, US violent crime rate was on par with the UK and most of Europe. I know UK had banned some knives because gangs were using them to commit violent acts, instead of having the police catch them and jail them for trial. Us capital had an attack on that Barrier fence with a car and after smashing into it the male drive jump out and attacked a Officer with a knife, are we going to see Cars banned as well. Never mind I just remember they want to replace drivable cars with self driving cars by 2040; can't wait to see that nightmare unfold after something is hacked and all of those self driving cars are turned into self driving missiles with people trapped inside. Oh and for those that are listening only to mainstream media which isn't doing a full report on it was an African American Male in his twenties with reported possible ties to "Nation of Islam" Group.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Gracinfields