So we set the precedent that our freedoms can simply be taken for some cheap material gain? That's exactly the type of government that a gun-owning public keeps from getting out of hand. :biggrin:
Why not just put in the something else and leave the 2nd amendment alone?
Gee what a shock. You're missing the point. Who would have seen that coming?
Have you actually read anyone's responses to your question?
srlsy
Immortality is not in the poll. I assume it's not available from the government?
He has a "concussion".
what country are you in? Because the US government certainly isn't afraid of it's people...D
kinda beaten, but guns haven't made the government afraid of the people. When 2/3 of the American public say they don't see the fight in Iraq as worth it, and the Vice President says "So?", there is a major problem.
Yes. But what I'm trying to do is to break...or at least temporarily bend a paradigm. I know gun ownership is a right. And the thought of losing a right goes against everything americans are supposed to stand for.
In the world today, I cannot imagine a scenario in which it could become a pointless right. I actually pity the citizens of other advanced nations whose governments deny them access to simple tools of self preservation. The right, to "be an island" if you will. Not entirely dependent up government institutions like law enforcement to be your only means of safety. Being self sufficient. Being too dependent on the government for things like electricity, food, water, etc.. is already something that is a problem in my eyes. Why would I want to give some easily corrupted bureaucracy complete control of my being?
Law enforcement isn't a personal means of safety for anyone. LE acts in the interests of public order, and safety in the abstract as an element thereof. LE isn't intended, nor can it be, a way to provide anyone individual protection. This is and always has been an individual responsibility with a commensurate right to do so...thus the right to bear arms if one so chooses.
You Ain't ****ting...
are you just trolling or do you really think that this is a legitimate argument, I want to know before I flame you
Well, if you take a look at Locke's work, which is where a lot of these ideas of natural rights come from, he says that government is essentially people giving up natural rights to the government in exchange for security, food, courts, etc. (he goes on to say that if the government isn't serving the needs of the people, then the government can be abolished by the people).
In the Constitution, it doesn't mention natural rights that come from the pure fact that you were born, but rather rights given and protected by the Constitution.
I think you're missing the point more than Montashu is.
The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most of the DoI is taken from Locke's Two Treatises of Government. It's been YEARS since I evaluated much that was said by Locke and I honestly didn't read that much of him in the first place... But, I thought Locke said that government existed for the protection of proprius, "that to which is one's own", meaning life, liberty, and property.
It doesn't mention them explicitly in the Constitution, but go read the Federalist papers. The idea of natural rights underpins every philosophical discussion of democracy.
Duh....MEXICANS!
