No offense meant, I know he's your brother and all, but...
how have we come to the point where a sitting JUDGE thinks only part of the Bill of Rights are actually rights, and other parts can be infringed upon? Again no offense, but I can't imagine Judge Roy Bean being like this - bring 'im back!
i feel like the responses here sometimes so extreme. i mean do people really think this many people, this spectrum of human diversity in america can actually, realistically bear unadultered freedom to bear all types of arms? there are already concessions that some avenues of our unalienable and self evident rights are compromised (kiddie porn, licensing etc)
an assertion that we should be abosolutely free is unrealistic at the least and absolutely ludacris in the LIGHT of the constitution
the forefathers wrote the constitution in grand philosophical understanding. everything is a check and balance.
the fact is that there ARE very real mechanism by which firearms fall into illegal hands all the time. allowing "more extreme" firepower to be trafficked in this way just for the "pursuit of freedom" is impractical. just as impractical as it is to suggest police are everywhere when something bad happens.
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY OR A FREE WORLD. if you want true anarchistic freedom, you need to find yourself a shack in montana and mail bombs to universities and government buildings.
if you want a part of "society" then you have to play the tug of war game and that means by definition compromising "freedoms."
there is no such thing as unadultered freedom, once you have two people in your society you must start making compromises.
If Bobs brother has a quasi-religious belief in pacifism, a belief that killing, even in self defense is wrong, then is a more powerful statement for him to die for his belief, or to abandon his beliefs to save his life?
For a non-religious example: Can you, or anyone else in this thread, name the man who handed Socrates the hemlock?
Socrates was offered the opportunity to run away rather than drink the hemlock. Was he acting illogically or irresponsibly?
Mike
some people will make their life philosphy decisions, with the spectrum of diversity in human existence there must be tolerance of one's personal philosophical choices (until it violates someone else). sometimes there's living for principle, sometimes there is dying for principle.
We are not discussing the tactics of non-violently defeating a dictator, or nation. We are talking about non-violently defeating a person, on an individual level. And I think we can all agree that this particular method of passifism is illogical and irresponsible for you, your family and any other innocents.
P.S. I tend to believe that perception determines reality. Nothing is 100%, even if it seems so, we all just make educated guess based on personal historical impericism. Given that, we will never form a unified answer for this particular question. We all have personal experiences and a unique perception that form instant biased no matter HOW hard we try no be neutral. We CAN'T be neutral, not without being omnipotent...and that would make us god's...not humans...and there can't be more than one god because then how would he be "omnipotent"....etc etc .................sorry I ramble.
how can you say a view is illogical and irresponsible if later on you concede that perception determines reality?
omnipotence also obliges the "correct" decision, so that's not neutral.
