Quantcast

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sheldon J, Jan 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WildeKurt

    WildeKurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Hancock County, IL
    Progressives and Guns

    The peoples actions after 9/11 has motivated me to change some of my views on gun laws in this country. I watch with a dropped jaw as people seemed to eagerly line up to trade in thier rights for security. And the governemts seemed eaqually eager to take them away. Sort of like the worst of the liberals join forces with the worst of the neocons.

    As a longtime 'progressive' I came to some conclusions:

    1) The government is not only incapable of protecting it's population from terrorists, it seems to have little interest in doing so except in word only.
    2) As Katrina proved, the governement will be incapable of dealing with the aftermath of a large scale terrorist attack.
    3) The government has no interest in protecting the border or ports. It seems more interested in creating a new world order. From Bush I, through the Clinton years and into today's administration they have little interest in The United States of America. If peoples rights get trampled on the march to this new order so be it. It may be likely in the future the real enemy may be internal, not external terrorist threats.

    So, arming onself seem to be the prudent thing to do.

    Oh yes, and shooting sure beats golfing any day!!!!
     
  2. Blackfork

    Blackfork Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,219
    Location:
    East Texas
    Different kinds of folks

    Some people argue for slavery and some folks argue for liberty. The slave side is winning but I'd be embarassed to be among the folks who argue that that's a good thing.

    This guy is a tool. Let's hope his masters are kind to him.
     
  3. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    You got that right.

    I'll bet the author of the piece is very critical of the whole IDEA of fighting "terror", and perhaps rightly so, but when it suits his purposes, he's perfectly fine with using the "WOT" to justify taking our freedoms.
     
  4. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,430
    Location:
    Alabama
    Why can't we outlaw stupidity?
     
  5. Thefabulousfink

    Thefabulousfink Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Welcome to THR WildeKurt,

    You'll find that we have a few other Progressives here as well.
     
  6. October

    October Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    "Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd."

    Maybe he should explain how absurd it is to the insurgents in Iraq...
     
  7. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Run this cork soaker with Gingrich in 2008. They both believe we need to "reconsider" our rights and give a few of them up so we can feel that Big Daddy is taking care of us. To hell with both of them.
     
  8. WildeKurt

    WildeKurt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Hancock County, IL
    Are there any stats. on gun ownership in this country? How many, what they have, what they use them for (hunting, protection, competition, etc). I understand that we are an increasingly urban society. That being the case the reasons for gun ownership may change (i.e. protection or competitive sport as opposed to hunting say) and therefore the types of guns owned may change as well.

    Also, what really are peoples attitudes toward gun ownership in this country? It's hard to get a good idea listening to the wings of either side of the debate. I myself come from an urban environement where hunting was uncommon but certainly not unheard of. More common ownership was service guns and those for self protection and of course those of criminals.

    It seems to me gun ownership and use amongst criminals has risen since the '70's when I was growing up while gun laws have become more strict. At the same time, it seems we have become a more violent society. And one in where it seems increasingly difficult to reach consensus on any issue; debates are increasingly polorized with one side or the other eventually reduces to name calling. 'Course I don't have any stats. on this. Just my 'seat of the pants' observation.

    Kurt
     
  9. Outlander1

    Outlander1 member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Wyfriggenoming
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    The stats actually don't back this up.

    What we have are a lot more cable channels that have to fill 24-hour news schedules, and newspapers going bankrupt, trying to keep people buying papers in an electronic world.:)
     
  11. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Indeed, even though we have been doing violent crime and killing each other a bit more the past few years.
     
  12. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    ...as one might expect, actually, with Generation Y, the Baby Boom Echo, now in the age group for violence.

    "Violence", or the number of violent crimes committed, correlates quite well with the number of young men in the population. Generation X was a smaller generation than the Boomers, so we had fewer young men for a while. Now we have more.

    If anything, this argues for a society where the natural instincts and energies of young men are neither denied, nor decried, but rather directed towards positive outlets.

    While I am not, myself, a social conservative, I know this much: when I see a big guy with a shaved head and a lot of tattoos, with a baby in his arms, a wife at his side and a kid at his heels, I am not concerned about being attacked, even in a dark alley. On the other hand, I would be if there were three such guys, and no wives or kids.

    I also would rather see him playing Rugby than brawling at the corner bar (where I live there are a lot of bars, and a fair number of brawling types of the above description).
     
  13. crashm1

    crashm1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    Western WI
    I sent him an email

    Mr. Afeef,
    Respectfully regarding your argument for the removal of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, are you high?
    A few quotes from our founding fathers:
    Ben Franklin - He who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither.
    James Madison - A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country
    Thomas Jefferson -The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
    Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    I submit that it might be time to make the carrying of a firearm and a couple of reloads fashionable again. The possibility then is that your “terrorist” and his possible body count get’s stopped either in toto or at a much lower number than would be the case if no one but the terrorist was armed. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me that if Al Queda or whoever is planning to come here and shoot at civilians that the civilians should give up their arms. Maybe I’m goofy but making the victim more easily victimized seems an odd way to ensure his/her safety. After all we know the criminal and the terrorist are still going to be armed or are you arguing that if guns are illegal that the predatory among the human race will suddenly decide to obey the law in general and this one banning private ownership of guns in particular. See why I’m wondering if you’re intoxicated?
    You asserted that the US citizen would not be able to fight the US army because of the Army’s superior weaponry. I’m thinking if the Iraqis can do it we can too. I think we might even have an easier time of it if there were to be anther civil war or revolution than the Iraqi insurgency after all the army is comprised of our fellow Americans not “a faceless, godless, evil, communist other”. Maybe I’m wrong about that and my fellow Americans in the military would be capable of mowing down wholesale lots of Americans who disagreed with their government.
    Fortunately we seem to be more interested in changing our governments direction with the ballot box than the ammo box but it is nice to have a way written into the Bill of Rights to stand up for the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Without the threat of revolt by arms if government became too oppressive who would be able to stand up for your right to free speech, equality under the law, etcetera all the things that make this country at least slightly unique from any other.
    “The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.” I find this particular paragraph highly offensive, not only that you accede that what has been done to those amendments is okay but that you would suggest that even further erosion of our civil liberties to be acceptable to you and even desirable in the name of security. Have you not read any history sir?
    Armenia 1 million dead because they couldn’t protect themselves from the Turks, Stalin killed somewhere around 43,000,000 there were another 20 million or so killed by sundry other Soviet leaders through 1987 at least, Hitler 20,000,000 or so, 288,000 just Germans who disagreed with him, China 32,000,000 the list goes on right up through Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia, etcetera, to today and an estimated 2.2 million killed in Darfur. The common link in all those dead their nations didn’t allow private citizens to own guns and coincidentally didn’t brook much in the way of civic disobedience. Are you sure, I mean really, really sure this is a good idea. It sure would suck if you were wrong. Personally I’ll trade my security for liberty any day.
     
  14. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,430
    Location:
    Alabama
    2nd amendment

    The second amendment of our U.S.Constitution is the ONLY one written specifically for the protection of all our rights. Without the right and means to protect ourselves and our rights,we are no better off than those poor countries that Crashm1 spoke of. Of couse you all already knew this.
     
  15. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,261
    Location:
    TX
    Unfortunately, so many supporters of the RKBA go along with many infringements of other rights. That's been a long lived point on many gun lists. The conflict between the RKBA supporter who turns out to be authoritarian vs. the more liberatarian view.
     
  16. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,430
    Location:
    Alabama
    rights

    We must defend ALL of our GOD given ,Constitutionally guaranteed rights or risk losing all of them. It is not a matter of "pick and choose". It is all or nothing. If we could just get those who champion the First amendment (aka.the media)to realize that,well.....
     
  17. Davo

    Davo Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,126
    Location:
    Riverside County, California
    I was not aware that a Right could be repealed. The elitists will continue to paint gunowners as either redneck or militia wackos.
    In the same breath they will scream about the constitution being threatened by GitMo.
     
  18. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Rights certainly can be repealed. There used to be "G-d given" rights to beat your wife, take her property when you married, own slaves and rape and kill them at your whim. Fortunately, they are no longer "G-d given rights" but disgusting relics of a more brutal age.
     
  19. MikePGS

    MikePGS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,348
    Location:
    Metro Detroit, Michigan
    Why doesen't he start by repealing his own right to free speech? And no, rights absolutely can not be repealed, but then again thats only if your going by the constitution. Which is merely the supreme law of the land, that every state has to ratify in order to become a state. And yeah, going by his statistics he completely destroys his argument. Which i'm sure is somehow due to "right wing influence".
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2007
  20. the pistolero

    the pistolero Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    783
    Location:
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    I'd argue that the above so-called "rights" were always disgusting relics of a more brutal age, that at one point were mis-construed as rights, their common thread being an inherent violation of someone else's rights. Fortunately, we've advanced beyond that, yes; but if we're going to retain the upper hand in the battle for our bona-fide rights such as RKBA, we'd better be careful not to refer to practices like the ones referenced above as rights. After all, for a good while we have had people in this country and elsewhere saying that the RKBA is one of those "disgusting relics of a more brutal age." They miss that aforementioned common thread, of course, but I still think it best not to fall into that trap.
     
  21. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    It's always fraught to talk about natural or divinely endowed rights. Nature doesn't seem to recognize any rights other than "You can keep as big a chunk as you can tear off." There are so many different conceptions of the Divine that you can find hundreds of millions of people who will maim, mutilate, mangle and crush you because yours is different than theirs. I have personal beliefs on the subject, deeply held ones, but I'm always a little nervous when debating this. It rests on things that can not be proved but are beyond proof.
     
  22. jerkyman45

    jerkyman45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    I went to an NRA dinner a couple of years ago, I suppose the black people I saw there were neo-nazis and members of aryan societies? There are 80 million gun owners in America, I guess they are all Neo-Nazis. This article makes no sense at all, what about those who defend themselves from threat? 9,000 people were murdered per year between 1999 and 2003, when some very strict federal gun control measures were in place. Why didn't he use the statistics from more recent times? Did the facts not align properly with his conclusions based upon a handful of unrelated events spread out over the course of several years? This article is at best opinionated conjecture and at worst the hate filled propaganda of someone wishing to terrify the uneducated into siding with him. Tyrants have gained power in such ways, but hopefully most people disregard these ramblings as the ignorance of a misguided, ignorant fool.
     
  23. shield20

    shield20 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    789
    Location:
    New York
    My response:

    Dear Sir,

    Due to your apparent yet selective disdain for the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment, I thought I might question your article beyond the arguments typically discussed with regards to the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment, or the intentions of the Constituitonal Convention, or the wisdom of those framers who made sure to distinctly protect the rights 'of the people' [rights they considered obvious, but so important they added them as a seperate part of the Constitution to make sure they were not infringed]. Instead of arguing the merits of the Bill of Rights, since it is obvious your opinion is that the 2nd amendment is a mistake (a view I disagree with by the way), I thought it better if we might examine a couple lessons through history to see the effects of laws in this nation outlawing or controlling other questionable objects - 2 spring to mind rather quickly - drugs & alcohol. So...

    1) Based on your experience &/or knowledge with regards to this nation's "war on drugs", is it safe to say, in your opinion, illegal drugs have been virtually eliminated from our society?

    2) Based on your knowledge of the attempt to make all alcoholic beverages illegal via prohibiton, is it safe to say, in your opinion, alcoholic beverages were virtually eliminated from our society?

    3) Based of your knowledge of the war on drugs, is it safe to say, in your opinion, that crime has drastically been reduced, violent crime has drastically been reduced, and that criminals and criminal organiztions / elements connected with trafficing in illegal drugs have been drastically reduced?

    4) Based of your knowledge of the results of prohibition, is it safe to say, in your opinion, that crime had been drastcially reduced, that violent crime had been drastically reduced, and that criminals and criminal organizations / elements connected with trafficing in illegal bevereages were drastically reduced?

    [Note: Based on MY knowledge of the results of the war on drugs and the results of prohibition, I would answer those above questions with 4 BIG NOs.]

    Based on your article, I could only make the assumption (dangerous I know), that YOU feel the answer to those questions must be YES. Otherwise how could you explain your positions that making guns illegal to 'the general public' will 1) reduce crime, 2) reduce violent crime, 3) remove criminal organizations / elements from trafficing in illegal guns, and 4) eliminate guns available to terrorists, or ANY criminal?

    What I believe you are missing is the very obvious - that making guns illegal to 'the people' will NOT keep them out of the hands of those who, by their very definition, ignore and otherwise BREAK THE LAW. It will also not curtail the violence these criminals engage in. Be assured that murderers, rapists, violent criminals, child molesters, drug dealers, felons of all sorts, and even terrorists will find a way, as history has shown those who wish to commit illegal acts will do so.

    This finishing comments of yours are quite telling, but miss the truth:

    "So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

    "The Second Amendment is not worth such risks."

    They would be much more based in reality if it was worded as:

    "There will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. So long as guns remain available to the general public, those citizens will maintain the best chance for protecting themselves and others, and will have in their very hands the ability to survive."

    The Second Amendment affords us ALL that chance, without regards to race, sex, religion or politcal view.



    No, Sir, what you would accomplish with your limited vision, and willingness to so casually toss aside rights guaranteed and protected in this country for over 200 years FOR VERY GOOD REASONS, is to remove arms from the people, and concentrate them, and the power they afford, and the life and liberties they could otherwise protect, in the government, and in the criminal element. You, Sir would remove from the hands of the law-abiding citizen THE best option he/she has of protecting that greatest right of all - the right to life - HIS/HER life, and the lives of those they hold dear. Events recent and throughout history around the world has shown repeatedly, that 'we, the people' can really depend on only 1 entity for our self-preservation - ourselves.

    I would not so freely give ANY right that ensures that ability away.

    Cheers!
     
  24. Nitrogen

    Nitrogen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Sachse, Texas
  25. crashm1

    crashm1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    158
    Location:
    Western WI
    JPFO Did way better at taking him apart than I did. Mine was funner though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice