Preach it Ted

[Bill Mattocks]

ROFLKLITA!

Oh so very true in the first paragraph - I think it's because we were bullied a lot before 1066 .

So very wise in your last paragraph too . After all, we are building aircraft carriers again ... well, really little ones anyway :lol:.

And here I thought it was the other way around...that's what I get for listening to New Model Army's "51st State of America":

Look out of your windows, watch the skies
Read all the instructions with bright blue eyes
Were W.A.S.P.s, proud American sons
We know how to clean our teeth and how to strip down a gun
We're the 51st state of America

Our star-spangled Union Jack flutters so proud
Over the dancing heads of the merry patriotic crowd
Tip your hat to the Yankee conqueror
We've got no reds under the bed with guns under our pillows
We're the 51st state of America

Here in the land of opportunity
Watch us revel in our liberty
You can say what you like
But it doesn't change anything
'Cos the corridors of power
Are an ocean away
We're the 51st state of America

 

[Sukerkin]

How so. It's the left-wing that supports socialistic or communistic government distributed and controlled "rights" in this country.

That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, Angel. I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).

Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.

I need to stay away from the Study truly ... but it is where a lot of the interesting things are talked about, as well as the aneurysm risky ones, so it's hard .

All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent. I shall try and be stronger with myself.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent. I shall try and be stronger with myself.

I think it is more a question of what people believe the major responsibilities of government to be.

One point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect its citizenry from danger, even from themselves. Rights are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, the life and well-being of the citizen is more important than individual concepts like liberty.

Another point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect liberty from encroachment, even by itself. Life and well-being are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, individual civil liberties are more important than individual concepts like personal safety and health.

In truth, we live with compromises in both directions. We wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets by law in most states; yet the only danger from not doing so is to ourselves - surely we have the right to risk our own health? Yet as adults, we can choose to smoke, drink to excess, skydive, engage in risky unprotected sexual behavior - surely these are dangers from which we should be protected?

Ultimately, my position is that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the core documents that define and shape what and how far the government intrudes for our own good, whether or not citizens ask for (or even demand) it. There is no prohibition on the federal government (or states) infringing upon a right to smoke, for example. Theoretically, the government could very well ban it. There is one prohibiting the suppression of free speech, religion, assembly, firearm possession, and so on; and to me, these represent the areas that are not really open to compromise. It is clear that our founders meant for these rights to be sacrosanct. I rather like that.

I am reminded that when I took my Enlistment Oath some twenty five plus years ago, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." My allegiance was not to the President (other than obeying his or her lawful orders as Commander in Chief), or to the Congress, the Supreme Court, the People, or even to 'the country' or 'the nation' or 'the flag'. My oath was to a piece of paper (and the amendments to it) which form the backbone of what we really are in the USA, what we believe, what we defend. My oath was to the very concept and definition of liberty, the idea and ideal that is America.

I have to come down on the side of those who believe that as sad as it is when people are injured, become ill, or die, it is more important that our liberties be preserved, protected, and defended.

 

[chaos1551]

Bad people will get guns anyway. Gun control laws just take them away from the good people.

 

[Archangel M]

That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, Angel. I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).

Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.

I need to stay away from the Study truly ... but it is where a lot of the interesting things are talked about, as well as the aneurysm risky ones, so it's hard .

All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent. I shall try and be stronger with myself.

No offense Suk. You make some really good points and do a great job as a mod around here, but I seem to find you falling into this pattern of making a comment then falling back to this "pretend I never said anything"...."I don't know why I bother" tripe. It seems passive-aggressive, supercilious and a tad insulting.

To be honest I would prefer if you just jumped right into the fray. Yes we disagree on various issues but I have no animosity towards you.

 

[Archangel M]

I think it is more a question of what people believe the major responsibilities of government to be.

One point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect its citizenry from danger, even from themselves. Rights are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, the life and well-being of the citizen is more important than individual concepts like liberty.

Another point of view is that the government's mandate is to protect liberty from encroachment, even by itself. Life and well-being are nice to have and important too, but if it comes to a choice, individual civil liberties are more important than individual concepts like personal safety and health.

In truth, we live with compromises in both directions. We wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets by law in most states; yet the only danger from not doing so is to ourselves - surely we have the right to risk our own health? Yet as adults, we can choose to smoke, drink to excess, skydive, engage in risky unprotected sexual behavior - surely these are dangers from which we should be protected?

Ultimately, my position is that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the core documents that define and shape what and how far the government intrudes for our own good, whether or not citizens ask for (or even demand) it. There is no prohibition on the federal government (or states) infringing upon a right to smoke, for example. Theoretically, the government could very well ban it. There is one prohibiting the suppression of free speech, religion, assembly, firearm possession, and so on; and to me, these represent the areas that are not really open to compromise. It is clear that our founders meant for these rights to be sacrosanct. I rather like that.

I am reminded that when I took my Enlistment Oath some twenty five plus years ago, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." My allegiance was not to the President (other than obeying his or her lawful orders as Commander in Chief), or to the Congress, the Supreme Court, the People, or even to 'the country' or 'the nation' or 'the flag'. My oath was to a piece of paper (and the amendments to it) which form the backbone of what we really are in the USA, what we believe, what we defend. My oath was to the very concept and definition of liberty, the idea and ideal that is America.

I have to come down on the side of those who believe that as sad as it is when people are injured, become ill, or die, it is more important that our liberties be preserved, protected, and defended.

You remind me of this quote.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Carol]

That's too complex and umbridge inducing a topic for me in my current state of health and mind, Angel. I think it's one on which we shall never see eye-to-eye, nor even agree on what the terms mean (legally, historically and morally).

Pretend I never said anything (I wish I hadn't to be sure); it's less fruitless all round that way.

I need to stay away from the Study truly ... but it is where a lot of the interesting things are talked about, as well as the aneurysm risky ones, so it's hard .

All too frequently, late at night, I fall foul of the "Oh my god, I can't believe that's what they really think!" and rattle some keys which really should have stayed silent. I shall try and be stronger with myself.

Aye, jump in to the fray. We Americans are a tough enough lot to take a disagreement. We disagree with each other all the time!

I love hearing your input, whether or not we agree. Your opinions are well thought out and intelligent. Even if we don't agree at all politically, you're still a person that would never have to buy a drink in my town, if ya know what I mean.

 

[Carol]

Bad people will get guns anyway. Gun control laws just take them away from the good people.

And bad people can get other nasty things that are capable of really screwing a person up. The bangers up here know full well that a $15.00 machete is easier to obtain than an $800.00 Glock.

 

[Sukerkin]

Thank you for those kind words, Carol and Angel :bows:. I am seriously touched and complimented by them.

I really don't mean to come across in a passive-aggressive way, Angel. I honestly intend to keep out of things, as the past years here have shown that we (meaning all members here) really can't change each others minds over the Net. But all too often when I am tired I don't have the sense to lift my fingers away from the keyboard and then regret what I have typed .

I've not really made this general knowledge (being English I am genetically predisposed to not make a fuss ) but I wasn't kidding when I inferred that I have to stay calm. A legacy of my bike accident has been that some of the 'plumbing' in my brain has been weakened. Combine that with the very high blood-pressure I seem to have inherited from my mother in my middle years and too passionate a spike could have unfortunate consequences. It's one reason why I went very quiet here for some weeks whilst the quacks were trying out various chemical magics to keep me away from the surgeons blade.

As politics and social justice are a couple of topics that get my 'oratory' sensibilities fully engaged, I am perforce constrained . For a while at least .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A legacy of my bike accident has been that some of the 'plumbing' in my brain has been weakened.

'Came off me bike, didn't I?

Peace, then. Feel better and get the brain under control.

 

[JDenver]

A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--

1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'. Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'. Essential in what manner?

2. Quotes from founding fathers are interesting. They're totally contextual. In 1785 it took 4 minutes to load and fire a musket. I'm not sure things are the same anymore.

3. Up here, we tried to institute a gun registry. The Police Chiefs Association of Canada wants the registry, believes in it, and says that they use it effectively. Essentially, to argue against the registry is to argue against public safety as the police see it. Different country, yes, but interesting context (and I won't get into the ridiculous double speak Conservatives use in explaining how they want to abolish the registry but believe in public safety and crime control)

 

[Big Don]

A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--

1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'. Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'. Essential in what manner?

preserving one's own life, isn't essential?

2. Quotes from founding fathers are interesting. They're totally contextual. In 1785 it took 4 minutes to load and fire a musket. I'm not sure things are the same anymore.

Scientology didn't exist then, should Cruise, Travolta etc, be forcibly converted? Neither radio nor television existed, should government have total control over them?

3. Up here, we tried to institute a gun registry. The Police Chiefs Association of Canada wants the registry, believes in it, and says that they use it effectively. Essentially, to argue against the registry is to argue against public safety as the police see it. Different country, yes, but interesting context (and I won't get into the ridiculous double speak Conservatives use in explaining how they want to abolish the registry but believe in public safety and crime control)

 

[Archangel M]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

The idea expressed transcends technology. Either we have the right to own weapons as "free men" (and women) or the government "allows" us to own weapons.

I will take the former thankyouverymuch.

 

[grydth]

A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--

1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'. Odd to hear of gun ownership referenced as an 'essential liberty'. Essential in what manner?

2. Quotes from founding fathers are interesting. They're totally contextual. In 1785 it took 4 minutes to load and fire a musket. I'm not sure things are the same anymore.

3. Up here, we tried to institute a gun registry. The Police Chiefs Association of Canada wants the registry, believes in it, and says that they use it effectively. Essentially, to argue against the registry is to argue against public safety as the police see it. Different country, yes, but interesting context (and I won't get into the ridiculous double speak Conservatives use in explaining how they want to abolish the registry but believe in public safety and crime control)

1) "Essential" in that if one lacks either the right or the means to preserve one's life, none of the other rights means very much.

2) Yes - in the late 1700's the Founders entrusted common folks with firearms much superior to what most armies of the day were equipped with. Imagine that.... and 4 minutes between shots? Maybe that explains why the Continentals prevailed and the Loyalists were chased into Canada.

3) As to Canadian gun registration - do whatever you wish in your country. If you will recognize we have the same right to refuse it here in our country, without outside meddling or condescending remarks, maybe we can all be friends.

 

[Tames D]

A few observations from north of your border, so please to take into context--1. Some reference to 'essential liberties'. Odd to hear of gun ownership Ereferenced as an 'essential liberty'.

This country (USA) would not exist if not for guns. It only makes sense that gun ownership would be an essential liberty.

 

[Tames D]

Aye, jump in to the fray. We Americans are a tough enough lot to take a disagreement. We disagree with each other all the time!

I love hearing your input, whether or not we agree. Your opinions are well thought out and intelligent. Even if we don't agree at all politically, you're still a person that would never have to buy a drink in my town, if ya know what I mean.

My thoughts exactly. If Sukerkin is ever in Southern California, it would be my honor to have him as my guest.

 

[Ken Morgan]

This country (USA) would not exist if not for guns. It only makes sense that gun ownership would be an essential liberty.

Interesting, I understand your point, but I wonder if it is true.

Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially that’s it), I would hypotheses’ that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US.

BTW we are allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns up here. Fill in the paperwork, take the course and go buy whatever you want. Make sure you use it, store it and the ammo, as per the rules and you’re good.

Same as you guys, most crimes involving firearms come from illegally owned weapons. Most of which are smuggled in from the US and sold at a stupid profit.

We ship drugs south, you guys ship guns north.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting, I understand your point, but I wonder if it is true.

Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially that’s it), I would hypotheses’ that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US.

It's hard to know what would have happened, but consider that the sun didn't even begin to set on the British Empire until they had their noses bloodied a couple times; twice by the USA. They might well not have been so quick to let go of other possessions if they hadn't already begun the slow slide away from empire-building. But I admit I do not know much about the history of Canada.

BTW we are allowed to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns up here. Fill in the paperwork, take the course and go buy whatever you want. Make sure you use it, store it and the ammo, as per the rules and you’re good.

I'm sure you don't realize it, but the term 'we are allowed' rankles many Americans; it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. We, sir, are not 'allowed' to own guns. We have the right given by our Creator; the federal government is 'forbidden' to interfere. We see that as a massive, huge, monstrous, difference.

I realize I'm about to get pedantic here, but please bear with me, I mean no ill will. From our point of view (some of us, anyway), people who are 'allowed' to do this or own that are subjects, not citizens. Free people don't have to be 'allowed' to do anything; everything not prohibited is permitted. Anything that is given can be taken away again; it just depends upon the turn of fortune. Rights which are bestowed by a Creator and which the government is forever forbidden from infringing upon may not be taken away under color of law - ever. Any government which did so would immediately lose their authority to rule.

We care a lot about not just the fact of private firearm possession, but the underpinning reasons for it. We don't just care about guns, we care about freedom (as we understand the term). And from our standpoint, freedom can never be bestowed. It is taken at the point of a gun and it is defended zealously by free men and women.

Same as you guys, most crimes involving firearms come from illegally owned weapons. Most of which are smuggled in from the US and sold at a stupid profit.

We ship drugs south, you guys ship guns north.

And no laws against either seem to do much to prevent them. Which is something I like to point out to the folks who would prefer more gun laws instead of fewer. More laws work so well for drugs, right?

 

[Archangel M]

Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen.
-Jeff Cooper

 

[Archangel M]

Just thinking out loud here, but Canada and Australia for example were former UK colonies that came about simply because the people living there wanted to be independent. (Yes there is more to the equation, but essentially that’s it), I would hypotheses’ that the American colonies would have become independent regardless, it just may have taken a few more years. I would assume what became the Canadian colonies would have been lumped into the mix, and the hypothetical new USA would have included what is now Canada and the US.

But then we would have turned out like....

Canada.

:uhyeah: