mushypancakes wrote:Gun laws seem to work more so than they limit in what I consider my part of the world. As in, home.
This gives us more time to worry about stabbings and getting run down by a stolen vehicle. :wink:
I think having a lot of guns anywhere is just asking for trouble, not preventing it and not making the world any 'freer or safer'.
Seems like common sense to me. Live and breathe paranoia, you'll reap the benefits.
Instead, a person can be working for something positive.
U do not seem to be aware of the history of government in America.
When the English Monarchy was thrown out,
we had the choice of doing whatever we wanted, politically.
We did.
Following the precepts of John Locke,
we created government here, granting it certain powers.
We were very suspicious and distrustful of government,
having recently gone to a lot of trouble to get rid of one.
We were very
STINGY, frugal, selfish, tightfisted, and uncharitable,
in the amount of power that we granted to the newly created government,
being aware that personal liberty and government power are
INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.
Accordingly, we were acutely aware that the more power that we granted
to the new government that we were creating, the
LESS personal freedom we 'd have for ourselves.
The American Revolution was all about getting
more PERSONAL FREEDOM.
When we were creating the new government,
we were very aware that it might become necessary
to overthrow that one too, if in time, it became too powerful, if it grabbed power.
This possible future need was discussed a great deal, when government was being created.
Accordingly, we certainly
DID NOT grant government
the power to disarm us;
( we were like realty owners, hiring a property manager, as our employee, whom we did
NOT trust ).
Knowing of the tendency of government to grab more power, over time,
we made a particular point of putting control of guns beyond the reach
of government, along with a few other things,
e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion,
freedom from intrusion into our homes ( without a judicial warrant ),
freedom from torture, among other things.
In studying the history and jurisprudential development of the right to keep and bear arms,
it should be borne in mind that when the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were enacted,
during the 17OOs, there were NO POLICE anywhere in the USA,
nor had police existed in Colonial America, nor in England.
The concept of a police force first BEGAN during the 18OOs (both in America and in England).
Accordingly, during the 17OOs, if one were attacked by a violent criminal,
a predatory animal, or madman, it was as imperative as it was paradigmatic that he have the means
to handle the situation
himself,
and this was the world that the Founding Fathers knew
when they drew the social and political contract that is the US Constitution,
the Supreme Law of the Land.
Many people believe that the Supreme Law of the Land
shud be changed in many different ways. You believe that
we shud all be docile and helpless citizens like Kitty Genovese and Reginald Denny,
but changes must be accomplished by the legitimate amending process.
Until thay are abrogated, our constitutional rights remain intact.
U may prefer to be docile and helpless subjects,
in your part of the world, Mushy. Good luck with that.
If I ever decide to become a violent, predatory criminal,
I know that I will be much safer in your part of the world.
David
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace