Guns: how much longer will it take ....

when some old douche writes it into the bill of rights

This didn't make sense to me since notification of an inspection is counterproductive and really defeats the purpose of the inspection.

Re: Blickers (Post 6646827)
Quote:
[quote]Quote:
The "We need guns to fight the New World Order, (sometimes referred to as the Evil Zionist Rothschild New World Order), is coming to get us" is a big part of the gun culture.

An earlier post.
Quote:
Quote:
The "We need guns to fight the New World Order, (sometimes referred to as the Evil Zionist Rothschild New World Order), is coming to get us" is a big part of the gun culture.

Didn't work the first time, still no cigar.

Post: # 6,646,276 •
View Profile Blickers

[quote]I just did. There you go. That sentence was the same. Try to remember what you have said, I can't do it for you.

Also I never said it was exactly the same. I said earlier post. You read a lot into a short sentence.

We must together demand a Special Session NOW so that not one more child should die due to our state leaders' negligence. I am calling on the Governor to hold a special session and pass legislation to keep our kids safe before they return to their schools in September.

Join me in demanding that they keep our kids safe.

That is most patriotic thing you have ever said. Your respect for the founders is unrivaled.

You're saying the context has changed.

Yes. It didn't differ to the situation here, actually, it was taken from the Saxon rules here.
Here, it changed in 14th/15th century, in cities and towns at first ("mass shootings" of those days were done with swords*. And later, after the Reichskammergericht ("Imperial Chamber Court") was instituted as the highest court in the Holy Roman Empire in 1495, carrying arms became strictly regulated.

*Arms were then stored in the local Zeughaus ("arsenal").
As a consequence of the Peasants' War of 1525, the peasants nearly everywhere had to deliver their swords and other weapons to the local authorities.

So lets say that way back, over 1000 years ago, it was a right given to free'd peasants. What if the 'marks' of free men were: to wear a star on their chest (so people knew they were free), to vote (if such a system existed), and to pay taxes...

The thing is, such marks are arbitrary - They varied from society to society, and context (of the area) to context (ditto). Rights too are arbitrary, varying from country to country in the modern world.

What is similar, is that all free countries, including the US, have laws that restrict freedom, so that society can function. From country to county, those laws differ, rendering the 'truth' of the law relevant to only that country, or perhaps not at all.

All that is to say, it's good to know there is some historical basis for the chant, but it is just that, a chant based on marks that in essence, vary from country to country, and century to century.

There is also the issue of regulation. I doubt they had any way of regulating such things back then (only absolutely vital registers were kept, like land titles), and perhaps no need to (you see how this 'right' is contextual?). Criminal records were only kept by the courts (There was no policing force as exists today). They didn't understand mental health (the worse kinds - which they probably burned at the stake), they had travel issues (with robbing hoods along the highways), etc. So, context...which, as per above, all varied from kingdom to kingdom, and century to century (or millennia to millennia if you prefer)

To tell other countries that 'you are no longer free because you regulate guns' is sloganistic, wrong, and rather insulting.

It follows an ideology blindly,

without ever understanding why the existence of a 'right' exists in any given time or place (eg to Churl),

how rights change from time to time, and place to place,

and also without understanding what freedom entails.

I have no issue generally with citizens possessing guns. I do have issue with:
- criminals
- mentally ill (the dangerous kinds); and
- domestically violent persons
possessing guns / having easy access to them

Only regulation has the potential to influence the above.

The other arguments of where, how, what type etc, are for each country to decide.

Ya see, there is a huuuge difference when some old douche writes it into the bill of rights. We are sorta stuck with a law that really needs re thinking but its almost untouchable.

The work it will take is generational

and Im afraid that many more eople will die before even the gun nuts recognize that they have a huge role to play in fixing this amendment.

"A well regulated militia..." may have worked two centuries ago, but its an anachronism today.

so you seem to imply that those guys were SUPERHEROES??? They were idiots like everyone else.