@Ionus,
David wrote:Thay will allow themselves ` to have guns. Government is NOT the boss.
Government is the low life hireling of the citizen, who is the boss.
Government is a mere security guard. By the American Revolution,
sovereignty was wrested out of the hands of government and
grabbed by the citizens who then created a new government,
subject to their limitations.
Ionus wrote:Why create a government if you want it to be powerless?
I am focusing on domestic power.
One reason to create a powerless government
is to prevent other forms of government from coming into being.
Another reason (as it was explained to me in my earliest years)
is that instead of people personally avenging themselves upon malefactors (feuding),
a government will be more likely to be dispassionate and objective
in vindicating the rights of the victim; the penalty
shoud fit the offense, not be unreasonable.
Ionus wrote:Clearly, the government prior to the revolution had limitations.
Any such limitations were not satisfactory to the Americans.
Ionus wrote:The revolution was more about the power
of the rebel leaders than it was about unsatisfactory government.
That is not factual. Is that what thay told u?
David wrote:In America, possession of guns was put beyond the jurisdictional reach of government,
one reason for that being to enable future revolutions,
shoud thay become necessary.
Ionus wrote:It had nothing to do with future revolutions,
With all respect, that is inconsistent with known history from written statements
of the Founders individually and from representative legal bodies.
For instance, in the National Archives we have the New York
Instrument of the Ratification of the US Constitution wherein
ratification was granted
ON CONDITION that NY reserved its right
to withdraw if it found that necessary to its happiness.
Other states (not all of them) did the same.
Ionus wrote: it had to do with having an armed militia because
they couldnt afford to equip an army, let alone pay for a regular army.
Its not that; its that there was
FEAR of a standing army, as a threat to personal liberty. For
that reason,
there were
NO POLICE here, nor in England, until the following century.
Remember: the King quartered in his troops upon our citizens
at the citizens' expense; hence, the 3rd Amendment of my Constitution.
David wrote:To that, we add the impossibility of keeping guns (or anything)
out the hands of criminals (like keeping marijuana out of their hands).
Question:
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against robbery;
If criminals are willing to disregard the laws against murder,
then HOW do u convince them to obay gun control laws ??
Ionus wrote:It follows the standard procedure for any criminal control. By your standards, why provide laws ?
Will u take a moment to consider the
FUTILITY of the reasoning?
If u can t convince criminals to obay the murder laws,
then
HOW are u gonna get them to obay the gun control laws??
Ionus wrote:Let everyone shoot it out.
If thay r sufficiently
motivated: thay
WILL, whether u approve or not.
David wrote:Does his possession of weapons depend on your trust?
Ionus wrote:Yes, in so far as people control the laws.
In other words, no one has marijuana in America because it is against the law??
No one drank alcohol in the 1920s because it was against the law??
The Supreme Law of the Land is the Law of Supply and Demand.
If needed, an underground gunsmith coud be found,
if people are too lazy to make their own guns.
I have the blueprint plans to manufacture a submachinegun,
from the Paladin Press; available retail.
David wrote:Did his possession of PCP or of heroin depend on your trust?
Ionus wrote:That is an example of betrayal of trust.
I never trusted criminals to stay away from PCP
nor from heroin; sincerely: I did not.
Did u trust them ?
David
