2
   

Mexico Calls On the US to Violate Our Constitutional Gun Rights

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 11:18 am
Actually, possession of assault weapons, not even to say guns in general, is probably the stupidest measure of liberty and whether or not a country is free that has ever been suggested. By your measure, oralloy, the most-freecountries in the world, with the most liberty, are probably Afghanistan and Somalia. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Actually, possession of assault weapons, not even to say guns in general, is probably the stupidest measure of liberty and whether or not a country is free that has ever been suggested.


Hardly stupid to measure liberty by looking at the fundamental principles behind liberty.



MontereyJack wrote:
By your measure, oralloy, the most-freecountries in the world, with the most liberty, are probably Afghanistan and Somalia. Dumb, dumb, dumb.


By any measure, America is the only free country on the planet.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:21 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
failures art wrote:
Features like selective rate of fire (assault rifles)


The weapons in question here are semi-auto-only, at least while they are in the US. Whether they are converted to full-auto in Mexico is another question.

Features like selective fire do not appear in the definition of assault weapon. It is entirely cosmetic.


I could have worded that line better. I think people will understand, but just in case, it is "the definition of assault weapon" that is entirely cosmetic, not "selective fire features".
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 12:42 pm
To repeat, oralloy, if you think gun ownership is a fundamental principle of liberty, then Somalia is far more free than we are. Gun ownership is the LEAST important principle for true liberty in the Bill of Rights, and you gun nuts totally manage to miss the point that it was a principle IN CONNECTION WITH A CITIZEN MILITIA--the first half of the second amendment, which we don't really have, or need, or would be effective, today.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 01:20 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
To repeat, oralloy, if you think gun ownership is a fundamental principle of liberty, then Somalia is far more free than we are.


Nonsense. The fact that it is one of the fundamental aspects of freedom does not in any way make it the ONLY fundamental aspect of freedom.



MontereyJack wrote:
Gun ownership is the LEAST important principle for true liberty in the Bill of Rights,


Nope. No principle is more important for a free people.



MontereyJack wrote:
and you gun nuts


Bigotry won't make you less wrong.



MontereyJack wrote:
totally manage to miss the point that it was a principle IN CONNECTION WITH A CITIZEN MILITIA--the first half of the second amendment, which we don't really have, or need, or would be effective, today.


Wow, wrong on all points.

The principle of having a weapon for self defense has nothing to do with a militia.

The reasons for needing a militia are just as valid today as they were 200 years ago.

A militia can certainly be effective today. Look at Switzerland.

And many states have a militia. Michigan has one, though they are unfortunately an unarmed force that doesn't do justice to the term militia.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 02:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
To repeat, oralloy, if you think gun ownership is a fundamental principle of liberty, then Somalia is far more free than we are. Gun ownership is the LEAST important principle for true liberty in the Bill of Rights, and you gun nuts totally manage to miss the point that it was a principle IN CONNECTION WITH A CITIZEN MILITIA--the first half of the second amendment, which we don't really have, or need, or would be effective, today.
The citizens were expected to KEEP GOVERNMENT (their low life hireling) IN LINE, by force, if necessary.
This was argued, supported, by the Federalists in favor of ratification of the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment was to enforce and defend the 1st Amendment and everything else in the Bill of Rights.

Note that in the parlance of the day,
a "well regulated militia" was a term of art for a private militia,
like a volunteer fire department.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 02:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The citizens were expected to KEEP GOVERNMENT (their low life hireling) IN LINE, by force, if necessary.


There are plenty of things that are being done that you don't agree with, Sig, so why don't you gather up your guns, buy a bunch of ammo and storm Washington. After you've secured that perimeter, you can start on the various state governments that are abusing your freedoms.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 05:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You're advocating anarchy. Just what we need: the inmates taking over the asylum.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 05:48 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Just what we need: the inmates taking over the asylum.


Precisely what happened from 2000 to 2008, POM.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:17 pm
@JTT,
True and we are having a great deal of difficulty overcoming that error.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:23 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
You're advocating anarchy. Just what we need: the inmates taking over the asylum.
Sometimes, depending upon the circumstances, anarchy is preferable to the extant situation;
e.g., I prefer anarchy to communism or to nazism. Anarchy means no government.
If anarchists had overthown Stalin or Hitler, I 'd consider that a good improvement and CHEER.

Presumably, King George III accused George Washington of being an anarchist.





David
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
There are bad improvements?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 10:43 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
There are bad improvements?
Well, "progress" meaning ideological movement toward the left is a very bad improvement,
in that it usually tends to reduce personal liberty
as it AGGRANDIZES the domestic power of our low-life hireling: government.

THAT portends bad for the future of even worse future loss of liberty, as the bad momentum accelerates.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 May, 2010 11:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
How can an ex-lawyer, member of mensa, habitually write such inane drivel? I'm not talking of the political slant, I'm talking of the simple Simon nature of OmSig's writing.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:45 pm
One thing about this Mexico statistic that I've heard, although I don't have any links.

They are reporting the % of seized & traceable guns that come from the US. A significant portion of the seized guns in Mexico are simply not traceable.


I do not support reinstating the assault weapons ban.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 05:52 am

The Mexicans coud not possibly care less than thay do
about our Constitution, nor any of its amendments.





David
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:31 am
Do you care about the Mexican Constitution, David?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:40 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Do you care about the Mexican Constitution, David?
ABSOLUTELY NOT, and I make no complaints about it,
nor do I tell the Mexicans how to run their Mexico.





David
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 07:51 am
@MontereyJack,
MJ, what does this have to do with anything. Our constitution ends at our borders. We do not have the right to enforce our constitution on any other country.

Does Mexico, or England, or Spain, or China, or North Korea have the right to enforce their constitutions on US?

What point are you trying to make?





I care that the Mexicans are happy with their constitution. If they are not, then I would encourage them to do whatever it takes to be happy with it. They can even choose to immigrate to the USA where blood runs red in the streets, due entirely to all the firearms here, if they like our constitution better.

What they can't do is enforce their laws within our border. They can try, but it won't work (nor do you really want it too, if you thought it through).
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:16 am
@maporsche,
NRA claims that only 20% of guns seized were traced at all. I would be more comfortable with that number if they could show that the guns selected for tracing for national origin were something other than random.

Really, I see two problems along the border. People coming north, illegally, and guns going south, also illegally. Now, one of those issues is a problem to the US, and we don't seem to be getting any support from the Mexican government. The other problem is a problem to Mexico. . . .
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/25/2020 at 07:15:13