If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The HERESY of "gun-control"...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
... is based upon the ideal of punishing a law-abiding man or woman BEFORE the act, based upon the presumption that they might use the gun to break another law. A comparable situation would be furthering the cause of manditory castration of ALL male infants at birth because they might use the restricted organ in the commision of rape.
In THIS nation, our operative principle is to punish the guilty, not the innocent. YOUR country might well be of divergent "principle"...
Why do I refer to "gun-control" as heresy? It DEFINES heresy when used in context with ANY nation which calls itself, or purports to be FREE! Gun control is one of the first measures inacted by the Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc., in order to dis-empower the populace's capability to resist the tyrrany of non-responsive government. A just government SHOULD fear the consequences of pissing off its citizenry, and bring its action to bear. The government which outlaws arms is HISTORICALLY taking the first step toward tyrrany...
The Second Amendment within the US Constitution is based upon ability to resist unjust government. In Supreme Court rulings, what has been stated is that the ONLY weapons which are specifically protected as a right to own are MILITARY WEAPONS, not recreational nor hunting weapons. The right to defense against tyrrany of criminals is an off-shoot of the basic principle of self-determination, based upon the RIGHT (and understood as RESPONSIBILITY of free men) to resist tyrrany of government.
The US Constitution exemplifies the belief in that right of SELF DETERMINATION, and is the antithesis of EVERY government and nation which believes that subjects exist "by the leave" of said government.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a citizen whose belief system is based upon the Constitution of my country. A bit over two centuries ago, I would have fought against Britain as Britain attempted to confiscate weapons at Lexington and Concord. Free men stood THEN, and we continue to stand NOW!
btw ~ "Free" does NOT mean simply having multiple choices as to where you would squander your money...
Do YOU comprehend the message here?... It is not the "right" to keep and bear arms, but the RESPONSIBILITY of FREE MEN to keep and bear arms! <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
It is SOOOO very simple... You want my weapons? Come and get them... (Simple in concept does NOT necessarily mean easily accomplished... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"> )
In THIS nation, our operative principle is to punish the guilty, not the innocent. YOUR country might well be of divergent "principle"...
Why do I refer to "gun-control" as heresy? It DEFINES heresy when used in context with ANY nation which calls itself, or purports to be FREE! Gun control is one of the first measures inacted by the Hitlers, Pol Pots, etc., in order to dis-empower the populace's capability to resist the tyrrany of non-responsive government. A just government SHOULD fear the consequences of pissing off its citizenry, and bring its action to bear. The government which outlaws arms is HISTORICALLY taking the first step toward tyrrany...
The Second Amendment within the US Constitution is based upon ability to resist unjust government. In Supreme Court rulings, what has been stated is that the ONLY weapons which are specifically protected as a right to own are MILITARY WEAPONS, not recreational nor hunting weapons. The right to defense against tyrrany of criminals is an off-shoot of the basic principle of self-determination, based upon the RIGHT (and understood as RESPONSIBILITY of free men) to resist tyrrany of government.
The US Constitution exemplifies the belief in that right of SELF DETERMINATION, and is the antithesis of EVERY government and nation which believes that subjects exist "by the leave" of said government.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a citizen whose belief system is based upon the Constitution of my country. A bit over two centuries ago, I would have fought against Britain as Britain attempted to confiscate weapons at Lexington and Concord. Free men stood THEN, and we continue to stand NOW!
btw ~ "Free" does NOT mean simply having multiple choices as to where you would squander your money...
Do YOU comprehend the message here?... It is not the "right" to keep and bear arms, but the RESPONSIBILITY of FREE MEN to keep and bear arms! <IMG alt="image" SRC="mad.gif" border="0">
It is SOOOO very simple... You want my weapons? Come and get them... (Simple in concept does NOT necessarily mean easily accomplished... <IMG alt="image" SRC="wink.gif" border="0"> )
0
Comments
I actually agree with a large amount of what you wrote, but there are a few points I'd like to pick you up on.
---
(1) The right to defense against tyrrany of criminals is an off-shoot of the basic principle of self-determination, based upon the RIGHT (and understood as RESPONSIBILITY of free men) to resist tyrrany of government.
Surely it's the other way around? As in: "One is entitled to oppose immorality directed at one's self, and unjust government is wrong, therefore, one may oppose unjust government."
---
(2) "Free" does NOT mean simply having multiple choices as to where you would squander your money... Do YOU comprehend the message here?... It is not the "right" to keep and bear arms, but the RESPONSIBILITY of FREE MEN to keep and bear arms!
Seems to be a need deep in the human psyche to make compulsory everything that isn't forbidden. <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">
---
(3) It is SOOOO very simple... You want my weapons? Come and get them...
I don't think I will ever be comfortable with the idea of "might makes right," which is what that statement of yours really comes to. I agree that he who has all the guns can in some sense 'define' 'right', since he can kill those with whom he disagrees, but that's the point.
Again, my favourite example: Nazi Germany. Around the time of the launching of Op. Barbarossa against the USSR, Germany was without doubt the supreme military power in Europe. Does that mean that Nazi Germany was also at the top of the moral ladder?
---
I'm glad that you've brought this up - I prefer to see gun control discussed in terms of 'large' issues like freedom from oppression than 'small' ones like crime. Of course, the two are linked, and we shouldn't ignore either, but... hell, it's a preference, yes? <IMG alt="image" SRC="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: MacKenZie ]