Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[CDNBear]

I won't tell you what kind of fa;;acy that is because I don't want you to encumber your synapses with erudition.

What's a fa;;acy?

But I will say that you have to to say what is wrong with the statement in order to contradict it. That is basic: something that is first learned around junior kindergarten.

LOL, try you're supposed to support your statement with some facts or evidence.

But instead, you use as many fallacies as you can.

 

[DaSleeper]

You, DaSleeper, can walk down your street, highway, or country road, if you live in Canada without fearing for your life. Why do you and others living in this manner want to change it to a war zone??

I'm purposely ignoring the rest of your ramblings because they don't make sense...
The reason I can walk around without fearing for my life is because I am aware and know where I can go and where I shouldn't thread...
It's a question of demographic, and if you don't know what I mean without my spelling it out.........

Needless to say, certain places I would never venture without some kind of protection, In your neck of the woods Montreal, would be lower St. Lawrence st. close to the docks, or certain sections of Valleyfield where the little mafia hangs out.
In Toronto, certain parts of Scarborough, and other parts of the city I wouldn't venture after dark.

Hell, even some sections of Sudbury or NorthBay I wouldn't visit after dark.....so...
You really don't know....doyou?

Edit: Learn to quote,,It might help the readability of your post......or not?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I'm purposely ignoring the rest of your ramblings because they don't make sense...
The reason I can walk around without fearing for my life is because I am aware and know where I can go and where I shouldn't thread...
It's a question of demographic, and if you don't know what I mean without my spelling it out.........

Needless to say, certain places I would never venture without some kind of protection, In your neck of the woods Montreal, would be lower St. Lawrence st. close to the docks, or certain sections of Valleyfield where the little mafia hangs out.
In Toronto, certain parts of Scarborough, and other parts of the city I wouldn't venture after dark.

Hell, even some sections of Sudbury or NorthBay I wouldn't visit after dark.....so...
You really don't know....doyou?

Edit: Learn to quote,,It might help the readability of your post......or not?

You are aware but are you aware that you are reinforcing the statement that you think you are opposing? There are many areas of many cities and, since this is about guns, it is far more a problem of America than of Canada.

The statement was that people cannot walk the streets freely and, as you agree, they cannot. In many American cities there are virtually no city areas that are safe.

And, it is not a dmeograpic. It is a culture of violence encouraged by gun possession

 

[CDNBear]

You are aware but are you aware that you are reinforcing the statement that you think you are opposing? There are many areas of many cities and, since this is about guns, it is far more a problem of America than of Canada.

The statement was that people cannot walk the streets freely and, as you agree, they cannot. In many American cities there are virtually no city areas that are safe.

And, it is not a dmeograpic. It is a culture of violence encouraged by gun possession

Can you tell us all how gun control impacts on illegal firearms?

Because that's where you just took this.

 

[skookumchuck]

Sure would be nice if the anti gun at any cost crowd could provide some statistics showing how deadly dangerous it is per capita to drive through or live in an area where nearly every home has at least one legitimate and legal firearm as opposed to stats of death and injury from entering/ living in areas full of illegal firearms.
After doing that, kindly advise how they would propose to eliminate illegal firearms which virtually everyone in the country would be all for. It has been tried for many years, your expertise and wisdom are sorely in need here.

Nah don't bother, the general public is smarter and better informed than to drink your koolaid, as proven by the near death of the registry before the current government was elected. This registry was only kept in place by the other parties whipping their members to support, first to bring it in, then to keep it, not the wishes of a clear majority of constituents across the country.

 

[DaSleeper]

Can you tell us all how gun control impacts on illegal firearms?

Because that's where you just took this.

Bear,
If there is one thing in life I have learned.....

Is that you can't teach a dill pickle nuthin'
And this one is pure Bicks'

 

[CDNBear]

Bear,
If there is one thing in life I have learned.....

Is that you can't teach a dill pickle nuthin'
And this one is pure Bicks'

Well that explains everything!!!

I'm Strub's kinda guy.

 

[taxslave]

You are aware but are you aware that you are reinforcing the statement that you think you are opposing? There are many areas of many cities and, since this is about guns, it is far more a problem of America than of Canada.

The statement was that people cannot walk the streets freely and, as you agree, they cannot. In many American cities there are virtually no city areas that are safe.

And, it is not a dmeograpic. It is a culture of violence encouraged by gun possession

Which is precisely why we must have the right to have guns. The police forces(read government) have abdicated their duty to protect law abiding citizens against violence when walking down a street that WE paid for.
That is beside the fact that no gun control has ever been applied to those with criminal intent, only to otherwise law abiding taxpayers. When criminals start registering their automatic handguns I might consider registering my hunting rifle.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Sure would be nice if the anti gun at any cost crowd could provide some statistics showing how deadly dangerous it is per capita to drive through or live in an area where nearly every home has at least one legitimate and legal firearm as opposed to stats of death and injury from entering/ living in areas full of illegal firearms.
After doing that, kindly advise how they would propose to eliminate illegal firearms which virtually everyone in the country would be all for. It has been tried for many years, your expertise and wisdom are sorely in need here.

Nah don't bother, the general public is smarter and better informed than to drink your koolaid, as proven by the near death of the registry before the current government was elected. This registry was only kept in place by the other parties whipping their members to support, first to bring it in, then to keep it, not the wishes of a clear majority of constituents across the country.

It would help you if you think about what you are saying before putting those size 13s on your mouth. Since the first condition almost certainly does not exist"anywhere," it would not be possible to provide such statistics.

Then, illegal firearms cannot be eliminated as long as firearms are manufactured. Of course it has been tried and the efforts are still being made. That is not the point and it is not anyone's point. Firearms can be controlled, as they are in many countries. The deaths and suicides from the use of LEGAL firearms can be dramatically reduced if they are regulated - as the evidence in Canada showed. The numbers of legal firearms leaking into the illegal market can be reduced - and was reduced but ending the controls and regulation will alter that for the worse.

You show an ignorance of the oresent political state in talking of whipped voting. That only shows that the opposition parties have some degree of Parliamentary democracy in their operation. The Conservatives have none. They do not need to whip votes. Any departure from the Harper mandated positions will lead to the instant end of a political career. No member of the Conservative caucus ever questions or publicly dissents.

Which is precisely why we must have the right to have guns. The police forces(read government) have abdicated their duty to protect law abiding citizens against violence when walking down a street that WE paid for.
That is beside the fact that no gun control has ever been applied to those with criminal intent, only to otherwise law abiding taxpayers. When criminals start registering their automatic handguns I might consider registering my hunting rifle.

That is childish nonsense and merits no reply. It raises the question of whether you are rational enough to be allowed to own any weapon.

 

[CDNBear]

The numbers of legal firearms leaking into the illegal market can be reduced - and was reduced but ending the controls and regulation will alter that for the worse.

Can you back that up?

You show an ignorance of the oresent political state in talking of whipped voting. That only shows that the opposition parties have some degree of Parliamentary democracy in their operation. The Conservatives have none. They do not need to whip votes. Any departure from the Harper mandated positions will lead to the instant end of a political career. No member of the Conservative caucus ever questions or publicly dissents.

That is childish nonsense and merits no reply. It raises the question of whether you are rational enough to be allowed to own any weapon.

 

[taxslave]

It would help you if you think about what you are saying before putting those size 13s on your mouth. Since the first condition almost certainly does not exist"anywhere," it would not be possible to provide such statistics.

Then, illegal firearms cannot be eliminated as long as firearms are manufactured. Of course it has been tried and the efforts are still being made. That is not the point and it is not anyone's point. Firearms can be controlled, as they are in many countries. The deaths and suicides from the use of LEGAL firearms can be dramatically reduced if they are regulated - as the evidence in Canada showed. The numbers of legal firearms leaking into the illegal market can be reduced - and was reduced but ending the controls and regulation will alter that for the worse.

You show an ignorance of the oresent political state in talking of whipped voting. That only shows that the opposition parties have some degree of Parliamentary democracy in their operation. The Conservatives have none. They do not need to whip votes. Any departure from the Harper mandated positions will lead to the instant end of a political career. No member of the Conservative caucus ever questions or publicly dissents.



That is childish nonsense and merits no reply. It raises the question of whether you are rational enough to be allowed to own any weapon.

Yet you made an childish reply which is about the only kind of post you have ever made.

 

[petros]

Back then perhaps........

What is different today?

 

[skookumchuck]

It would help you if you think about what you are saying before putting those size 13s on your mouth. Since the first condition almost certainly does not exist"anywhere," it would not be possible to provide such statistics.

Then, illegal firearms cannot be eliminated as long as firearms are manufactured. Of course it has been tried and the efforts are still being made. That is not the point and it is not anyone's point. Firearms can be controlled, as they are in many countries. The deaths and suicides from the use of LEGAL firearms can be dramatically reduced if they are regulated - as the evidence in Canada showed. The numbers of legal firearms leaking into the illegal market can be reduced - and was reduced but ending the controls and regulation will alter that for the worse.

You show an ignorance of the oresent political state in talking of whipped voting. That only shows that the opposition parties have some degree of Parliamentary democracy in their operation. The Conservatives have none. They do not need to whip votes. Any departure from the Harper mandated positions will lead to the instant end of a political career. No member of the Conservative caucus ever questions or publicly dissents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does not exist anywhere?:lol::lol::lol:
Right where i live and all across Canada in rural and suburban areas.
The fact remains regardless of how you attempt to spin it that a majority of Canadians were not and are NOT for removing all firearms from Canadians. Nearly a third of the liberals held their noses and tried to placate their constituents after they voted in Rock's utterly stupid bill. In fact i talked personally with a couple of liberal MP's who were quite unhappy about it, and yes i was politically active at that time.
I will try your reading comprehension again......look for statistics of people often being threatened or shot in areas of common legal firearm ownership as opposed to inner cities. They do not exist for a reason. Sad how some peeps can look directly at a problem without seeing it, unless of course they have a political agenda in which truth is, or even the thought of it is, absent.

I won't respond further because as was said already, your machinations are too far from reality to address.
Best you just stay in your city with the other "academics" and girly men. We don't want you out here for sure, might make the natives restless.

 

[gopher]

With respect, gopher, I think you have the view of the Second Amendment that has been pushed by the NRA and not by political scholars. The Second Amendment was designed to provide the US with the same native protection that existed - but was already becoming redundant - in England. That is, a militia to deal with threats to the nation.

That goes back to medieval times before standing armies when every man was supposed to be ready to defend the realm. As I believe I posted some time ago, the populace - the armed element - gathered quarterly to train (mustered). It is nonsense to say otherwise and I cannot understand how people can be so naive as to buy the patently false argument of the NRA and the gun manufacturers.

How would any country write a Constitution that provides for its own violent overthrow? How could any country survive when mob rule is lawful?

I don't understand how you can bring up those other events as examples of "government intrusionism." Government reacted as governments do in each case. Certainly they overreacted but that could be argued as caused by the fear of armed insurrection - government will respond to riots and uprisings brutally when the rioters may be armed. It was brutal and primitive (in a political/social sense) but it was not "intrusionism." Rather it was a conditioned response to the primitive fear that permeates a gun culture. I would say that you are guilty of an association fallacy here.

Empirical evidence from every corner of the world disproves the claims of the gun lobby. Widespread possession of guns that is not rigidly controlled is associated with misuse of guns. Homicide and suicide rates are higher. Gun related crime rates are higher. There is no "Right" to carry weapons in a modern society. "There is a "Right" to be considered for their possession in controlled situations.

While your reply has much insight, it oversimplifies the issue of the 2d Amendment, its origin, its purpose, and its potential consequences. A few years ago I did say that, yes, I am a former member of the NRA. But more significantly, I have a law degree and am fully versed in Constitutional rights and legal history. Lastly, I am member of an American history book club and my historical writings have been praised by no less than the liberal historian Eric Foner (that may sound like crap but it's a true story). Trust me, there are few people who know the subject of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights any better than I do.

You mentioned England - that country's greatest legal historian and commentator was Blackstone. It was he who wrote that the right to keep arms was designed to protect personal property, to protect against foreign invasion, and to prevent domestic tyranny. This was expanded upon by Justice Storey:


"Justice Story wrote in 1833: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample on the rights of the people. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (emphasis added.) 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Section 1890, pp. 746-747 (1833).''


You may recall my previous posts in which I provided ample evidence to prove that Jefferson and Madison were opposed to standing armies because they create tyranny. Our Founders did not call it "mob rule" - they called it democracy in action. Had they been around today to see Kent State, the vicious attack on the Move Cult (where five innocent children were killed), and, yes, even Bush's invasion of Iraq, they would have been the first ones to say use the 2d Amendment to put a stop to all this tyrannical and unconstitutional intrusionism.


You write, "Empirical evidence from every corner of the world disproves the claims of the gun lobby." Did you forget our previous discussion of the Sudan and other mass killings that took place in African countries where people are unarmed? How do those murder rates compare to ours in North America?

I have been accused more than once of being a "liberal" on this forum. And while I do often think right wingers are full of squat, I cannot bring myself to deny fully documented truth. But you or anyone else can readily see that our Founders created the rationale behind the 2d Amendment and that the NRA, which was not created for another 100+ years, has interpreted that rationale correctly..

 

[skookumchuck]

That is exactly what you and others like you propose, by denying honest people the ability to effectively protect themselves while the laws do nothing to disarm the people you fear.............[/QUOTEi]

That state is exactly, how it is in much of the US right now. Not a day goes by without guns being fired. Those of us who are used to walking our streets without fear and without guns do not like the idea of needing a gun in order to take a walk!

It is idiotic to introduce guns when there are those with the idea that guns are the solution to all disputes.. For heaven sakes, it has taken centuries of fear, aggression, and greed before countries and rulers adopted dipomacy to settle borders, respect of boundaries, and the cost of wars to both sides. You, DaSleeper, can walk down your street, highway, or country road, if you live in Canada without fearing for your life. Why do you and others living in this manner want to change it to a war zone??

I do not know where you are living but any time you walk down a country road nearly all of the country houses have firearms and always have had, it always has been safe. D'oh! Unless of course they are recent city refugees that built houses then began to whine about road apples and dead gophers.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

It would help you if you think about what you are saying before putting those size 13s on your mouth. Since the first condition almost certainly does not exist"anywhere," it would not be possible to provide such statistics.

Then, illegal firearms cannot be eliminated as long as firearms are manufactured. Of course it has been tried and the efforts are still being made. That is not the point and it is not anyone's point. Firearms can be controlled, as they are in many countries. The deaths and suicides from the use of LEGAL firearms can be dramatically reduced if they are regulated - as the evidence in Canada showed. The numbers of legal firearms leaking into the illegal market can be reduced - and was reduced but ending the controls and regulation will alter that for the worse.

You show an ignorance of the oresent political state in talking of whipped voting. That only shows that the opposition parties have some degree of Parliamentary democracy in their operation. The Conservatives have none. They do not need to whip votes. Any departure from the Harper mandated positions will lead to the instant end of a political career. No member of the Conservative caucus ever questions or publicly dissents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does not exist anywhere?:lol::lol::lol:
Right where i live and all across Canada in rural and suburban areas.
The fact remains regardless of how you attempt to spin it that a majority of Canadians were not and are NOT for removing all firearms from Canadians. Nearly a third of the liberals held their noses and tried to placate their constituents after they voted in Rock's utterly stupid bill. In fact i talked personally with a couple of liberal MP's who were quite unhappy about it, and yes i was politically active at that time.
I will try your reading comprehension again......look for statistics of people often being threatened or shot in areas of common legal firearm ownership as opposed to inner cities. They do not exist for a reason. Sad how some peeps can look directly at a problem without seeing it, unless of course they have a political agenda in which truth is, or even the thought of it is, absent.

I won't respond further because as was said already, your machinations are too far from reality to address.
Best you just stay in your city with the other "academics" and girly men. We don't want you out here for sure, might make the natives restless.

You will do well not to respond since you clearly will respond with nothing but bluster.

As I wrote, the condition you describe pertains nowhere and statistics are not possible. When you accept the FACT that, in the last national survey done before the CPC nullification, 62% favoure the retention of the Registry. Canadians massively want the gun control it provided and the CPC action was one more anti-democratic action.

As for your snide "academic" and "girly man" slurs, you little know me. I would love to have been an academic and, could I do it all again, I would be. "Girly man!" In my youth, anyone who said that to my face wpi;d be very sorry - but nobody ever did. Now, I simply make a mental note of the person's mental deficiencies.

While your reply has much insight, it oversimplifies the issue of the 2d Amendment, its origin, its purpose, and its potential consequences. A few years ago I did say that, yes, I am a former member of the NRA. But more significantly, I have a law degree and am fully versed in Constitutional rights and legal history. Lastly, I am member of an American history book club and my historical writings have been praised by no less than the liberal historian Eric Foner (that may sound like crap but it's a true story). Trust me, there are few people who know the subject of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights any better than I do.

You mentioned England - that country's greatest legal historian and commentator was Blackstone. It was he who wrote that the right to keep arms was designed to protect personal property, to protect against foreign invasion, and to prevent domestic tyranny. This was expanded upon by Justice Storey:


"Justice Story wrote in 1833: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample on the rights of the people. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (emphasis added.) 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Section 1890, pp. 746-747 (1833).''


You may recall my previous posts in which I provided ample evidence to prove that Jefferson and Madison were opposed to standing armies because they create tyranny. Our Founders did not call it "mob rule" - they called it democracy in action. Had they been around today to see Kent State, the vicious attack on the Move Cult (where five innocent children were killed), and, yes, even Bush's invasion of Iraq, they would have been the first ones to say use the 2d Amendment to put a stop to all this tyrannical and unconstitutional intrusionism.


You write, "Empirical evidence from every corner of the world disproves the claims of the gun lobby." Did you forget our previous discussion of the Sudan and other mass killings that took place in African countries where people are unarmed? How do those murder rates compare to ours in North America?

I have been accused more than once of being a "liberal" on this forum. And while I do often think right wingers are full of squat, I cannot bring myself to deny fully documented truth. But you or anyone else can readily see that our Founders created the rationale behind the 2d Amendment and that the NRA, which was not created for another 100+ years, has interpreted that rationale correctly..

Thank you for one of the few intelligent posts on this. However, I think you miss some points. I do not have time for this in depth since most of my time is spent in various places on the climate change question. I do know something of this having spent some time studying Constitutions with some emphasis on the American.

I think that Blackstone is misrepresented in claiming support for an Absolute Right; certainly where the carrying of arms is in question. Blackstone qualified his commentary with the words, "possession of arms as allowed by law," or something close to that.

Justice Storey did, indeed say what you claimed but has the context not now faded into history? It was his opinion and not one shared by others. Further, he rejects the historical meaning of a militia which is what I posited. I don't think there is argument against that. His views on standing armies are not those of the nation and are his own.

The idea that the "Right" was a check on arbitrary government does not fly now and did not then. Any attempt to overthrow a government would have been brutally quashed then and is unthinkable now. Peashooters against cannons.

Even where one to concede to the view of the "Right" in the American Constitution (and, of course, I do not) time has made it redundant.

I do not know about the discussion here wrt Sudan and others but I do not see the relevance. They would be states that are in something like the stage of statehood that we were in five hundred years ago. And what would any carrying of Arms have done to avoid Kent State.

I still say that it is an absurdity to say that Jefferson and Madison should be taken literally. It would be mob rule with the invitation to eternal demagoguery to instigate rebellion against established authorities. The only end in the times of equal weaponry would be the tyranny established by some demagogue.

Sorry that I do not have the opportunity to do this in greater depth. That, though, might give you some room to speculate.

 

[Colpy]

As I wrote, the condition you describe pertains nowhere and statistics are not possible. When you accept the FACT that, in the last national survey done before the CPC nullification, 62% favoure the retention of the Registry. Canadians massively want the gun control it provided and the CPC action was one more anti-democratic action.

.

Polls??

"Meanwhile, an Angus Reid poll released Monday found 46% of Canadians want to scrap the registry, and only 40% want to save it, with support for it highest in Quebec and lowest in the Prairies."

Scrap long-gun registry: Poll | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

Spare me.

If 62% of Canadians wished it saved, it would still be in existence, because the CPC would not have been elected.

Simple as that.

Oh, and even 62% is hardly indicative that "Canadians massively want (it)"

The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of Canadians couldn't care less about the long gun registry, one way or the other, and of those that do care about it, the vast majority are gun owners opposed to the registry.

Thank you for one of the few intelligent posts on this. However, I think you miss some points. I do not have time for this in depth since most of my time is spent in various places on the climate change question. I do know something of this having spent some time studying Constitutions with some emphasis on the American.

I think that Blackstone is misrepresented in claiming support for an Absolute Right; certainly where the carrying of arms is in question. Blackstone qualified his commentary with the words, "possession of arms as allowed by law," or something close to that.

Justice Storey did, indeed say what you claimed but has the context not now faded into history? It was his opinion and not one shared by others. Further, he rejects the historical meaning of a militia which is what I posited. I don't think there is argument against that. His views on standing armies are not those of the nation and are his own.

The idea that the "Right" was a check on arbitrary government does not fly now and did not then. Any attempt to overthrow a government would have been brutally quashed then and is unthinkable now. Peashooters against cannons.

Even where one to concede to the view of the "Right" in the American Constitution (and, of course, I do not) time has made it redundant.

I do not know about the discussion here wrt Sudan and others but I do not see the relevance. They would be states that are in something like the stage of statehood that we were in five hundred years ago. And what would any carrying of Arms have done to avoid Kent State.

I still say that it is an absurdity to say that Jefferson and Madison should be taken literally. It would be mob rule with the invitation to eternal demagoguery to instigate rebellion against established authorities. The only end in the times of equal weaponry would be the tyranny established by some demagogue.

Sorry that I do not have the opportunity to do this in greater depth. That, though, might give you some room to speculate.

Go back to climate change, because you don't have a clue about Blackstone, the Constitution of the United States, inalienable rights, the English language, Jefferson or Madison..........

Oh, and tell the Syrian people that rebellion with small arms is futile.

If time has made the Second Amendment redundant, then it has made all individual rights redundant..................think about that.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Why do you just not think period, Colpy? What has the survey results on the Registry to do with who was elected. First, it was not an issue that decided the election. Second, it encouraged the CPC because of the dispersal pattern of the opposition.

As for the other, don't bother if you cannot make intelligent comment about it. I think gopher will. And I will answer as much as I can. Making all individual Rights redundant is silly. First because it never was an individual Right as long as society has been organised. It was a "natural" Right of sorts for primitive man. Second, things become redundant when they are no longer useful and the particular "Right" has no place in a modern society where the protections it is supposed to give (but does not) are provided by a more efficient and less irrational force

 

[CDNBear]

You will do well not to respond since you clearly will respond with nothing but bluster.

You shouldn't talk to yourself, people will start talking about you.

I do know something of this having spent some time studying Constitutions with some emphasis on the American.

Is like your clsaim to be a UN published author and the author of the Harper poem?

Because we now know that is impossible.

Maybe you should stop fibbing.

I think that Blackstone is misrepresented in claiming support for an Absolute Right; certainly where the carrying of arms is in question. Blackstone qualified his commentary with the words, "possession of arms as allowed by law," or something close to that.

Justice Storey did, indeed say what you claimed but has the context not now faded into history? It was his opinion and not one shared by others. Further, he rejects the historical meaning of a militia which is what I posited. I don't think there is argument against that. His views on standing armies are not those of the nation and are his own.

The idea that the "Right" was a check on arbitrary government does not fly now and did not then. Any attempt to overthrow a government would have been brutally quashed then and is unthinkable now. Peashooters against cannons.

Even where one to concede to the view of the "Right" in the American Constitution (and, of course, I do not) time has made it redundant.

I do not know about the discussion here wrt Sudan and others but I do not see the relevance. They would be states that are in something like the stage of statehood that we were in five hundred years ago. And what would any carrying of Arms have done to avoid Kent State.

I still say that it is an absurdity to say that Jefferson and Madison should be taken literally. It would be mob rule with the invitation to eternal demagoguery to instigate rebellion against established authorities. The only end in the times of equal weaponry would be the tyranny established by some demagogue.

Sorry that I do not have the opportunity to do this in greater depth. That, though, might give you some room to speculate.

What a lovely example of bluster.

 

[petros]

Rights have "time limits" or can be "old fashioned'? Well I'll be damned.