So the DUI driver that puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life making you unable to defend yourself or you family should be able to defend himself and have all his rights back after his 44 months in jail while not only are you unable to defend yourself but you now cannot support yourself or your family. I may be in the small ignorant minority but I don't care if the SOB can ever defend himself again.Originally Posted by Bohemian
| |  |
I agree with you...
There is the problem... Make the punishments fit the crimes.. In this day and age anyone who gets into a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and operates the vehicle on public motorways while impaired should face harsh if not severe, punishments.
Also remember this, bad things happen to good people. There is no way to make life fair for everyone... There are no guarantees...
You can give peace a chance alright..
I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..
Take It
A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was.Keep and bear arms describes individual weaponry not community weaponry.
The Founding Fathers would disagree. It was their thinking that the gov't should never have more firepower than the citizen should have. So that the citizens could always overthrow a gov't that got out of hand. Kind of hard to fight back against the Feds or even a state gov't without heavy weapons. That was also the thinking in making the Army get re-funded every two years and the President as a civilian in charge of the military. Plus the governors being over their National Guards.A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was.
A violent criminal is not a citizen! A citizen supports and is part of the community. Arms possession by the citizen should be unlimited to the extent of arms described by the 2nd amendment. Such things as heavy weapons and nuclear devices are only for the use of the community and aren't to be considered under the 2nd. When the community decides they are not being served by their officials they can remove them but only when their power is equal to the force of the tyrant. Heavy weapons are controlled by the community at large and that is only sensible. The 2nd is to allow the community to rise when threatened. It is in unity that the 2nd is realized as the power of a people run government. Our military is part of our community and I cannot dream that they would ever turn on their own people so arguments about heavies don't belong in the 2nd forums. If I found out that a person in my community had a nuclear device I would probably take the action of native Americans and shoot some arrows into them to see how powerful their medicine was.
At one time I would have agreed with you but after much study and thought I disagree completely with you. The writers of the Constitution and BOR did not want a standing army as it could be used to control the people as you think that it would not. That was exactly what they were concerned about is that a standing army would be used against the people and was why they put restrictions on it. During the revolution most of the arms (cannons, ships and all) were privately owned. The private arms were used to defeat the government (the King and his army) and that is what the writers wanted. In my opinion that the right for the individual to be armed for his own personal protection was so ingrained in their thoughts that they did not even consider that to be a part of 2A as the idea of it being taken away other than as an act of takeover of the population was unheard of. It was a given that the individual would always be able to use good judgement and protect themselves. And the present day National Guard is not what they meant by militia. The NG is that standing army that they were concerned about more than our actual army.
Take It
We the people are the government and not the officials we elect. They are our representatives and work for us. The community controls the heavy weapons and also owns the equipment of the US military. Our representatives seem to forget the oaths that they take when sworn into office. Many of them say they are doing what their constituents want in pushing for gun laws but the oaths they take say different as they swear to uphold and defend. Pushing for infringement on the 2nd is violation of oath of office but no one pursues them in court. The laws on the books are unconstitutional but no one challenges them in court. There is much wrong in the policies but the community does not rise up. Is it fear or laziness that keeps the people from taking back the government of the people. Talk and no action seems to be the rule of the day. If they are wrong then throw them out. If they violate their oaths to protect the constitution they are traitors. Why is nothing done? Is blind justice now asleep? I don't want my neighbor having a Vulcan 20mm. Seems to me if 500 neighbors from each neighborhood get together in concert and armed they can obtain the use of their own community weaponry if they need it. For an army to be used against the populace they must have contempt for the people. If they see their own families in that group then how can they act against them? If any type of weapon is allowed then some mentally handicapped person will use it when upset. The use of small arms every day in criminal acts is proof of that. The laws should control the use of weapons in violent criminal acts by providing severe and quick punishment for such. The communities need to organize militias as described in the 2nd. If everyone gets together the odd cases will stick out quickly and therapy could deal with them as appropriate. If we can't learn to take the responsibility given us by the constitution we have been given and work together to keep it and defend it then we aren't worthy of it! Unity and action are what is needed.
WHERE IS IT?
Take It
By disagree completely, do you mean that violent criminals are citizens due the rights of the rest of us? Do you believe that the second is protected by an individual or would it be that individuals working together should protect our rights? I believe that the 2nd was written to allow an armed community to rise together as they did in the revolution. It wasn't one person that threw out the English forces. I would rather trust the group than the individual. We need to get together and jointly keep track of our members to avoid one crackpot causing a bad name to come over all of us as in violent criminals actions being used as gun control rallying cries.The statement that "guns causing crime is like matches causing arson" is so true. It is also true that well intentioned people will give away your rights quickly since they don't need or want your rights. There are a lot of people that have no idea of the rights granted by the constitution and yet they are allowed to vote! There should be a citizenship test before a voter card is issued.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
