I guess it's not the words we use. But, the ideology we foster. So, from the implications of my stance, I would certainly assume that my left-leaning approach doesn't condone everyone having guns. It's pretty obvious how you vote on the gun issue. I'm not as sure about immigration, voting reforms, abortion, gay rights, and the rest of the ideological divide. I've been surprised from time to time. So, I try to withhold judgement until it is perfectly clear how you stand.
It does not matter if they are easy to get or not. If the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution allows for legal gun ownership, that is all that matters. The moment you start reducing or eliminating those rights, the less free the USA becomes. (Of course, it really is not just about gun ownership but pretty much our entire freedom. I say there is a legitimate reason the founding fathers made is so that the first 10 amendments could not be changed.)
The fact is, our founding fathers where far more intelligent and experienced than any one of us here will ever be. They were more than capable of seeing what could happen and planned as best they could for it. Either it is a Bill of Rights or a Bill of Suggestions, not both but either or.
Actually, there were hand grenades of a sort but, they are nothing like what you see today. Rockets existed back then as well but, again, nothing like what we have today.
I still don't agree that just because some judge (maybe he has his own political agenda) can decide how to interpret what a written constitutional right is. (I don't agree that a Corporation has the rights like a human being and money is not the same as speech.) When a different set of judges are installed, this right will, again, be discussed. The assault gun ban was put in by Reagan and it lasted for something like 10 years. So, at that point, owning an assault rifle wasn't our God-given right. These issues were written in the Second Amendment in the context of having a local militia. Scalia ruled and interpreted what the Second Amendment really meant fairly recently. All our brilliant Founding Fathers were long since dead. We then make the assumption that we have these 'rights' because it fits our ideology. So, I just don't buy these words, wherever they have been written, as God-given or written specifically by our Founding Fathers. Interpretation will be re-argued when we all have lasers in our eyes or warp drive and photon torpedoes. Were the Founding Fathers talking about those arms, too? We will have to adjust our rights when the weapons become more deadly or poisonous. Do we have the right to own Agent Orange or some virus which can be used as a weapon to protect our families? We inoculate our family and shoot the rocket with the virus into the air - to kill those invaders. There are many ways to interpret these issues.
Yeah! I'm sure our congress will get right on it. They've been doing so much to make our legislature so much better. I'm not against any personal ideology if it doesn't get our kids shot in school. Personal freedom can be deemed to be a universal right. Then anyone can go and shoot school kids because they interpret that to mean their own personal freedom. I think a few of our recent shooters used this kind of thinking. I agree that recognizing a right does not guarantee its protection. So, owning guns can be recognized as a right. But, just as smoking marijuana is a personal freedom, it is not federally recognized, even though a number of States have deemed it legal for recreation or medical use. Supreme Court judges have decided to interpret many a law as being constitutional or not.
Our system is more broken since the Republican and Democratic ideology has become so uncompromising. I'm not very convinced that this system is working. The voters seem to be giving Obama a clear vote of support. But, Congress is still just like they were last term - no support for anything he wants to do. Personal issues can become more important than what's better for the Country.
The latest story put out by Rachel Maddow caught my interest yesterday. She aired "Hubris." It was a historic look at how Bush got us into the Iraq War by lying about how valid his info about weapons of mass destruction was. Chaney and Condoleeza were both shown to be making assumptions about the aluminum tubes and the yellowcake. They were pretty much convinced that Saddaam was supporting Al-Quida. So, war was needed. That was about 10 years ago and all the historic details have been collected.
The rules, 'rights,' and freedoms our government decides upon are by choice. The Constitution was written while all the writers were slave-owners. They were shooting muskets. I think we do need some amendments to get our laws into the time of the Internet.
Our banks are making a lot of money while the rest of the population is not making enough to survive. We need to adjust the way the Stock Market makes sales of stock - maybe a $1 tax per trade. It might stop all the speculation about oil, energy, and other commodities that we all need to use.
I still also am quite against lobbying. Money should not determine who is right. The NRA, big oil, big pharma, tobacco, liquor, and big banks are governing us (instead of the actual government.) They use their money to 'primary' the ones who don't do what they want. We should have a limit on how much money one can spend on his campaign. TV or Internet can give them a chance to be heard without the big bucks.
Nothing in the Constitution about any of these things.
I'm very much against using drones to kill terrorists - or anyone else for that matter. Who made us so wise to let us decide who is worthy of living or dying?
I think when we have guns, we take up that same wisdom as being our right. The gun manufacturers are happy to provide the tool for us to have the ability of killing anyone that we decide is needing death.
We do have the right to defend ourselves and our family. Living in this society (where there are so many criminals) can certainly make us feel paranoid. I think we can either just buy the assault rifle or get some therapy to feel safer. OK, maybe we should do both. Still, I would feel a lot more paranoid if I carried a tool with which I could kill someone - or myself - and just felt like I was dealing with this problem rationally.
I do think that there is another way to get this country from being so heavily armed that any hassle or difference of opinion can bring out a gun.
There are many other countries who have found a better way to live. Somehow the criminal element isn't as prevalent in these societies.
Could it be that having everyone armed to the teeth isn't the best way to go?
Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, etc. does happen here more than in other countries. Maybe our wonderful lifestyle can use a few tweaks.
Yeah! I'm living in gold country right now. There were quite a few people who once would have liked to jump my claim. But, the gold seems to be gone. So, there's really no reason to come over with guns ablazin. Things have quieted down considerably. I'm quite glad for that.
That's ok! It seems that the NRA has lobbied well enough to convince even the democrats (who want to be re-elected in red states) not to threaten their chances by voting for any gun laws. It doesn't matter what one thinks here. It's politics as usual.
Comments
It's pretty obvious how you vote on the gun issue. I'm not as sure about immigration, voting reforms, abortion, gay rights, and the rest of the ideological divide. I've been surprised from time to time. So, I try to withhold judgement until it is perfectly clear how you stand.
The fact is, our founding fathers where far more intelligent and experienced than any one of us here will ever be. They were more than capable of seeing what could happen and planned as best they could for it. Either it is a Bill of Rights or a Bill of Suggestions, not both but either or.
Our system is more broken since the Republican and Democratic ideology has become so uncompromising. I'm not very convinced that this system is working. The voters seem to be giving Obama a clear vote of support. But, Congress is still just like they were last term - no support for anything he wants to do. Personal issues can become more important than what's better for the Country.
The latest story put out by Rachel Maddow caught my interest yesterday. She aired "Hubris." It was a historic look at how Bush got us into the Iraq War by lying about how valid his info about weapons of mass destruction was. Chaney and Condoleeza were both shown to be making assumptions about the aluminum tubes and the yellowcake. They were pretty much convinced that Saddaam was supporting Al-Quida. So, war was needed. That was about 10 years ago and all the historic details have been collected.
The rules, 'rights,' and freedoms our government decides upon are by choice. The Constitution was written while all the writers were slave-owners. They were shooting muskets. I think we do need some amendments to get our laws into the time of the Internet.
Our banks are making a lot of money while the rest of the population is not making enough to survive. We need to adjust the way the Stock Market makes sales of stock - maybe a $1 tax per trade. It might stop all the speculation about oil, energy, and other commodities that we all need to use.
I still also am quite against lobbying. Money should not determine who is right. The NRA, big oil, big pharma, tobacco, liquor, and big banks are governing us (instead of the actual government.) They use their money to 'primary' the ones who don't do what they want. We should have a limit on how much money one can spend on his campaign. TV or Internet can give them a chance to be heard without the big bucks.
Nothing in the Constitution about any of these things.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/08/an-intriguing-new-study-states-with-more-gun-laws-have-fewer-gun-deaths/
I'm very much against using drones to kill terrorists - or anyone else for that matter.
Who made us so wise to let us decide who is worthy of living or dying?
I think when we have guns, we take up that same wisdom as being our right.
The gun manufacturers are happy to provide the tool for us to have the ability of killing anyone that we decide is needing death.
We do have the right to defend ourselves and our family.
Living in this society (where there are so many criminals) can certainly make us feel paranoid.
I think we can either just buy the assault rifle or get some therapy to feel safer. OK, maybe we should do both.
Still, I would feel a lot more paranoid if I carried a tool with which I could kill someone - or myself - and just felt like I was dealing with this problem rationally.
I do think that there is another way to get this country from being so heavily armed that any hassle or difference of opinion can bring out a gun.
There are many other countries who have found a better way to live. Somehow the criminal element isn't as prevalent in these societies.
Could it be that having everyone armed to the teeth isn't the best way to go?
Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, etc. does happen here more than in other countries.
Maybe our wonderful lifestyle can use a few tweaks.
But, the gold seems to be gone. So, there's really no reason to come over with guns ablazin.
Things have quieted down considerably. I'm quite glad for that.
I couldn't decide which thread this should go in. It is a video though. It's also about guns. I like Jim Carey and his thinking.
That's ok! It seems that the NRA has lobbied well enough to convince even the democrats (who want to be re-elected in red states) not to threaten their chances by voting for any gun laws. It doesn't matter what one thinks here. It's politics as usual.