KestrelBike
01-24-2016, 19:08
I saw this today on the Gun Feed ( www.thegunfeed.com (http://www.thegunfeed.com) )
http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2016/01/22/fatally-flawed-second-amendment/ (http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2016/01/22/fatally-flawed-second-amendment/)
Ignore the actual article, it's all dumb BS we've read time and time again. The comments, however, have some real cocktail party gems (I snip where I think appropriate for brevity/formatting):
The anti-2nd Amendment community has for a long time deliberately misread the amendment, to the point of ignoring the logic structure of the sentence.
The structure is this:
“This is a benefit derived from X; the rights to X shall not be infringed.”To read it in any different context requires deliberate, intentional ignorance.
For example; suppose we said:
“Healthy bones being good for children, the right of children to drink milk shall not be infringed”.
The “progressive” read of that sentence, taken as they read the 2nd amendment, would be: “Only children with healthy bones are allowed to drink milk”.
Excuse me, but you have to be a real arse to interpret that sentence that way.
“Quality orchestras being of value to the culture of the state, the right of the people to own musical instruments shall not be infringed”.
Clearly I’ve just said that only orchestra members can own instruments?
The fatal, and I use that term intentionally, flaw in your logic is the fact that in court cases up to and including the Supreme Court it has been found that law enforcement has no duty to protect the individual. Their role is the protection of society as a whole. Certainly, police will help when they can, but their duty is to enforce the law after it’s been broken.
Sorry, but there does exist a natural right for all creatures to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm. Any people who attempt to defer that responsibility to others to the point of denying that right to themselves will soon fade into the mists of history as yet another failed civilization.
Over three hundred years ago Enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained what rights a citizen does and does not give up to the government in exchange for government’s protection, giving two typical examples to illustrate the boundary. As to the rights a private citizen gives up he said (paraphrasing) “If a man steals from me a fortune in gold and I learn where he is keeping it, I am not to use force to take it back from him but must place my case before the duly appointed authorities.” As to the rights a private citizen does NOT relinquish he wrote, “If a man points his sword at me and demands my purse, him I may freely kill though my purse contain but a half-penny.”
We need guns in order to exercise the pre-existing rights that a free man does NOT relinquish to government.
The theory of relinquishing rights to the government is flawed at its core.
A government has no rights and has no ability to posses rights.
People relinquish nothing to government; rather they delegate certain powers and authorities to government.
In this delegation of power and authority, people still retain ownership.
Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated.
The power or authority to accomplish something can be delegated, and often is. Ask any manager in business or senior officer in the military. Yet the responsibility to get the task done doesn’t move; it still lies with the original responsible person.
An example:
The captain of a ship has the responsibility to handle the ship well, yet the captain seldom does the actual steering of the ship. That task is delegated to a member of the crew. If the ship runs aground, it is the captain who is held responsible.
Particular to the right to keep & bear arms:
The people who founded this country recognized that government itself was the greatest threat to freedom and liberty and people MUST hold the means to protect themselves from this danger. This still holds true today.
Really, you ask? Yes, absolutely! Here’s why:
The VAST majority of wrongful deaths during the 1900’s was due to governments killing the very people they were responsible for be helping. 262 million people is the estimated death toll of civilians by government between 1900 and 1999. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
The number of deaths by what we know as criminal activity (murder) is estimated to be less than 5% of that. What this means is over 95% of people killed is done by the people’s own government….and people keep saying that only the police and military should have guns!!
To add to such arguments/facts, the whole "oh militia is guaranteed the arms, not individuals" is beat down as a basic premise in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison (under the pen name that all 3 authors took - Publius) which will have it's 228th anniversary next Friday. It talks (in my opinion) about the entirety of the fighting population being "the militia".
Snipped from Wiki-
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2016/01/22/fatally-flawed-second-amendment/ (http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2016/01/22/fatally-flawed-second-amendment/)
Ignore the actual article, it's all dumb BS we've read time and time again. The comments, however, have some real cocktail party gems (I snip where I think appropriate for brevity/formatting):
The anti-2nd Amendment community has for a long time deliberately misread the amendment, to the point of ignoring the logic structure of the sentence.
The structure is this:
“This is a benefit derived from X; the rights to X shall not be infringed.”To read it in any different context requires deliberate, intentional ignorance.
For example; suppose we said:
“Healthy bones being good for children, the right of children to drink milk shall not be infringed”.
The “progressive” read of that sentence, taken as they read the 2nd amendment, would be: “Only children with healthy bones are allowed to drink milk”.
Excuse me, but you have to be a real arse to interpret that sentence that way.
“Quality orchestras being of value to the culture of the state, the right of the people to own musical instruments shall not be infringed”.
Clearly I’ve just said that only orchestra members can own instruments?
The fatal, and I use that term intentionally, flaw in your logic is the fact that in court cases up to and including the Supreme Court it has been found that law enforcement has no duty to protect the individual. Their role is the protection of society as a whole. Certainly, police will help when they can, but their duty is to enforce the law after it’s been broken.
Sorry, but there does exist a natural right for all creatures to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm. Any people who attempt to defer that responsibility to others to the point of denying that right to themselves will soon fade into the mists of history as yet another failed civilization.
Over three hundred years ago Enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained what rights a citizen does and does not give up to the government in exchange for government’s protection, giving two typical examples to illustrate the boundary. As to the rights a private citizen gives up he said (paraphrasing) “If a man steals from me a fortune in gold and I learn where he is keeping it, I am not to use force to take it back from him but must place my case before the duly appointed authorities.” As to the rights a private citizen does NOT relinquish he wrote, “If a man points his sword at me and demands my purse, him I may freely kill though my purse contain but a half-penny.”
We need guns in order to exercise the pre-existing rights that a free man does NOT relinquish to government.
The theory of relinquishing rights to the government is flawed at its core.
A government has no rights and has no ability to posses rights.
People relinquish nothing to government; rather they delegate certain powers and authorities to government.
In this delegation of power and authority, people still retain ownership.
Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated.
The power or authority to accomplish something can be delegated, and often is. Ask any manager in business or senior officer in the military. Yet the responsibility to get the task done doesn’t move; it still lies with the original responsible person.
An example:
The captain of a ship has the responsibility to handle the ship well, yet the captain seldom does the actual steering of the ship. That task is delegated to a member of the crew. If the ship runs aground, it is the captain who is held responsible.
Particular to the right to keep & bear arms:
The people who founded this country recognized that government itself was the greatest threat to freedom and liberty and people MUST hold the means to protect themselves from this danger. This still holds true today.
Really, you ask? Yes, absolutely! Here’s why:
The VAST majority of wrongful deaths during the 1900’s was due to governments killing the very people they were responsible for be helping. 262 million people is the estimated death toll of civilians by government between 1900 and 1999. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
The number of deaths by what we know as criminal activity (murder) is estimated to be less than 5% of that. What this means is over 95% of people killed is done by the people’s own government….and people keep saying that only the police and military should have guns!!
To add to such arguments/facts, the whole "oh militia is guaranteed the arms, not individuals" is beat down as a basic premise in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist Paper #46 written by James Madison (under the pen name that all 3 authors took - Publius) which will have it's 228th anniversary next Friday. It talks (in my opinion) about the entirety of the fighting population being "the militia".
Snipped from Wiki-
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.