[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:07:16 -0700
Irene
You haven't the foggiest notion of what the founding fathers thought. Here
are the words you misrepresent. I quote them. They mean something
different from your twisting and misrepresenting of them: A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and these people shall
decide what is necessary to their security, not big government or anti-gun
Leftist-Pacifists who don't really like what our founding fathers created.
Here is an official discussion of the subject; which you won't read, Irene,
but perhaps someone else will: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
It provides an interesting history of this matter.
Here are some quotes from some of the founding fathers you misrepresent.
Perhaps you can read just these few lines:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress,
initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first
Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may
have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification
of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of
all other nations . . . 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." (James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
(Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:20 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
Guns are one of our rights for a _well armed militia_. Are you encouraging
citizens to join a militia? Are you in a militia? It's curious that for
years you argued that anyone who opposed the government was a traitor. Now
you're advocating anti-government gun carrying to presumably blow away
members of the government. How are the dots connected, Lawrence?
Otherwise, if nutcases, felons and those who don't know how to use a gun are
eliminated, what possible reason would an ordinary citizen *need* a gun?
The Founding Fathers didn't trust the government, but they also didn't trust
the people, or else they wouldn't have created the Electoral College.
I think the Founding Fathers would be in despair to see what's been made of
their call for a well armed militia, a far cry from what you are advocating,
namely, that all citizens carry guns just to carry them. We have a well
armed militia in any case. It's called the Department of Defense. In your
scenario, you need a gun for the next time a police officer or the sheriff
or mayor or alderman of your town come to your door, so you can blow them
away. It's your right, allegedly bestowed on you by the Founding Fathers.
Just curious, if you were stopped by a police officer for a tail light that
was out, would you blow the cop away? He is a representative of the
government after all, and you claim it's your right to oppose him with your
gun.
Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Because this is the orientation of our nation from its founding. Our
nation was based upon the primacy of the ordinary citizen, not the primacy
of government. We the people decided what government shall do and not the
reverse. Mike's scenario has a benign government deciding that no one
shall have handguns and then somehow enforcing that decision - benignly so
that the police are our friends. In my scenario all shall have handguns
if they qualify for handling them, because that is one of our rights. We
the people have determined that certain people may not be trusted with guns
such as criminals and nutcases. As to the inept, those people are either
the lazy (those who don't wish to learn about gun handling and safety) or
the witless (those whose intelligence doesn't enable them to handle guns
safely and responsibly). I am essentially agreeing with the thrust of
Michael Barone's article. He like so many assumed that the ordinary citizen
was not to be trusted. But our nation was founded upon the idea that
government wasn't to be trusted. Mike's fantasy would put more power in
hands of the government - an idea I am uncomfortable with.
Lawrence
_____
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=
X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-> cars
at Yahoo! Autos.
Other related posts:
