Anonymous Poster
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 29,678
WVBill,
Please don't turn my words describing a "powerless" people at the mercy of a reinless government into "support" for a nuclear weapon in every garage.
Power, ultimately, when the gloves are off and the chips are down, means deadly-force. Unpleasant/hopefully unnecessary, but true in the end.
I am open to discussion regarding what types of weapons perhaps should be excluded from those "permitted" to citizens,... a discussion that we have not had here. Do not put words in my mouth, nor opinions in my mind, please.
Re. "domino" effects ( a term that like many cliches-turned-buzzwords, has lost much of its usefulness as communication):
"It can't happen here!" is not an original thought. But it IS one that has been disproven a time-or-two, in a place-or-two, on this planet.
Is it your position that "rights" (or anything else) can NOT be taken from a "powerless" (the word I used) people?
Is it your position that when a government HAS "deadly-force" and the citizens DO NOT, then the citizens are not "powerless"(relatively and practically speaking)?
Is it your position that a "responsible" government(human-beings, often with a desire for "power") can be trusted,... while "responsible" citizens (human-beings, often with a desire for "security"), can NOT be trusted?
Apparantly you think it a good thing that we Americans "control" our government. That implies a need to continue to do so. I agree.
You state that you expect that you will have the right to "bear arms" for a long time. This implies that the "right" to do so will be preserved for you. You associate in your post (speaking of "lines-of-reasoning" being used) the NRA with child-pornographers, because of what you see as similarites-in-their-lines-of-reasoning . (interesting, when oppositional tactics are considered... might be viewed by some as an attempt at "demonization".) Though not a member, I personally am not pleased by the introduction of "smear-association" into the issue of citizen's "rights" to self-defense.
If it is preferred, both groups could be left entirely out of this discussion, which has plenty of merit upon which to stand, in it's own right. But back to "preserving" the "right" to "control" (ultimately, again, "with arms") any government. It will not be "preserved" by your assumption that it will always be there. There are those who actively (actively!) oppose "citizens" having any such "right", or capability. Seeing that they do not prevail requires organization, political activity, and wide support.
Personally I may (may!) not agree with some of the positions taken by the NRA. There are a great many arguments on each side that should be heard and carefully considered before deciding. BUT, no group has done more to protect and preserve for you the "right" whose continued existence you seem to (pardon my use of the phrase) "take-for-granted ".
That you may not believe/appreciate this, is perhaps understandable. But I will state with no fear of contradiction that there is a vast difference between any effects on your life of the activities of the NRA, and effects on your life (if any) of the activities of child pornographers.
I much enjoy the open/frank-but-courteous atmosphere here on TBN, and don't wish to introduce a hostile tone...but wrapping the NRA in the same toilet-paper with child-pornographers seems to me more than a bit disingenuous, and serves only to "muddy-the-water", if the topic is "bearing arms".
Ifyou wish to introduce "child-pornographers" 1st Amendment "rights" as an issue, then I believe the NRA can fairly be left-out of that discussion as well.
Regarding what may or may-not happen "here" or "now", it seems to me me that there are two approaches to be taken:
1.Assume that all is (and will always be) well.
2, Do what you can to see-to-it that all is (and will always be) well.
I favor the 2nd(!) approach!
Larry
Please don't turn my words describing a "powerless" people at the mercy of a reinless government into "support" for a nuclear weapon in every garage.
Power, ultimately, when the gloves are off and the chips are down, means deadly-force. Unpleasant/hopefully unnecessary, but true in the end.
I am open to discussion regarding what types of weapons perhaps should be excluded from those "permitted" to citizens,... a discussion that we have not had here. Do not put words in my mouth, nor opinions in my mind, please.
Re. "domino" effects ( a term that like many cliches-turned-buzzwords, has lost much of its usefulness as communication):
"It can't happen here!" is not an original thought. But it IS one that has been disproven a time-or-two, in a place-or-two, on this planet.
Is it your position that "rights" (or anything else) can NOT be taken from a "powerless" (the word I used) people?
Is it your position that when a government HAS "deadly-force" and the citizens DO NOT, then the citizens are not "powerless"(relatively and practically speaking)?
Is it your position that a "responsible" government(human-beings, often with a desire for "power") can be trusted,... while "responsible" citizens (human-beings, often with a desire for "security"), can NOT be trusted?
Apparantly you think it a good thing that we Americans "control" our government. That implies a need to continue to do so. I agree.
You state that you expect that you will have the right to "bear arms" for a long time. This implies that the "right" to do so will be preserved for you. You associate in your post (speaking of "lines-of-reasoning" being used) the NRA with child-pornographers, because of what you see as similarites-in-their-lines-of-reasoning . (interesting, when oppositional tactics are considered... might be viewed by some as an attempt at "demonization".) Though not a member, I personally am not pleased by the introduction of "smear-association" into the issue of citizen's "rights" to self-defense.
If it is preferred, both groups could be left entirely out of this discussion, which has plenty of merit upon which to stand, in it's own right. But back to "preserving" the "right" to "control" (ultimately, again, "with arms") any government. It will not be "preserved" by your assumption that it will always be there. There are those who actively (actively!) oppose "citizens" having any such "right", or capability. Seeing that they do not prevail requires organization, political activity, and wide support.
Personally I may (may!) not agree with some of the positions taken by the NRA. There are a great many arguments on each side that should be heard and carefully considered before deciding. BUT, no group has done more to protect and preserve for you the "right" whose continued existence you seem to (pardon my use of the phrase) "take-for-granted ".
That you may not believe/appreciate this, is perhaps understandable. But I will state with no fear of contradiction that there is a vast difference between any effects on your life of the activities of the NRA, and effects on your life (if any) of the activities of child pornographers.
I much enjoy the open/frank-but-courteous atmosphere here on TBN, and don't wish to introduce a hostile tone...but wrapping the NRA in the same toilet-paper with child-pornographers seems to me more than a bit disingenuous, and serves only to "muddy-the-water", if the topic is "bearing arms".
Ifyou wish to introduce "child-pornographers" 1st Amendment "rights" as an issue, then I believe the NRA can fairly be left-out of that discussion as well.
Regarding what may or may-not happen "here" or "now", it seems to me me that there are two approaches to be taken:
1.Assume that all is (and will always be) well.
2, Do what you can to see-to-it that all is (and will always be) well.
I favor the 2nd(!) approach!
Larry