This is an interesting thread.
Smasheroo wrote:
Somewhere in the world, girl children are smothered at birth because the burden of raising a girl is just too high. It is a bit disheartening that you use girls who lived past the age of infancy and their "problems" as some sort of example of suffering. You want suffering? Try suffocating to death in your mothers arms.
Perhaps I missed some nuanced point here and I don't want to presume to know what you actually believe.. but are you are pro-life or pro-choice?
I recognize the reality that people are going to find a way to lose their unwanted children no matter what the law says.. and once again.. I feel that the desire to push legislation to reverse Roe V Wade(and 14th Amendment) is indeed right wing politicians cherry-picking their own superficial views of religious beliefs in senate.. and I may even find that pragmatic..
yet indeed having the unmitigated view that all life is precious etc.. I could never support it.
Smasheroo wrote:
While it may have been the case in 1800 that everyone having a musket was a check against government overreach, the modern reality in the US is quite, quite, different. The flying killer robots don't give a @#%^ that you have a circa 1947 designed assault rifle, have no fear on this front. If you want the people to have their own flying killer robots.
So in your view..
The concept of the inevitable complete global dominion of darth vader clones and a complete and total eroding of personal freedoms to the point of the world becoming one giant technocratic Borg colony... do you think that this state of affairs is just so inevitable that you say "why bother?" or do you take it a step further and think that the public being controlled by the government is more desirable than the government controlled by the people.. perhaps because the people clearly can't take care of themselves. Do you think that the Borg had the right idea?
..or do you actually think that an unchecked government that has disarmed its biggest threat (the public) is going to magically not attempt to spread wider and wider like ivy and that we'll be living in Gene Roddenberry's vision in a few centuries? Cause I love me some Star Trek.. but I know we're really living in the Mirror Universe.
Quote:
Nope, Smash wants states rights. If the workers paradise of the 'chussetts wants to ban handguns, they should be able to. If Kentucky wants to allow people to have mustard gas and gatling guns, great.
That darm 14th amendment again.
So what does the Federal Government when a state decides to allow slavery again?
What what the point even be of a Federal government? It seems to me that there should be no national army but only well orginized state militia that are obligated for fight for the security of the nation as a whole... The problem there is no incentive for any state to not attack another state.. hmmm...
It sounds like you simply want to AU just like there is an EU. Mainly so we can get rid of that damn Constitution.
Quote:
The problem now is that the "weapons" being wielded against the "tyrannical government" may as well be room temperature ramen. They're about as effective. If the "tyrannical government" feels like killing you, and it can find you, you'll be dead regardless of how many rounds of 7.62 you stockpiled. In seconds.
You have no faith in the human spirit.
I agree with you about the "no organic uprising" but the Brits could never conquer Ireland.. despite the odds.. Or the Yanks.. despite the odds.. It would certainly be more bloody than anything that has every happened in the known world.. but I don't think you give deluded and desperate people enough credit.
Elinda Elinda Elinda
Elinda wrote:
Imo, the second amendment is contradictory to governing in general, but the notion that owning a gun, owning any specific object for that matter is an inherent right of every citizen is a ridiculous interpretation of a constitutional amendment.
You really seem to have a poor interpretation of what this stuff is all about.
These things are
not supposed to be guidelines on how to rule-over people.. it is supposed to be
how to keep people free.
That is a humongous difference which is very troubling that people don't seem to realize.
Elinda wrote:
No amount of denial will change the fact that a government giving you explicit rights to oppose it through illegal means is about as antipodal as it gets.
Whaaaat? Understand this. RIGHTS are different than privileges. Nothing gives you rights.. you already have them.. as it says "God given rights"... but I'm guessing since we don't believe in God anymore then no one has any rights... except for the Right of Conquest.
YES>. it was written for the sole intention of empowering the people to be able a threat to the government to keep the government in check. It's quite clear and it's quite simple regardless of how many steps have been taken by then by men in power to make sure that the people are empowered as little as possible except where it serves them.. but there it stands.