I have been reading a history of Louis XIV King of France from about 1652 to maybe 1715 (dates approximate). It is said that game was plentiful around Paris and the surrounding hills -- rabbits, upland game birds, stags, etc. The reason given was that only the royalty and nobility were permitted to possess arms and to engage in hunting. I am confident that this state of affairs -- ordinary people prohibited from possessing arms and prohibited from hunting -- was prevalent throughout all the monarchial states of Europe. Wasn't Robin Hood in trouble for hunting the King's deer?
It seems clear and obvious to me that personal ownership of firearms is an essential right, an essential characteristic of a democracy. It is just as clear and obvious that the mighty will one way or the other retain possession of firearms and, if they so wish, access to hunting (it seems I remember Diane Feinstein is adamantly opposed to personal ownership of firearms, except when it comes to the question of her hired body guards who carry firearms).
How did we come to the point where the masses are so ignorant that they imagine that supressing the second amendment is not antagonistic to freedom and democracy?
How did we come to the point where the masses are so ignorant that they imagine that supressing the second amendment is not antagonistic to freedom and democracy?
Methinks that the masses are not antagonistic to our 2nd amendment rights. In the mid 90s over 80 percent of Americans wanted an AWB: A much lower percentage of Americans want an AWB today. More Americans are in favor of packing a gun for self defense than at any other place in modern times. In the mid 90s few states had shall issue concealed carry. Today that number is about 40.
Career political hacks in DC are the real enemy to our Second Amendment rights.
It seems clear and obvious to me that personal ownership of firearms is an essential right, an essential characteristic of a democracy
It is a right in the sense that a person has the right to self-defense and to protect their home and family. Firearms have been and currently are the most efficient means of self-defense. Firearm ownership ought to be a right in that they (at the time of the writing of the constitution) were the most effective way to put food on the table.
If some other means of self-defense were to be developed that was more effecient than firearms, I wonder if people would say ownership of that was a "right?"
Quote:
it seems I remember Diane Feinstein is adamantly opposed to personal ownership of firearms, except when it comes to the question of her hired body guards who carry firearms
That WE pay for through our taxes. That is what has always infuriated me about the anti-gun politicians. They use our money to pay for their armed body guards. But have the chutzpah to say we, the common people, do not have the right to own firearms.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
I have been reading a history of Louis XIV King of France from about 1652 to maybe 1715 (dates approximate). It is said that game was plentiful around Paris and the surrounding hills -- rabbits, upland game birds, stags, etc. The reason given was that only the royalty and nobility were permitted to possess arms and to engage in hunting. I am confident that this state of affairs -- ordinary people prohibited from possessing arms and prohibited from hunting -- was prevalent throughout all the monarchial states of Europe. Wasn't Robin Hood in trouble for hunting the King's deer?
It seems clear and obvious to me that personal ownership of firearms is an essential right, an essential characteristic of a democracy. It is just as clear and obvious that the mighty will one way or the other retain possession of firearms and, if they so wish, access to hunting (it seems I remember Diane Feinstein is adamantly opposed to personal ownership of firearms, except when it comes to the question of her hired body guards who carry firearms).
How did we come to the point where the masses are so ignorant that they imagine that supressing the second amendment is not antagonistic to freedom and democracy?
Your reasoning is right in line with those who put our government together (they used world history). Soooo the answer is the lack of that education. I remember being in school, history and I believe deliberately so, was a boring useless litany of names and dates. You just taught history with more life than most kids get in school. Tell a kid in a state where hunting is popular about the history of France with hunting involved and that kid will pay attention. The history of gun control is filled with enough emotion to stir up even the deadest heart and it's a crime that it isn't taught to kids in school. It was what our founders read with vigor some to use for good and some to use for worse.
But, why should a kid be interested when their parents aren't? My 16 year old just read the real history of William Wallace (yes, during the summer). His eyes were filled with fire and his blood boiling. I told him how long they'd fought after his death for independence and how Bruce died a year after getting it. Then I told him that their descendants utterly disrespectful of that great victory and ignorant of their history put themselves back under English rule in the 1700's.
I think 9/11 changed a lot of people's minds about guns, self-defense, and the Second Amendment. Things definitely are different, even among the younger generation. Video games probably play a role there, but who cares? A lot of things that were mainstream in the old days are coming back, like shooting, hunting, survivalism, etc.
It is a right in the sense that a person has the right to self-defense and to protect their home and family. Firearms have been and currently are the most efficient means of self-defense. Firearm ownership ought to be a right in that they (at the time of the writing of the constitution) were the most effective way to put food on the table.
If some other means of self-defense were to be developed that was more effecient than firearms, I wonder if people would say ownership of that was a "right?"
It is a right for no other reason than to ensure that the people of the United States of America will always have the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and to protect this country from foreign invasion. That's it.
It isn't there for family protection, hunting purposes, protection of our homes or any other made up reason.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Second amendment
