A Thomas Jefferson quote for the handwringers

[el_gato]

GUN CONTROL


No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson


The idea and policy of gun control is well meaning, but flawed. Politicans say that people will be "safer" if guns are harder to acquire and enact laws that make it difficult to buy guns, and in some cases, illegal. This policy makes it difficult for a citizen to aquire weaponry, while the criminal black market has no restrictions whatsover. The idea that sacrificing some liberty (such as the second amendment) for a little safety is flawed. Benjamin Franklin once said "They that give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Maple]

1. Jeepers!

In Canada we just vote them out.

[el_gato]

2. yeah right

I'll call diebold and get right on that.

[Maple]

7. Well we just use

plain old paper and pencil.

Sometimes low tech works best.

[arcane1]

3. If Jefferson tried saying that today...

he would be en route to Guzantanimo in no time

:toast: to T.J.

[iverglas]

4. now tell us

... what that Jefferson of yours had to say about slavery, 'k?

And then tell me (or anyone else you like; I don't know who these "handwringers" are) why I should give a pinch of poop what he said about anything ...

Nobody I'm personally acquainted with, whose opinion I do respect, regards firearms ownership as an "essential liberty", nor do they regard the continued life and well-being of themselves and their fellow citizens as "a little temporary safety".

But hey, we all got our opinions. Even Thomas Jefferson.

.

[MrBenchley]

5. What's hilarious is

that the forces most endangering liberty and embodying tyranny are all peddling this bogus "gun rights" horseshit.

[alwynsw]

27. Are you referring to me?

I may not agree with your sorry opinions concerning gun control - in fact we are polar opposites on the subject. TO paraphrase, aw hell, I'm terrible with names; I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it.

I'm endangering liberty? Let's see - I'm vehemently opposed to restrictions on any kind of travel, restrictions on speech, restrictions on reproductive rights, restrictions on assembly - hell, I'm even opposed to mandatory motorcycle helmet laws and seatbelt laws for autos.

I encourage voting by progressive and freepers alike, as well as every position in between. We live with what the electorate says we get.

Yup. I'm definitely promoting tyranny. I don't like the way you use your computer, so I think I'll campaign for a ban on computers.

/sarcasm off

[juancarlos]

66. I guess you think that Tom Jefferson

and his asswipe lunatic techniques of being for gun ownership are bogus. So, now you think Tom Jefferson is bogus?

[Valarauko]

161. He probably does

He thinks freedom is bogus too.

[RoeBear]

11. Throw out everything...

...Jefferson ever did or said because he owned slaves in the 1700's?
Ridiculous

[arcane1]

12. so much for the Declaration of Independance...

the Constitution, the Bill of Rights... etc...

[alwynsw]

28. Yup.

Toss the baby out with the bathwater. Kinda reminds me of the old joke - just suck one little...

I guess that because Jefferson owned slaves (a practice I find most heinous), which was perfectly legal in his day and an accepted practice in his circle, everything he did is suspect and should therefore be ignored or banned.

O.K. guys toss out those recliners! (A TJ invention.) No more elevators! (An outgrowth of TJ's dumbwaiter invention.)

He performed a legal, albeit distasteful (to put it very mildly) practice, therefore his enitre life and work is rubbish!

[iverglas]

14. ridiculous indeed

"Throw out everything...
...Jefferson ever did or said because he owned slaves in the 1700's?
Ridiculous"

I'm curious: who suggested that? Let me know, and I'll point and snicker along with you.

.

[RoeBear]

16. I'm curious: who suggested that?

why I should give a pinch of poop what he said about anything ...

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

17. oh, just to clarify ...

When I said:

And then tell me ... why I should give a pinch of poop what he said about anything ...

... this was a separate thought from:

now tell us what that Jefferson of yours had to say about slavery, 'k?


Y'see?

(1) It seems to me that someone who is going to cite a PERSON as some sort of moral authority is stuck with that person as a moral authority, and with that person's opinions about any moral issue one might name.

(2) I don't recognize anyone as a moral authority on anything, so I need to know why I'd give a pinch of poop about anything Jefferson (or anyone else) said about something that is purely a matter of opinion. Mine's as good as his.

-- as is so obvious, and as I've said so many times before, that I simply don't know how anyone could possibly (purport to) have misunderstood it this time, unless s/he really just doesn't pay attention (really just doesn't want to acknowledge understanding).

.

[arcane1]

19. if you disregard Jefferson's opinion on anything

why read the post? Much less reply to it...


nobody is calling him a moral authority, BTW. He is a mortal man, and as such is not always right about everything 100% of the time. That doesn't make him wrong 100% of the time either...


seems like you could've just clicked to another thread and saved us all, including yourself

[iverglas]

48. who said it did?

"He is a mortal man, and as such is not always right about everything 100% of the time. That doesn't make him wrong 100% of the time either..."

... and why are YOU TOO suggesting that *I* said it did?

I didn't. I said I needed a reason to care what he said. I haven't seen any.

There ain't no "right" or "wrong" about matters of opinion. I see someone saying I have a big ego (shall I click and read it? you got an opinion?). I guess that would be a matter of opinion ... but it's still a fact that an opinion is just an opinion, and the value of an opinion is in the eye of the beholder.

Some opinions can be argued more persuasively than others. I'm perfectly capable of arguing for mine. I'm sure Jefferson was perfectly capable of arguing for his. I doubt that Jefferson would have suggested that his opinion, based as it was on what he knew and what other opinion he had been exposed to, should be adopted by anyone else, let alone centuries later, without their bothering to think about it.


"seems like you could've just clicked to another thread and saved us all, including yourself"

Well gosh, allow me to return that serve. Whatever it was that you thought it might have saved us all.

.

[RoeBear]

22. Hell of an ego you got there...

...Iverglas.

"Mine's as good as his."
Ridiculous

[Emoto]

13. no surprise...

"Nobody I'm personally acquainted with, whose opinion I do respect, regards firearms ownership as an "essential liberty""

That is the difference between Citizens and subjects. Do give the queen my warmest regards...

[iverglas]

15. ha ha ha

"Nobody I'm personally acquainted with, whose opinion I do respect, regards firearms ownership as an 'essential liberty' ... "

"That is the difference between Citizens and subjects."


And here I thought it was the difference between sane people who care about their societies, and their fellow members of those societies, and nutbar paranoids who care only about themselves.

Hey -- I still do.

.

(html fixed) (again)

[Emoto]

24. It is because we care...

...that we choose to retain instruments of power. A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

[iverglas]

53. hands up

"That is the difference between Citizens and subjects. Do give the queen my warmest regards..."

... everybody who knew that Canadians were subjects of the British crown.

Just curious.

.

[wtmusic]

6. That Jefferson quote is a good 'un

A similar quote from Lincoln:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

He'd go to Gitmo for saying that nowadays.

[Romulus]

8. watch out

saying that stuff here in the 'dungeon will get you labeled as either a "neo-nazi" or an "uncivilized USAmerican who doesn't care about anyone other then themself."

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Imagine the kind of "arms" you would need nowadays

to protect yourself from tyrany in government. It's just not practical.

[Romulus]

10. yeah

just ask the Iraqi guerillas . . .

[alwynsw]

30. A little pee and an aspirin

Concoct it properly and you can make some fine explosives.

I agree with your point in part. No firearm legal for an individual to own can stand up to the current military...but 80,000,000 single shot .22's can make a hell of a racket.

Weight of numbers.

[MrBenchley]

33. Too TOO frigging funny...

South Carolina is lousy with right wing gun loving screwlooses always bellowing about how much they supposedly love freedom, but yet they ain't made even the faintest of peeps about the armed raid by cops on Stratford High School that anyone's heard....so much for gun nuts protecting ANYBODY's freedom.

"Seventeen Stratford High School students are suing the city of Goose Creek and the Berkeley County school district in federal court, alleging police and school officials terrorized them in a drug raid last month. "

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1878/a06.html?1042

Who IS supporting this lawsuit? Why, anti-gun Jesse Jackson. Go figure.

By the way, it was a primarily black high school. Should I bring up "gun rights" and race again? Naw, I think everybody can see it for themselves...

[hansberrym]

162. Isn't that just another version of the totalitarian mantra...

Resistance is futile !



I prefer the founders views:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our
countrymen." -- Samuel Adams


"Is life so precious, or peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

[dougmalloy]

20. Bogus quotes

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."

This quote is incomplete. The entire quote is "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own land)."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Utter nonsense. There is not one shred of evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever in his life wrote or spoke such words. The quote is bogus.

Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

[LARED]

21. Thanks

The truth is the most important issue.

[el_gato]

36. you contradict yourself there newbie

[el_gato]

63. bogus post

take a look at that cite there are lots of quotes from the founding fathers in there in support of the individual to keep arms

[iverglas]

69. bogus allegation

"take a look at that cite there are lots of quotes from the founding fathers in there in support of the individual to keep arms"

WHO SAID that there weren't, or they didn't?

Not the poster you are responding to.

So why do you imply that s/he did say that? Why, oh why, oh why ...



What would you know about the bogus-hood or otherwise of the "quotation" you offered in your lead post?

Do you even have an idea of where that "quotation" was spoken or written by Thomas Jefferson?

As far as I can tell -- and see my post about "your (very) bad" in this thread, which you have not responded to so far -- you simply lifted the quotation, and the commentary on it, from someone else's work in which the source of the quotation was not identified.

Does the concept of "primary source" mean anything to you? The notion that if YOU are going to make an assertion of fact ("Thomas Jefferson said: ..."), the onus is on YOU to establish that such a fact exists?

Quoting someone else who has quoted something s/he found on the internet, where it was posted by someone else who found it on the internet, ..., ..., is not substantiation of anything.

If you want to quote Thomas Jefferson, quote Thomas Jefferson. Not someone called "Agent Orange" who claims to be quoting Thomas Jefferson.


... and then tell me why I should care what Thomas Jefferson said, if he said it.

.

[el_gato]

73. You obviously care a great deal about what Jefferson said

Are you denying that the founding fathers did not support the right to keep and bear arms?

[CO Liberal]

23. In Jefferson's Day.....

..."free men" were men who owned property. That was a voting requirement in many areas - the concept lives on in NJ, where the county commissioners are called the "Board of Chosen Freeholders".

So apparantly, Jefferson believed in the class warfare so many pro-gunners accuse us pro-control people of.

[AJjer_Politics]

25. How about logic?

Anyone going to argue against this post or are you all going to try and discredit the source?

All I see is mudslinging here... let's see some constructive arguments for gods sake!

If you disagree with the poster then explain why.

[CO Liberal]

26. Refer to Post 20

The "quotes" appear to be bogus.

[alwynsw]

31. Welcome to DU!

You learn quickly!

[alwynsw]

29. Actions speak louder than words

Can anyone show me proof that any framer of the constitution opposed private gun ownership or did not either own or allow guns in his household?

I know some of you won't "get" this line of thought. Only lunatic asswipes own guns, therefore the framers of the constitution must have all been lunatic asswipes.

[MrBenchley]

32. And dishonesty tries to outshout common sense and truth

"Can anyone show me proof that any framer of the constitution opposed private gun ownership or did not either own or allow guns in his household?"
First you show me proof that any framer of the constitution oppoosed e-mail spam or did not either own or allow computers in his household. Or show me proof that any framer of the constitution opposed drunk driving laws or did not either own or allow automobiles in his household. Or show me proof that any framer of the constitution opposed zoning laws or did not either own or allow swimming pools in his household.

This has got to be about the stupidest argument yet. Whatever the hell Jefferson's private opinion was or wasn't (and we will never know what he would have said about the epidemic of gun violence we're faced with or assault weapons or the gun show loophole and the corrupt gun industry) what matters is what was enacted into law. And in that case we're left with the ACTUAL second amendment which puts the bearing of arms (i.e. military service) in the context of a well-regulated militia for the defense of the state....and not a single word about neurotics having any unfettered right to have their lethal little toys.

Oh and by the way, let's NOT forget the wonderful cherry on top of the sundae--the quote's as phony as Chimpy's "Mission Accomplished" banner...and probably comes from the same bunch of liars.

[el_gato]

47. we know, you do it everyday

LOL!

[MrBenchley]

51. I'm not the one with the phony quote, gato

Nor am I the one pimping AshKKKroft's agenda...that would be YOU.

[el_gato]

56. your wrong as usual

but I know you don't care

[iverglas]

61. his (possible) right, and your (very) bad

Your entire lead post appears to have been lifted from someplace, without credit given ... unless ... you're "Agent Orange"? --

http://www.furious.com/foundingfathers.html

GUN CONTROL

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson

The idea and policy of gun control is well meaning, but flawed. Politicans say that people will be "safer" if guns are harder to acquire and enact laws that make it difficult to buy guns, and in some cases, illegal. This policy makes it difficult for a citizen to aquire weaponry, while the criminal black market has no restrictions whatsover. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to aquire guns. The idea that sacrificing some liberty (such as the second amendment) for a little safety is flawed. Benjamin Franklin once said "They that give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The mass media, as detailed before, helps to enforce public opinion on guns, through shows like Cops, sensational stories about brutal murders, and random acts of violence. If these criminal acts are increasing and making it unsafe to live is it not logical that more decent american citizens should armed and trained so that they may be able to defend themselves against such criminals? Laws restricting handgun and rifle ownership create a false sense of security within the public, for the criminals, it is still easy to aquire weaponry. A more viable solution would to be make sentences on those who commit violent crimes with weapons more severe. Penalizing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others is not the way to go, and will not give Americans more safety.

LOOK AT ALL FAMILIAR?

Adopt the opinion if you like ... after all, it's just somebody else's opinion, and not a very literate one at that, and of no inherent value anyhow ... but for pete's sake, have the courtesy to credit it.

And really -- if you're contending that the Jefferson "quotation" in that document is real and accurate, the onus is on you to establish the existence of the original and the accuracy of the reproduction of it.

Your fifth-hand Jefferson quote may be correct -- I gather there may be two different versions of the statement, both actually made by Jefferson at different times (the other is below). I really don't know (apart from not actually caring). But I did find these -- the second (emphasis added) is my favourite; how about you?

http://www.cee-english.com/page73.html

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land".

Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks".

Forget football, guys. Dead white old Thomas sez so. And he's YOUR moral authority, not mine.

.

[el_gato]

67. you are right, it comes from the furious website

so? As far as your efforts to bash Jefferson, I'm not impressed
and I don't care what you think.

cry me a river

[iverglas]

70. this is tiresome

"As far as your efforts to bash Jefferson, I'm not impressed"


Either identify my "efforts to bash Jefferson", or withdraw the false allegation that I have made any such efforts.

.

[el_gato]

72. this part

"Forget football, guys. Dead white old Thomas sez so. And he's YOUR moral authority, not mine."


A blatant effort to impugn the morality of Jefferson.

[el_gato]

75. by the way

your posts smacks of racism

[iverglas]

79. oh, benchley -- you're needed

I refer to Thomas Jefferson, a slave-owner and slavery-defender, as "white" ... and my words taste of racism.

Please, I'm sure you have something à propos to say.

.

[MrBenchley]

83. It's amazing, isn't it?

Ted Nugent says black people have bones in their noses, but he don't seem racist to gun nuts...

Larry Pratt holds kaffeeklatches with the League of the South and Aryan Nation, but he don't seem racist to gun nuts...

John Lott says the reason black folks didn't get to vote in Jeb Bush's Florida was because they weren't bright enough, but he don't seem racist to gun nuts...

Trent Lott says we wouldn't have "these problems" if we still had Jim Crow, but he don't seem racist to gun nuts...

NRA board member Jeff Cooper calls black people orangoutangs, but he don't seem racist to gun nuts...

But mentioning that white Thomas Jefferson WAS white...that seems racist to gun nuts...

The RKBA crowd's more fun than the car at the circus that unloads all those clowns...and just as full of serious argument.

[el_gato]

92. an outright lie by benchley

When are you gonna give up the charade? I don't support Nugent
but your tireless efforts to distort reality are disgusting.

post 59 and post 83

[iverglas]

96. quote it

"an outright lie by benchley
When are you gonna give up the charade? I don't support Nugent
but your tireless efforts to distort reality are disgusting."


Anyone who calls what someone has said a lie really oughta have no difficulty in QUOTING the lie.

Shall we count the number of false allegations of fact that you have posted in this thread alone today? (Y'see how I give you the benefit of the doubt? Your statement was false. I don't claim to know whether you made a false statement by design or by mistake or by reason of impairment of your faculties. I just know that the statement is false -- and I offer you the opportunity to either offer evidence to support it, if you made it by design and wish it to stand, or retract it, however it was made, upon realizing that it is false.)

Or are you going to actually substantiate any of them?

Start with this one. Copy and paste the statement that you are calling a lie.

Or retract the allegation.

Or heck, just keep it up and get the thread locked ...

.

[el_gato]

97. you obviously don't read benchley's posts

post after post paints anybody who supports the right to own a gun with support for ted nugent and racism, etc.

if you don't see that i don't care but it is in plain sight.

the examples are countless and all over this thread

for example he says in post 74:

"Gee, gato I'm not the one peddling the rhetoric of the scummiest individuals"

so if I argue in favor of gun owenrship I am "simply peddling the rhetoric of the scummiest individuals." In othe words I can't argue
in favor of gun ownership without "peddling the rhetoric of the scummiest individuals"

Again, if you don't understand this it's not my problem.

[MrBenchley]

99. Not only does iverglas read them

but unlike some people she actually understands what they say.

[Valarauko]

160. ROFLMAO!!!

You amuse me over and over again.

[iverglas]

78. keep trying

"Forget football, guys. Dead white old Thomas sez so. And he's YOUR moral authority, not mine."

"A blatant effort to impugn the morality of Jefferson."


Quoting Thomas Jefferson's opinion of "ball sports", I think it was, and then stating that he says that you all should forget football -- describing him accurately as dead, old and white -- is "A blatant effort to impugn the morality of Jefferson"???

Not even a good try, that one.

You have now made another false allegation. I mean, I state that it is false, and I offer the evidence -- the plain fact that I have not said anything to "impugn" the morality of Thomas Jefferson.

(Of course, I did refer to Jefferson's slave-owning ways, and that might be taken by some as impugning his morality. I, again, would call it a statement of fact.)

So either substantiate or retract, once again. Noting that you have done neither in the case of your original false allegation.



For anyone concerned, I cite the Concise Oxford:

"false": not according with facts, wrong, incorrect
"allegation": an assertion, especially an unproved one; an accusation

No rules broken here, folks. I claim that an incorrect assertion was made, and nobody can prove me wrong.

.

[el_gato]

80. keep twisting, I have no more time for you

Seriously your veiled racism and parsing of literal meanings while hiding behind the implications is tedious and unbecoming of valid discourse.

I am washing my hands of all further communication with you.

[el_gato]

71. and what part do you disagree with

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land".

or the one about essential liberty by Franklin?

[iverglas]

85. why the fuck do you ask?

"and what part do you disagree with

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land".

or the one about essential liberty by Franklin?

WHERE HAVE I SAID that I disagree with either?

Why is it that you cannot tell (or will not acknowledge) the difference between:

(a) not caring what Joe Blow said about something that is a matter of opinion;

(b) not agreeing with Joe Blow's opinion

?????


If YOU want to defend a particular opinion, why don't YOU defend it??

Posting the words allegedly spoken by someone who shares your opinion is a complete waste of time UNLESS the people you are addressing recognize the person you are quoting as an authority on the matter on which he is speaking.

There is NO SUCH THING as an "authority" on matters of opinion. And both morality and public policy are matters of opinion.

You are engaging in the fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam -- the logical fallacy commonly called appealing to authority:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html (emphasis added)

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

There is NO SUCH THING as an authority on "morality" or on anything else that is A MATTER OF OPINION and cannot be proved or disproved by facts (even if they are not yet known, as in the case of black holes or intelligent computers).

YOU, or someone else, may CHOOSE to recognize Thomas Jefferson, or someone else, as an authority on morality or anything else it might be convenient for you to quote him in respect of.

I DON'T. (I'd probably accept him as an authority on how best to treat one's slaves in order to ensure maximum productivity ... if I happened to want to know about that ...)

If you want to persuade me, or anyone else who does not recognize Thomas Jefferson as a moral authority (which I suspect would be most people), to agree with you about something, quoting Thomas Jefferson is not going to help you.

If I did recognize Thomas Jefferson as an authority on "morality", I'd have one hell of a time opposing slavery, I'd say.


In point of fact, I wouldn't waste my time "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with what Thomas Jefferson said. It is quite simply irrelevant to anything that concerns me. Someone's opinion about what a bunch of people in a particular set of historical and geographical and cultural and economic circumstances should do or not do simply has no application to what a completely different bunch of people should do when the historical and geographical and cultural and economic circumstances in which they find themselves are so different from his as to require that they bloody well THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

And I have no problem with the Franklin quotation at all. I have serious problems with the people who constantly misquote and misrepresent it -- and I may even have disagreed with Franklin as to the implications of what he said -- but the words themselves, nope, never had a problem with them.


So now you just go ahead and ask another question implying I've said something I haven't said ...

.

[MrBenchley]

86. By the way...

"Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own land"."
Wonder why that didn't make it into later drafts....you don't suppose people back then disagreed with it and it was taken out, do you?

[el_gato]

90. whatever, I guess you can suppose anything you want

that doesn't give you the right to take my guns away
for that is you basic goal

[iverglas]

93. substantiate or retract

"that doesn't give you the right to take my guns away
for that is you basic goal"


Quote ANYTHING I have said that supports this (underlined) claim.

ANYTHING.

Or retract it.

Since it is false and you cannot substantiate it, I suggest that you move directly to retraction and save yourself a lot of time.

.

[el_gato]

95. as I said I don't waste my time on your posts Iver

too much parsing and inuendo for my taste

I'm referring to benchly

[RoeBear]

110. Enlighten us...

...what is your basic goal?

[RoeBear]

118. I ask again...

...what is your basic goal?

[iverglas]

128. go right ahead

And if you can think of some reason why I'd answer anything said by someone who has made an allegation about someone that I know to be false and has refused to either substantiate or retract it ... well, let me know.

.

[RoeBear]

137. WTF...

...are you talking about?

[iverglas]

143. oh dear

This one making the unsubstantiated false allegation misrepresenting what someone said as having meant something else wasn't you ... my abject apologies, eh?

I don't recall my "goal" being the subject of this conversation. And I'm not inclined to spend time explaining my goals when I have grave and well-founded doubts about the genuineness of any interest in my explanation on the part of my audience, who have had more than ample opportunity to figure it out for themselves already.

.

[RoeBear]

146. Thanks for the apology and...

...the non-answer to my question.

[hansberrym]

147. Roe's post #90 is a response to Benchley's post #86.

And it follows that the "goal" that he disagrees with is Bechley's goal.


I have read your posts for some time and can not figure out where you stand on the second amendment.

I do know from reading your posts that you question the US view on rights in general. And that you support gun control and possibly responsible gun ownership.


What I have not been able to tell from your posts is where you stand on the actual second amendment? (not on whether there should be an individual right to own firearms, but what is the meaning of the second amendment).

[iverglas]

152. doesn't follow at all, though

"Roe's post #90 is a response to Benchley's post #86.
And it follows that the "goal" that he disagrees with is Bechley's goal."

... since the "goal" he disagrees with is not Benchley's, as far as I can tell, and I've been paying attention.

(btw, post #90 was el_gato's, not RoeBear's; you seem to have made the exact same mistake I did, so I expect RoeBear will be expecting an apology from you too.)

In response to Liberal Classic's question:

"Do you support a nationwide ban on all hunting/trapping?"

MrBenchley replied:

"Trapping definitely
For hunting I'd settle for more scrutiny, regulation and enforcement."


Now I just dunno how el_gato could draw this conclusion (post # 90) about MrBenchley:

that doesn't give you the right to take my guns away
for that is you basic goal

from that.

How exactly is wanting to take his guns away consistent with settling for more scrutiny, regulation and enforcement?

You are familiar with the difference between personal opinion and public policy objectives?

If I had my druthers, there'd be a whole lot of stuff in this world being taken away (including from me). But I don't have a magic wand, and what I say doesn't go -- and I not only accept that what I say doesn't go, but firmly believe that I should not be entitled to make what I say go. What I say should never go, unless it is approved by my society *and* is consistent with the rules my society has made for what it may approve (e.g. the constitution).

Many people who disapprove of abortion, for whatever reasons they may have, are pro-choice: they do not believe that the law should compel other people to act according to their beliefs.

I may disapprove of hunting with firearms, but I have no basis whatsoever for advocating that hunting with firearms be outlawed, or that individuals be prohibited from owning firearms for hunting. So I don't.

In fact, I don't disapprove of hunting with firearms, per se; I recognize that hunting is a traditional means of acquiring food, for instance, and continues to be a necessary means of acquiring food for many people in Canada (and particularly, as I have repeatedly said, First Nations people) and is no more inherently "immoral" than buying beef at the grocery store. I do disapprove of some hunters, no doubt about that. But my disapproval of them is of no more consequence than some people's disapproval of some women who have abortions. I, and they, don't have to associate with people we disapprove of.

The analogy breaks down when we consider that hunting involves having continuing access to firearms, under circumstances that are subject to the control of only the person who has the firearms. People who have firearms to hunt with also have them when they are drinking, threatening their spouses and children, angry at their bosses or coworkers or fellow students, etc.

So while there is no need for any limitations on the exercise of the right to an abortion, there IS a need for limitations on the exercise of the right to possess firearms (an element of the right to liberty, like the right to do anything else; more on that later).

In Canada, we place limitations on the possession of firearms that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", as permitted by section 1 of our constitution. A virtual prohibition on the possession of handguns meets that test; the public interest in the safety of society overrides the individual's interest in possessing handguns, whatever that might be. We require that people obtain permits to acquire firearms, to ensure that they cannot be legally acquired by people about whom there is reasonable apprehension that they will use them to cause harm; that process is subject to the usual rules governing administrative decision-making, like natural justice etc., including judicial review. We require that firearms be stored safely and securely, to prevent theft and, I suppose we hope, to reduce the likelihood of impulsive use. And we require that people register the firearms they possess, so that if circumstances change from when they acquired them (e.g. they are prohibited from owning firearms as a condition of sentence, they are made subject to a restraining order, etc.), the firearms can be identified and removed.

I find all of those rules eminently sensible and entirely defensible. Unfortunately, they are not adequate to prevent the considerable harm caused with firearms: accidental and negligent shootings, suicides (particularly child suicides), homicides, and the commission of other crimes (e.g. robbery) with firearms. They also do not mean that there are no firearms in individuals' hands illegally, since firearms are still stolen from lawful owners who do not obey the storage laws, and firearms are still smuggled into Canada, mainly from the US.

Twenty-five years ago, I lived briefly in a small Ontario town and was involved with a man there who, like others in the legal community, was a hunter. His disabled, depressed 13-year-old son had killed himself with one of the father's guns about two years before. Since thirteen year old boys don't tend to poison themselves, I doubt that he'd be dead if the rifle had not been unsafely stored and accessible to him.

About ten years ago, a band of 4 teenagers went on a crime spree in Ottawa (that's the capital city). They broke into a home in a toney neighbourhood, stole the firearm (I believe a rifle, legally owned) that they found improperly stored there, bought ammunition for it (legally, at the time) and drove around shooting, ultimately killing a visiting British engineer on a downtown sidewalk.

The man who killed 14 women at a university in Montreal in 1989 had a legally acquired "assault weapon". (I have a copy of the coroner's report somewhere in a pile on a desk and could try to find it to see whether it identified the firearm; "assault weapon" is all I see on the net, and I simply reproduce it. The coroner did observe that the type of weapon may not have been relevant given the timeframe and ammunition he had to work with. And yes, an armed student might -- might -- have been able to prevent some -- some -- of those deaths, but we really don't regard it as wise to permit the carrying of firearms in schools.)

Laws do not eliminate crime. It is not possible to predict who is going to commit a crime, and even if it were, it still might not be possible to prevent him/her from doing it. But laws -- and perhaps more relevantly, controls applied under laws -- can reduce opportunities for committing crimes, and causing harm (accidental/negligent shootings, suicides).

Some people whose driver's licences are revoked are going to drive anyway. Some drunks are going to drive even though it is illegal. We still make laws prohibiting those things, and the laws and the enforcement of them are generally regarded as effective in reducing the harm that would otherwise be caused. Some people are going to acquire firearms illegally, and some people are going to store or use their legally owned firearms unsafely and illegally. But there is no reason to think that the relevant laws, and enforcement, and controls, cannot reduce those harms.


"What I have not been able to tell from your posts is
where you stand on the actual second amendment?
(not on whether there should be an individual right to own
firearms, but what is the meaning of the second amendment)."

Perhaps because you have not read all my posts.

I'm fairly firmly persuaded that the second amendment is an expression of the collective right of a people to security within its borders, and the concomitant individual right to do what is needed in order for the people to exercise its right. A reasonably good analogy, as I have mentioned, is the collective right of a people to choose its own government, and the concomitant individual right to vote. Individuals are not entitled to vote when and where and in whatever way they may happen to feel like voting; they vote in elections, solely for the purpose of electing a government, and not for whatever purpose they might feel like voting. You may extrapolate for the second amendment.

Nonetheless,

(a) my opinion of the second amendment is moot, since I do not reside in the US;

(b) even if the second amendment did contain an individual right separate from the collective right in question, that right is subject to limitation just as is any other right (cf. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech", and yet it does); and

(c) I regard the right to possess firearms as simply one element of the right to liberty, like most other things we do and are entitled to do in the exercise of that right. (I realize that the "right to liberty" is generally understood much more narrowly in the US, but I speak within my own context.) As such, it is subject to exactly the same kinds of limitations as any other exercise of the right to liberty, under the rules of constitutional scrutiny that apply: essentially (and much the same as in the US), that there is an important public interest at stake, that the limitation is rationally connected to achieving the purpose of protecting that interest, and that the limitation is not disproportionate to the purpose. "No right is absolute", and all that, after all.


"I do know from reading your posts that you question the US view on rights in general."

Indeed, but possibly not in the direction you suggest. I find the US view of rights extremely narrow, bogged down in the 18th century, and inadequate to deal with the legitimate needs and aspirations of people in this century.

As that thing I was just quoting in another thread said:
http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex7.html

Both countries are trending away from traditional values, are becoming less deferential to authority and more individualistic. But while Canadians are moving toward values associated with idealism and personal self-fulfillment (e.g., creativity, tolerance, and cultural sampling), Americans are moving away en masse from the trends associated with civic engagement and social and ecological concern. You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all. America is becoming a nation of survivalists.

We tend less to see "rights" as a weapon to be used against people whom we perceive as trying to do something to us (who then assert their rights against what they perceive us trying to do to them), and more to see rights as instruments to enable individuals to participate fully in society and as expressions of human dignity and mutual respect, and to be less inclined to assert "rights" in order to act at others' expense.

You should forgive the prolixity; without it, I'd just be flinging opinions, and I prefer to explain them.

.

[hansberrym]

156. Thanks for the honest and complete answer, ....

And for correcting my error regarding Roe/El Gato's post.


I do not think your opinion mute simply because you are not a US resident. I asked since you are willing to give your views in complete form and are willing to engage in honest debate.


Reply to (b)
While we agree that that reasonable restrictions are needed and lawful, we disagree on the extent of those restrictions. But then the extent of what one would consider reasonable is related to whether one views the second amendment as an individual right serving a collect purpose(my view) or as a collective right with an accompanying individual right(your view).


Reply to (a)
I contend that the right should be read primarily as an indivudal right since the actual language indicates that the actions which the people have a right to do are actions done by individuals, and the familiar vote/elect analogy illustrates that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

The next question to be answered is whether the RKBA is dependent in the exact same manner to the collective "security of a free state" as Voting is to Electing. The answer is found by reviewing the arguments regarding ratification of the Constitution, the various proposed amendments to the federal constitution and the various state consitutional provisions on same topic. The references to self-defense in these sources suggests that the RKBA would not completely disappear apart from the "security of a free state" context to the same extent that "voting" becomes meaningless outside of "elections".

One often cited example is John Adams 1787 Defense of the Constitution in which he lays out his views on the legitimate uses of arrms/militia.

”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at
individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by
partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to
demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that
liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the
government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be
created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the
support of the laws"
(end quote)

The above is presented here not to say that Adams' views should be held in reverence or that they have force of law. The above quote(in addition to other sources) does show that self-defense was not outside of what was thought of as the legitimate uses of arms even in the context of a discussion of that was overwhelming devoted to the militia.


Have you had a chance to read the Silveira opinion? (earlier this year you said you were avoiding reading cases until you had a better understanding of the history on your own0. The Silveira opinion denies that there is ANY individual right in the second amendmment. Judge Reinhardt actually quotes the same passage from J.Adams as shown above but cuts out the exception for private self-defence in order to give the meaning that Adams was against individuals using arms for any purpose but the defense of the state. The judge resorts to this sort of argument many times throughout the opinion, and persons who do not take the time to look up the citations and read the complete quotes in context could easily be mislead.


Reply to (c)
I agree with your assessment that the culture of the US is different from that of Canada in how we tend to view rights. In the US we are less willing to accept limitaions on individual rights for the sake of the common good. This can be viewed as foolishness/selfishness or as independence/unwillingness to submit to overweaning government control depending on one's point of view.



PS
While we disagree somewhat on the extent of the RKBA,
I hope that you will read Silveira and keep your eyes open for the sleights of hand employed throughout. This is not to say that the pro-RKBA side is always squeaky clean in arguing its case, but if the courts are going to completely deny the existence of an individual right in the Federal Bill of Rights (that is recognized as an individual right in something like 43 of the 50 state constitutions), then they at least ought to do so with an honest argument.

If it were not for those claiming that the second amendment does not recognize ANY individual right, this issue would not hold much interest for me. But with courts and various scholars attempting to re-write history it becomes an issue that is compelling.

[hansberrym]

163. Also, please consider that the keeping of arms is a continuous activity...

but Voting is only an occasional activity.

While it might be said that the right to vote is limited to those occasions when an election is being held, the right to keep arms is not limited in that way since the keeping of arms was to be done continuously. Arms were to be kept "always at the ready" and were to be provided by the individual himself. (see militia acts cited in US v Miller, and see also Federal Militia act of 1792)

[MrBenchley]

151. Well that ruins Sundays for me...

Guess now I and the rest of the freedom-loving gun nuts (re-reading this entire thread I have been suddenly converted by the eloquence of gato's argument) are honor-bound to go to our respective stadia and disrupt the National Football League games, attempting to force the players instead to pick up guns and trudge through the parking lots whether they want to or not...

After all, Jefferson says so, and he was one of those lesser Founding Fathers who followed Tench Coxe to create forth the bestest most gosh darn perfectest pure society ever.....that's good enough for me.

[el_gato]

34. the anti-gun crowd reminds me of the anti-abortion crowd

name calling
smears of anyone who disagrees
incessant phoney rightous indignation

[CO Liberal]

35. Pro-Gunners Do The Same Thing, ElGato

Neither side can claim the high road.

[el_gato]

39. not on DU

there may be isolated cases but you two wage a constant campaign of smear by association and straw man arguements

[CO Liberal]

41. And The DU Pro-Gunners Have NEVER Posted Anything Derrogatory.....

...about people like Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein, or Rosie O'Donnell????

[el_gato]

44. that's right, unless you can point to where I have ever said somehting bad

about any of those people, which you can't

other than the fact that feinstein supports the patriot act
for which she desesrves to be roundly criticized

[CO Liberal]

50. YOU May Not Have......

...but other pro-gunners have. Loudly and often.

[el_gato]

54. prove it

[CO Liberal]

60. Just Read The Threads

It's all laid out in front of you.

[el_gato]

64. and all the data proves you wrong

you're the one that need to take a closer look

it's funny how you rely on one hit and run poster
with a bogus misleading post for your information

[CO Liberal]

65. Take the Blinders Off, ElGato

You're fixated on ONE post that you believe to be bogus. I'm talking about months and months of derrogatory posts made by pro-gunners on this board.

[el_gato]

68. you are the one with the constant derrogatory posts

all gun owners are racist trash blah blah
sound familiar?

[MrBenchley]

37. Too too funny

Since it's the pro-gun crowd that's also the anti-abortion crowd...

As Iverglas discovered...

http://fecweb1.fec.gov/pages/24_2002_can.html

Lists expenditures that the Brady Campaign did report, along with expenditures reported by various other organizations, in 2002.

What's interesting is how they line up.
Reporting expenditures FOR a candidate that the Brady Campaign opposed:
- the NRA
- an assortment of anti-choice outfits (that's what the Susan B. Anthony List is, for anyone wondering)
- National Taxpayers' Union

Also reporting expenditures AGAINST a candidate that the Brady Campaign opposed:
- Planned Parenthood organizations
- League of Conservation Voters

Ah, those funny bedfellows.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=26648&mesg_id=28042&page=

And so many of these asswipes the NRA support, who are also anti-choice, are also racist...inlcuding DeLay,.. Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, etc. etc. etc....

Who'd of thunk it.
. 

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

40. How tragic for you, gato

that the"gun rights" crowd is made up of some of the scummiest characters in public life. If you don't like the smell, you ought to find new playmates.

"incredibly dishonest demogoguery"
Jinkies, gato, who was it put up that phony-baloney quote from Thomas Jefferson on the board? Oh yeah, that was YOU.

[el_gato]

42. how cute

you same the same stuff over and over
you really need a mirror

btw prove it's phoney

not just because some newbie said so either

[MrBenchley]

43. Too TOO funny, gato...

"you same the same stuff over and over "
Be vewwy veewwy quiet, gato. We'we hunting a wabbit.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx801]

46. benchly

let me guess MR benchly thats too too too funny

[MrBenchley]

49. Well, it IS

You guys are more fun than the circus car that disgorges clowns...

[tx801]

52. too too friggin funny

too friggin funny

you have as much credibility as the rest of the gun grabbing liberal @$$holes

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

57. Nice playmate, gato...

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

59. Gee, gato

He wasn't on my side....

[el_gato]

62. that does not matter

you see people are individuals

why can't you understand that??????????????????????????

[MrBenchley]

74. Gee, gato

I'm not the one peddling the rhetoric of the scummiest individuals....any more than I am the one with the fake Thomas Jefferson quote...

[el_gato]

76. people who disagree with you are "scummiest individuals"

typical name caller

even the person who tried to debunk that quote linked to a site with
other quotes from Jefferson that clearly support the right to gun ownership.

By the way, there has been no proof yet that that quote is bogus.

[MrBenchley]

81. Tough titty, gato

If you don't like how I describe pieces of shit like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt, maybe you ought to find new playmates.

[el_gato]

82. typical, your efforts are dishonest bench

I guess even the most backwoods individual who goes squirrel hunting and has never even heard of these people must also be associated with them.

That assumption is the basis of your logic.

You see how flawed it is?

[MrBenchley]

84. Tough titty, gato....

If you don't like your ugly playmates, don't come crying to me.

"even the most backwoods individual who goes squirrel hunting"
probably knows someone leaning on a bogus Thomas Jefferson is full of crap.

[el_gato]

88. so you avoid the question

typical

[MrBenchley]

100. I ANSWERED the question gato

Tough titty for you that you didn't like the answer. Just as it's tough titty that your post turned out not only to be dishonest but plagiarized from furious.com.

[el_gato]

77. Even more Quotes

Here's more for you to chew on:



the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.



No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.


A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

[MrBenchley]

87. Too frigging funny....

The Federalist Papers, No. 46, talks about arrms entirely in the context of a state militia...not a single word about private gun ownership can be found in it.

Evenn funnier is George Mason's phony quote...leaving alone that it was cobbled together dishonestly by gun nuts...the FACT is that George Mason voted AGAINST the Constitution, making his authority on what it ought to mean precisely worthless.

And the other founding fathers thought Tench Coxe was a scumbag...

[el_gato]

89. prove your accusations

just because you say so doesn't make it true

[iverglas]

102. by jove, is it possible you're getting it?

"just because you say so doesn't make it true"



And just because Thomas Jefferson said "this is how things should be" doesn't mean things should be that way.

Yay!

.

[MrBenchley]

106. Of course...

Even if I had proven, for example that John Adams called Tench Coxe a ""wiley, winding, subtle, and insidious character."

http://toto.lib.unca.edu/findingaids/mss/speculation_lands/biographies/tench_coxe.htm

And that Coxe changed his beliefs nearly as often as people change shirts....

http://www.famousamericans.net/tenchcoxe/

I doubt the RKBA crowd would do anything but drag this obscure and somewhat shady figure out again in a day or so.

By the way, Coxe is all but forgotten except by the gun nut crowd which seem to hold him more important that George Washington.

Of course Washington is actually on record as opposing individual gun ownership...he even wanted all guns to have serial numbers so the militas could keep an eye on who had them when. Cagey fellow, that Washington. What a shame he's not a real founder like Tench Coxe or George "No" Mason.

[hansberrym]

115. If you got it , post it.

"Of course Washington is actually on record as opposing individual gun ownership..." (let' see the FULL quote please)


Did Washington Veto the Militia Act of 1792 that required individuals to provide themselves with arms? (answer; NO)

[MrBenchley]

116. The gun lobby is no match for America's moms' pressing for gun control

said Bill Clinton...

He pointed to grass-roots campaigns that helped enact stricter gun laws in California, Maryland and Massachusetts, Clinton said. ``They're letting the gun lobby know it is no match for America's moms,'' he said. ``But our nationwide fight won't be over tomorrow, no matter how many march. We have so much work still to do.''

Clinton said the march is sending a clear message to the Republican Congress to act on gun legislation that has been before lawmakers since shortly after the April 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

Those bills would require child safety locks with all new handguns, close a loophole that permits firearms purchases at gun shows without background checks and ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips.

Clinton said that every day in America nearly a dozen children are killed by guns, either intentionally or accidentally, leaving families with ``a wound that never heals.''

``Congress must pass common-sense gun legislation to protect our children without constraining the rights of legitimate gun owners,'' the president said.

[hansberrym]

141. Bill Clinton is another one of those very rational people that

recognize that both the "rights of legitamate gun owners" and "common sense gun control" are worthy causes.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas as I tried to point out to you many times in your gun rights advocates versus gun control supporters threads. There are apparently many very reasonable people who would fit both categories.


(quoting benchley, quoting B.Clinton)
``Congress must pass common-sense gun legislation to protect our children without constraining the rights of legitimate gun owners,'' the president said.
(end quote)

[Romulus]

91. Mason's "no" vote

was because he thought the Constitution/BOR did not do enough to preserve people's rights, and thought it gave too much power to the Congress and President.

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/socsciassess/Stage%20F/socsci16BF.pdf

George Mason had also made other criticisms of
the Constitution during the convention. Some of
them were accepted at the time, and others
resulted in changes made after the convention
ended. One of the most notable of his criticisms
was that the Constitution did not contain a bill of
rights. This is a list of rights that the government
cannot take from the people.

George Mason proposed a “Bill of
Rights for the Citizens” for the final
draft of the Constitution. Most
delegates, however, felt that the
Constitution was essentially a plan of
government for the nation and that the
issue of individual rights was covered
by the bills of rights of the various
states. They also felt that the
Constitution’s system of checks and
balances provided sufficient protection
against the rise of tyranny. Since the
national government had not been given
power over matters of speech, the press,
and religion, many delegates felt that it
was inappropriate t include issues of
speech, the press, and religious liberties
in the national Constitution.

Mason’s motion was defeated. As a result, Mason,
Randolph and Gerry refused to sign the Constitution.

[el_gato]

94. hmmm...but according to bench this would render his opinion worthless

But according to bench anybody who disagrees with him is scum

[beevul]

98. Jjust remind bench that..

The anti-gunners have thier own dirty laundry as well.

Noone is on a side thats squeaky clean. Noone.

[iverglas]

101. the difference I smell

"The anti-gunners have thier own dirty laundry as well."

... is that no "anti-gunner" I've seen here has ever posted some fellow-traveller's opinion about the public policy relating to firearms and either (a) proclaimed it gospel pronounced by a moral authority or (b) demanded that anyone else prove it "wrong".

If I find someone else's opinion that I happen to like, I might just offer it up as a nice statement of MY opinion. And I'll expect it to be treated in exactly the same way as anyone would treat MY opinion, even if I'm quoting bloody holy scripture.

The fact that someone else shares my opinion no more makes my opinion "right" than the fact that Thomas Jefferson shares anyone's opinions here ... WHICH HE DOESN'T, because he's DEAD, for crying out loud.

This has not the first bleeding thing to do with "dirty laundry".

If I had ever offered up someone as a moral authority on anything, you could all feel quite free to air that person's dirty laundry as a rebuttal of his/her moral authority.

*I* haven't, and I won't, so no "dirty laundry" allegations stick to me, and I don't have a clue whom they might stick to at all.

.

[MrBenchley]

104. For that matter

--the two largest "anti-gun" groups aren't headed up by racist swine...

--racist groups don't parrot "anti-gun" rhetoric...

--"anti-gun" websites aren't full of racist slurs and bigotry....

--"anti-gun" people aren't posting plagiarized rubbish cointaining phony quotes

--"anti-gun" people weren't on here spanking their cranks over what a noble sportsman Dick Cheney was slaughtering birds...

--"anti-gun" people aren't posting crap from right wing cesspools like Newsmax and Opinon Journal and pretending their valid sources...

All of THOSE are true about the RKBA crowd. If beev thinks there's dirty laundry, I suspect the allegations are of a piece with the "quality" of all his OTHER posts.

[beevul]

107. Let me rephrase for you

There is dirty laundry on the side of the anti-gunners as well.

That better?

"*I* haven't, and I won't, so no "dirty laundry" allegations stick to me, and I don't have a clue whom they might stick to at all."

I believe I said to remind another poster, not you. It was a reference to quotes like this one:

"If you don't like how I describe pieces of shit like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt, maybe you ought to find new playmates."

To remind a certain poster that even the anti-gun side has thier "Ted Nugents and Larry Pratts". Playmates such as Barbara "MMM murderer" Lipscomb, Amy "I believe in gun control" Fisher, Pete "a step at a time" Shields,. Dragging them out is my SOP for dealing with guilt by association games from the "anti" side.

It has not the first bleeding thing to do with Thomas Jefferson, or anything you have said. It was not directed at you.


As I stated, niether side is squeaky clean.

[MrBenchley]

108. What a pathetic piece of crap, beev....

Even for the RKBA crowd.

Tell us please...what position does Amy Fisher hold with any gun control group? Which group has Barbara Lipscomb on their board?

Amy Fisher shot somebody as a teenager and went to jail....are we supposed to be horrified that she NOW thinks easy access to guns is a terrible idea?

What did Pete Shields say or do that was racist?

"Dragging them out is my SOP for dealing with guilt by association games from the "anti" side."
Gee, beev...do you begin to guess why I laugh my ass off when you DO drag them out?

[beevul]

111. Well,....

Naaa, you know who they are, and what they did. I'm no longer going to spell it out for you.

Association is association Bench, reap what you sow.

[MrBenchley]

113. In other words, you got nothing

worth hearing...

And association IS association, and "gun rights" is irretrievably associated with racist scum...

"reap what you sow"
Yeah, the doorr swings both ways...I'll be proud to stand with Pete Shields...and you stay over there with David Duke.

[beevul]

132. Hahahaha

"I'll be proud to stand with Pete Shields...and you stay over there with David Duke."

Pete Shields is freedom hateing scum, you go right ahead and be proud to stand with him.

I'm sure you'd love to see me next to David Duke, I'm really sure you would. It would add some substance to your otherwise meaningless game of guilt by association. Bummer for you though, I never would. He IS freedom hateing scum just like Pete Shields is.

Um, Bench, I hate to break this to you, but I don't stand with freedom hateing scum. Whether they be gun grabbing freedom hateing scum, or racist freedom hateing scum, or anti-abortion freedom hateing scum or the pro-gun freedom hateing scum. If they hate a freedom, I DO NOT stand with them.

Look behind you, you ARE standing with David Duke, Ashkkkroft, Pete Shields, Barbara Lipscomb, Trent Lott, etc etc etc...(all folks that have a hatred of one freedom or another, freedoms that most sane people value)

I stand with people who value freedoms such as rkba, freedom of choice, and racial equality -equally- something no gun grabber or freedom hater can ever truthfully say, but MANY of us pro-RKBA here in the dungeon can. Sorry your association doesn't work on people like me. Better luck next time, and thanks for playing "whats my associating gun owners with freedom hateing scum fantasy".

"Yeah, the doorr swings both ways..."

It sure does, except in the case of those of us who refuse to stand with freedom hateing scum of any stripe.

If you have any further question of who I stand with, just remember, I don't stand with freedom haters of any stripe.

[MrBenchley]

138. Hot flash for you, beev...

You ARE standing with David Duke, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not.

"I don't stand with freedom hateing scum."
Sure you do. You're here pimping their ignorant and dishonest gun rights rhetoric at the top of your lungs. Tell me how your position on guns dfiffers from AshKKKroft by even an iota.

Furthermore, here you are in THIS thread which is attempting to state that Americans have no freedom at all to pass the gun control laws that are both wanted by a majority of voters AND needed. And why is that? Because of an opinion by a long dead guy....and a lie about his opinion on top of that.

"I stand with people who value freedoms such as rkba, freedom of choice, and racial equality -equally"
What a shame for you then that most of the scummy people who push the RKBA agenda in public life are bitterly opposed to freedom of all sort, especially freedom of choice and racial equality. Quick, what group put both Planned Parenthood AND the NAACP on an enemies list?

And what a shame for you then that the RKBA argument is entirely made up of lies and bogus quotes.

"Sorry your association doesn't work on people like me."
Not so...it fits you to a "T". And what's REALLY funny is that instead of attacking the racists and thugs that make up the RKBA crowd, you're busy attacking people who fight for diversity, tolerance, and reproductive choice with the same barrage of lies and horseshit that any garden variety dittohead would use. If somebody could show me that Amnesty International was lying about what it was up to, or that people like David Duke and Tom DeLay and Ted Nugent were loudly trumpeting the cause, I'd sure as hell rethink my participation. I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting here sniveling about how unfair it was to point out FACTS.

"I don't stand with freedom haters of any stripe."
Unless they pander to your gun fetish.

[RoeBear]

139. Tell me again why David Duke...

...wants me to have access to guns and even allow me to carry a concealed weapon.

[MrBenchley]

140. Sure...

Duke makes his living keeping his inbred followers filled with fear of black people.

People like him must have felt mighty low when the NRA enemies list came out and just about every group or person who does anything for racial tolerance and diversity was on it.

Hell, if you really want to see the philosophical side of that argument, what was the central fantasy of that gun show staple, The Turner Diaries? A shooting war between the races that would make white folks unite and kill all the unclean ones.

[iverglas]

142. what an excellent question

"why David Duke... ...wants me to have access to guns and even allow me to carry a concealed weapon."

I know what my answer would be, but I'm actually more interested in yours.

.

[MrBenchley]

145. Wonder if roe will actually answer

[RoeBear]

148. I genuinely have no idea why Duke...

...or those like him would want me to have access to a concealed weapon permit. Your answer was as good any. But white racists supplying drugs to black neigborhoods is a more effective means of destroying the black man than allowing him access to the leagal means to defend oneself.

[MrBenchley]

155. No idea at all, eh, roe?

Not even a tiny little suspicion why a guy whose stock in trade is "fear and hate blacks" might want black people running around with guns?

Maybe David Duke has weighed all the arguments carefully (including the bogus Thomas Jefferson quotes) and concluded, "well, I hate all black people but they DO have a constitutional right to arm themselves, and such is my respect for principle that I will bravely speak out for gun rights." (snicker)

"But white racists supplying drugs to black neigborhoods is a more effective means of destroying the black man"
Good thing the RKBA crowd doesn't suddenly try to change the subject....

Tell us roe...what about white racists peddling guns to black neigborhoods? What about white non-racists supplying drugs to black neigborhoods? What about black people supplying drugs to black neigborhoods?

[RoeBear]

158. White racists selling guns to gangbangers...

...is similar to white racists selling drugs, they are still trying to destroy black neighborhoods.

I suspect there are no non-racist whites selling drugs in black neighborhoods.

Black people selling drugs in black neighborhoods are just tools of racists. If they weren't oppressed by shitty economic programs they would have other ways to get ahead in life.

[MrBenchley]

144. By the way...

On another thread, we got somebody adamantly denying that there's a speck of racism in an article that tries to spin away the deliberate disenfranchisement of black people in Florida during 2000...

And we've had people denying that Larry Pratt who...
--met with the Aryan Nation to have a sobfest over white supremacist Randy Weaver
--was a high muckty muck in Pat Buchanan's campaign (until the news of the Aryan Nation meeting came out and even racist Pat had to flee)
--met with the neoConfederate imbeciles who make up the League of the South
--runs one of the largest and nastiest anti-immigrant groups around
..is even in the least bit racist.

[beevul]

149. This time you have really lost it...Hahahahahaha

"Tell me how your position on guns dfiffers from AshKKKroft by even an iota."

Tell me how your position on guns differs from Hitlers even by an Iota.


AshKKKroft is a person, my position, is a position. Thats more than an Iota. Ha ha ha.

I imagine you meant how my position differs from AshKKKroft's position.

Simple answer. He believes in 2A rights, and not much else. Hes rabidly anti-abortion, anti-racial equality, anti-1A for example.

I am not. I believe STRTONGLY in 1A, 2A, pro choice, pro-racial equality. That good enough for you bench, or would you rather I make an audio book for you?

"What a shame for you then that most of the scummy people who push the RKBA agenda in public life are bitterly opposed to freedom of all sort, especially freedom of choice and racial equality."

And what a shame for you, that you are amongst that same group of freedom haters. You don't hate the same freedoms, but you're there in thier camp with them hateing a freedom, nonetheless.

"Not so...it fits you to a "T". And what's REALLY funny is that instead of attacking the racists and thugs that make up the RKBA crowd, you're busy attacking people who fight for diversity, tolerance, and reproductive choice with the same barrage of lies and horseshit that any garden variety dittohead would use."

Oh, really? I guess I didn't attack David Duke...?

"I'm sure you'd love to see me next to David Duke, I'm really sure you would. It would add some substance to your otherwise meaningless game of guilt by association. Bummer for you though, I never would. He IS freedom hateing scum just like Pete Shields is."-me

Oh, I see, your saying David Duke fights "for diversity, tolerance, and reproductive choice"...I get it...:eyes:

"I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting here sniveling about how unfair it was to point out FACTS."

Like you are in the post this one is responding to.

"I don't stand with freedom haters of any stripe."-me
"Unless they pander to your gun fetish."-MrBenchley

What part of "I don't stand with freedom haters of any stripe" do you not understand? O.K. I'll spell it out for you. I did it once already, here:

"Um, Bench, I hate to break this to you, but I don't stand with freedom hateing scum. Whether they be gun grabbing freedom hateing scum, or racist freedom hateing scum, or anti-abortion freedom hateing scum or the PRO-GUN freedom hateing scum. If they hate a freedom, I DO NOT stand with them."(emphasis mine)-Me

Just in case you don't understand , READ VERRY CAREFULLY:

I do NOT stand with pro-gun freedom hateing scum, but DO stand with pro-gun freedom loving americans. There IS a difference, even if you are too blinded by your agenda to see it.

[MrBenchley]

150. Hilarious, beev.....Just Hilarious

"Tell me how your position on guns differs from Hitlers even by an Iota."
Happy to...besides the FACT that I don't want to loosen gun laws (as Hitler actually DID for all but a minority of Germans...) I don't want gun restrictions to apply to only a tiny minority (that's also being hit with other bigotry).

By the way, if Hitler actually WAS for gun control, beev, why is it that all of the ACTUAL imbeciles running around with Swastikas TODAY all peddle the same "gun rights" crap as you? Why is it there are no Nazis or neoNazis around calling for gun control?

"AshKKKroft is a person, my position, is a position. Thats more than an Iota."
In other words, you got no answer.

"What part of "I don't stand with freedom haters of any stripe" do you not understand?"
Gee, I guess the part I don't understand is how pouting helps the guy lined up with David Duke, John AshKKKroft, Tom DeLay, the NRA, the GOA, Larry Pratt, Pat Buchanan,and the rest of that scummy crowd, separates himself in any way from David Duke, John AshKKKroft, Tom DeLay, the NRA, the GOA, Larry Pratt, Pat Buchanan, and the rest of that scummy crowd...especially since he's right behind them loudly pimping their "gun rights" propaganda and their social agenda. Seems to me the way you separate yourself from AshKKKroft and his like is by opposing their idiotic programs and countering their rhetoric with the truth...

"I do NOT stand with pro-gun freedom hateing scum, but DO stand with pro-gun freedom loving americans. There IS a difference"
Hell, your buddy AshKKKroft even wrote a song about how much HE loves freedom, and sings it at the drop of a hat..."Let the eagle soar / like she's never soared before / from rocky coast / to golden shore / let the mighty eagle soar. / So with healing in her wings / as the land beneath her sings: / 'Only God, no other kings,' / let the mighty eagle soar. / This country's far too young to die / Though she's cried a bit for what we've put her through / she's soared above the lifted lamp / that guards sweet freedom's door / in the dews, the damps, the watchfires / of a nation torn by war / oh she's far too young to die / you can see it in her eye / she's not yet begun to fly / it's time to let the mighty eagle soar (refrain)."

If you feel like busting into song too, beev, please refrain.

[beevul]

164. Thank you

"I do NOT stand with pro-gun freedom hateing scum, but DO stand with pro-gun freedom loving americans. There IS a difference"


Thank you for confirming it for me bench.

[MrBenchley]

166. Hey, they're YOUR scummy playmates

You're welcome to AshKKKroft and company...

[MrBenchley]

105. I think the evidence

now speaks for itself, gato.

[MrBenchley]

103. So frigging what?

His opinion is still worthless....

And to add to the fun his quote is a big fat fake cobbled together by right wing loonies.

[AJjer_Politics]

109. Even if the quotes are bogus

Supposing the quotes above are all made up, they remain examples of arguments used by those who are pro-gun.

So, basically, it doesn't matter who said it.

I'm interested to hear some people refuting these arguments, rather then merely challanging their authenticity.

Would it not be true that an armed population can in fact be benificial in thwarting government oppression? While it may seem like an unlikely threat at this time, we have to remember just how untypical the United States is in so far as the relationship between the people and the government.

I personally do not believe in using the quotes of famous people, legitimate or not, in arguing a point. If they were right, then the argument itself should hold true.

It would be true that the founding fathers would have known little of the future of weaponry, but despite what modern weapons are capable of vs. old ones, I think the idea still holds true.

Tell me how I am wrong

[iverglas]

112. nice first try

"Supposing the quotes above are all made up, they remain examples of arguments used by those who are pro-gun.

So, basically, it doesn't matter who said it.

I'm interested to hear some people refuting these arguments, rather then merely challanging their authenticity."


And I've already said what I'm interested in, but I'll repeat it for your edification.

I'm interested in hearing ARGUMENTS. Those things are not ARGUMENTS. Those are OPINIONS.

I don't pay attention to opinions. I know how much some people love a good opinion-flinging match -- "I'm right", "you're wrong" ... "it's good", "it's bad" -- but me, I just don't.

I don't care WHOSE opinions they are.

I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson may have had some ARGUMENT to support his OPINIONS. But I'm not seeing any.

I want to see "I'm right -- AND HERE'S THE PROOF" ... if the issue is a matter of fact.

And I want to see "it's good -- AND HERE ARE MY REASONS FOR THINKING IT'S GOOD" ... if the issue is a matter of opinion.

When I see something like:

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

... I think:

(a) I am not a USAmerican, I do not live in the USofA, I live in one of those "other" nations -- and I could go out tomorrow, apply for a permit to acquire a firearm, get the permit, acquire the firearm, register my ownership of it, take it home and store it safely and legally ... just like the residents of 1/3 of rural households and 1/10 of urban households in Canada have done already ... so wot the fuck is this geezer on about? Oh yeah ... he was talking about something that might have happened a couple of centuries ago ... which I care about now because - ? ...;

(b) the advantage of NOT being armed, BY CHOICE, which Canadians possess over USAmericans is that we don't live in fear of bad guys with guns breaking into our houses and murdering us in our sleep, or our neighbours or coworkers going berserk and mowing us down, or our husbands stalking us and killing us and our kids ... except that those things still occasionally happen, because oops, lots of Canadians legally possess firearms, and some Canadians steal firearms or import them illegally into Canada;

(c) there are a lot of OTHER advantages to being Canadian too, like having universal public health insurance and a government that can be ousted at any minute if it loses the confidence of the House, and not feeling the horrible guilt of being a citizen of the country that is the stumbling block to reducing the slaughter of innocents in so many parts of the world because it won't engage in the international effort to reduce the traffic in small arms that results in people not being free of tyranny, but being oppressed by the permanent tyranny of violence and civil war;

...


But mostly, I just think "hmph, well, that's HIS opinion".


"I personally do not believe in using the quotes of famous people, legitimate or not, in arguing a point. If they were right, then the argument itself should hold true."

Well THERE YA GO, eh??


"It would be true that the founding fathers would have known little of the future of weaponry, but despite what modern weapons are capable of vs. old ones, I think the idea still holds true."

Ah, an opinion. I'll be waiting for the argument.

"Tell me how I am wrong"

No. Really. Tell us how you're right.

.

[MrBenchley]

114. Actually...

if I tell you the first thing out of the box is that the most important thing about a particular argument was that it was put forth by the Marquis of Calabash...and then lo and behold, it turns out the Marquis said no such thing, it matters very much.

One is more than entitled to wonder why, if the arguments are so gosh darn hot, they have to be put in the mouth of someone who never said them...and what the motive of those making the false claim might be.

"So, basically, it doesn't matter who said it."
Uh-uh....if it didn't matter who said it, you wouldn't have tossed out the bogus celebrity endorsement to start.

[Emoto]

117. well, here's why

... and then tell me why I should care what Thomas Jefferson said, if he said it.

There are many Americans who know and understand that those brave men who conceived of this new nation, men who had a vision of a new country based upon certain inalienable rights, and the idea of the power being vested in The People, had the clearest, most pure, and very best concepts for governing mankind that the earth has ever seen. For this reason, we look to their words for guidance on how best to understand, and if necessary, protect the very heart and soul of the United States - the Constitution and Bill of Rights, from those who would dilute or destroy it - regardless of their intentions.

Maybe that helps. Or, maybe that isn't what you were asking. :)

[MrBenchley]

119. Too TOO funny...

"a vision of a new country based upon certain inalienable rights, and the idea of the power being vested in The People"
<sarcasm>Who now must bow down and accept this chestnut of "wisdom" from some long dead guy as inalterable fact instead of thinking and acting for themselves in response to changed circumstances (and never mind that it remains that long dead guy's own PRIVATE opinion with no weight of law whatsoever).</sarcasm>

What was it somebody said? Oh yeah, "That is the difference between Citizens and subjects." Subjects follow and worship authority blindly.

[iverglas]

120. nice one!

"That is the difference between Citizens and subjects."
Subjects follow and worship authority blindly.

Why didn't I think to say that? 'Cause that's pretty much exactly the point.

I can't think when I last heard someone quoting John A. MacDonald or Wilfrid Laurier or any other old dead Canadian white guy from 1867 in a debate about what to do in 2003. (Let alone the Queen, for cripes' sake.) We do look to the bargains that the old dead white guys struck -- the treaties with the First Nations, the constitutional pact that created a nation out of two founding peoples and is the basis of the minority-group protections that are the essence of the Canadian fact -- as still foundational to that fact. Those things do have the weight of law -- of super-law, the constitution (and in fact we fiddle with the constitution on a regular basis, as the need arises in order to address our needs and wishes). But we don't go holding séances to ask them what they thought about same-sex marriage or firearms registries or decriminalizing cannabis.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson thought about them? I don't see anybody paying much attention to his low opinion of football and basketball and baseball ... and lord knows what he'd think about hockey if he'd ever heard of it.

Seriously, the rest of the world shakes its head in wonderment at these debates about who said what hundreds of years ago. And the notion that those particular dead white guys

"had the clearest, most pure, and very best concepts
for governing mankind that the earth has ever seen"

... well, we shake our heads in more than wonderment. Amazement at the refusal to think for one's self, and disgust at the arrogance and ethnocentricity that such sentiments express. And at the things they lead to when acted on.


Btw, since no one raised his/her hand to say s/he knew that Canadians were subjects of the British crown, I must assume that everyone knew that Canadians are not subjects of the British crown, haven't been for quite a while. Citizens of Canada, that's us. (As Brits are in fact citizens of the UK.) The Queen is, under the constitution, the head of state -- by the choice of Canada -- and we're no more her subjects than USAmericans are subjects of George W. Bush ... uh, bad analogy, maybe. Oh look:
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; ...

We can vote her out! Constitutional monarchy, a great thing. A head of state who speaks only when spoken to. USAmericans should be so lucky.

.

[MrBenchley]

121. The astonishing thing is

that not only do the gun nuts blurbling about "freedom" routinely lean on an appeal to blind authority from the distant past, but that they do so with fraudulent quotes.

Of course, who are they going to quote now? Ann Coulter? David Duke?

By the way, ain't it swell to see somebody invoking "purity" as one of the virtues of his ideology?

And of course, if one wants to invoke that the great white fathers had "the clearest, most pure, and very best concepts
for governing mankind" then one also should be required to admit that not only did they specify a collective well regulated militia, but that they actually VOTED DOWN any claim of an individual right to gun ownership.

You will note that no-one has yet to address why something that appears in a first draft of the Virginia Constitution is not in later drafts. And of course Virginia's constitution applies only to those unlucky enough to live in the state blighted by Preacher Pat Robertson and Jerrry Falwell....

[Emoto]

122. This is how we differ

"That is the difference between Citizens and subjects."
Subjects follow and worship authority blindly.

Why didn't I think to say that? 'Cause that's pretty much exactly the point.

You probably didn't think of it because it misses the point completely if you examine it closely. We have the choice here to do as we wish and change the Constitution, as provisions are written into it. That sort of power is never present in a monarchy. (I know, I know, you guys aren't that anymore). We do not worship authority, we view it with suspicion and distrust. We follow the tenets that this nation was founded on with eyes wide open, because no amount of examination reveals a flaw. :)

Where we differ is that I believe that the U.S. founding fathers got it right. The rights, the structure, the fundamental and basic principles are complete and utter perfection. The world has never seen anything better. You and Benchley are perfectly free to disagree, and that is fine. At one time, I wore the uniform of a soldier, and although I was never in combat, it would have been my pleasure to risk my life to protect that (and all the other) rights that we (or at least I) hold so dear. Naturally, I listen when anyone wants to change our foundation documents, and if what I hear really is better I will support it, but I have yet to see anything that contitutes an improvement.

P.S. I don't intend this to sound snide, but we don't quote the founders of most other nations, and as fine a group of people as they may have been, they do not have the stature, nor did they concoct the unique and unparalleled wisdom, of our founding fathers.

[MrBenchley]

123. Uh, moto...

Canada is not a monarchy...there's no King of Canada....

"We have the choice here to do as we wish"
Evidently unless we wish to do something about cutting down on the toll on society caused by letting the corrupt gun industry set policy. Then suddenly we are told we have to abide by the opinions of long dead people (and FAKE opinions of long dead people, at that)!

"I believe that the U.S. founding fathers got it right. The rights, the structure, the fundamental and basic principles are complete and utter perfection."
Gee, that's swell..does that mean that you also think we DON'T have "the choice here to do as we wish"? (For that matter, tell us where Thomas Jefferson said word one about an assault weapon.)

"we don't quote the founders of most other nations, and as fine a group of people as they may have been, they do not have the stature, nor did they concoct the unique and unparalleled wisdom, of our founding fathers."
Hell, I'll bet most can't NAME the founders of other nations....this is a pretty funny sentence considering the RKBA crowd is trying to pass off obscure goobers like Tench Coxe and George Mason as big medicine in this thread....

[Emoto]

125. Really?

Canada is not a monarchy...there's no King of Canada....

Heh. What about Tim Horton?

"We have the choice here to do as we wish"
Evidently unless we wish to do something about cutting down on the toll on society caused by letting the corrupt gun industry set policy. Then suddenly we are told we have to abide by the opinions of long dead people (and FAKE opinions of long dead people, at that)!

That is a clever turn, incorrect as it may be. No industry should set policy. Neither should we throw out the baby with the bathwater. The toll on our society is not caused by guns in honest hands any more than spoons made Dom Delouise fat. Deal with the root causes of violence, and put violent criminals in jail and keep them there if you want to save lives.

"I believe that the U.S. founding fathers got it right. The rights, the structure, the fundamental and basic principles are complete and utter perfection."
Gee, that's swell..does that mean that you also think we DON'T have "the choice here to do as we wish"? (For that matter, tell us where Thomas Jefferson said word one about an assault weapon.)

Not at all, as I mentioned above, we can change the Constitution, if we want to. We have the choice. I don't believe he mentioned assault weapons, or the internet, or many things that we have today. Your choice of assault weapon is interesting, though, as I interpret that to mean that you believe an assault weapon would not have constitutional protection. Am I right about that? Consider the role that we, as citizens, are supposed to play in the defense of our country, even with your collectivist point of view, and you might wish to reconsider, no?

"we don't quote the founders of most other nations, and as fine a group of people as they may have been, they do not have the stature, nor did they concoct the unique and unparalleled wisdom, of our founding fathers."
Hell, I'll bet most can't NAME the founders of other nations....

So, you're saying that if only we knew the wondrous words of the founder of, say, Uraguay, that we'd feel differently? Call me a cynic...

[MrBenchley]

126. Really

"That is a clever turn, incorrect as it may be. No industry should set policy."
And yet the gun industry does.

"Deal with the root causes of violence"
Too too funny. So we have to actually change human nature and perfect human society before we can, say, close the gun show loophole?

By the by, all those politicans the gun industry is shoveling money to, like Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch...are they making the "root causes of violence" better? Or WORSE?

"we can change the Constitution, if we want to"
But you were telling us it was perfection when it was drawn up.

"Consider the role that we, as citizens, are supposed to play in the defense of our country, even with your collectivist point of view, and you might wish to reconsider, no?"
No.

"you're saying that if only we knew the wondrous words of the founder of, say, Uraguay, that we'd feel differently? ."
Gee, moto, I think it would do some people a lot of good if they knew more about the world and places such as Uruguay, instead of swallowing hooey about bloodbaths on Australia and monarchies in Canada. Of cours,e be sure you don't get bogus quotes...like the ones we got from the RKBA crowd in this thread..

[iverglas]

127. poor Tim Horton

Died in a drunken one-sportscar crash. Leaving his grieving widow to trade away her doughnut empire (which makes an excellent potage these days, too) in a drunken haze, and then come suing for it back, years later.

Ah, how mortal our heroes are, eh? Some drive slaves, some drive drunk ...

But Benchley did have it wrong. Eliz. II is in fact the Queen of Canada. That's part of that long title of hers. Lemme see whether I can find it (no, it really isn't something we memorize in kindergarten ... although in grade two I did do a rendition of "The Maple Leaf Forever" that sent my mother into hysterics in the car: "In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Oaf the dauntless hero came" ... Oaf being General Wolfe, whom I made sound somewhat Viking ... Oaf the Dauntless ...).

Well, for our purposes, it just seems to be "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (Queen of Canada)". I guess we don't care what else she is. The "what else" is: "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

Anyhow. The big problem is that very few USAmericans seem to have heard of the concept of "constitutional monarchy", which is what Canada is. (I believe the CIA factbook gets it right.)

Other constitutional monarchies you may have heard of are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the UK. All of which rank consistently (with Canada and the US) at the top of the Human Development Index published yearly by the UNDP.

Heh heh. Look what I found: http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,897838,00.html

Who would have thought that Jeb Bush, the president's brother, was a closet supporter of the leftwingers who fought against Franco in the Spanish civil war? But this week the governor of Florida has caused ripples by referring to Spain as the "republic" it was then rather than as the monarchy it is now.

Mr Bush was in Madrid on a trade mission when, paying tribute to Jose Maria Aznar, the prime minister, he said: "I would like to finish by thanking the president of the Republic of Spain for his friendship with the United States."

But Spain ceased being a republic when General Franco defeated the Republican side and became dictator. The constitutional monarchy was restored under Juan Carlos I in 1975, after Franco's death.

http://www.voy.com/47842/7.html

Funnily enough, when Bush's brother came to Spain last month, he said in a speech he was "glad to visit the Republic of Spain". Well... "Republic" may be a more general term in English, sometimes used as an equivalent to "Democracy". Nevertheless, Jeff Bush's pitfall annoyed the Spanish public opinion.

(I don't know of anyone who has a clue who would use "republic" to mean "democracy" in English, actually. They mean completely different things.)

Those Bushes, what a bunch of chimps. Imagine having one of them as your head of state! Oops.

What "constitutional monarchy" means is that the monarch is the head of state pursuant to a decision of the people, which is set out in the constitution like all the other structuring decisions they make. And the appointment of the monarch as head of state is subject to being revoked, just as any other provision of the constitution can be amended or deleted, if the people so decide. It's really quite simple.

And anyone who persists in referring to the citizens of constitutional monarchies as "subjects", or worse, is simply demonstrating his/her own ignorance.


"Hell, I'll bet most can't NAME the founders of other nations...."

So, you're saying that if only we knew the wondrous words of the founder of, say, Uraguay, that we'd feel differently? Call me a cynic..."

And once again, I'm flummoxed at such non sequiturs, and left having to imagine for myself what the motivation for them might be.

Btw, it's "feel different", the adjectival form (feel what); one would say "feel differently", the adverbial form (feel how) if one were discussing, say, the merits of feeling things with one's fingers vs. feeling them with one's toes.

.

[MrBenchley]

129. I stand corrected.

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the sheerest samite, held forth Excalibur to me from the bosom of the waters signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur am to weild Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!"
Peasant: "Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Peasant: Yeah, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
King Arthur: Shut up!
Peasant: Hey, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd lock me away! "
King Arthur: Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!...

But now you'll see how Our Great White Fathers in this country have perfected this primitive system into the purest and goshdarn bestest system in the whole entire history of mankind up till now and to the end of time, if not longer..today WE have a King, George W. (son of the old King, driven frrom the throne by Bill the Unclean), anointed by the Holy Gun Industry itself...and he hired a guy named Bill O'Reilly to yell "Shut up!" for him. So put that in your hat and smoke it, you foreigner from Uraguay....

[iverglas]

131. okay, I had to look it up

I have actually never seen it.

John Cleese was King Arthur, I assume?

You should (if you haven't -- I just did last spring) see Excalibur (1981) -- Nicol Williamson, I forget who else. Tennyson, the other one, Jane, what's her real name? Really great retelling of the tale. And one that takes the perspective that Arthur really *was* chosen by the people, according to the way that such choices were made at the time. As this site puts it:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/erlichrd/satire/films.html

What alternatives to monarchy are considered <in Excalibur> as Britain gets politically organized? (What alternatives to a chain of command were considered for STAR TREK: Voyager?)

(And like I said, *I* don't blame the US founding fathers for being unmodern.)

Hey, you might like this:

What is the significance <in Grail> of Dennis, and the anarcho-syndicalist critique of Arthur's rule? Why is this funny? Shouldn't good Jeffersonian democratic-republicans — e.g., patriotic Americans — find Dennis right in rejecting weird theories of divine right based on having a sword thrown at a guy by some "watery tart"? If something is being satirized in this scene — what? More generally, what're the politics of Python (and maybe of Satire generally)?

Heh heh: http://www.uh.edu/hti/curriculum_units/2001/v02/08.pdf

The American Dream, Movies and Their Cultural Agendas

Webster's calls the American dream "the U.S. ideal according to which equality of opportunity permits any American to aspire to high attainment and material success." This unit attempts to explain to fifth grade English as a Second Language (ESL) learners some values and ideals traditionally esteemed in America. Themes such as meritocracy, culture, social order and ideology are explored by using two film classics and two popular "movies" of American cinema.

... Participation in democratic republics requires students to learn the cultural value of becoming active listeners and critical viewers of media. ... In this context, films are part of the symbolic and material production initiated by the "ideological apparatuses of the state" which also include signs, symbols, rituals and television representations and which are colonizing (hegemonic) by design (McLaren 2000).

The film chosen to introduce this unit in character education is Excalibur, a British film directed by John Boorman and released in 1981. My reasons for selecting this film are numerous. First, I want to expose students to the images of European history and traditions that have dominant influence in American culture. Approaching the study of America culture as a European derivative provides background knowledge and establishes a purpose for the study of United States History and the English language. The film is intended to generate interest in an extended study of British colonialism and early American history. ...

And it's a really good movie, too.

.

[MrBenchley]

133. Graham Chapman played Arthur

with wonderful detachment...because the budget actually did not allow the troupe to rent horses and wranglers, throughout the film the knights skip about as if they are holding reins, while their squires plod along behind, dutifully clopping coconut halves together to make hoofbeat noises. All of it is wonderful, including the opening credits (in Swedish)

I love Excalibur...think it's the best of Boorman's films.

Reading this on the satire site: "Alternatively, name four enlisted personnel on an Enterprise in any of the STAR TREK saga." reminds me that there was a peculiar episode of Star Trek the Next Generation somewhat shamelessly cribbed from "It's a wonderful life" in which Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart, who also was in Excalibur) discovers that hell is a world in which he is just an extra on the program...

[iverglas]

134. "just an extra on the program"

Never thought of it that way -- watch out, paradigm shift ahead. The play's the thing, all the world's a stage, yada yada. Caught the tail end of the Riker lives in his play while aliens torture him episode the other night ...

I once thought I'd made up the phrase "expendible crewman". Well, I did, but others did too. (Just like (my) "brother, can you paradigm?" and my invisible hand lightbulb joke ... .) As the c.v. put it on Wednesday night, that Dr. Singh guy just had the big "E" tatooed on his forehead from the minute Captain Cutie (well, the c.v. didn't say that part) first spoke to him.

Funny thing about that Wonderful Life episode though -- nobody else seemed to have been adversely affected by Picard's notable absence from the bridge.

.

[MrBenchley]

136. Ain't that always the way?

"nobody else seemed to have been adversely affected by Picard's notable absence from the bridge."

Oh, if only we had a bald-headed cranky Shakespearean pretending to be French...he'd show these aliens a thing or two...

Ever see Buneal's "Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie?" It's got a nifty spin on the "Life is a dream" cliche....six friends gather, the adventure is revealed to be a dream of one character, and that character encounters the others, they have an adventure, and that adventure is revealed to be a dream of one character, and that character encounters the others, and so on....

And to return to the favorite subject of the folder....one of the characters is the ambassador from Miranda, a country nobody's heard of (the ambassador is pleased to bore people with facts: "We are the world's seventh largest producer of bauxite..." "We are world renowned for the quality of our bananas"). Toward the end, at a large cocktail party, the ambassador finally runs into someone who HAS heard of Miranda...

Party Guest: Oh yes, it's one of the most violent countries in the world...
Ambassador: No, that's not really true...
Party Guest: I know somebody who went there, they were afrraid to leave the hotel...
Ambassador: Ah, that's an unfortunate exagerration created by the leftist press...
Party Guest: Why, I read that the murder rate there was the highest in the wor--
The ambassador whips out a pistol and shoots him, then drops it into a potted plant and hurries away wiping his hands on a hankie....

[Emoto]

135. Good doughnuts, though

And anyone who persists in referring to the citizens of constitutional monarchies as "subjects", or worse, is simply demonstrating his/her own ignorance.

I've never been afraid to display what I've got, regardless of how others might mis-categorize it. My choice of the word "subject" was not only a nod to the symbolic role of the queen, but more pointedly a characterization of what someone who holds no instruments of power ought to be called, IMO. Sadly, I haven't the time to be verbose and explicit enough to remove any possibility of misreading my comments.

"Hell, I'll bet most can't NAME the founders of other nations...."

So, you're saying that if only we knew the wondrous words of the founder of, say, Uraguay, that we'd feel differently? Call me a cynic..."

And once again, I'm flummoxed at such non sequiturs, and left having to imagine for myself what the motivation for them might be.

Btw, it's "feel different", the adjectival form (feel what); one would say "feel differently", the adverbial form (feel how) if one were discussing, say, the merits of feeling things with one's fingers vs. feeling them with one's toes.

It is all about context. "Differently" leads the careful reader to finish the thought about why other leaders are not quoted.

[iverglas]

124. abject nonsense

You quite plainly know no history but the history of the USofA, and apparently a very selective version of that one.

The "stature" that your founding fathers had was slave-owner, as I understand it. The government that they devised was based on privilege assigned according to race, sex and class. They were human beings, for dog's sake, and subject to the same limitations as all human beings -- the limitations imposed on them by their experience, and that they imposed on themselves in their own self-interest.

"Where we differ is that I believe that the U.S. founding fathers got it right. The rights, the structure, the fundamental and basic principles are complete and utter perfection."

This is no less absurd than what literalist bible-thumpers say about their holy scriptures. It's writ in stone, and must not be changed. That's what I call tyranny, plain and simple.

You are of course aware that your founding fathers invented pretty much nothing. They based much of that bill of rights stuff on Magna Carta, for starters -- and it dates from 1215. And way over a century before your revolution, the English had already had their own and ousted the monarchy. You did know that England was a Republic in the middle part of the 17th century (the 1600s), right? You can bet your founding fathers did.

I won't argue that your rights, structure and principles were not "complete and utter perfection" then, or even aren't now, for USAmericans. (Although I'd think it bloody obvious that they were a long way from "complete and utter perfection" for a lot of the people they were imposed on at the time, like women and African Americans.) But *I* wouldn't take them if I were paid, and I say that in all sincerity and with no intent to offend whatsoever. I and my fellow citizens have stronger protections of our individual rights than USAmericans do, and minority groups of all kinds have more respect for their collective rights here than they do in the US, and that's how I want to keep it.

You're entitled to self-determination, do what you like. I just don't think that all USAmericans, past and present, agree(d) with you. Certainly your founding fathers' slaves didn't. Certainly anyone whose rights have ever been subordinated to "states' rights" wouldn't. Certainly women a century ago didn't.

Obviously, a whole lot of changes were needed to what those guys came up with, to make it even moderately acceptable to a lot of people who came after. If it had been regarded by everyone since then as "complete and utter perfection", women and African Americans would still have no vote. Obviously, I wouldn't blame your founding fathers for the atrocious denial of rights to anyone but white males, because they were what their times made them ... but there's simply no reason to kiss their feet.


"Naturally, I listen when anyone wants to change our foundation documents, and if what I hear really is better I will support it, but I have yet to see anything that contitutes an improvement."

I take it you have never actually bothered to read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (constitution) (or any of the national rights instruments modeled on it), or, oh, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (or any number of other international instruments) ... .


"I don't intend this to sound snide, but we don't quote the founders of most other nations, and as fine a group of people as they may have been, they do not have the stature, nor did they concoct the unique and unparalleled wisdom, of our founding fathers."

Snide? Nope, that just sounds arrogant, ethnocentric and wilfully ignorant.

Those guys, as I've noted, really didn't "concoct" anything at all.

The founders of this country up here had the truly "unique and unparalleled wisdom" to create the first nation in the world that recognized the collective right to self-determination of the peoples that were the parties to the pact that created it. A nation in which people speak different languages, adhere to different religions and are governed by different legal systems, in peace -- in which the minority was allowed to continue to exist and not compelled to assimilate into the majority, and individuals suffered no disadvantage because of their minority status -- had never been seen before. We did that in the same decade that you guys were fighting over slavery.

I wouldn't have expected what we did of your own founding fathers, since they died quite a while before that happened. So again, I wouldn't actually fault them for not giving any thought to minority rights, for instance. I do fault those who insist that the vision of privileged white males is the best we can do.

.

[iverglas]

153. another view of how we differ

I posted these snippets in another thread, but they seem to fit right in, here. I'm not suggesting that the source is any authority, of course; I just happen to agree with the opinion expressed.

In response to Pat Buchanan's characterization of Canada as "Soviet Canuckistan", in reference to Canadian objections to the racial profiling, and discriminatory treatment, of certain Canadians at the US border:


http://www.thestranger.com/2003-07-03/ex7.html

Buchanan probably thought he was lobbing the ultimate dis, but there is something Americans need to know about Canada: Hardly anyone here was offended, and many Canadians took it as a supreme compliment. ...

The United States is a one-myth culture. The Federalist Papers read like John Locke having a conversation with himself, and your history is just an extended working out of the philosopher's ideas about individualism, private property, and the state. In the United States, the capitalists have acquired a monopoly on patriotism, and your response to other ideologies alternates between xenophobic isolationism and messianic internationalism. ... You might say that Canadians are progressive conservatives by inclination; we try to keep what's valuable from the past, while remaining open to the new.

... <Pollster Michael Adams says, in his book Fire and Ice> that since 1992, social values between our two countries have diverged in significant ways, and that the long-term trend points to increasing divergence. Both countries are trending away from traditional values, are becoming less deferential to authority and more individualistic. But while Canadians are moving toward values associated with idealism and personal self-fulfillment (e.g., creativity, tolerance, and cultural sampling), Americans are moving away en masse from the trends associated with civic engagement and social and ecological concern. You are becoming paranoid and isolated, more likely to see society as a war of all against all. America is becoming a nation of survivalists.

... <re "American exceptionalism":> But when you consider American values in light of the determined openness and internationalism emerging in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere, this "exception" is starting to look more like an aberration. Take a look around, America. Soviet Canuckistan is the new world order.

That's how it looks to us, anyhow, eh?

(edited - screwed up my cutting and pasting)

.

.

[MrBenchley]

154. I must be getting punchy

By the way, worth noting that there's hardly anyone more openly racist in public life than Buchanan...one of the staples of his campaign oratory is how much "better off" blacks were when Jim Crow ruled....

And of course, he's pro-gun...And it's hilarious to note that in a thread where gun control is once again dishonestly linked to Hitler, pro-gun Pat is the guy who arranged Reagan's Bitburg SS honors. You might recall pro-gun Pat's last book argued that America should have joined the Second World War on the Third Reich's side....


Good thing "gun rights" isn't just plain old fashioned bigotry hiding under a new sheet, huh?

[Stilgar]

130. actually 2 quotes in one

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, 1776

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

Its still true, he said both of them. You know, the same way Michael Moore likes to cut 2 seperate speeches and put them together to sound like one.

[dougmalloy]

165. actually, TJ never said that

There is not one shred of evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote such words as "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

It's utter bullshit, OK? (Can I say that here?) There's no source for it. It's an urban legend.

I challenge you to find the original source.

[MrBenchley]

167. Hilarious, isn't it?

There's strong proof that gun control is wrong....a bogus quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Goes to show Bob Boudelang isn't really that far off the mark.

[jjcahill]

157. Adams quote - doesn't mention guns, but does it support ownership?

Here is one position Adams published. Deals with the "social contract". BTW, it's ok if you don't care what Adams said. He cares not at all about our remarks.


"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

[Valarauko]

159. Cool!

I have a pic of Jefferson in my room.

[Moderator]

168. putting another one to bed

night night