Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (6300)	11/16/2000 10:12:48 AM
From: quasar_1	Respond to of 10042

The Rockets Red Glare... We neither require a registration form of the freedom of speech nor license the freedom of the press or of religion! But we need a license to drive? Yet we have the freedom of movement. I know not about your idea of God, but I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to prove he doesn't carry or own a firearm, afterall, does not everything good belong to Him! Okay I'll bite. Why would an omnipotent being with the power of creation and destruction carry a firearm. The notion of God carrying a weapon seems patently absurd. No, all government exists only at Consent of the Governed! That is the same thing I said. Human rights are the "certain unalienable rights" that have been "endowed by their Creator" and proven by court, law, war, & blood. All rights have limits. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater even though that infringes your right to free speech. When your right usurps my right we have agreed as a society to compromise. Do I want to live where you say, no,because I believe in a greater freedom that is sought by either side in the Gaza Strip dispute. If you do not wish to live in a society that is ruled by majority rule of law under our Constitution you are quite free to leave. This is what our forefathers did when they left Europe to come here. You are not free to engage in armed conflict to overthrow an elected government. Then you have abrogated your Constitutional contract with your fellow citizens. Anything I could say here would pale against that said by our founders: Where in the Constitution does it lawfully empower armed revolt by the citizens against their government? The majority rules here, not a well armed minority who doesn't like the way the game is played. The founders can say anything they want as there own opinion. We are ruled by the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers or any other prose, no matter how soul stirring. I do not wish for blood in the streets or promote any form of open insurrection against our government. That is good to know. Where, though, must the line drawn from which we find there is no longer consent of the governed? It is drawn through the political process at the polling booth. It is verified by the Constitution and the courts. Will it be attempted only after the chains are locked or will we take back our government through use of the ballot & the pen first? We have used the ballot and the pen since the Civil War, to our great betterment. Is not the strongest answer owning both the full free rifle & full free pen? I think you misread me. I have no problem with the second amendment. I don't mind if you or anyone else (besides a know violent felon) owns a gun for any reason. My point is not the abolishment of the 2nd amendment but a debate about its limits, just as we have debated and imposed limits to free speech. Those who have no respect for firearms often also have little knowledge of their history. I have respect for firearms, I just don't own any anymore. I am still a very good shot. When the war ended there was No call for these men to give up their own finest of "assult weapons" of the day! Here is the crux of the debate. Can we extrapolate this phrase to the ownership of any weapon of any destructive capability. Does that mean the second amendment only applies to guns (rifles and handguns at any power and firing rate), or any form of armament—bazookas, shoulder fired surface to air missiles, backpack nukes? We can extrapolate the second amendment to any extreme. Just as we have put limits on speech is it then counterintuitive to think that there could be some limit on the power of personal armament. This is where the debate should center. Freedom is never extremism, it is only freedom. We as a society have already placed limits on freedom when it compromises the rights of others. Extremists want no limits on their freedom. This is untenable in a freely governed society. The suggestion we should forefit our 2nd amendment right is no better that the suggestion we whould return to slavery with people sold at auction in every public square! You did not read my post correctly. I never said we should rescind the second amendment. This is an emotional issue for you as democracy is for me. Emotion breeds weakness in debate and intellectual clarity. Thanks for your thoughts. Q