John Prezioso

Nomad - you want to talk about a public uprising? Try telling Americans "Um, your Constitution is outdated and obsolete - we're ditching it." Wow, I really don't think the tech gap or equipment gap would matter. There would be a revolution regardless, and it would be HUGE. The Constitution IS the U.S. In my opinion, you can't have one without the other. It is timeless and current for the most part. That people in government will often try to stretch its boundaries is of no import. It is the supreme law of the land, and NO ONE has enough power to abolish it. Too much blood has been spilled defending its basic principals to just blithely cast it aside. Obsolete or not, the right to bear arms is a guaranteed right, and the principal of unalienable rights is the foundation of our way of life, not just a document. "The security of a free state" is not only limited to protection from tyranny, but protection from ALL threats, like terrorism and thugism (rioters and bandits).

Yep, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Thanks, Jag.

Thanks for the compliment. I'll concede that the Founders were not soothsayers. Yet they displayed a remarkable foresight in their deliberate wording of the Constitution. They knew that while the country would change, human nature probably wouldn't. By all accounts, they seem to have been right. One vehicle by which they future-proofed the Constitution was its relative lack of perod-centric specifics in many cases. Alot of it was left open-ended, allowing for future advancements. That they were very specific on the point about arms is telling in my view. One last point about the militia: essentially any American with a gun is a potential militia member, if I understand the "Federalist Papers" correctly.

New Found Anicient Beast Dubbed Godzilla Awesome!!!

Nothing like a juicy guns debate to liven up the evening! When I am on the opposite side of a debate of a person who is clearly intelligent and well-read, like my friends Grizzle, Nomad, and Aperson, I think that to maintain objectivity in a discussion I have to try to put myself in their shoes and try to get a perspective on what their stance is and why it might be that way. I find that I can tailor my argument towards a specific person that way, and try to strike a chord with them on the basis of familiarity. Needless to say, it is a little tough when people from other countries are concerned, seeing as how, while I'm fairly well-traveled, I never really stayed anywhere outside of the U.S. long enough to learn about different cultures. So, I'll try to give some perspective from my end to help others not from here understand the conservative position. Grizzle, your welcome to stay too! **CLIMBS UP ON SOAP BOX*** What makes the U.S. unique is that, in drawing up the Constitution, the Founders understood what made other countries either fail or become inhospitable to a large portion of its populace, having just fled from an oppressive regime themselves. They used this understanding coupled with the very basic understanding of the human condition that ANYONE, no matter how noble and honest, is inheritantly flawed and thus corruptible. To counter this, the government was framed specifically to limit the damage any one corrupt individual or body of individual could do. Furthermore, the Founders, understanding the fallibility of man, declared that our system was to be based on the idea that God, not man, was the final arbiter of what rights a human being could or could not enjoy. These were and still are the whole foundation of our system, the reason for checks and balances, the reason for unalienable rights, etc. Government is not the final word and it is no better than the people it is comprised of; that is, we the people. That the Constitution is not a list of what the government CAN'T do, but is instead a (quite short) list of what it can, exemplifies these principles. The second amendment is just another of the checks and balances built in to our system. That there is a technological and material availability gap between the military and the 'militia' (us) is irrelevant. The principal of the right to resist tyranny is non-dependant on feasibility, and the 2nd amendment serves to solidify the power people hold and maintain to defend themselves from ALL threats, be they incognito foreign fighters (terrorists) or the armies of corrupt statesmen. A look at U.S. history reveals that the delta between the mighty British war machine and the inept rustics of the colonies in the 18th century is not so much less than the one that might exist today should a similar situation arise here in the states. **CLIMBS DOWN OFF SOAP BOX**** Sorry for the long post, and thanks for listening...uh...reading.

Yeah, I was just going to post something along the same lines. Here is an article.

This is always a hotly conteseted issue, and it's easy to get swept up in the rhetoric that is prevalent on BOTH sides. Myself, I like to defer to the Constitution's writers, men for whom I have boundless respect. They were visionaries of the highest order, and they constructed a document unlike anything before it or since. As far as what the Constitution is - it is NOT a guideline in the sense that you can consult it by convenience; rather, it is the yardstick by which every law passed and every action taken by our government is checked. It's brevity is its greatest strength, making it simple and definitive, and understandable by ALL people, not just those well-versed in legalese and political babble. Tools of violence are certainly unpalatable items to spread throughout a peace-loving society, as I believe America essentially is. It is squirmy stuff to be confronted daily by people who are seemingly obsessed with objects whose sole purpose is to violently end lives. This I certainly understand. But human nature being what it is, the ownership of firearms is not a priviledge, but a right for all who reside in America. It isn't like driving, for which there ARE no constitutional priviledges. It is specifically addressed in a document which otherwise is only written to dictate what government is ALLOWED to do. The "obsession" is to the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, not to guns themselves. As Madison wrote, the 2nd Amendment is what ensures the rest of the Constitution is upheld. quote: Therefore, as long a Constitution is in harmony with what the majority wants, it's ok. But if not, then it's degenerative Constitutional Fundamentalism. No. This is why we are a REPUBLIC. What the majority wants is secondary to what is written in the Constitution. You are thinking of a "Democracy". You know, two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner?

quote: Let's just be honest about original intent and what is feasible in modern society.I hear what you're saying. But consider that the prevalence of private ownership was only intended to give a government with thoughts of turning to tyranny pause. Understanding that the populace is armed, and enforcement of unconstitutional power grabs and abridgement of God-given freedoms will not just be meekly accepted should be enough to prevent acts of blatant agression against the people of the U.S. Call it keeping them "honest", although honesty in the strictest sense is a dubious concept in government. quote:how would you react if still enlisted and asked by our gov't to defend this country against a popular revolt? Well, you wouldn't be asked - you'd be told. And at that moment, everyone in the military would have to make a choice. Depending on the circumstances, there would be those who sided with the federal government, and those who would side with the rebels. A perfect example would be if the looting in New Orleans had gotten significantly more out of hand and began spreading (similar to the situation in France), and the military had been sent in to restore order "by any means necessary". I would tend to think that the vast majority of military personnel would carry out their assigned duties. But who can say? [ 11-10-2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Prez ]

I can, for what little value I may be able to add...

Remeber when we had the discussion about Democracy versus Republic? This is a perfect example of the difference. A democratic referendum in a pure democracy would be law. In a Republic such as ours, idiot measures like this that blatantly usurp the constitution are shot down regardless of their popularity. Before anyone gives me that "will of the people" melarchy, think about this: This referendum could have said something like "Muslims will be banned from city schools", or "Segregation will be re-instituted in San Francisco". Sometimes, what the people want is irrelevant to what is constitutional and what is not.

Well said.

Oh, yeah. Very. Mostly because of what it says about how they view the military. These guys are protecting their butts, and this is a slap in the face of our soldiers. Nomad - your gloating is rather silly. I've already told you that many places in the U.S. are infected with the scourge of Socialism already. This is nothing new for San Francisco. They don't call it the left coast for nothing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175150,00.html It's a start.

quote: If you go back to that link you provided in your Jordan terror attack thread Fox News and click on the VIDEO tab, you'll see that it's happening (to a small degree) now in germany. Title: Copy cat violence? German police beef up security.Yeah, I saw that later. Man, where does it end? Race: what the heck does scooter libby and Bush's poll ratings have to do with this thread? If you want to those to be discussed, start a thread. Don't expect much credibility if you keep making moronic comparisons like the one comparing conservatives to Muslim fanatics, though. That was just stupid. If you have something of value and not just tired liberal rhetoric and demagoguery, I'm all ears. Nomad: So two weeks of non-stop lawlessness, wanton destruction, and the attacks on innocent people are what you call "quelling riots"? Oy vey.

Spybot: Search and Destroy is the best free spyware blocker/killer I've found. http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/index.html

Am I the only one who feels that France's softball response to this will be seen as encouragement of future behavior of this nature?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175079,00.html Absolutely sickening. I can only imagine what it must be like, to hear the deafening blast, seeing the blinding explosion, feeling the concussion from the blast rip through your body and knock you from your feet. Then, if you survived, the absolute stark terror coupled with utter chaos that envelopes you and those around you. Every time I see this, I become more enraged. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY? Where is the outrage from the world?

Zone Alarm is very good. Excellent if you consider it's price. (The free version is quite good). AVG by Grisoft is a great anti-virus imho, and it has a surprisingly robust free version as well. http://www.grisoft.com/doc/289/lng/us/tpl/tpl01

OMG! I'm guessing that this is NOT a real press release. Still, this IS France we're talking about... (KIDDING!) Jag - this is frickin' hysterical! Where did you get this?

Ouch! I hope you know I'm only kidding, Aperson.

...and "experience". And "sense". And "ailments". And "response". And "sociopathy". And "doesn't". But your point is correct for the vast amount of people. Some, however, exhibit a very high resistance to such reactions, and interestingly enough, a large percentage of these people end up in the military. I'll leave the "why" for another debate.

Thanks for the wishing for luck! But you are missing the point - First of all, Our Constitution says the right to own guns will "not be infringed". Second of all, as I already stated, crazed people are going to own guns anyway. It is up to me to decide how to counter them. I have decided to do so with my S&W .40. With all due respect, your suggestion for "a battery of tests every 2 to 3 years" is insane. Impossible to implement and maintain. That is upwards of 200 million psyche tests!

quote: And please, stop to speak like an immature youth, being over 40 years old, it's normally time to get a grip on reality. Stop to make a fool from yourself with that BS Rambo attitude, because you aren't either invincible, nor blessed by universal and immediate extrasense.I don't think that's fair Nomad. Someone could just as easily tag you as being a childish wimp for your stance on guns. It is not a matter of being "Rambo" or invincible. It is a matter of being confident in your own ability and RIGHT to protect yourself, not burden others with your protection. quote: More seriously, I sincerely hope that you or any of your family members will never get shoot by someone turning nuts, because on top of the suffering, you may end the rest of your life regretting to have supported a dynamic allowing such people to access firearms.That is absolutely insane. Would YOU feel better if some crazed lunatic hurt your family because you were unable to stop him because you had no way of defending yourself? You need to understand - the "crazies" you refer to would have guns whether or not you kept them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. That's why they're called CRIMINALS. Criminalize gun ownership, and only criminals will have guns. quote: The day someone assaults your family and you aren't present, there's nothing you will ever be able to do except pick up what's left. And even if you are there, it only takes to get you by surprise for you to be the first one going down.That's why you train your wife and older children in the safe operation of firearms. And what's your point about being surprised? You at least I had a fighting chance. You can't control everything, but you can do a little to swing the odds in your favor. The only valid part of your argument concerning firearms in my view is the training courses. In Tennessee, you are required to take an 8-hour training course prior to being issued a concealed carry permit. I believe that is the right thing to do.

And I moved to Tennessee to live the quiet life...

My two sense: Most rational people hope that they would never be put in a position of having to kill someone to survive, but, by the same token, most rational people would not hesitate to kill someone if they felt their lives or the lives of their loved ones threatened. The drive for survival is the most fundamental instinct of the human condition, or so I have read.