--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote: > > We are fortunate to live in a time and place when government is still fairly > responsive to the will of the governed.
You've got to be kidding! That sounds like something out of a textbook issued to high school students. Our government is bought and paid for by the wealthy and has no interest at all in government according to "the will of the governed." The "governed" are fed a constant stream of lies and are left confused, misinformed, hopelessly manipulated by people who do not have their best interests at heart. But the underlying premise of the 2d Amendment is that the citizenry should have the ability to use force to protect their life and liberty against government -- should that need arise. There's no guarantee that the need won't arise, just because it hasn't for some time. > > Although guns were part and parcel of the everyday landscape of 18th century > America, and hunting was ordinary, the 2d Amendment has nothing to do with > hunting, it has to do with ordinary individuals retaining the right to bear > arms primarily as the ultimate guarantor against a government gone bad. > > As you point out, where do you draw the line? When is it necessary to > "defend" your rights against a corrupted government? There wasn't universal > agreement as whether or not it was time to rebel against government authority > in the 1770s, but that consensus finally reached a tipping point. Rebels in > Syria, Sudan, and all over the world at different times have risen up against > tyrannical governments, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, sometimes > with good reason and sometimes without, but the presence of an armed > population makes any government more wary in the encroachment of their > people's rights and makes it possible for the people to effectively challenge > the State militarily. I'm confident that the founders of this republic would > want the citizenry to have technology that matched the government's, at least > on the level of small arms. > > I'm not a fan of the NRA but I agree with their position regarding the 2d > Amendment. You can't always protect people from the actions of unbalanced > individuals, regardless of the number of laws passed or restrictions on the > availability of guns. And you certainly can't do so by attempting to outlaw > guns wholesale or little by little choke off the ability of the populace to > possess them. > > I see firsthand the effects of gun violence and it is the same as the effects > of "violence", regardless of the weapon chosen to express it. I deal with > violence and violent individuals on a daily basis and I'm very alert to its > appearance and escalation. I see many of the same expressions of violence in > some of the exchanges here on FFL. The individual is where the problem and > the solution ultimately lies, not the implement. > > *** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry Emily, this is the very reason why we do need guns. So people such > > > as your self can not *organize* and  deny us our second amendment > > > rights as well as our first amendment or any other amendment rights. A > > > well armed citizenry protects it's self from a tyrannical government. All > > > conservative minded people should be well armed.Liberals can disarm or > > > arm all you want, that's fine with me. As the old saying goes, when guns > > > are outlawed,only outlaws will have guns. > > > > > > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, > > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." > > When Congress ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 they weren't talking > > about automatic weapons and they sure as hell never dreamed that a deranged > > person could acquire unregulated automatic weapons capable of destroying 70 > > innocent lives in a matter of minutes. > > > > No one wants to take away your guns or deny your second amendment rights. > > So stop letting the NRA brainwash you into being so paranoid. If the NRA > > gets their way, every man woman and child would carry a concealed weapon, > > fully loaded AK 47 and a rocket launcher aimed at the White House, you > > know, just in case that guy from Kenya tries any funny business. > > > > It's not reasonable to use the slippery slope argument that government > > wants to take away all your guns, including guns for hunting, just because > > they want to regulate automatic firearms designed to kill as many people as > > possible, quickly as possible. > > > > Let's look at *arms* specifically, guns as they existed at the time of > > the ratification of the Bill of Rights. > > > > Guns in 1791 WOULD > > > > ...be made by a gunsmith. > > ...have rudimentary rifling. > > ...be single-shot weapons. > > ...be loaded through the muzzle. > > ...fire by means of a flintlock. > > > > > > Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT > > > > ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798) > > ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835) > > ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810) > > ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885) > > ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. > > (Invented in 1842) > > ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890) > > > > http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:52 AM > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A movie to die for? > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > A serious tragedy that has nothing to do with the movie business.  His > > > "mom" said "you have the right person" and is flying out.  Did she know > > > her son was unstable?  It's a problem with our mental health system, > > > where families cannot get help for their ill family members before these > > > tragedies unfold.  Guns should be outlawed for the general public in our > > > society, period.  We don't need them.  > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Bhairitu <noozguru@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:44 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] A movie to die for? > > > > > > > > >  > > > So have we reached the epitome of ignorance when a "tentpole" movie > > > results in a mass shooting? Oh for those whose keep their heads in the > > > sand there 12 people were killed at the premiere of the new Batman movie > > > at a Denver multiplex. Me thinks the studios have made too much of > > > "event" movies which are historically known as "tentpole" films. > > > Usually with so much publicity for these means that I avoid them. > > > > > > Hollywood has turned into a factory which is all about technique and > > > little about art. This mistake should be the source of their demise. > > > They have become the principle instrument in the dumbing down of > > > society. And all just to make a few people very rich. > > > > > > And it may well be the source of their demise. These CEOs think that > > > entertainment should be a "sure deal". Never has been. I think the old > > > moguls understood this but not the Harvard trained grads who really only > > > learned theory and NOT reality. I'd love to see the studio system > > > collapse and be replaced with smaller more honest companies that produce > > > good art. > > > > > >
