|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 07:12 AM EST |
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from
any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government."
- George Washington
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in
private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people
of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of
self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the
study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and
bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not
already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a
strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and
will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They
disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may
be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
So you believe a fictional story by Douglas Adams should carry more weight than
the carefully thought out opinions of our founding fathers?
And just who is to arbitrate the question of which people have the right to own
guns? The people who want impose their own will and political agenda are the
people who want to take them away from citizens.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 07:30 AM EST
- for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 08:09 AM EST
- that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 08:12 AM EST
- Wherever standing armies are kept up, - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 08:14 AM EST
- have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 08:28 AM EST
- Exactly - Remember when Al Haig said that he was "in charge" (he meant/might have dreamed of it) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 08:45 AM EST
- Armed 1776 vs 2012 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM EST
- The Founding Fathers and their Single Shot Weapons - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM EST
- Unless they actually try to use it that way...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM EST
- Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 05:54 PM EST
- Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed? - Authored by: cricketjeff on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 05:12 AM EST
- Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed? - Authored by: odysseus on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 06:00 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Again,
What other lowest common denominators can we detect to
expose, or at
least introduce to the discussion?
No stone should be left unturned - we
need to look in all
the deep dark corners, to discover what lies there, that we
can not usually see. AND, then we need to openly discuss it
all, everything
(to fix, you need to look at the entire
picture).
http://davidhealy.org/t
he-story-of-ssri-
stories/
http://ssristories.com/
And, this, in the
next link, was written about over 10 years
ago (same stories, only now ten
years later, we still are
not looking at them seriously, and including them in
the
discussion of "how to fix" the problem).
ht
tp://www.drugawareness.org/prozac-panacea-or-
pandora/the-
aftermath
A-N
-D, we can save the very best, or most interesting link,
for last...
This
guy in the short video (link below), at risk of lible
and
slander, had 3 labs
confirm the cause of the start of the
Autism Epidemic (many kids on SSRIs are
Autistic). SHOCKING.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=hZVi3M_OiCo
WOW, just imagine, if that "research document" was not
sealed at the FDA over 30 years ago (how many kids might not
have been harmed
by this stuff"? That is, if he and the 3
labs he used to confirm the
research, are correct?
Maybe we need to have an official Congressional
investigation, if needed, into why that paper was sealed
when it showed that
there were indeed birth defects in the
lab animals in an area of the brain that
is where it is the
same area of the brain that affects Autism. The researcher
says in the video that he can "PROVE" this to be true.
The
next
step, if what he says is not true, is for the companies
named in his written
work, to step up, get the courts to get
an injunction against this guy, and
then sue him for slander
and/or libel into financial oblivion. Why will they
not
sue, why just imagine what would pop up in "discovery"
maybe?
If true, then many other labs could also confirm, and well
change the game to reflect the research. However, the
questions remain, as to
how to fix the 30 years of damage to
the hearts of mothers all over the world
(this stuff is used
world-wide)..., and to fix the brains of those
affected?
Certainly, those at risk, who might be not allowed a gun,
would
be, after a review of some kind by a group of
professionals... a percentage of
the affected population who
are affected by the above links (at the very
least, a bell curve might exist), not only in the US, but
other places too?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: myNym on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:48 PM EST |
Anybody who wants to be able to go outside ought not be
allowed.
Anybody who wants free speech ought not be allowed.
Anybody who doesn't want to be a slave to the federal
government ought not be allowed to opt out.
Tell you what, anybody who feels the streets are too
dangerous because of guns, please check yourselves into the
nearest padded cell. After all, you can all find gainful
employment in the Interweb, right? No need to go outside at
all.
My apologies to those that are truly agoraphobic and who
read this. I am not trying in any way to make light of your
plight. The above is intended to be a thought experiment
for those who have trouble seeing the end result of their
temporary wishes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 03:38 PM EST |
By the same token (and going back to the origin of your analogy), anyone who
wants to decide who should be prohibited from doing something should be
excluded from deciding so. I think you can see the circular reasoning inherent
in this.
The idea which Adams used is an old joke with many variations that has probably
been around for centuries, if not longer. It's a joke because it obviously *is*
absurd.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM EST |
Based on that logic:
Anyone who wants to wear a seatbelt should
automatically be excluded from wearing a seat belt.
Anyone who wants to lock their front door should
automatically be excluded from locking their front door.
cc
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM EST |
Does that have anything to do with the assassination
of four presidents, or the six others who were shot at
but missed or survived their wounds? I'm not counting
bombings or would be perps prevented before the act.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|