The Fabric for the Federal Goverment vs the states continues to deteriorate

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

responsible gun ownership is the Cornerstone of American Liberty.

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Yeah, jealousy and hate of the US for their freedom and independance *nods*
sure, that must be it, heared it so often, must be the case.

Originally Posted by Morts

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
subman1, we(or well, most europeans) dont need assault rifles to feel safe...unlike you

Considering your blubbering fools didn't answer the question, the accusation still stands!

-S

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by -SWCowboy.

Shoot, both - anytime I have to wait 3 days to a week for a handgun check is ridiculous!.

Wait three days? But I am drunk and pissed off NOW!

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.

Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.

You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.

If the United States ever gets to the point where private gun ownership is the only thing between us and tyranny, then it's too late. The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Max2147

I typed a reply but then I had a browser failure and I lost it.
I'll edit a new reply into this space.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

While I agree with everything you said, I disagree that the term "cornerstone" applies.

The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.

That's the reason the First Ammendment is the FIRST Ammendment.

[Aramike]

Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.

The reason for the state's restraint has a lot to do with the fact that the state's armies are made up of citizens who enjoy the same freedoms that the people do.

What do you think is the reason that the members of our armed forces lean overwhelmingly conservative?

More importantly, consider how the same side of the political spectrum historically favors intense gun-control AND cutting our military capability...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

While I agree with everything you said, I disagree that the term "cornerstone" applies.

The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.

That's the reason the First Amendment is the FIRST Amendment.

It seems we have different definitions of "cornerstone" in this context.

I have a feeling that I'm in at least partial agreement with what you are saying here, but please elaborate.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It seems we have different definitions of "cornerstone" in this context.

I have a feeling that I'm in at least partial agreement with what you are saying here, but please elaborate.

I'm just being very literal in the usage of the term "cornerstone".

Ultimately, the idea is that we have a free society - free speech, religion, assembly, and to petition our government regarding grievances. Those are the fundamental principles upon which our entire society - perhaps culture - is founded. The ownership of guns is, quite frankly, a right bestowed in SUPPORT of that First Ammendment. In fact, so is every subsequent ammendment in the Bill of Rights.

While I agree that being able to bear arms indeed secures and maintains our freedoms, it is those freedoms that are ultimately the basis for even our right to bear arms in the first place.

In the end, the point is this: without the rights outlined in the 2nd Ammendment, there is still the possibility that our society could exist today. Without the rights in the 1st, there's no possibility. While I agree that the 2nd Ammendment IS of upmost importance, I disagree that it is the cornerstone and basis of our culture.

That's why I believe the 1st Ammendment is what it is. Think about it: the 1st Ammendment contains SEVERAL distinct items (religion, speech, assembly, redress of grievences) that could have each been a seperate ammendment. There's a reason they are all combined into one, and for that ammendment to be the first.

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The "cornerstone" of our nation is the fundamental freedom we receive from God (by God, I mean bestowed not by man) - not the means of securing nor defending said freedom.

But the right to self defense is about as fundamental as it gets.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

But the right to self defense is about as fundamental as it gets.

That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense. Also, regardless of gun ownership, one has a right to defend oneself. The means of doing so is in question. And, to my great disdain, many states include a "duty to retreat" rather than the "castle rule". Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't include rights of self-defense.

But more importantly, being allowed to defend oneself isn't the principle this nation was founded upon, or even the purpose of its founding.

Don't get me wrong - the right to bear arms is unequivocally important. But I don't believe it is our nation's cornerstone. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I believe the 1st Amendment is just that powerful.

PS: Just noticed I'd been spelling "amendment" with two m's. We need to go back to Roosevelt's "simpul speling".

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

In the end, the point is this: without the rights outlined in the 2nd Amendment, there is still the possibility that our society could exist today. Without the rights in the 1st, there's no possibility. While I agree that the 2nd Amendment IS of upmost importance, I disagree that it is the cornerstone and basis of our culture.

Yup, different contexts. You're absolutely right in your assertion that the first amendment is a cornerstone of our society. The rights preserved within it are fundamental.
More than any other amendment, it is essential.
However, without the enforcement of the second amendment, it is little more than words. As is any other amendment.

Something of an impasse, no?

Originally Posted by Aramike

but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense.

Yes it does.

being necessary to the security of a free State

Well, arguably.

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

That's true, but remember: the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense. Also, regardless of gun ownership, one has a right to defend oneself. The means of doing so is in question. And, to my great disdain, many states include a "duty to retreat" rather than the "castle rule". Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't include rights of self-defense.

But more importantly, being allowed to defend oneself isn't the principle this nation was founded upon, or even the purpose of its founding.

Don't get me wrong - the right to bear arms is unequivocally important. But I don't believe it is our nation's cornerstone. Perhaps I'm quibbling over semantics, but I believe the 1st Amendment is just that powerful.

PS: Just noticed I'd been spelling "amendment" with two m's. We need to go back to Roosevelt's "simpul speling".

Well you're right Mike, it is semantics. But I for one refuse to order my constitutional rights by their "cornerstoneness". They are all equally vital and all worth defending to the last drop of our blood if necessary.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The reason for the state's restraint has a lot to do with the fact that the state's armies are made up of citizens who enjoy the same freedoms that the people do.

What do you think is the reason that the members of our armed forces lean overwhelmingly conservative?

More importantly, consider how the same side of the political spectrum historically favors intense gun-control AND cutting our military capability...

I think that last point is merely a coincidence. If the Republicans suddenly did an about-face and became more pro-gun control than the Dems (without changing their positions on defense and national security) they probably wouldn't lose too much support from the military.

The real reason for government's restraint in America (I hate using the term 'state' here, since our government is hardly a monolithic, unchanging entity) is our overriding respect for institutions and the rule of law. Today that respect is so entrenched and ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine anybody being able to muster enough power to go against it. If somebody tried, nobody would follow their orders, and without the military's support they wouldn't be able to enforce their will. Since, as you mentioned, our military is well integrated into our society and shares the same general values as the citizenry, that support would be very unlikely.

But if a Seven Days in May style scenario were to occur, where the US military firmly backed an aspiring dictator's attempt to seize power through force, then I don't think they would be stopped by the 2nd Amendment.

[Aramike]

Yup, different contexts. You're absolutely right in your assertion that the first amendment is a cornerstone of our society. The rights preserved within it are fundamental.
More than any other amendment, it is essential.
However, without the enforcement of the second amendment, it is little more than words. As is any other amendment.

Something of an impasse, no?

Like I said, I agree with that assessment. Perhaps is a tad chicken-or-egg, but even the 2nd Amendment is little more than words in the end. It's the public's willingness to share and abide in the ideals of our beliefs that ultimately matter. And the 1st Amendment is fundamental idea that uninhibits our people to the concept of freedom.

At least, that is what my studies in the Constitution have led me to conclude the Founding Fathers believed...

Yes it does. ... Well, arguably.

That one is EXTREMELY arguable, my friend ... the Founding Fathers were extraordinarily careful when using the word "state"...