Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Santa and the Second Amendment!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 462427" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>stringerman,</p><p></p><p>I'm not quite sure you are saying this and others here have seemed to bounce around the edges but I'm going to use you to make this point. There is a belief in our society that the need to defend one's self or be prepared to is not needed because we have a police force. This belief goes even further that we also need not prepare in no way for some foreign aggressor as this is completely in the realm of the military. As well the case can be made for earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. This thinking IMHO could never be more wrong.</p><p></p><p>For starters, our nation and it's founding documents never gave any such assurances but even more important today are the judical rulings time and again where the courts have maintained that gov't has no duty to provide the public with adequate protective services.</p><p></p><p>In 1989', SCOTUS heard the case of Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (489 U.S. 189) in which it was alledged that Winnebago Cty. was at fault in failing to povide adequate protective services in a child welfare case. SCOTUS in it's majority opinion held the following in the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189</span></a></p><p></p><p>In another major decision from a federal appellate court, it was ruled that:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A. 2d 1 (D.C. App. 181)</p><p></p><p>For a more general background on this case you might read this piece.</p><p><a href="http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html</span></a></p><p></p><p>On the one hand I understand and appreciate the concern of those folks who don't like guns or reframe from resorting to having them around or using them but at the same time, guns in a very real way may be the course of last resort for good, honest decent folks from becoming a victim. If the State by law has no duty to protect us, the only real recourse is for us to protect ourselves and to suggest the individual be barred from seeking out the best means of protecting his/her life, liberty or property literally goes against the bedrock thinking that formed our free society to begin with.</p><p></p><p>I don't believe we have the right to bare arms because of the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment was a re-affirming of the pre-existing inalienable right grounded in the "right to life, liberty and property" ideal as expressed by John Locke and his political thinking. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theory" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theory</span></a> Protecting Locke's ideas of revolution as a natural right was also an equally important aspect as well as any contract, even a social contract, once made void by violation should be allowed to be made null even if at the point of a gun as the last resort. Obviously Lincoln didn't hold to Locke's views but then we also forget other States (some Northern) before that threatened succession but this fact tends to get lost in Statecraft myth making.</p><p></p><p>An inaleinable right is a right coming from God or nature's God and therefore can not be seperated from man by another man or a collection of men we call gov't. To do so literally sets one at odds with God or Nature's God!</p><p></p><p>That's my take for what it's worth!</p><p></p><p>The Bitter Fruits of Compromise</p><p><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html</span></a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 462427, member: 2189"] stringerman, I'm not quite sure you are saying this and others here have seemed to bounce around the edges but I'm going to use you to make this point. There is a belief in our society that the need to defend one's self or be prepared to is not needed because we have a police force. This belief goes even further that we also need not prepare in no way for some foreign aggressor as this is completely in the realm of the military. As well the case can be made for earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. This thinking IMHO could never be more wrong. For starters, our nation and it's founding documents never gave any such assurances but even more important today are the judical rulings time and again where the courts have maintained that gov't has no duty to provide the public with adequate protective services. In 1989', SCOTUS heard the case of Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (489 U.S. 189) in which it was alledged that Winnebago Cty. was at fault in failing to povide adequate protective services in a child welfare case. SCOTUS in it's majority opinion held the following in the case. [URL='http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189'][COLOR=red]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189[/COLOR][/URL] In another major decision from a federal appellate court, it was ruled that: Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A. 2d 1 (D.C. App. 181) For a more general background on this case you might read this piece. [URL='http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html'][COLOR=red]http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html[/COLOR][/URL] On the one hand I understand and appreciate the concern of those folks who don't like guns or reframe from resorting to having them around or using them but at the same time, guns in a very real way may be the course of last resort for good, honest decent folks from becoming a victim. If the State by law has no duty to protect us, the only real recourse is for us to protect ourselves and to suggest the individual be barred from seeking out the best means of protecting his/her life, liberty or property literally goes against the bedrock thinking that formed our free society to begin with. I don't believe we have the right to bare arms because of the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment was a re-affirming of the pre-existing inalienable right grounded in the "right to life, liberty and property" ideal as expressed by John Locke and his political thinking. [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theory'][COLOR=red]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theory[/COLOR][/URL] Protecting Locke's ideas of revolution as a natural right was also an equally important aspect as well as any contract, even a social contract, once made void by violation should be allowed to be made null even if at the point of a gun as the last resort. Obviously Lincoln didn't hold to Locke's views but then we also forget other States (some Northern) before that threatened succession but this fact tends to get lost in Statecraft myth making. An inaleinable right is a right coming from God or nature's God and therefore can not be seperated from man by another man or a collection of men we call gov't. To do so literally sets one at odds with God or Nature's God! That's my take for what it's worth! The Bitter Fruits of Compromise [URL='http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html'][COLOR=red]http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html[/COLOR][/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Santa and the Second Amendment!!
Top