http://etherzone.com/mcna060700.html
DISHONEST TEARFUL GUN CONTROL
By: Somerled McNamar
The new Democratic Party is not the democratic party of our great grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers. Within it dwells a basic dishonesty that is freshly woven into the threads of its existence.
It’s the dishonesty of intellectual discourse where the weight of empirical evidence is purposely ignored, a dishonesty that strikes at the very heart of mankinds learning as it continues to strive to better itself, a dishonesty that throws truths along with judicious enquiry & examination into the waste bin of dismissed thought.
The dishonesty occurs because liberals and socialists when finding their concepts blocked by reason & logic abandon the very process that leads to fresh ideas and concepts by trying to overpower the public with a blanket of emotion.
While compassion and charity are adjuncts to better understanding, it certainly should not be the major factor in reaching decisions. Emotions cloud understanding with a fog that causes misjudgments of reason. It is by reason mankind elevates himself from the animals of the earth, and by solving problems expands his universe.
Several hundred years ago, a now famous philosopher and seeker of truths said it wasn’t enough to garner about you books that treated a subject of interest, but whether those books illuminated truths and knowledge further or no, and whether the reader judged by the reading that they be truths or no.
Today it is not enough to watch and listen to shallow, beguiling, television personalities where appearance and style catch your eye and ear. This is part of the problem of liberalism. After years of ducking issues by throwing money at problems to superficially and publicly appear compassionate while sharing victims pain, they’ve offered no solutions of merit.
They’ve drained what meager knowledge they have and stand before us bankrupt of ideas. John Locke said in 1703, “The extent of our knowledge cannot exceed the extent of our ideas.”(1) In today’s world it may be added, “The extent of our ideas cannot exceed the extent of our knowledge.”
For reasonable, prudent, men it has always been thus; one must find on what foundation any proposition advanced, bottoms; and to observe the connection of secondary ideas by which they join to that foundation or principle from which they derive.
To put it simply; truth, knowledge, and progress are like cars of a train slowly moving along a railroad track. The cross ties and rails are being constantly put down forward of the engine. Each rail must be straight and strong, each cross tie advancing logically one in front of the other, each cross tie of equal value, all withstanding the coming weight moving forward.
Should any of these cross ties be substituted with ties of lesser strength, they fail and the train topples useless from its course. The case of gun control is a case in point.
Gun control advocates want reasonable, prudent, people to believe guns develop brains after being formed of steel, leap purposefully & malignantly by themselves from resting places and kill human beings.
They would have the public believe that human responsibility is not the major factor in misuse of firearms. Further, humans should not be held to standards of responsibilities in purpose and carelessness of firearms use. They reason somehow that the entire nation should be placed on a communal guilt trip for the individuals who violate firearms safety or use.
Gun Control advocates have diligently and with mind-numbing rote, falsely claimed the Second Amendment as something outmoded, either to be tossed into the waste bin of history, or shackled like Prometheus.
The truth being the Second Amendment “Right Of The People To Keep & Bear Arms,” by 1994 has been adjudicated by sitting judges of our judiciary in at least two hundred cases to be an individual constitutional right of Americans.(2)
It’s the liberals and socialists who ignore lessons of truth of history in countries where absolute power corrupted absolutely. Firearms in the hands of countrymen are a major impediment to domestic tyranny, it is as well, the first line of self defense.
Hitler with his Nationalist Socialist Party, Stalin with his Communist Socialist Workers Party, Mao tse Tung with his National Peoples Republic of China, all used gun control to further unbridled power.
Millions of people, millions of families were crushed to death under the boots of raw, unchecked power. Liberals and socialists like to claim it could never happen in America, yet we have seen glimpses of power for power’s sake where our checks & balances were ignored and torn by our own government executives to gain advantages they were not legally entitled to.
Gun Control advocates would have Americans believe that the Second Amendment applies only to “Militias,” or that the words, “Well regulated,” means mandated proscriptions of firearms use.
These are all specious arguments of shallow worth. Perhaps they don’t want the public realizing we are the militias, we are the people. Perhaps they don’t want the public realizing the term, “Well regulated,” originally meant properly and usefully trained and armed.
A prime example of being well regulated is in the requirements of the Militia Act of 1792 for Cavalry. “Each Dragoon to furnish himself with a pair of pistols, a saber, a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges for pistols”.
The Second Amendment was never meant to be burdened by restrictions to negate the constitutional right of ownership and use of firearms. This is not to say that abuses and misuse of firearms aren’t an important concept within our land. Every city has specific ordinances, every state has specific laws against misuse and abuse of firearms.
The federal government adds to the list of laws also, but unless laws are enforced and prosecuted they hold no meaning for the criminal element. The only people hurt by gun control are every-day, normal, law-abiding citizens. If criminals respected laws & rights they wouldn’t be criminals now, would they?
Gun Control advocates point with pride to the many police departments within our country proclaiming we are so well protected the public isn’t entitled to defend itself. It is well to remind those advocates who are not well read, police departments, by law, are reactive and not proactive.
The primary responsibility for defense of life, lives of loved ones, and property rests with the individual. Every police department functions only on your individual complaint. A police department is rarely a victim. The citizen is the victim, not the agency.
Self defense has been a natural right of mankind since the first caveman decided he’d rather eat lunch than be lunch, it’s ingrained within the natural concept of self preservation of the species.
Further the adjudicated law states that a person in dire peril is entitled to meet deadly force with deadly force, and that particular force need not be gauged nicely to preserve life.(3)
Gun Control advocates cry for mandatory federal intervention on gun-lock issues without considering whether the federal government will shoulder its responsibility should a mandated gun-lock be responsible for retarding self defense that leads to death.
Gun-locks should be a choice of personal initiative as part of individual responsibility. The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily, to be the authors of our own actions is known as free-will. Of all the animals of earth, mankind is blessed with the cognitive ability to reason various potential outcomes to his behavior. This concept has been recognized by our courts time and again.
A person acting knowingly, with purpose, intends the consequences of his actions. Again we find the interplay with personal responsibility, not collective responsibility. Free-will and individual responsibility is an impediment to those who publicly, stylishly, use emotionalism to try building understanding. Emotionalism is in direct conflict with principles which allow judgments based on convictions and lasting principles of greater merit.
Gun Control advocates cry out for federal registry of all citizens & firearms. They point to drivers license laws as an event to be emulated, but driving is a privilege given by the individual States.
The Second Amendment is a constitutional right which is far different from an event sanctioned by the State. The body politic cannot give sanctions to what it doesn’t own. The people own the second amendment. If a constitutional right is ignored to build a database registry of firearms, no Right is then safe from being torn asunder. Will bad guys, criminals, and terrorists stand in line impatiently, stolen guns in hand, salivating at the idea of registering their guns?
Journalists in order to be availed of first amendment protections could, under the same circumstances, be required to license themselves to the federal government in order to speak out. This would amount to federal ignoring of first amendment rights.
Of course we know and have watched the federal government in action. Therefore we know how honest and noble Washington politicians are. If Diogenes was wandering about Washington D.C. looking for an honest politician his lamp would have winked out long ago.
Ultimately the issue of gun control is really about (but not limited to) America’s morality, not guns. It’s about callous, wanton, irreverence for life; radical individualism carried to its pinnacle, chaos; it’s about carelessness of firearms handling and storage; it’s about lacking understanding just how fragile and precious the spark of life truly is; it’s about disarming the individual because liberals and socialists have realized no government agency is effective in absolutely stopping crime; and finally it’s about immoral people who wish to change the road to fit their shoes, instead of their shoes fitting the road they’re on.
It’s strange for those using emotion to hype gun control, I don’t see homes of control proponents surrounded by signs saying “This Is A Gun Free Home.”
(1) Locke, Political Essays, edited by Mark Goldie, Cambridge University press, page 348/355. (2) For Defense Of Themselves And The State, The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton E, Cramer, 1994, Praeger Pub., page xiii. (3) Black’s Law Dictionary.
Somerled McNamar is a free lance writer and a frequent contributor to Ether Zone.
Somerled McNamar can be reached at BlueGjin@aol.com
Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone Online.
DISHONEST TEARFUL GUN CONTROL
By: Somerled McNamar
The new Democratic Party is not the democratic party of our great grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers. Within it dwells a basic dishonesty that is freshly woven into the threads of its existence.
It’s the dishonesty of intellectual discourse where the weight of empirical evidence is purposely ignored, a dishonesty that strikes at the very heart of mankinds learning as it continues to strive to better itself, a dishonesty that throws truths along with judicious enquiry & examination into the waste bin of dismissed thought.
The dishonesty occurs because liberals and socialists when finding their concepts blocked by reason & logic abandon the very process that leads to fresh ideas and concepts by trying to overpower the public with a blanket of emotion.
While compassion and charity are adjuncts to better understanding, it certainly should not be the major factor in reaching decisions. Emotions cloud understanding with a fog that causes misjudgments of reason. It is by reason mankind elevates himself from the animals of the earth, and by solving problems expands his universe.
Several hundred years ago, a now famous philosopher and seeker of truths said it wasn’t enough to garner about you books that treated a subject of interest, but whether those books illuminated truths and knowledge further or no, and whether the reader judged by the reading that they be truths or no.
Today it is not enough to watch and listen to shallow, beguiling, television personalities where appearance and style catch your eye and ear. This is part of the problem of liberalism. After years of ducking issues by throwing money at problems to superficially and publicly appear compassionate while sharing victims pain, they’ve offered no solutions of merit.
They’ve drained what meager knowledge they have and stand before us bankrupt of ideas. John Locke said in 1703, “The extent of our knowledge cannot exceed the extent of our ideas.”(1) In today’s world it may be added, “The extent of our ideas cannot exceed the extent of our knowledge.”
For reasonable, prudent, men it has always been thus; one must find on what foundation any proposition advanced, bottoms; and to observe the connection of secondary ideas by which they join to that foundation or principle from which they derive.
To put it simply; truth, knowledge, and progress are like cars of a train slowly moving along a railroad track. The cross ties and rails are being constantly put down forward of the engine. Each rail must be straight and strong, each cross tie advancing logically one in front of the other, each cross tie of equal value, all withstanding the coming weight moving forward.
Should any of these cross ties be substituted with ties of lesser strength, they fail and the train topples useless from its course. The case of gun control is a case in point.
Gun control advocates want reasonable, prudent, people to believe guns develop brains after being formed of steel, leap purposefully & malignantly by themselves from resting places and kill human beings.
They would have the public believe that human responsibility is not the major factor in misuse of firearms. Further, humans should not be held to standards of responsibilities in purpose and carelessness of firearms use. They reason somehow that the entire nation should be placed on a communal guilt trip for the individuals who violate firearms safety or use.
Gun Control advocates have diligently and with mind-numbing rote, falsely claimed the Second Amendment as something outmoded, either to be tossed into the waste bin of history, or shackled like Prometheus.
The truth being the Second Amendment “Right Of The People To Keep & Bear Arms,” by 1994 has been adjudicated by sitting judges of our judiciary in at least two hundred cases to be an individual constitutional right of Americans.(2)
It’s the liberals and socialists who ignore lessons of truth of history in countries where absolute power corrupted absolutely. Firearms in the hands of countrymen are a major impediment to domestic tyranny, it is as well, the first line of self defense.
Hitler with his Nationalist Socialist Party, Stalin with his Communist Socialist Workers Party, Mao tse Tung with his National Peoples Republic of China, all used gun control to further unbridled power.
Millions of people, millions of families were crushed to death under the boots of raw, unchecked power. Liberals and socialists like to claim it could never happen in America, yet we have seen glimpses of power for power’s sake where our checks & balances were ignored and torn by our own government executives to gain advantages they were not legally entitled to.
Gun Control advocates would have Americans believe that the Second Amendment applies only to “Militias,” or that the words, “Well regulated,” means mandated proscriptions of firearms use.
These are all specious arguments of shallow worth. Perhaps they don’t want the public realizing we are the militias, we are the people. Perhaps they don’t want the public realizing the term, “Well regulated,” originally meant properly and usefully trained and armed.
A prime example of being well regulated is in the requirements of the Militia Act of 1792 for Cavalry. “Each Dragoon to furnish himself with a pair of pistols, a saber, a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges for pistols”.
The Second Amendment was never meant to be burdened by restrictions to negate the constitutional right of ownership and use of firearms. This is not to say that abuses and misuse of firearms aren’t an important concept within our land. Every city has specific ordinances, every state has specific laws against misuse and abuse of firearms.
The federal government adds to the list of laws also, but unless laws are enforced and prosecuted they hold no meaning for the criminal element. The only people hurt by gun control are every-day, normal, law-abiding citizens. If criminals respected laws & rights they wouldn’t be criminals now, would they?
Gun Control advocates point with pride to the many police departments within our country proclaiming we are so well protected the public isn’t entitled to defend itself. It is well to remind those advocates who are not well read, police departments, by law, are reactive and not proactive.
The primary responsibility for defense of life, lives of loved ones, and property rests with the individual. Every police department functions only on your individual complaint. A police department is rarely a victim. The citizen is the victim, not the agency.
Self defense has been a natural right of mankind since the first caveman decided he’d rather eat lunch than be lunch, it’s ingrained within the natural concept of self preservation of the species.
Further the adjudicated law states that a person in dire peril is entitled to meet deadly force with deadly force, and that particular force need not be gauged nicely to preserve life.(3)
Gun Control advocates cry for mandatory federal intervention on gun-lock issues without considering whether the federal government will shoulder its responsibility should a mandated gun-lock be responsible for retarding self defense that leads to death.
Gun-locks should be a choice of personal initiative as part of individual responsibility. The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily, to be the authors of our own actions is known as free-will. Of all the animals of earth, mankind is blessed with the cognitive ability to reason various potential outcomes to his behavior. This concept has been recognized by our courts time and again.
A person acting knowingly, with purpose, intends the consequences of his actions. Again we find the interplay with personal responsibility, not collective responsibility. Free-will and individual responsibility is an impediment to those who publicly, stylishly, use emotionalism to try building understanding. Emotionalism is in direct conflict with principles which allow judgments based on convictions and lasting principles of greater merit.
Gun Control advocates cry out for federal registry of all citizens & firearms. They point to drivers license laws as an event to be emulated, but driving is a privilege given by the individual States.
The Second Amendment is a constitutional right which is far different from an event sanctioned by the State. The body politic cannot give sanctions to what it doesn’t own. The people own the second amendment. If a constitutional right is ignored to build a database registry of firearms, no Right is then safe from being torn asunder. Will bad guys, criminals, and terrorists stand in line impatiently, stolen guns in hand, salivating at the idea of registering their guns?
Journalists in order to be availed of first amendment protections could, under the same circumstances, be required to license themselves to the federal government in order to speak out. This would amount to federal ignoring of first amendment rights.
Of course we know and have watched the federal government in action. Therefore we know how honest and noble Washington politicians are. If Diogenes was wandering about Washington D.C. looking for an honest politician his lamp would have winked out long ago.
Ultimately the issue of gun control is really about (but not limited to) America’s morality, not guns. It’s about callous, wanton, irreverence for life; radical individualism carried to its pinnacle, chaos; it’s about carelessness of firearms handling and storage; it’s about lacking understanding just how fragile and precious the spark of life truly is; it’s about disarming the individual because liberals and socialists have realized no government agency is effective in absolutely stopping crime; and finally it’s about immoral people who wish to change the road to fit their shoes, instead of their shoes fitting the road they’re on.
It’s strange for those using emotion to hype gun control, I don’t see homes of control proponents surrounded by signs saying “This Is A Gun Free Home.”
(1) Locke, Political Essays, edited by Mark Goldie, Cambridge University press, page 348/355. (2) For Defense Of Themselves And The State, The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretations of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Clayton E, Cramer, 1994, Praeger Pub., page xiii. (3) Black’s Law Dictionary.
Somerled McNamar is a free lance writer and a frequent contributor to Ether Zone.
Somerled McNamar can be reached at BlueGjin@aol.com
Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone Online.
