2nd Amendment Belongs Only in History Books Alongside Extinct Militias?

[Cinaet]

You believe these things for the same reason Orwell's characters believed 2+2=5 in the novel 1984 - because that is the silly logical fallacy you have been taught all your life.

Can't say it better than that. Lest you believe 1984 is a work of fiction, it's as true today as it was in 1949, even with mass communication at the speed of light. Most of us are too busy with life to pay attention to the truth. We're uncomfortable with it. And those who try to explain the truth are likely to be censored. So the fallacy lives on and on.

 

[Freedom@AnyCost]

To be clear - I am not for banning breeds of dogs, or types of weapons. Weapons are, last time I checked, inanimate objects, completely reliant on the user to activate. Dogs, including my own, act independently, regardless of breed or upbringing. My German Shepherd/Wolf/Whatever may be devouring the neighbor as I type this....I'm not with him, and he just may be hungry.

My guns, however, will not be a danger to anyone, unless another person uses them.

If you're in the habit of leaving your dog outside long enough for him to chew up your neighbor, you should not have a dog. If that's the case, your dog is not dangerous, YOU ARE!!.

It's no different than leaving a loaded gun hanging on a rope in your back yard where anybody that sees it can stop by and touch/handle it.

You're also putting your dog in danger from some negligent moron stopping by, negligently / (through ignorant or malicious actions) provoking a bite from your dog, and him (your dog) paying for it with his life. The innocent dog is dead because of the negligent acts of his owner, (who he replies upon to protect him from the the neglegent/ignorant/malicious acts of others), and the third party.

Your dogs life is not all that will be lost, your house, car, and all your savings could be lost as well unless you can prove the act was a direct result of the negligence of the "victim".

Keep your dog inside and keep all guns on your person OR in a safe!!!!

 

[Freedom@AnyCost]

The post provoked some thought for me... mostly about the nature of knowledge, reason, and conceptual thought, which are fascinating subjects to me. I believe that every adult human being, save those with serious mental disabilities or injuries, has the capacity for reason. People can recognize and correct irrational thought, even if they have been taught nothing else from birth. However, it is only the exceptional human being who actually manages to overcome societal pressures and actually do this.

It is these exceptional thinkers who have been solely responsible for the advancement of the human race through the ages. If no one was capable of rejecting the philosophical paradigm of his time and culture, no human would have ever formed a language and been able to engage in complex conceptual thinking, and we would still be a race of beings with nothing more than a toddler's mental state... if our species was still in existence at all.

BTW, I agree with you that prohibition and fear of Pit Bulls are irrational. On the subject of fallacies, how about one of the big ones the U.S. political system depends on -- that people can be made party to a contract that they never agreed to, which was formed by men who died hundreds of years ago?

You make an interesting use of the term "abolitionist." I am friends with a group of folks who call themselves Abolitionists, but they use it a sense a lot closer to its 19th Century political meaning -- supporter of the abolition of slavery. They take that belief right down to its logical conclusion, and oppose all non-consensual forms of human interaction. I agree with them wholeheartedly in this, though I prefer the term "voluntarist" myself.

Great post. It deserves a twenty page response but time is short.....

I think as long as the contract they are made party to is one as close to "Pure Freedom" as possible, there's not much better they can hope for. With Freedom, people are free to make their own social contracts within their own families, social groups and communities so long as they do not directly infringe on the Freedom of others who may or may not wish to use their Freedom for the same or something else altogether different.

2nd Amendment Abolitionists - let's call them what they are and stop using euphemisms like "Gun Control Supporters". The Chancellor of Germany made his Slaughter of Millions sound more palatable by calling it "The Final Solution". That made it possible for ignorant people to fall for his evil plans. Let's wake up and learn from Germany's mistake and not let an innocent sounding euphemism like "Gun Control" continue to be used to slowly eliminate the only thing preventing a "Final Solution" from ever being implemented in America - The Bill of Rights and All Ten Amendments contained there in, the second most important of which is........

 

[ridurall]

I don't own any full auto guns but I believe this country made a big mistake in 1934 and then worse in 1987. I kick myself because I could have purchased M-16s in the 1980's for $700 now they sell for $10,000 or more. There is no crime with MGs and my best friend is in the process of obtaining an American 180 .22 LR MG. It's a sweet shooting gun that runs like a sewing machine. With no MG being able to be sold to the public our manufacturing ability has been pretty much destroyed. That is not good for America. We need more manufacturing facilities and more ammo facilities. There is no reason for us to be stuck where we cannot purchase good .22 LR ammo or a new MG. Our military suffers because we are not trying to improve our build new full auto guns. I did get to shoot a 1928 Thompson and that American 180 a couple of Sundays ago. Both were superb shooting guns. The Kriss .45 comes to mind and it's too bad that they are unavailable to civilians for the most part.