View Single Post
  #39  
Old 10-25-2009, 7:52 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,892
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
wow, that was very interesting. He makes some good historical references, but his problem is he interprets them wrong. GW and Co didn't draft the constitution simply because of a rebellion, and the rebellion wasn't just because of guns.
He actually makes very poor historical references, since they do not support his argument at all; anyone with the slightest knowledge of that historical subject could reveal that. He might as well have not even made them. Of course, the interviewer either won't call him out or does not have the knowledge to do so. And to say the rebellion wasn't just about guns is quite the understatement. As for him, I'm not sure of he just really doesn't understand, know, or get it, or if he's being disingenuous. It is kind of hard to tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate
The articles of confederation were too one sided and monarchical (that's a word right?) the constitution layed out a system of checks and balances to ensure that one system didn't overstep their boundries (at least they thought so until being a politicain became a carreer not a duty).
That wasn't it, actually. The Articles were anything but monarchical. They actually called for considerable decentralization; the U.S. was just a Union by just a thread. There weren't really checks and balances because the Federal government had virtually nothing to do and had no way to enforce anything it did. It was pretty much entirely up to the individual States. The Constitution layed out a system of checks and balances (which were combined with ones that existed within the respective States at the time) because the power had been increased to the point where such was necessary to still maintain limited government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate
This is a great example of a dumb, smart person. He makes some very valid points: ie, why would someone want to make a threat of violence at a health care rally? but i think he also missinterprets their actions. I see it more along the lines of "look, i'm going to exercise my constitutional rights and you can't stop me". And yes, the courts have ruled that it is the right of the individual ("the people"), not the state ("people" as a whole), to own guns. I think it's high time we stop bickering about the issue and start educating the opposition. put a gun in their hands since most of them have probably never held one, and start demanding that they take the criminals rights away, not ours, and then SHOW OUR SUPPORT FOR BILLS THAT DO SO!!!!!!!!!!
I think this guy is of the sort where you could try to put a gun in his hands all day long but he will refuse or resist. I actually think, besides what I wrote in my response to him, that he may be a hoplophobe, a severe one at that. Usually these guys are and it would fit in with what can be observed about him. Unfortunately not all of the opposition can approach this rationally, or with an open mind, or even be able to mentally handle the concept of being armed. But there are those who can be introduced to shooting and can gain and understanding of it and an affinity for it (and they probably don't do the interviews like Horwitz or write such books and papers), and we certainly should make every attempt to convert them. The shrill cries of Horwitz and his ilk, if they fall on deaf or critical ears, become meaningless.
Reply With Quote