Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
In this supposedly classless society, we do ourselves a disservice by carelessly tossing about words with specific definitions. According to my dictionary, an idiot is someone with the mental age not exceeding three years and requiring custodial care. A moron is someone with a mental age of between 8 and 12 years.
In the 1881 census one of my ancestors is officially classified as an "idiot". I take a certain comfort from that.
I'm going to take the LIBERTY of declaring a unilateral truce for Christmas. All folks on the Reb side can relax as I will be holding my fire in honor of Christmas. AND UNION [note the clever way I integrated the title of the thread] supporters can use the time to reload.
Cash:
Excellent advice, especially from a Yankee! It's comforting to know that I won't be shot at over the Holidays.
Bill, I'm reminded of Eric Burden's song "Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood." I've read from your postings that 'irresponsible people' probably shouldn't own guns and I couldn't agree more. And it stands to reason that people who operate at the mentality of a child should not own loaded weapons for any reason.
What I haven't read you say is that all people in the United States have an IQ of domestic pets, and the fact remains that some people should never own guns. That is the price of responsible liberty.
A love of liberty which entitles people with the IQ of domestic pets to own loaded weapons is perhaps mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
There is, however, no getting away from the fact that one of the deficiencies of democracy is that the professor and the moron both have one vote.
Dawna, The quotes stand on their own.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I've read from your postings that 'irresponsible people' probably shouldn't own guns and I couldn't agree more. And it stands to reason that people who operate at the mentality of a child should not own loaded weapons for any reason.
Should irresponsible and/or immature people be allowed to have sex? Babies? How, in the name of liberty no less, do you propose to define 'irresponsible' and legislate so as to disqualify the rights of those who fall below an ever-changing standard? Did Canada do so with their gun laws?
Keeping firearms out of the hands of people who would abuse them is also a goal of most gun-owners, I would guess. After all, we're peaceful citizens too, wanting to live in a peaceful world. Felons are now prohibited from even so much as touching a firearm, which in itself is the highest degree of selectivity that can be used to weed out those who would violently use a gun in the future. The figure is somewhere in the 90 percentile anyway, that people charged with a violent crime already have previous felony records. Of course, we're not surprised that felons bent on more crime pay little attention to the illegality of their possessing a gun - but even more prohibitive legislation does nothing to affect that issue.
Quote:
What I haven't read you say is that all people in the United States have an IQ of domestic pets, and the fact remains that some people should never own guns. That is the price of responsible liberty.
And who decides who those 'some' people are? Should people who didn't graduate high school be denied? People who drink? Married people? People who fall below a particular IQ? Perhaps people below a certain income should be prohibited.
If, on the other hand, the government begins from the position that a citizen must first apply for permission and pass a particular standardto possess a gun, as it has in many states regarding handguns, then the ownership of firearms becomes no more than a privilege, to be rescinded at the first change of the tide. That truism is now being rectified across much of the US with the passage of state "Right To Carry" laws, which passage has been consistently followed by higher gun ownership rates and lower violent crime rates.
This of course brings up a burr under the saddle of many - that most US gun laws are state laws, and not uniform across the nation. But that cannot be a burr for you, as you would be the last to expect that Tennessee or Alabama should be forced to suffer under the same gun laws as Massachusetts or California. So, if you ever want to feel good about the US, then delight in the fact that NYC has extremely prohibitive gun laws, and they end outside NYC.
A love of liberty which entitles people with the IQ of domestic pets to own loaded weapons is perhaps mistaken.
Shane:
I really think that Bill is referring to a select group of U.S. citizens in the above statement. Those of us who have been on these Boards for awhile know how succinct Bill can be, and not only is our resident Brit a gifted wordsmith, but he is also blessed will a unique sense of humour that has reduced me to tears on many an occasion.
Cedarstripper, I would dearly love to give your post more attention, but I fear I'm pressed for time today. We're not discussing irresponsible sex, or mentally challenged people in general; but an exclusive group of people who should not own weapons. It's bad enough that so many irresponsible people own guns, but arming those who have the emotional/mental capacity of a child is highly dangerous and lacking in good judgement.
We're not discussing irresponsible sex, or mentally challenged people in general; but an exclusive group of people who should not own weapons. It's bad enough that so many irresponsible people own guns, but arming those who have the emotional/mental capacity of a child is highly dangerous and lacking in good judgement.
Just a quick note so as not to get off course. I think we're actually not discussing who we should allow to possess firearms and who we shouldn't. We're discussing liberty and its meaning to private gun ownership. We don't 'arm' people. Free people choose themselves to own firearms...or not to, and as with other freedoms, its their business and not the governments. If there is an interest for the state to restrict or prohibit that freedom to certain citizens, then they can and do just that.
But the challenge becomes to define, and legislate against a group of citizens that, while you claim they are exclusive, have thus far in this discussion been separated from the rest of society with the surgical precision of a blunt axe, being defined with such keen specifics as "extraordinarily stupid" and "knuckle dragging."
And so, I invite everyone to submit their suggestion as to how to honor individual liberty while in the same breath, propose the legislative vehicle in which citizens ranging from extraordinarily stupid to moronic to immature, or any other standard you should like, should be declared not fit to exercize certain liberties which their neighbors can. I contend that such has not been practical, and that the alternative is sweeping legislation which makes gun ownership and use quite prohibitive for all.
Is that not the case in yours and Bill's countries? Because its my impression that, unless a person can show specific cause, typical gun ownership is regarded as something that can not be entrusted to the general citizenry by your respective governments. That doesn't ring of liberty to me.
Thank God for the Right to Bear Arms in America. I met all the requirements to carry a pistol just a few days ago. $20 was charged me for this right. I cannot imagine being in a country where my right to bear arms doesn't exist. Thus far America has fought off attempts to ban gun ownership and we will continue this fight for this Liberty.
Is that not the case in yours and Bill's countries? Because its my impression that, unless a person can show specific cause, typical gun ownership is regarded as something that can not be entrusted to the general citizenry by your respective governments. That doesn't ring of liberty to me.Cedar
Cedar:
The firearm laws in Canada are quite draconian, and thus far we don't have a gun problem, nor do we feel the need 'to bear arms.' Most of the guns owned by Canadians are used for hunting, and the idea of gun ownership to protect property is inconceivable to us, and with all due respect, laughable. But when a person does obtain a gun strictly to protect their home and property, does that not make them 'armed?' Trying to defend your property with a gun can also open up a legal can of worms that would have been better left to police intervention.
Most Canadians do not see our gun control laws as an obstruction to liberty, especially when rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used against women and children in scenes of domestic violence. Since a gun is an incredibly efficient killing device, I'm not convinced that depriving an unfit person the 'right to bear arms' is an infringement of their individual liberty.
We don't allow children to drink, drive, or own guns for very good reasons. Should an adult who operates at the level of a child be allowed to own a gun, or is that a violation of my right to safety; and is my personal liberty also at stake because anyone can bear arms?
In the cold light of morning I feel somewhat ashamed.
It isn't clever to denigrate those who are less fortunate than ourselves, particularly at this time of year.
While I was making snide comments, you were carrying out a spirited and principled defence of morons everywhere. You have truly championed their cause.
Which is why I shall always think of you as "Shane, Champion of Morons."
Happy Xmas, my little patriot chum.
Bill
"Shane, Champion of Morons." I will accept that.
The difference between you and I Bill is that you see someone you think a "moron" you see a target for laughter or snide comments. While I see a man or a woman doing the best they can to make do and I feel they deserve a bit more respect. Coming from you I will accept the title "Champion of Morons" you intended it as a snide snip; I actually look at it is a compliment. It means at the very least a "moron" might expect fair treatment from me. As fair treatment is an oft cited American ideal... thank you & Merry Christmas.
No, I can't let it drop at that. You see my Elitist Brit chum; my mother was a special education teacher for thirty years; many of my friends were her students. I shared meals with people you like to call "morons"... of coarse you wouldn't say that to their faces as you are a polite man, unkind but polite.
Allow me to illustrate the life of one of those "morons" you so easily denigrate. His name was Henry, a young man of Mexican descent gifted by God w/ a physical frame that would scare the evil right out of you. At 16 years old he was 5'10" w/ 18" biceps... noone teased him about his lack of math skills to his face. He was from a dirt poor family,second generation immigrants. His brother was a no account and to the best of my knowledge is still in jail. You see Henry was the first in his family to read and write the first to graduate High School; it took him six years but he graduated. Math escaped him, oh he was good enough at simple addition and subtraction but anything past that stymied him he just couldn't grasp. He was not unknown throughout school, he was a popular football player and intensely loyal to his friends... dangerously so. Yet he pressed on, he didn't let the sly smiles or sideways glances from kids smarter than he stop him. He pressed on and ironically it was my mother who figured out how to make numbers make sense to him... once he figured that out he excelled and I do mean excelled. He received a near perfect score on his SAT and went onto a small community college and then University; he received a BS in two years and went on to join the US Army and receive a commision. In eight years he was to be promoted to Major; something that is nearly impossible. Along the way he received two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a family. In 97 he and both of his adopted children were killed by a drunk driver.
In short Henry was a distinct sucess, though I have no doubt you would have considered him a "moron" whether because he might have agreed with me on many subjects or because you are probably better at math that he was. Whereas I am proud to have called that "moron" a friend.
Frankly, from my experiance with you; the "apology" is just another snide snipe w/ people like Henry as your punchline.
I am not your chum or your friend; don't presume.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
