Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

Is the right to keep and bear arms still valid? It was written so long ago.

Posted Saturday, February 23, 2013, at 8:44 AM
View 43 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Steve,

    That is the very reason we are being threaten. The wrong people want to have complete gun control.

    -- Posted by Wolf Clan on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 8:58 AM
  • Watching Congress gives me NO confidence in their ability to oversee something like that. I agree.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 9:49 AM
  • The right to bear arms is not outdated. The right to have guns that shoot dozens of rounds should be banned.They are not necessary for hunting or protection.In America there are to many paranoid people who feel the need to outgun the military and the police. Some are ready to shoot at any thing that moves.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:20 AM
  • For hunting, no need for such large clips, but if I were protecting myself and family, I would want as many rounds of ammunition as possible be available so....I am on the fence when it comes to more regulation.

    I grew up with a mother who abhorred guns and a father who would stand alongside Charlton Heston when it came to disarming him. In case someone does not know know to what I am referring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 12:00 PM
  • The right to bear arms as written in the Constitution is also written to protect us from our own Government.If we need to take them up for this we should do so.To me it seems we are becoming under Communist control.By going against the Constitution and having a President order handed down shows we are in a Dictatorship and not a free country.

    -- Posted by kings11 on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 1:27 PM
  • You ask that on a computer under 1st amendment protection which was written at the same time.

    Could the founders have envisioned internet or satellite broadcasts?

    Pen your question in old English with a turkey quill on a piece of parchment so as not to by hypocritical.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 3:23 PM
  • To be clear Steve, I understand the question was somewhat sarcastically asked on your part, as is my answer.

    But I would like to see someone ask that question to some of the rabid anti -gun talking heads in the MSM.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 3:35 PM
  • I would ask anyone that would argue that the 2nd amendment is outdated and is not needed to answer this question. Would you feel the same if the discussion were to modify or eliminate your other rights that are outlined in the Bill of Rights? Your freedom of speech rights? Your freedom of religion rights?

    Many argue that our forefathers, when writing the 2nd Amendment, had no clue as to what type of weapons would be invented and that it doesn't apply to weapons such as an AR-15, but consider this, when our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to allow the citizens to bear arms, they did this knowing that at the time the citizens possessed the same type of weapons as the military.

    Make the argument that it is outdated all you want but if you agree that our government can and should infringe on our right to bear arms and modify it to their liking, then don't complain when they infringe on your rights to do something you cherish,like speak freely or choosing your religion!

    -- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 5:40 PM

    -- Posted by kings11 on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 5:48 PM
  • Hilarious quietmike.

    -- Posted by cortnerkin on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 6:23 AM
  • There is a saying:

    There are three boxes to affect change in government/law.

    In descending order;

    1.)The ballot box.

    2.)The jury box,

    3.)the ammunition box.

    The last one being the most desporate and absolute last resort.

    We have seen a lot of evidence of voter fraud on both sides in the last several election cycles. We have seen the supreme court pick a presdident, convert an insurance mandate into a tax, and we are now seeing the movement to seize the one remaining box that can restore the rule of law.

    Desporation will always lead to revolution. With an unsustainable debt, now at $16 trillion and still climbing, desporate times are undoubtedly ahead.

    If these things don't give you pause about what is going on, then you have your head in the sand.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 8:19 AM
  • A "well regulated militia" is a key term in the amendment, and I don't know anyone who is actually in one of those. So right there the amendment is looking suspect in today's world.

    The idea that having guns will keep us free from our own government is also flimsy considering that our own government has weapons far more powerful than handguns and rifles. M1A1 Abrams tanks, F15 fighter jets, and nuclear capable submarines come to mind.

    But the best argument for questioning the relevance of the 2nd is that it's an amendment. Meaning that it was added later, as a new need or idea came to mind. In other words, the Constitution is a living document that was designed to be modified to keep up with the times.

    Gun regulation and better, earlier access to help for our mentally ill is what's needed. WIth the understanding that the occasional massacre is going to happen. We are, after all, a nation of people of differing levels of sanity on any given day.

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 11:24 AM
  • Okay, I was not going to get into this one. I realize that I ramble, and typically come across as boring and dry, but at some point, reality does matter. The reason for adding the Bill of Rights was the successful ratification of the Constitution. It was a hard-fought compromise that sought to bridge very serious gaps in ideologies. The wording is ambiguous in the amendment to appease disparate people who were every bit as divided, way back then, as they are today.

    Those who sought a strong Federal government (typically those who wrote the Constitution) necessarily sought to weaken the strength of states and individuals. It was only with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights that the Constitution was eventually fully ratified. It was not later added to an already approved Constitution, but was prerequisite to its acceptance.

    To understand "a well-regulated militia" you have to understand that there were no standing armies. An army was often whoever showed up. It was this qualification, and the nod to federal authority, that made the amendment bearable to many.

    The restrictions that we see on weapons began in the twentieth century, during the well-orchestrated "crime wave" that was prohibition, and continued during the social turmoil of the 1960's. Previously, unless prohibited by state law, a person could keep whatever weapon they desired, including those that would rival the military's. That is almost 200 years of precedence, which is not something to be taken lightly.

    The idea of the mental health industry becoming an extension of any type of law enforcement is unjustifiable. That is the ultimate objective though. When we create a second-class citizenry, based solely upon the insights of a highly indoctrinated "professional", it is inevitable that the net will grow to ensnare many more of us than we initially imagine.

    Mr. Mills, I am not sure if you indicated that a tyrannical government is no longer something to fear, or if you believe that "We have a righteous government governed by laws and reason." or if your comments were sarcasm. There is no need to fear an eventual tyrannical government though, it is here now. The founding fathers were spread all along the political spectrum, but they would almost universally condemn this government, even the most federalist amongst them. From monetary policy to standing armies, the growth of the police state, and powerful economic control of elections, we live every day with more tyranny than they rebelled against.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 2:00 PM
  • We also live every day in a more civilized nation than they did so don't try to paint the news as all bad.

    I'm not sure who suggested that the mental health industry should become an extension of law enforcement. It certainly wasn't me.

    This nation is too big for sweeping changes, so we're going to stay as we are with small progress in some social issues as the decades roll by, and as old people, and their prejudices, die off.

    I do not fear my government, not like so many pro-gun people seem to. Maybe that makes me naive but I'd rather live as a non-paranoid for the years that I have left than to horde arms, always looking and waiting for that first shot of the great Government vs The People War that so many are afraid of.

    Just a reminder, lest we all become complacent (again), the clock is ticking until the next massacre......

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 4:14 PM
  • To say that civility is relative is an understatement. In so many ways, the eighteenth century was much more civil than today. No, the news is not all bad, but it is, nevertheless, what it is, no more and no less.

    To link the mental health industry to law enforcement is undoubtedly what you are advocating--whether you realize it or not.

    You are right about sweeping changes; the changes will come in well-planned increments that leave the general population in the dark. Any time you see a bill under the rubric of "crime bill" (or now "national security") take a close look. Doing so will illustrate the general trends of these small changes.

    Not fearing your government does not necessarily make you naive. Perhaps you simply have no inclination to pass along what you accepted as a birthright, or maybe you have no one to pass it on to.

    Which next massacre are we waiting for? Is it one like Stalin's? Hitler's? Mao's? On a large scale, if we were consulting an actuary, the real threat from massacres is not rogue individuals, but governments. To believe otherwise, perhaps you are indeed naive--or more likely, educated/indoctrinated by those who hope to make you believe as you do.

    Your stereotypical allusions to pro-gun folks are indicative of your otherwise weak position. I find them offensive. To suggest that anyone who does not agree with you is a paranoid arms-hoarder who fears everything, but especially the government, presupposes that the argument is not one of legal and historical realities, but can instead be reduced to thoughts and opinions, based solely upon emotion and prejudices (your own).

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 5:37 PM
  • I certainly didn't mean to offend you, Sir. Nothing you said was even remotely based solely upon your own emotions and prejudices (or paranoia level).

    The next massacre to which I was referring would be the one carried out by good US citizens, with legally purchased firearms, in one of our malls, schools, or other place of mass congregation (target rich environment).

    Congratulations, though, in taking this discussion straight to the bottom of reason by invoking the Hitler bugaboo. Well played, Sir, well played!

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 6:10 PM
  • A "good" citizen committing murders? What is your definition of a "good US citizen"? Anyone who does not subscribe to the same theologies as you perhaps?

    memyselfi is absolutely correct. While a few murders at schools, malls, and theatres, are very tragic and senseless. They are FAR LESS than the MILLIONS of people killed by tyranical governments. If you think it can't happen here like it did in Germany, or countless other countries, then you are dangerously naive.

    I think Steve is trying to point out, it does not have to be on a massive scale for corruption to seize the free will of the people. The battle of athens is proof of that.

    I also agree that the direction being taken is to tie gun ownership to the healthcare and insurance industry. With Obamacre in place, it will make it entirely possible, even likely, that any household(everyone at that address)that has a person deemed by "Obamacare" to me menatlly ill will be denied their rights. The V.A. is already denying veterans (who took an oath to uphold the constitution)the ownership of guns saying the are mentally unfit.

    Obamacare is the foundation the socialist will be building the new America on. "WE HAVE TO PASS IT TO SEE WHAT"S IN IT" will be the mantra for laws with mandates. The jurisprudence has already been set by the supreme court. All that is lacking is the level of desperation and that is relative.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 9:08 PM
  • Big words Big theory and even History deepens the frustration of my simple mind....who cares whats happened before us (we are a little smarter now). Don't really care who is on which side to arm or not to arm or what was written on the Laws of this land 200 yr. ago....However I, for the here and now, and in this day and time and regardless what its going to take, and who has to sacrifice a few rights....the guns have to be controlled to the point that it stops killing people and children constantly in this country...we already have enough folks standing on soap boxes and talking a lot of smack, and republicans vs democrats not getting a darn thing done....we are all guilty for letting it go this long and getting out of hand....I no more have the use for a gun then I do a dead fish....but I do think it would do a country good to stop allowing our young minds to be shot dead before they even have a chance to voice their opinion on the matter!...Christian thinking on this subject has even thrown guilt my way for sitting back and not noticing the carnage before now, to at least of all start praying about it!....We obviously need to take the guns (regardless of the kind or model) out of the hands of those that want them just to kill humans...it's just not nessasary anymore! If we just payed more attention to the the needs of others whether it's education, a product of ones enviroinment, gang related, mental related, hate related or whatever, at least it would be a start...seems to me a "let's move forward and hammer it in" attitude might go further then bickering or simply just running governmental mouth...I also think a "getter done militia" might be in order nowadays!

    -- Posted by chefgrape on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 1:50 AM
  • chefgrape, you had me until your last sentence.

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 6:53 AM
  • Thanks Steve for posting this great bit of history. I was unaware of The Battle of Athens.

    No doubt we can all agree that we would like to see the elimination of school shootings. There seems to be the mentality of blaming the gun. I think anyone with any common sense knows that banning guns will not make them disappear from the face of the earth and that evil people will find a way to carry out their evil plans unless good people stop them.

    The mass shootings are always carried out at defenseless locations. Making the entire nation defenseless is only going to add to the number of defenseless locations for evil plans to be executed.

    So how do we reduce mass shootings while protecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves? The government, so far, is only moving in the direction of gun control legislation. This will only be effective if the law is obeyed. If the laws that are already in place were obeyed, none of this would be happening now. It should be obvious that the laws are not effective.

    The answer is; we defend ourselves against evil plans. This can be done by adding bullet proof glass to schools, a dedicated security presence, constant video surveillance monitoring, bullet proof materials such as mats, jackets, desks, training and practicing defensive drills at each location, etc..

    We can all wish that evil didn't exist or naively believe that if we just catered to the needs/desires of others that these things wouldn't happen. But, that is just not reality.

    The willingness of a naive complicit eloctorate to sacrifice their rights is astounding. So, yes, I think the second amendment is needed just as much now, if not more, than it was when originally written.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 7:40 AM
  • I am afraid you misunderstand. You did not offend me; I was offended by you. There is a subtle difference between the two. ;)

    Of course, my emotions and prejudices (even my level of paranoia) do influence my comments. The difference being that I do not feel the need to misrepresent Constitutional history, marginalize those who do not share my opinions whole-cloth, or discount the very real "bugaboo" of governmental atrocities.

    You see, my emotions, prejudices, (and even my paranoia) are based upon discernible and demonstrable objective reality. Given your comments so far, yours are apparently based solely upon your passions. That, in and of itself, is fine. Just please do not resort to what borders on dishonesty in order to justify your position (whether it is your own creation, or you are merely repeating someone else's).

    chefgrape, I wish I shared your optimism. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we have evolved enough in the last 100 years that our new-found collective intelligence will curtail the pervasive tension between the government (in whatever form it takes) and those who are to be governed.

    Although it may be hard for us to accept, we are not "smarter now". What we have gained in technical abilities has come at the expense of specialization and compartmentalization. To put it into perspective, we are nowhere close to being as intellectually advanced as was the German population in the 1920's. If anything, we are a much more pliable people. We completely lack the critical thinking skills necessary to contradict the propaganda that we are confronted with every day, the same propaganda that drives your guilt for that which you had no control over, and compels you to action at the expense of a "few rights".

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 7:41 AM
  • A "getter done militia" I was being facetious to a point...no one is advocating getting rid of all guns if someone was armed Friday night when that robber walked in Waffle House the brave could have shot that idiot and saved us tax money and man hours etc....I just can't believe no one is standing up or getting involved these days...if it was a "most likly" that you would be shot dead for crimming it up like that guy, he might have had a second thought..even if we had a law that stated if you commit a felony with a gun like robbery or blatunt murder you die by hanging on the court house lawn it would deter a few...but, all that said I still believe it starts at home and in ones environment...back in the late 70's I was called an outcast by my peers for wearing bell bottoms and listening to AC-DC thank God there was wisdom in my household!....I was destined to hell for having my identity-rebellion stage in life...vary few would even nod these days because we are seeing it all at dinner on the news everyday in our comfort zones..but when a kid took a gun and shot up a school...for me it was time to act..I immediatly sent a letter to or state leaders...but I am just one. It is going to take everyone to stop the "I don't wanna get involved attitude" and let those who can make change happen get along long enough to force that change...and it's going to take us on a personal level to see and notice whose hurting and parentless and not getting enough wisdom or self worth teaching...and on another note...with us knowing that we are products of our environments and most behaviors are learned from these environments yet we allow gangster,and allow porn and we allow drug glorification, and gun violence in everything from video games to music under the pretence of free speech...when it could mean a childs life...I just can't accept that it's more important to allow a freedom (unguarded) then to consider the lives of our loved ones!

    -- Posted by chefgrape on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 9:23 AM
  • 1) The linked video is not a documentary. It is a fictional work based on real events. As a work of art, not history, it is designed to evoke an emotional response; which it does very well. I enjoyed it for what it is.

    2) I think it is worth noting that in both reality, and this film clip, the veterans did not retrieve various military hardware out of their trunks, but obtained their weapons from the local National Guard armory.

    3) With the return of veterans from World War II, there was a rash of overthrown local political machines. We had a veritable American version of the "Arab Spring," if you will. The men who had been to war came back changed; much less likely to merely accept situations, and more likely to take action to change things. The only place where this involved the use of weapons was Athens. We have in the United States a means and mechanism for the peaceful change of government.

    4) There is no "Right" which is not subject to common sense limitations. Slander, libel, filing a false police report, inciting to riot, making terroristic threats, etc; free speech has it's limits. Cannibalism, the marrying of minors, etc; freedom of religion has it's limitations. The idea that anyone should be allowed to possess any weapon, at any place and any time, is ridiculous. If this discussion is not engaged in a sane and rational manner, the inevitable over-reaction will do more harm to our so-called "gun rights" than anything else.

    5) I find nothing more disturbing in this issue than the inordinate power of the NRA. Seeing our elected officials quail before the might of an organization whose sole purpose is to increase the profits of the weapon industry is disheartening.

    6) Be it murder, robbery, or any other crime; legislation will never eliminate any of them. For some reason that has not led to the outcry to eliminate all laws. The concept that this is reason enough to disallow any laws regulating weapons is disingenuous at best.

    7) We need to have a sensible national discussion on this issue. THe caterwauling of extremists at both ends of the spectrum should not frame this discussion.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 9:40 AM
  • I am encouraged by the fact that this discussion has not degraded into a personal attack on individuals. We got on the edge a few times, but I applaud everyone's effort to reign it in.

    To clarify my position a little more, I believe in gun ownership but I also believe in laws, so there is an internal struggle always present. I believe that probably exists in most of us with the extreme fringes being totally convince one way or the other.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 11:09 AM
  • Spot on, lazarus, and agreed stevemills.

    memyselfi, I disagree with most everything you have said and I think you are being a bit alarmist, but I also know how easy it is to let that happen. I'm a cynic and I have to remind myself daily that not everything is going to hell in a hand basket no matter how much I might think it is on any given day.

    That brings me to probably what is my biggest objection to semi autos and high capacity clips in the hands of my friends, family, and neighbors. Training, or lack thereof. I drive roads daily with licensed and tested drivers and their skills are maringal at best.

    No way would I trust even a tiny percentage of these same people with guns. And they don't have to have training or certification to get them.

    Will tighter gun laws keep the semis and hi-cap clips out of the hands of criminals? Of course not. But is that a good enough reason to not tighten the laws? By that argument traffic laws do nothing to stop those intent on breaking them. Should we therefore do away with all traffic laws? Of course not.

    Now for a disclaimer. I am not the original creator of all of my currently held opinions. I have reached some of them of my own accord but I have also heard many of them from others, saw their wisdom, and incorporated them into my own. As most of us do.

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 2:39 PM
  • If it is agreed that gun laws won't stop criminals, then what is the point? The difference between traffic laws and gun laws is that gun laws are preemptive of any bad action, which is antithetical to a free society.

    Would gun controllers line up for government mandated castration to help prevent rape? Or is it more logical to have harsh punishment AFTER someone has committed a crime?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 4:15 PM
  • Law abiding citizens are not comitting crimes with guns, yet these same law abiding citizens are the ones who's rights will be infringed upon. The proposed assault weapons ban will not keep these and other weapons out of the hands of criminals. Nor will it prevent the next mass shooting. (And there will be another one) The proof can be found in the FBI crime statistics taken from the last assault weapons ban that was in effect for ten years. (1994 ~ 2004) During this time period there were just over 132 mass shootings with 832 victims killed and/or injured. (The FBI definition of a mass shooting is any shooting with 4 or more victims.) In fact, Columbine happened during this time period. Gun bans just historically do not work. For instance, there has been a ban on private ownership of fully automatic weapons since 1934, yet the fully automatic AK-47 is the weapon of choice for almost every gang member in America, and they are readily available to anyone with enough cash to buy one. Additionally, not a single one of the proposed gun bans addresses the increasing of punishment of criminals, only the further restricting of the rights of free, law abiding citizens.

    -- Posted by Tim Lokey on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM
  • We can send a man to the moon and fly from coast to coast in less then 4 hours...why can't we just say enough is enough and send our National Guard in to control gang areas and confiscate felonious guns?....Why can't we remove the life threats by using our resources and stop the madness?...Why is there not x-ray metal detectors on the streets in these areas that only detect guns and position the offenders?...Is it our government seeking to keep people in a system for monetary gain for the states?....I don't get it!...seems to me they could fix it quick and declare it terrorism against others to solve at least a part of the problem.

    -- Posted by chefgrape on Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 2:13 PM
  • chefgrape flying to the moon or from coast to coast does not involve controlling human behaviour,(except for the pilot/astronaut).

    Thw government simply cannot control these things. They themselves are humans and subject to the same corruptions and poor behaviour as everyone else. Giving them ultimate power over everything, as history has already proven, will result in the same type of poor behaviour but on a much larger scale.

    Look at our national debt for example, we are the richest nation on earth. Why do we have the highest debt? Poor behaviour!!

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Tue, Feb 26, 2013, at 6:03 AM
  • I wasn't aware the Constitution's mandates were to be time-limited. I guess the Bible then, which is 10 times older, had been time-barred for centuries.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Feb 26, 2013, at 3:28 PM
  • The bible has been irrelevant for a long long time. (about 2000 +/- years to be exact) But that's an entirely different discussion!

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Tue, Feb 26, 2013, at 10:58 PM
  • Correction, 6000 years +/-

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 12:00 AM
  • Just in case there is a move to Bible discussion, I can create a separate blog post. Just offering. :-)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 7:32 AM
  • Have any of our local doctors inquired as to whether their patients have guns at home? It has been done in other areas of our country. And have any of our veterans received forms on gun ownership which is happening nationally? Inquiring minds want to know. And to ClarkDV, the bible will never be irrelevant to me. Good luck in the hear-after sir.

    -- Posted by cherokee2 on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 9:22 AM
  • Which bible? what translation? and in what relevance? is it to you....If your referring to the King James translation it was translated from Greek,Hebrew and, Latin and King James not only left out some major books and manuscripts but translated it the third time because the Puritans found problems with it and he wanted to make sure it conformed to only the Episcopal clergy of the Church of England...before that all they had in printed version was a Bishops bible which offended the Church of England...and several words have many different meanings coming from a Greek or Hebrew translation for even the word "love"....however...I do draw comfort and guidance from it,and other translations that include the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocrypha and books of Mary,Noah and Moses...I do find meaning and wisdom in all of it, just wish I could know what was written on the staffs of the Hebrews back then it might even tell us if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen like scholars seem to be discovering these days. But, I guess that would be another discussion......at another time and place....

    -- Posted by chefgrape on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 10:23 AM
  • I've not received a form on gun ownership but I can't speak for other veterans.

    cherokee, I'll take all the luck I can get, so thanks! But I'd like it in the here-now.

    stevemills, this discussion has gone past a dozen comments, so the appearance of both hitler and god was inevitable!

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 11:04 AM
  • "Have any of our local doctors inquired as to whether their patients have guns at home? It has been done in other areas of our country. And have any of our veterans received forms on gun ownership which is happening nationally?"

    gul·li·ble : Adjective : Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 5:06 PM
  • A dozen huh? I'll start watching that. :-)

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 7:44 PM
  • I believe that the number of years you are looking for is a range of about 3000 years ago for the oldest battle hymns, to about 1900 years ago for the newest additions to the NT. That makes it ancient for sure, open to interpretation as well, but irrelevant? I dont think so, at least not in this lifetime.

    I think I am beginning to see a pattern though. With you, everything is irrelevant. The Constitution, our rights, an accurate depiction of people who disagree with you--now Hitler and even the Bible. Perhaps you have yet to understand how these things are relevant, but they remain immeasurably so, even in the face of your denial.

    Believe it or not, I appreciate being cast as an alarmist. It is much more colorful than how I am typically interpreted. Unfortunately though, most of what I have directed to you--with a few small exceptions--has not consisted of my opinions. If you disagree with most of it, your disagreement is not with me.

    I do not care about "assault" weapons or large capacity magazines in the least. That is not what this is about. This is about convincing a gullible population (see Lazarus' definition) that a "moderate" position is one that creates a registry of ALL firearms and links the mental health industry to law enforcement.

    I do not know how to make it any clearer. This is a historically unprecedented federal power grab at the far edges of the extreme. The fact that most people do currently believe it to be a moderate position, is just an indication of the power of the political machine which we face (and equally telling of the repositories of wisdom and knowledge held by the majority).

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Feb 28, 2013, at 4:15 AM
  • Thank You memyselfi,

    You said it well.

    -- Posted by Wolf Clan on Thu, Feb 28, 2013, at 7:20 PM
  • memy, you have a gift for misunderstanding my words. The bible is irrelevant to me, are you trying to tell me that I am not entitled to say what is and is not relevant to me? I was not speaking for the entire human race, but I think you knew that.

    You say I inaccurately depict people who disagree with me. You have done exactly the same thing in your broad assessment of me.

    I believe in the Constitution, I simply believe that it is a work in progress and not a stone tablet, never to be altered. I believe in our rights, ALL people's rights, not just SOME people's rights.

    And I do not believe a word of the bible, although the Jesus character has a great philosophy, it's a pity more of his followers don't, you know, actually follow it.

    You have no idea who I am and how long It's taken me to arrive at my beliefs, nor what I base them on.

    My comment to stevemills about god and hitler was simply a humorous nod to Godwin's Law.

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Fri, Mar 1, 2013, at 1:39 PM
  • I have been told before that I do posses a talent for misunderstanding. Please do not take it personally.

    Well, yes, I certainly am trying to tell you that you are mistaken about the Bible not being relevant to you. When you put it like that, however, it appears to be a much more presumptuous assertion than it actually is. You see, even your skepticism becomes unintelligible in the absence of what typifies relevancy in western culture. Your disbelief only represents a juxtaposition in relation to that which defines it. I do understand how you would come to believe that the Bible is irrelevant to you, but the only thing irrelevant about it, in this context, is your (or my own) personal beliefs.

    I agree with you that the Constitution is a "living document". To be sure, it even has imbedded within it the means for its evolution. Unfortunately, we have come so far from those means, our rights--"ALL people's rights"--are becoming increasingly susceptible to infringement.

    I do not believe that I know you (or how you came to you beliefs--or even what you believe it is that you base them upon). I only have the words which you have provided here, which (whether intended as humor or not) were the singular source of my comments to you. The difference being that I have not suggested that people who support gun control are naive gun-grabbing leftist hacks, although I have admittedly entertained the thought about you specifically--again, based only upon your words.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Mar 4, 2013, at 2:15 PM
  • Apology accepted.

    -- Posted by ClarkDV on Mon, Mar 4, 2013, at 5:10 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: