Where does absolutism lead? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Where does absolutism lead?


archeryislife
12-23-2012, 12:28
I watched the news this morning and I'm horrified by something that Dianne Feinstien said on Meet the Press. "The rights of a few do not outweigh the safety of the many."
Ignoring the obvious Mr. Spock quote "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" for a minute.
Was this country not founded on "the rights of the few". In 1776 we were "the few" being stomped on by "the many" 3,000 miles away. Have we forgotten so much?
We strive in this country to remain "free", when are we going to realize that a free society is inherently a vulnerable society?

I ask myself these questions;
Would armed guards in schools help? Sure….maybe a little.
Would an AWB help? Sure…maybe a little.
More police? Sure…..maybe a little.
Would making CCW available in all public places help? Sure….maybe a little.
Would a physiological “watch list” help? Sure…maybe a little.

But do we stomp on the rights of all to “protect” the many? No…but it makes me physically sick when I think of the mothers and fathers who have lost everything. No one “solution” is the answer here and yet we have descended into a nation that talks only in terms of absolutism. My worst fear is that we give up liberty for new laws that promise safety and lose both. Why?....when we descend into absolute arguments, then the only reasonable outcome is one side wins and the other loses. And when that happens…we lose our way and our liberties with it.

Harper
12-23-2012, 12:39
She's wrong, those are the rights of every citizen, not just a few. This country was founded on the principle of liberty not safety.

Caver 60
12-23-2012, 12:50
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Enough said.

janice6
12-23-2012, 12:57
She's wrong, those are the rights of every citizen, not just a few. This country was founded on the principle of liberty not safety.



I agree with this. These are fundamental Constitutional rights.

What is not being said is that "the many" may be willing to give up some of everybody's rights they may see as not important to them, while the few feel these same rights are very important to them and not worth giving up.

So, one group is willing to give up rights that belong to everyone, including another group that disagree and does not want to give up their rights.

How is this good? How can YOU give up MY rights to make yourself feel better. Idiots.

DanaT
12-23-2012, 13:09
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8715/poster32534161ck8.jpg

Fear Night
12-23-2012, 13:12
She's wrong, those are the rights of every citizen, not just a few. This country was founded on the principle of liberty not safety.
Yes. We were given the right to keep and bear arms so that we could provide our own safety.

Unfortunately, we now live in a society that is much more dependent on the government, and becoming more dependent every day. Instead of choosing to own a gun and defend their own life, they would rather call 911 and let a government official bring the gun to save their life.

If somebody tried to commit a home invasion on me, I would only need to call 911 to advise them to bring some body bags. Choosing to NOT own a gun, and instead relying fully on the government to protect you, is completely irresponsible.

Zombie Surgeon
12-23-2012, 13:14
Absolutism unavoidably leads in order to:

1. government perpetrated mass murders,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Romanian_Revolution_1989_Corpses.jpg


2. revolution,


http://neon.pictura-hosting.nl/wpp/wpp_mrx_bld/thumbs/632x632/wpp/00/JPEG_-_winners_1989/1989018EJ.jpg

http://digitaljournal.com/img/7/4/6/4/4/7/i/6/0/8/o/Romanian_Revolution_1989_WeWillWin.jpg



3. and finally, the inevitable demise of the proponents of absolutism.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/docroot/dulcinea/fd_images/news/on-this-day/On-this-Day--Romanian-Revolution-Overthrows-Communist-Ruler/news/0/image.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nKQc3XtronQ/TqldPwcaaQI/AAAAAAAAB0s/L7M6QJ1avfk/s1600/The+execution.jpg


I was 26 years old and barely married for two months when what you see in the pictures above happened. I was there, carrying an AKM-47 as a Navy reservist. I didn't really cared if I was to live or to die - living my entire as a slave under communism really made me indifferent to the perspective of dying. In fact, I was ready to put a bullet in my head if the revolution wouldn't have succeed.

My father once told me: son, the single biggest mistake me and your grandad did was to surrender our guns in 1949 when the communists made gun ownership illegal. You paid for our mistake and I am sorry for that.

Now I have a 22 year old son and I am making anyone who wants to come to my home take my guns away a promise:
YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY GUNS. I WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER DID. I WILL NOT LET MY SON RISK HIS LIFE FIGHTING A ANOTHER REVOLUTION BECAUSE I WAS A COWARD AND GAVE UP INTO YOUR DEMANDS.
I owe that to my son and to all the people who died for liberty in December 1989.

BradD
12-23-2012, 13:18
She's wrong, those are the rights of every citizen, not just a few. This country was founded on the principle of liberty not safety.
I agree with you. Actually, I'm not sure her claim even makes sense at all. "Safety of the many"? What in the world does that even mean?

Hers is one of those statements that just cries out for terms to be defined.

Kevin108
12-23-2012, 13:23
You can boil it down simpler than rights vs safety.

Don't want kids shot in schools? Don't have schools.
Don't want kids that ever get hurt? Don't have kids.

Surrendering our rights are just as ridiculous of a solution.

It is impossible to be completely safe from harm and still exist. The answer is having an expedient and effective response to any given situation. You can't live life avoiding everything that might harm you. You can only prepare accordingly.

HarleyGuy
12-23-2012, 13:31
The recent massacre has everyone thinking of ways to prevent a repeat, which unfortunatley may occur.

I think we all need to think about two things here.

"Prohibition"...to ban alcohol failed miserably and was later repealed, AND the current "War on Drugs", which we all know how well that's going.

Criminals, by definition do not abide by any laws and will obtain weapons regardless of any law we pass and the mentally ill are just not accountable for, nor able to control their impulses. There are the folks that we need to concentrate on as no law-abiding person, or any person who is in their right mind would ever consider harming innocent victims.

We have armed guards in courthouses, municipal buildings, banks, armored cars and many stores, so why is it so controversial to have someone armed in the places where these nut cases tend to go, namely schools and churches, which, for the most part are "gun free zones" which are made so by politicians who work in buildings that have armed security or personal, armed bodyguards?

Even having armed guards and civilians with concealed carry licenses is no guarantee that we will never see more public shootings again but I think it's a start in the right direction and it may reduce the number of casualties.

ateamer
12-23-2012, 13:52
Feinswine is an absolute 100% piece of ****. She hates America and everything we stand for. These people who keep voting for her are all complete idiots, there is no excuse for putting her in office.

Harper
12-23-2012, 13:57
I agree with you. Actually, I'm not sure her claim even makes sense at all. "Safety of the many"? What in the world does that even mean?

Hers is one of those statements that just cries out for terms to be defined.

Yeah, the US has become more safe in most categories as gun laws have been relaxed.

dwhite53
12-24-2012, 05:39
Feinswine is an absolute 100% piece of ****. She hates America and everything we stand for. These people who keep voting for her are all complete idiots, there is no excuse for putting her in office.

These people believe world peace is possible.

The biggest impediment to world peace is usually not individual people but government. Government deciding someone is entitled to a pint of someone else's blood.

This country was founded on peaceably expressing your own opinions and having others respect them too whether they agreed with them or not. We're now at the point, on both sides, where you either respect my opinions and do it my way or we're gonna fight.

Opinions are like erections. Good to have. Fun to have. But not to be forced down someone else's throat because it feels good to you and, by God, should feel good to them too.

All the Best,
D. White

airmotive
12-24-2012, 06:04
So my history teacher in high school was wrong. He summed up our Constitution in a single sentence: The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few from the tyranny of the many.
That silly old man clearly didn't know what he was talking about.
The Constitution is about MOB RULE.