On Gun Control


Do it like Romans did.
Adoption of low is a product of passion,
its application – product of a cool head.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Just Thoughts and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to On Gun Control

  1. A. Scholar says:

    As western medicine bathes in the avarice of its wealthy pharmacology, and the war against healing through “treatment,” i.e., symptoms not cures, is in itself is a symptom of society’s ills. As a symptom what does it point to? Greed? Power? Class? Oppression? Servitude? Contempt?

    Guns too are another symptom of society’s ills. Treating the symptom is GUN CONTROL. Arresting the symptom of the illness.

    The right to bear arms, was intended to protect American citizens, as persons and militia, to protect their selves, from any government force, or agency that would oppress or otherwise, change the principles, of the revolutionary generation: especially liberty.

    Well, it’s getting too late, when authoritative policies, wreak havoc with our “domestic tranquility.” Because it’s not all just about, Gun Control. I wonder if an ever increasing need for gun control, has increased in proportion with the ever increasing greed, since the ME decade of the ’80s. What are these millionaire legislators afraid of? Every hierarchical society requires a broad base impoverished level to subsist on; but what’s the problem, the real problem? Social and economic justice comes to mind, but that’s another story.

    Times have changed; and as common-law rests in custom; those customs also change; and are reflected in fundamental law. Providing there is precedent.

    Subsequently, the Preamble to the Constitution, vis-à-vis – insure domestic tranquility, speaks to this.

    However, my agreement with Gun Control is contingent only upon a thorough control, so as to remove, as much as possible, threats of violence at home and abroad. My agreement, lies totally within Absolute gun control. Take them away from the police, (not Detectives, et., al.), clamp down on illegal arms sales, (most manufactured in the U.S.), which the Red Cross states, small arms are responsible for more fatal wounds, and death, including the death of people not even involved in third world warlordding, or inner city crime, than all the larger weapons combined. The imminent threat of violence starts at the top.

    This is not unlike, “The Buck Stops Here.” President Truman kept a sign on his desk that said, “The Buck Stops Here.” The latter is from an expression: “pass the buck,” which means passing the responsibility, on to someone else.

    Then perhaps we can move on to larger Arms deals, America’s military market place. I mean when their not giving arms away, Then their are the manufacturers, and the most prolific an profitable; illegal arms dealing. However, the United Nations, [permanent] Security Council Members ,that governs Arms trading, selling, and buying, are the biggest players and have the most to lose. The United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China.

    The threat of violence is a symptom too. Yet, that’s another story.

    Then again, don’t come to places like Maine and Texas, and really think ANYONE is going to give up their guns, willingly and without a fight. I knew of a woman in Wilton Maine, who hunted deer until she was 72. More than 200,000 children go to bed hungry at night; and there are a lot more people, in many places, still today, using their guns to hunt, and to eat, so as to feed their family. I once knew a man, up north in Maine, who hunted many deer each Autumn. He then cleaned and butchered them, and gave it away, which fed, a lot of Senior Citizens, for most of the Winter, in this small village of @500.

    • Sielicki says:

      Of course we can weigh pro and contra of gun control laws. But that is not a point. The first thing is the passion of the society to stop armed violence. And I don’t see that passion very much, but rather passion to uphold sins of gun affection…

      • Do you mean “compassion?” I wrote an American History book; its research took six years. I found what was once the duty and obligation of the sovereign, which made the Revolution legitimate, because of a monarch failing in its duty, that “duty of the Sovereign” became the “right of the sovereign,” which inevitably led to a loss of love and compassion for its citizens. Like I said; it’s a symptom of greater disease.

        • My posts are above. My name above is because I used a different email to sign in with.
          Cheers!

        • Sielicki says:

          Not necessarily compassion per se, or empathy, or other positive emotions. The Laws could be as well legitimately based on twofold, or straight negative emotions such as anger, fear, or hate. But when they cease to be backed be the “animal” part of our brain, they become victims of the logical manipulation – the father of all lies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s