Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTalumna06
I read an article this morning (I wish I could find it now) that said he may have had Aspberger's, but that there is no indication that the disorder causes a person to act out violently. I don't mind if they mention it, as long as it's also pointed out that there is most likely no direct correlation between this particular disorder and the killer's murderous/suicidal thoughts and actions.
|
I agree and have no problem if the context is provided. All too often, particularly early on, it isn't though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG
I did want to jump in on the God allows guns issue. There is some misunderstanding here that needs clarificaiton. The source of all this is actually in the Declaration of Independence.
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...'
Those items in the Bill of Rights, part of the US Constitution, are the unalianable rights. We believe that everyone is born with those rights at birth, they are endowed by God, and not just people in the US.
|
Yes, I know what's in the Declaration of Indendence and the Constitution, and I imagine everyone else here does, too. I don't think there's much misunderstanding. It's just that as much as I revere the Declaration of Independence and what it stands for, I don't consider it authoritative when it comes to theology. I'm guessing others may feel the same way.
In the parlance of the late 18th Century,the right to "the pursuit of Happiness" refers not to the ability to do what we like to do, but to security of wellbeing. The Second Amendment in that context arises from the 18th Century experience that (1) firearms can be necessary for defense and for the precurement of food, both of which are part of security of wellbeing, and (2) that security of wellbeing is threatened when the government can deprive people of the ability to defend themselves or to procure food.
Hunting rifles, which is what the post people have responded mentioned, in a 21st Century context do not necessarily fit that understanding.
I have said a number of times that I don't agree with those who want to see guns banned or even the Second Amendment repealed. I think that's wrong-headed and won't solve the problems.
But it's time to have serious discussions with no sacred cows. If the gun lobby is going to offer nothing more than stupidity like "this is why teachers need to be armed" and is going to fight even the most reasonable restrictions and requirements, then they are part of the problem, pure and simple. (But be clear, not all of the problem by any means.)
Yes, defend the Second Amendment. But anyone who's going to rely on the Declaration of Independence should bear in mind that the first enumerated creator-endowed right is that of Life, and that government is instituted to secure that right for all citizens just as much as other rights. Murder is always going to happen; mass murder even. But it is not unreasonable to look for some way to balance the right to bear arms with the right of citizens to be secure in their right to Life.
Threaded Mode
