Ubuntu and the NRA - Not compatible?!

[whatthefunk]

"Our" rights, as Americans, enshrined in our Constitution, are taken very seriously. I don't expect, or require, that non-Americans understand this. America saved the world on two occasions; World War I (The 'war to end all wars') and World War II. Many non-Americans were extremely grateful we entered those wars.

Okay, I don't want this to become a 'war' of ideologies. I have strong convictions concerning our 2nd Amendment. Let's leave it at that.

I understand the rights in the constitution, but what I dont understand is the American attitude toward those rights. Most modern democracies give citizens similar rights but Americans have this weird sense of entitlement where by their personal rights supersede all other people's rights. This I dont understand. There is little to no sense of "the greater good" in America and you can see it slowly strangling the country.

[HalationEffect]

The thing with playing in someone else's sandpit is that, while in that sandpit, you have exactly as many (or as few) rights as they see fit to grant to you.

Personally, I generally lean towards Evelyn Beatrice Hall's stance: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", but I guess the folks at Ubuntuforums feel differently.

[Snowhog]

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

27 words. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The adoption of the original amendments (the 'Bill of Rights'), of which the 2nd Amendment was one, was critical to the passing of the U.S. Constitution. Without those amendments, the Constitution would very likely have failed, and the establishment of the United States of America may not have taken place.

Our Founding Fathers felt it extremely important to enshrine; to make it absolutely clear, that citizens; the 'people', would have the (absolute) right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed.

As an American, I recognize only one legitimate method to change this: By Constitution Amendment. If American's feel strongly enough that the 2nd Amendment has out lived it's purpose, then start the process:

The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

Any other means to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, by our Constitution, illegal, and those that would take other measures, are by those actions, suborning their sworn oath to protect the Constitution, and are, by those acts, traitors. Harsh statement? Damn right!

[woodsmoke]

The great advantage of the U.S. as opposed to "non-gun totin'" countries is that gun totin' is embedded in the fiber of the country.

And any POSSIBLE invader knows that.

However, within the U.S. there are always people who dissent to that.

There will always be a tug of war about "how much of this or how much of that".

But, the assumption of the people who advocate that guns should be removed from U.S. society is that some strongman will NEVER come along to blow half the people away and subjugate the leftovers.

In otherwords they assume that everybody will play nice.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people, all the way up to certain Presidents, who loudly and vociferously shout at another country's subjugated populace that "we stand with you"......and all they do is stand.....and then wander away to contemplate their navels.

The populace has a few pitchforks and the strongman killing them has gunships.

In other words..... they talk a big talk, and then just let the subjugated populace....be killed.

Always saying.... "Not our boys over there....no boots on the ground..."

If it had not been for a certain Prussian who did more than posture that "he stood with us".....we might very well not be here now, the British would have massacred half the populace and we would still be a British, or Spanish, or German, or French, or whatever other strongman's vassel.

Fortunately, in THIS country we CAN have this tug of war..... gun rights vs gun confiscation.

But, also fortunately, gun rights is in the Constitution....for a reason.....the Founding Fathers( the ones that one side says are now outdated and passe' )had actually fought the invaders......

The modern day nay sayers......have never had to swallow really hard, with their hands above their heads, looking along a gun barrel at a guy who doesn't speak the English..... and doesn't understand when they are saying.."Please, don't shoot me!" as he starts to squeeze the trigger.

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

27 words. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The adoption of the original amendments (the 'Bill of Rights'), of which the 2nd Amendment was one, was critical to the passing of the U.S. Constitution. Without those amendments, the Constitution would very likely have failed, and the establishment of the United States of America may not have taken place.

Our Founding Fathers felt it extremely important to enshrine; to make it absolutely clear, that citizens; the 'people', would have the (absolute) right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed.

As an American, I recognize only one legitimate method to change this: By Constitution Amendment. If American's feel strongly enough that the 2nd Amendment has out lived it's purpose, then start the process:

Any other means to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, by our Constitution, illegal, and those that would take other measures, are by those actions, suborning their sworn oath to protect the Constitution, and are, by those acts, traitors. Harsh statement? Damn right!

Some more things that I dont understand. A minimally trained population with the arms that are available for legal purchase in the US would have absolutely no chance against any modern army. Even a modern day police force in America would annihilate a locally organized militia. So whats the point in having the guns?

I also dont get the glorification of the founding fathers in America. They were regular people. They wrote a document outlining the rules of government which reflected the situation at the time (most importantly the war of independence). They realized that things change over time and so made it possible to change the constitution. Your argument here is that we should have guns simply because its in the constitution. I dont get it....

[whatthefunk]

The great advantage of the U.S. as opposed to "non-gun totin'" countries is that gun totin' is embedded in the fiber of the country.

And any POSSIBLE invader knows that.

However, within the U.S. there are always people who dissent to that.

There will always be a tug of war about "how much of this or how much of that".

But, the assumption of the people who advocate that guns should be removed from U.S. society is that some strongman will NEVER come along to blow half the people away and subjugate the leftovers.

In otherwords they assume that everybody will play nice.

I continue to be amazed at the number of people, all the way up to certain Presidents, who loudly and vociferously shout at another country's subjugated populace that "we stand with you"......and all they do is stand.....and then wander away to contemplate their navels.

The populace has a few pitchforks and the strongman killing them has gunships.

In other words..... they talk a big talk, and then just let the subjugated populace....be killed.

Always saying.... "Not our boys over there....no boots on the ground..."

If it had not been for a certain Prussian who did more than posture that "he stood with us".....we might very well not be here now, the British would have massacred half the populace and we would still be a British, or Spanish, or German, or French, or whatever other strongman's vassel.

Fortunately, in THIS country we CAN have this tug of war..... gun rights vs gun confiscation.

But, also fortunately, gun rights is in the Constitution....for a reason.....the Founding Fathers( the ones that one side says are now outdated and passe' )had actually fought the invaders......

The modern day nay sayers......have never had to swallow really hard, with their hands above their heads, looking along a gun barrel at a guy who doesn't speak the English..... and doesn't understand when they are saying.."Please, don't shoot me!" as he starts to squeeze the trigger.

woodsmoke

Another thing I dont understand! Hi there woodsmoke

[woodsmoke]

Hi Whatthefunk!

Welll ya gotta be onna them redneck fellars I'm ah gessin! 'Scuse me while I get ridda mah chew!!!

Anybody for some of that new Hatfield and McCoy corn likker! ? lol

woodhic!smoke

[SteveRiley]

that the lefties prattle on at great lenght about how "all ideas are of equal merit" and that "genteel discussion" is paramount...

I am as left as they come, and I certainly don't subscribe to either of these notions. Many ideas are simply wrong, and as such they are meritless and deserve ridicule. I will deliver such ridicule with great glee and opprobrium. Nothing genteel about that!

That means Ubuntuforums violated my right to freedom of expression!

Paul, I'm sure you're aware that Canonical, as a private entity, can require forum members to follow whatever rules it wishes. No First Amendment protection applies there. Also, do remember that we have restrictions here at KFN, too: no vulgarity, no direct personal attacks.

Besides, you're better off here anyway

[Snowhog]

Paul, I'm sure you're aware that Canonical, as a private entity, can require forum members to follow whatever rules it wishes. No First Amendment protection applies there. Also, do remember that we have restrictions here at KFN, too: no vulgarity, no direct personal attacks.

Besides, you're better off here anyway

Oh, I'm aware. My reaction was emotional to be sure. But the world has become so intolerant when it comes to tolerance. And yes, I like it here so much better.

I'm locking this thread. It served its purpose, mainly being my venting. I don't want it to turn into a debate; or worse.