Defending the Truth

http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin

i agree with you... i believe that that might/will be a consequense of total gun control....and i'm wondering if the anti gun groups are ready for it

Owning a gun is not an essential liberty.

Although I agree that its not an essential liberty, many would say that's debatable. I think using Franklin's quote in the attempt to convey a right to firearms is taking it out of context. I'm pretty sure that what he meant by essential liberties are the three major philosohpical driving factors into the foundation of the United States; that is the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Which mainly constitutes a freedom of thought, conversation, expression, life, and that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion.

I don't think a right to own a firearm designed exclusively for the purpose of efficient killing of other human beings would fall under the realm of said essential liberties. That is why we see bannings of automatic weapons, military weapons, military grade explosives, and weapons out of the realm of arms designed for the purpose of hunting an animal.

Although one may, like I, argue that the founding fathers' purpose of right to bare arms is to be readily available to overthrow a government which is an enemy to the United States. And thus the lines in the constitution, in the second amendment, of right to organized militia. And therefore an essential liberty might constitute the ability to effectively overthrow a regime which violates the constitution. And therefore it that context it could be considered essential. Although I don't think Franklin's words were used in that context. Although I could be wrong.

Maybe this will tickle your fancy?

Under every government the [last] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens. Quote by:

A Framer
Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution
Source:

Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

If this country didn't have such dramatic social problems, such dramatic differences between rich and poor... if we had healthcare for everyone...

then I think our society could handle gun ownership.

In a country where you actually have to work to live, I'm sure it's going to be normal to see a big gap (the lazy and those who are not)

Sure I can't stand those who have millions/billions of dollars, but those people worked hard for it and they are providing jobs for people who want to work.

Our social problems have nothing to do with people being lazy.

Sorry I meant to respond to why we probably have such a big gap between the rich and poor...not social programs.

What? We have a big gap because some people are lazy? I have a hard time swallowing that.