Presidential debate Round 1

[fleaflicker]

What I mean in this nation being founded upon that right is this: If we had no arms, then we have no Revolutionary War, thus, we have no United States of America. And also, the founding fathers wanted that right in there so that if another government became too imposing, then we could cast off that yoke as well.
So who on here will second me on that?

And LionPride, I am neither liberal nor conservative. I look at both sides, and I agree with certain things on both sides. I am very liberal, yes, that hated word, in my views regarding the rights of other people, as I do believe that all people should have the same sorts of opportunities to succeed. And in my views upon firearms, I am very conservative, because I believe that firearms are not only weapons for the preservation of self, but the preservation of liberty.

I am not against the United States taking Saddam Hussian out of power, but I do have to question the way that this war is being carried out. We've been there over 18 months, have 1000 dead soldiers to show for it, and more and more terrorist attacks. Not to say that I am against the war so much as that I am questioning it as we go through those hardships. Besides, there are countries that are just as oppressive as Saddam was, such as China and North Korea, and we really haven't taken issue with either of those yet. So if this war was fought over the WMD, which were mostly supplied to Iraq by the United States when they fought Iran, and went in and found none, then it makes one really start to wonder. That is why I am questioning the war. Bush went out there, told us repeatedly that their were weapons of mass destruction there that presented an immenent threat to the United States, so we go in, and find a few abandoned mobile weapon labs and nothing else. Like I said, I wonder.

And I already stated what I think of firearms, so perhaps you may not like my view on the Iraq war, but who's with me on the firearms being the cornerstone of the Constitution? Any takers?

[once a runner]

I'd have to say Freedom of Speech was the cornerstone. There is a reason why they made it the 1st amendment.

[Captain Coveman]

...and the unarmed and helpless peasantry of Europe is why they made the Second...

[Captain Coveman]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788
Calls to mind the current debate about the Patriot Act

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
Also Madison from the same Federalist document.
It reminds me of all the attempts by factions in our own government to restrict our freedoms such as the Second Amendment in the name of "justice".

I am unable to recall the exact quote from Locke regarding the role of goverment and the right and duty to revolt as mentioned earlier. The Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson) based our Bill of Rights in the Constitution upon his ideals (to read the constitution is to read Locke). I believe that is another reason for the Second Amendment. It is has such a broad spectrum that if it were curtailed or any of our Amendments for that matter, our civil society as we know it would crumble. The final check and balance would be removed, and the nature of man would ensue.

[CoachK]

our civil society as we know it is crumbling. America as a whole is killing itself, quite possibly not in my life time, or maybe so, but america is falling apart.

[southpaw]

I wouldn't say were crumbling Coack K. A Kerry presidency would be like Nero or Caligula in the Roman Empire. Every generation faces a crisis and pessimism and yet we endure stronger than before. We humans don't live long enough to gain perspective from the past except in history books. I really liked CC post about Madison who was Jefferson's protege. Those two , in my opinion, of all the founding fathers had the most vision and insight to setting up the and LIMITING the gov't and including safeguards to revolt or rebel if the gov't exceed its limits.

CC it has been awhile but was it Locke or Rosseau who had the strong private property philosophy that the founding fathers used to strengthen the rights of citizens.

[Captain Coveman]

I agree entirely Southpaw, but I highly doubt a Kerry Presidency will result in the dressing of animal skins and attacking people chained to poles :shock:

[southpaw]

Just a humorous historical perspective. Though Nero had the same view of Christians that Kerry and his party do. I'll bet some Libs out there would like to feed some Evangelical Christians to the lions in the Colosieum like Nero did!

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="63774"] Bush went out there, told us repeatedly that their were weapons of mass destruction there that presented an immenent threat to the United States, so we go in, and find a few abandoned mobile weapon labs and nothing else. Like I said, I wonder.[/quote]

And you could replace the name "Bush" with "Kerry" in what I quoted from your post and it would still be true. It's just that when it became politically advantages to change positions, he did (i.e. Dean was kicking his tail in the primaries). And all you Bush haters out there are giving Kerry a pass on that.

It's really difficult for me to say that the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone. I believe they are ALL important, and one alone cannot hold a nation together, but all together has built a nation like no other in history. I believe deeply in the 2nd amendment though - so don't get me wrong there.

[Former Wildcat]

Not true, LionPride. It was not Kerry's job to make a case for war, it was only his job to decide if the President should have the authority to go to war. The war is Bush's creation and he has changed his positions on it as much as Kerry. First, Saddam was in imminent threat with WMD's and links to al Qaida. Then, we were removing an evil man from power to create a democrisy and make the world safer. Both men have changed positions for political survival. Neither has moral high ground here.

By the way, if we really wanted to remove a cruel regime that is committing atrocities against their people, Iraq was not the place to go. If we had not gone to Iraq, we might have the forces to help clean up what has become a nightmare in the Sudan. The genocide there makes Saddam's Iraq look like a tea party.