Waylander
11-07-12, 16:59
This guy is the frontman for a fairly popular metal band in Massachusetts...he's a little full of himself but defends his positions on 2A surprisingly well to be put on the spot. He's caught a lot of shit from the music community for obvious reasons. It's kind of like Hollywood...you know they're mostly liberal so when one comes out saying things like this it's pretty cool.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ragogna/election-day-yin--yang-ch_b_2080842.html
again, the Bill of Rights is a list of, "No"s. And the "No"s are saying what the federal government cannot do. Your perspective is twisting around what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights is not an empowerment of the federal government.
The Bill of Rights protects inherent freedoms, like things that exist that you are free to do and freedoms that exist without the federal government. It protects people. It doesn't empower the government. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I would submit that your perspective seems to be that the government has powers that it doesn't have. The discussion that we've had so far leads me to believe that the government should be and is in control, and my perspective that our founding documents are that the government is not in control and that the government has usurped powers that it was never delegated.
When the Bill of Rights was written--and I think you're referring to the second amendment, when the Bill of Rights was written--the founders had no idea how powerful the weapons that were going to come in the future were, and so shouldn't we look at the second amendment and say, "Well, the founders wouldn't have said that the population should have weapons of this power." Is that kind of where you're going?
--------------------
The founders knew and absolutely advocated merchants that had cannons on their ships that were defending America. The colonies. We didn't have a navy to fight the British navy when the revolution happened...
People that are anti-second amendment, they think things like, "Oh, well, they didn't have guns that are as powerful as we have nowadays," and I would submit that a cannon, which they had during the revolution--privately owned--are far more powerful than an AR-15 or an AK-47. If you had a cannon and you rolled up a wagon outside of someone's house that you didn't like, and shot a ball into their house, it would blow their house up. The argument of, "Hey, when the founders wrote the second amendment, they didn't have weapons as powerful as we do," is kind of a non-argument. It's kind of not accurate. It's just bulls**t, I guess.
He also wrote an Op-Ed piece that appeared in Alternative Press right after the Colorado shooting.
Phil Labonte of All That Remains on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b
While popular opinion is that these horrible acts are a uniquely American problem due to the liberal gun laws we have, I submit that it is a problem worldwide. July 22 was the one-year anniversary of the massacre in Norway—a country with very strict gun control laws—perpetrated by Anders Breivik where 77 people (mostly children) lost their lives. In June, there was a shooting in a Toronto mall where one man was killed and seven others injured. Again, a country with strict gun regulation. There was also the March 11, 2009, shooting at the Winnenden School in Winnenden, Germany, leaving 16 dead and 11 injured. Germany also has strict gun regulation. There are violent and mentally damaged people all over the world. If they are looking to harm innocents, they are going to do it, regardless of law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ragogna/election-day-yin--yang-ch_b_2080842.html
again, the Bill of Rights is a list of, "No"s. And the "No"s are saying what the federal government cannot do. Your perspective is twisting around what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights is not an empowerment of the federal government.
The Bill of Rights protects inherent freedoms, like things that exist that you are free to do and freedoms that exist without the federal government. It protects people. It doesn't empower the government. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I would submit that your perspective seems to be that the government has powers that it doesn't have. The discussion that we've had so far leads me to believe that the government should be and is in control, and my perspective that our founding documents are that the government is not in control and that the government has usurped powers that it was never delegated.
When the Bill of Rights was written--and I think you're referring to the second amendment, when the Bill of Rights was written--the founders had no idea how powerful the weapons that were going to come in the future were, and so shouldn't we look at the second amendment and say, "Well, the founders wouldn't have said that the population should have weapons of this power." Is that kind of where you're going?
--------------------
The founders knew and absolutely advocated merchants that had cannons on their ships that were defending America. The colonies. We didn't have a navy to fight the British navy when the revolution happened...
People that are anti-second amendment, they think things like, "Oh, well, they didn't have guns that are as powerful as we have nowadays," and I would submit that a cannon, which they had during the revolution--privately owned--are far more powerful than an AR-15 or an AK-47. If you had a cannon and you rolled up a wagon outside of someone's house that you didn't like, and shot a ball into their house, it would blow their house up. The argument of, "Hey, when the founders wrote the second amendment, they didn't have weapons as powerful as we do," is kind of a non-argument. It's kind of not accurate. It's just bulls**t, I guess.
He also wrote an Op-Ed piece that appeared in Alternative Press right after the Colorado shooting.
Phil Labonte of All That Remains on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b
While popular opinion is that these horrible acts are a uniquely American problem due to the liberal gun laws we have, I submit that it is a problem worldwide. July 22 was the one-year anniversary of the massacre in Norway—a country with very strict gun control laws—perpetrated by Anders Breivik where 77 people (mostly children) lost their lives. In June, there was a shooting in a Toronto mall where one man was killed and seven others injured. Again, a country with strict gun regulation. There was also the March 11, 2009, shooting at the Winnenden School in Winnenden, Germany, leaving 16 dead and 11 injured. Germany also has strict gun regulation. There are violent and mentally damaged people all over the world. If they are looking to harm innocents, they are going to do it, regardless of law.