Gun rights. Do the American people have the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution? Are guns dangerous? Is the second amendment outdated? Are guns needed now, in the twenty-first century?
Yes. No. Yes.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States-
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. [Emphasis mine]
This amendment states, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Constitutionally, the American people are granted the right to own and carry guns. Yes, this amendment also mentions a militia. But at the time this was written, every man (males 14 and older) who could tote a gun were considered the 'militia'. Women were also counted into the 'militia' if some catastrophe happened and there were no able bodied men left.
Hence, the American people can carry guns anytime they please. This right cannot be infringed. Infringed means violated, encroached. Things like gun laws are, in my opinion, infringing the right to carry a gun, as it adds unnecessary legal process and bureaucracy to the simple act of owning a gun.
"But the Constitution is outdated!"
An argument I have heard manymany times- more times than I would like to count. So, our system of government is outdated. Our Congressional election style is outdated? Our Presidential veto is outdated? Our government for the people, by the people is outdated?
Okay.
"But guns are....dangerous!"
Yeah. That's what makes them so fun!
No, not really. In experienced, practiced hands that have been trained in the use of a firearm, they aren't all that dangerous. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes, some people have gotten killed by accidental discharge.
But when handled properly, guns are no more dangerous than a glass of water. I know of a family who has guns. Many guns. They had young children, and now grandchildren. Their guns stay out. The kids know not to touch the guns, because they have been trained that guns are dangerous, since before they were old enough to understand. It is no problem.
"Guns kill people!"
No. People kill people. If guns kill people, why don't we put the gun in jail?
If someone wants to kill another, they will do it. They don't need a gun. In your household, you have plenty of items that could potentially kill someone.
Scissors.
Knives.
Pillows.
Blankets.
Rocks.
Bricks.
Books.
Glass.
Pens.
Pencils.
Cars.
Swimming pool.
And oh yeah, what was that other one...oh yeah- Humans!!
The list of items that can be used to kill someone goes on. And on. And on and on and on. There is no end to it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, regardless of if they have a gun or not.
"Without strict gun laws, the criminals will get guns."
They get guns anyway. The only thing gun laws do is deprive law abiding citizens of protection they are legally allowed to have, making them more susceptible to a homicide or a robbery in which a gun is used.
"But guns are just fundamentally bad. There isn't any real reason we should have them."
The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. Go read it, it will do you good.
The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. That means that any gun laws that prohibit or hamper the keeping of firearms are unconstitutional. (Side note- that does not mean I think that every citizen should have a tank in their backyard. Those are military weapons, which I am not sure about. There may be some other hamper to that. I don't know.)
The Constitutional Bill of Rights was intended to make sure that the people's rights were not infringed. That means that the entirety of the Constitution is intended to keep the government in check.
Using this line of reasoning, we can conclude that the reason the American people are allowed to keep guns is to keep the government in check.
Governments have a history of going astray. England did it. Spain did it. Rome did it. Every single government in the history of the world has slipped up and started going the wrong way- becoming more totalitarian, etc. This kind of government is the polar opposite of a democratic republic.
So, the founders instituted some very interesting clauses in the Constitution. For starters, the representatives are, in a rather indirect way (at that time), elected by the people. If the people do not, for some reason, like the job their congressman is doing, they can recall him with various processes that are outlined in the states, and then elect another.
The next is contained in the first amendment- we the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Unfortunately, our current government has stopped listening to such petitions, as We The People and other organizations have discovered.
From there, we go on to guns. The entire idea of keeping and bearing arms was to have them in case of an emergency. An emergency would include the idea of a non-responsive government. (Note- I am not advocating going and assassinating all the members of Congress. That would be wrong. Nor am I advocating assassinating President Obama. That, too would be wrong.)
But we do have the right to keep and bear arms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
I appreciate your knowledge, wisdom, and writing gift. This post was no exception.
I took a quick look today, myself, into recall, discovering the process appears to be somewhat daunting and limited to 18 states.
Some fast fact-grabbing reveals the number of gun deaths in 2005 was 31,000, 55% of which were suicides. Traffic deaths that same year numbered 43,510, which might lead one to determine motor vehicles kill people, thus prompting a ban and confiscation.
While I've long thought this was an apt illustration of the folly in guns kill people, it's losing its punch with the advent of Sustainable/Livable Communities Acts, which appear to target the future, unrestricted, individual ownership and use of motor vehicles ... for the purported cause of reducing manmade global warming, which science decries.
It makes pretty good sense that the killer guns need to go before the killer mini vans; one step at a time.
Isaiah 5:20
What you've got to understand is that guns are dangerous. Plenty of gun accidents happen every year. Most intelligent people will tell you that guns are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the Smiths next door have never had an accident, they still happen and are dangerous. And when did England become totalitarian? The odds of our government becoming too totalitarian are about 1 in a 1000. And right now it's actually a bit too easy to get a gun. In places where there ahve been laws that every house must own a gun, crime and deaths have gone up. And criminals don't always get guns from lbakc markets, they also can get them legalily sometimes. Plus, yes there are plenty of dangerous thing in the house, but a gun it a lot more dangerous than a pair of scissors, or pillows. Plus, eliminated guns is just eliminated one more dangerous weapon. Maybe instead of listening to Glenn Beck all the time, you could really look at guns and what they do.
Alex,
I have noticed a pattern with you. You are very good at liberal rhetoric and never give sources to back up anything you say.
And did you know, 47% of statistics are made up on the spot?! LOL
You have no credibility. You spout stuff without going to the trouble to find accurate source information. Maybe you should stop watching American Idol and read a book instead.
Caroline- I like the gun/motor vehicle comparison. But you're right, it's losing credibility. But hey, there's always swimming pools, which are still more dangerous, statistically, then guns. Don't forget to outlaw those.
Alex-
"What you've got to understand is that guns are dangerous"
I understand that. Understand and acknowledge. But my grandfather owns over 10 guns. He has never had an accident. My uncle did- he was 17, dumb, and messed up. He shot the ceiling. ^.^ If one is trained in how to use a gun, the liklihood of an accident ever occurring goes down considerably.
"And when did England become totalitarian?"
Oh, so you wouldn't consider the Stamp Act a totalitarian piece of legislation?
And I think your 'odds' are highly skewed. I don't know where you're getting your statistics, but that just doesn't sound nearly right to me- especially considering we're already quite totalitarian. The foundation is there. With things like the PATRIOT act and forced internment, we're getting pretty close!
Why is it 'too easy' to get a gun? The whole point of this post was that Constitutionally, whether you like it or not, anyone can own a gun. Period. End of story. There should be no difficulty to getting a gun.
"In places where there have been laws that every house must own a gun, crime and deaths have gone up."
Hmm. I've never heard of any of these laws. Pray enlighten me- on what law roll can I find this interesting piece of legislation?
Yes, criminals can get guns legally occasionally. That's the point. Gun laws don't keep criminals from getting guns. They will get them, one way or t'other.
Are you sure about that? A kid running with scissors is very, very dangerous- they can easily trip and gouge out their eye. That's why people tell you not to run with your fork/knife/toothbrush. You can die. But with a gun, not only does the child have to deal with the safeties, but then the gun is probably not loaded.
If a parent is negligent enough to leave an unlocked, loaded gun with the safeties off lying around, then it is their responsibility to teach their kids about the danger of guns, how to use a gun, etc. That is THEIR job, not the government's.
And I really don't watch Glenn Beck all that much. However, I do read numerous news sources, and have debated this subject extensively. I have read numerous books on the subject, and have several relatives and friends who own guns- several of them have children!
Alex, one thing I think you are truly missing in this debate is the fact that the Constitution guarantees that the right to bear arms can't be taken away. The Constitution is the ultimate law in this land, and it lets me carry a gun if I please. If you don't like it, well, you can go whine to the British authorities. Maybe they'll accept you in their country. I hear even their police officers don't carry guns.
You're thinking of Whales, which is part of the British Common Wealth, not Britain itself. And there, the crime is actually lower than here. There system works better than ours. And I live in Goergia where their are plenty of counties that have made laws like that. One near us is Kennesaw. And Joyful_Momma, I never watch reality tv and probably read more than you. I love to read, both of my parents were involved in publishing and writing and my family owns several smaqll newpapers. Reading is a big deal to me, it's one of my favorite things to do. Another thing that's not completely related to this post, but another one is why does someone need to carry a concealed loaded gun on a national park? Give me some reasons why someone would need that. And no, the stamp act was not totalitarian, it was but in place to pay for a war that was fought to protect us and the British citizens were actually taxed more than we were. The reason we broke away was because the wealthy were losing money due to tarrifs and mercantilism.
Hi Liberty. I stumbled across your blog (must of been from one of your chairs that got me!). Every time I feel our nation is lost, I read things from young patriots like you and I know our nation will be ok. Without knowing your age first, you very well could of been Ann Coulter writing this. God has given you a blessed gift of writing and composing your thoughts.
Alex on the other hand I am worried about. Reasons to carry in a national park:
1) Bears
2) Mountain Lions
3) National parks are great places for criminals because guns aren't allowed there (criminals don't obey the law... that's why the are criminals
4) Bears ( I do promise to leave them alone if they leave me alone.)
Here is the list from the Declaration of Independence for the reasons the colonies went to war to throw off British rule:
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
It was much more than, "...because the wealthy were losing money due to tarrifs and mercantilism". But of course you think since the founders were all white and capitalists that they were evil and selfish and the reasons they stated in the Declaration were just lies. Nevermind the fact that they were pledging their lives for it! It wasn't about money, money isn't worth being killed and having your family killed for! If you believe that than all I have to say to you is:
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" Sam Adams
And once again you neglected to support you opinion with facts that can be verified.
Which facts do you want verified? I didn't say they all had alternative motives in mind, there were some true patriots like George Washington. However, many were just upset by taxes they hurt there business and mercantilism. Bryan, I'm very worried about you. the saddest thin g is you are an adult and should be smarter than that! Oh well, I guess in such a big country, we have to deal with people like you occasionally. And I think Ann COulter is terrible. not only is she not a very god writer, she also is a lareg supporter of the CofCC, which discourage non-white immagration, interracial marriage, and homosexuality. It is a very bad organization that is not only offensive and racist, but unamerican. And it is the park rangers job to protect from wildlife. Plus, you should never really be in contact with bears in most parks, and they'll leave you alone if you do the same. There are also non-violent ways to keep bears away, but someone like you wouldn't like those. And criminals? I don't think that national parks are necessarily a hot spot for crime. Plus, that would mean you're encouraging vigilante behavior which almost always turns out negatively. Oh, and also, evolution happened. Sorry.
Alex- I'd like verification for many of your facts. The fact that the Revolutionary War was only about people being upset because their business was being hurt. Or some information about these mysterious 'militias' that you still haven't verified.
Yes, Kennesaw does have a law such as that...but unless you can give me different information, all the sources I found showed the crime rate went DOWN, not up.
I'd also like to know why, precisely, you think the reasons for our declared independence and the events leading up to it were any different than those outline in the Declaration.
Bryan- Thanks for the visit/follow! :)
I'm not sure how to give you facts about the founding fathers, that's something I learnedc because I'm a history buff and read it in several books. But here is the news story about rising militas: http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22553
I live in a redncekc area, and all that happened because of those kinds of gun laws was vilgilante actions that resulted in a community that was looked down upon by the nation.The men who were losing money were very involved in the decalration of independance. Most of the things circulating at that time were propaganda created by freedom fighters like Sam Adams who starried up trouble for the British. Sam Adams was no hero, John Adams was. That's why it means nothing to be when you keep putting up quotes by him.
The 'militias' in the article are nothing more than a group of people playing war. Since this has happened before, I highly doubt it will escalate into something larger.
The Revolution needed 'freedom fighters like Sam Adams'. Without those men, there would have BEEN no Revolution, and guess what? We'd still be colonies of England, doing work for them.
I'd be interested to know what books you read that information in. They might be worth checking out.
My assumption is that Joyful_Momma is a large part of her daughter's wisdom. My son is 15 and has a long way to go to catch up to you Liberty. Gives me hope though. And sorry Alex, evolution did not happen. We were created in God's image. He said it, I believe it.
How can you deny tons of evidence? Whatever, I really don't care, it's a backwards believe that really won't last in the future. And there would have been a revolution without Sam Adams. Plus, even if there wasn't not much would have changed. We weren't slaves or anything. Eventually, we would've got a representative in parliment, which was all we really wanted. And probably after a while, we would have broken away anyway, but peacefully.
Wales was actually annexed by Britain many centuries ago, and only in recent years was it devolved to allow it to make its own local laws.
It is geographically part of Great Britain, and is no less "British" than England itself. Its exact definition is a "constituent country". Canada is a commonwealth of Britain, but Wales is not.
The violent crime rate of Wales is 18 per 1,000 population; the violent crime rate of Georgia is a little less than 5 per 1,000 population.
So, unless I read those charts incorrectly, the Georgian system works much better than the Welsh.
Regardless of this, like Liberty said, "The Constitution is the ultimate law in this land, and it lets me carry a gun if I please."
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." ~John Adams
Actually I've heard differently about crimes, and your judging a state vs. a country. Plus, not all of Georgia has reckless and violent laws. And like I said, before, I don;t respect Sma Admas. He wasn't a hero. John Adams was, but he wasn't, so saying his quotes to me really means nothing. And like I said before, times have changed whether you like it or not! Other countries have better systems than ours in my opinion because there governments have changed so much, and our have changed so little. Too little changed has resluted in a weaker government, which although is still one of the world powers today, might not be tomorrow.
That quote is by John Adams.
And about the statistics, I guess you don't read the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/12/world/world-news-briefs-british-crime-rates-found-higher-than-us-totals.html
(This story is from '98, as statistics are only done every so often; I looked for more recent publications, but could find none.)
I'm sorry, I did not read the name correctly. However, the quote does specifically state guns, and even if it did, that still isn't that relevant because they lived over 200 years ago. That's like looking at the black plague in Europe as a way to handle the flu situation. There' too much of a time gap. And I couldn't open the statistics, but I think it was not so much about guns, but crime in general. I love the NY Times, but I'm surprised one like you reads it because it's so liberal.
I read the NYTimes too, Alex. :) I find it quite informative, just like the Washington Post, etc. I love peeking into the liberal mind. ;)
Alex, like I said, the thing you are missing (and that I keep repeating) is that- it doesn't matter whether you think gun ownership is outdated. The Founders put it there for a reason. A good reason. They knew they could not trust either themselves or their descendants with government.
So, they put checks in place. The biggest check is the people...and their ability to conquer if need be.
Of course it's still 'relevant.' What, are you saying 'The Origin of Species' isn't RELEVANT because it's 'a hundred and fifty years old'? Or perhaps history lessons aren't RELEVANT anymore because it was so long ago? We can't learn anything from it?
Alex, the ability to protect oneself is just as 'relevant' today as it was 200 years ago. That will never change. Ever.
We can learn from it, but we don't live by the laws of the Roman Empire. Governments change and evolve with the time, but ours really hasn't. That's why we're seeing a loss of power. Because our system is one that can;t have major changes without them being repealed or having public outcry. That's the problem with our government. Listen, your from Texas, I'm from Georgia. We both come from gun states, we just think diffeently based on situations. I've seen too many accidents and you haven't. Plus, why do you need a loaded concealed gun in a national park?
Where did you get the 'national park' thing from? That is not what is under debate here. What is under debate is whether we can own guns.
I am going to say it one more time, and if you don't get it this time, I will no longer respond to anything you say.
Constitutionally, we can own guns. It doesn't matter how illadvised you or anyone else thinks that is. It is there, and I can own a gun.
Guns, yes, are dangerous. But used correctly, they cease to be dangerous.
And I don't see why our system of government needs to 'change'. Change to what? A Republic is the best, most efficient, most 'fair' way of doing things. Right now, there are just a bunch of politicians taking advantage of the average uninformed American. THAT is what needs to change.
Also, Alex- the reason people don't like the no-guns-in-national-parks rule is because you can't travel without going into a national park. Hence, you can't take your guns anywhere, pretty much.
Sorry but "A bunch of politicians taking advantage of the average uninformed American" is the republican party, not American government. And the problem is, the world has, changed while strict constitutionalists and idelaists have kept us back. Many of the curent first world countries have expierenced a revolution or at leasta chnage in government in the past cnetry. The US hasn't changed much in hundreds of years! And a republic is not always the best system. We actually have no idea what is the best system. Actually, the most moral system is communism because it practices sharing and eual rights for all, but human greed and other emotions corrupt that. The KBG was invented because of the paraniod government. It's just an example of how all systems have their flaws one way or another. An also, you can travel without entering national parks, and why doy you need a gun when you travel anyway? Outside of hunting, what are you going to do? Be a watch sentry for the night?
First off, if my comments are so awful, why do you want them on your blog? And I don't contradict. People, size, and basic government of the US have changed some. There is much more bureaucracy than there was 100 years ago which is a change. But there are no real major changes in government. I never said revolution was good, I just sad it happened in some countries where it was needed in some cases. We don't need a revolution in this country (especially not by the right wing nuts) we just need a bigger change in ideas and government. That can be peaceful and gentle. Maybe instead of accusing me about how I don't know about the subject you should look at it closer yourself. If you want to see my blog: leftsideview.blogspot.com
I'm just going to be blunt and probably offensive. I'm sorry, but I've wanted to say this for a while.
Alex, by your reasoning, thinking, and wishes:
1. We would have apes as grandparents.
2. We would still be under the law and order of England.
3. We would be without Republicans.
4. We would be without the personal right to bear a gun.
5. Samuel Adams would be universally considered an idiot.
6. The world of debate would be just one big personal attack after another.
Sometimes I wonder if you even think about what you are saying!
*sigh* In the morning I'll probably not be proud of what I wrote, but I'm so tired and frankly just kind of fed up with you trash talking anyone who disagrees with you and claiming things that have no basis in reality.
~Kendra
Actually numbers 1, 2, ans 5 were pretty good. And sorry, evolution happened and Samuel Admas was not a great leader. You also forgot to put Gays would have equal rights to the list. Anyway, I'm not saying that I would not want to break away from Britain, I'm just saying that we made it seem more necessary and urgent than it really was. The world of debate can be attacks, but don't be under the illusion that I attack more than you.
*sigh* I am sorry if any of that offended you. I was really tired and just kind of fed up with everything when I posted it.
The other stuff we're debated before and nothing has really changed, but about the personal attacking thing, this was the first time I've made a personal attack, and you've made countless numbers of them.
Actually, I believe you have mad some attacks yourself, but I'm not interested in debating that. And I meant number 3, not number 2. Sorry. Also, I have stopped debating about evolution because sooner or later you'll accept it. Or at least your children will, or their children. In fact, trends indicate that in several generations, the issues we debate now will be ancient. Right now, more and more people are comingaround to equal rights (gay rights), the right to choose (pro-choice), and evolution (no explanation necessary).
I still believe creation. I keep that belief to myself though, since I don't know enough about the subject to debate it intelligently- but I have a working knowledge of the theory of evolution- enough to know it sounds pretty unbelievable and 'out there' to me- a lot more so than that there's something else out there. Call me a person who just wants a security blanket, but that's what I believe. ;)
Evolution's basic premise is that matter can give rise to matter, a theory that has, admittedly, never been observed in nature.
Whenever a mutation takes place within a species, a loss of DNA or RNA occurs, not a gain.
Therefore, "simple slime" cannot become "complex slime"; it is also inconceivable that it can become as complex as an eye.
There's also that whole problem of, "How did Earth transform from a 'mass of molten lava, 4.3 billion years ago,' into two-thirds of it being covered in water today?"
Basic things like that take away from the "scientific" nature of evolution.
I think your a bit mistaken. Evolution is when a creature changes in order to survive. Evolution takes millions of years, but it's an incredible process that actually very simple if you look at it logically. Did you know that Charles Darwin was actually a very dedicated Christain who didn't release the theory of evolution for many years for fear that it would hurt the church.
I knew that. For me, the point isn't even whether or not Evolution is true. For me, it's WHERE THE STUFF CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. For things to evolve, there have to BE THINGS. How did that first organism get here?
Like Liberty said, Darwin lived 200 years ago, so anything he promoted is irrelevant today.
He was also a racist, as he believed the Australian aborigines are the lowest form of human life, and "negroids" being second lowest.
(Of course, "Caucasoid" was at the top of the "gifted" list.)
Anyway, I'm not mistaken about what evolution is; you're thinking of "natural selection". Evolutionary theory is that of different species of animals having a common ancestor.
Tell me, if the first life on earth had very little, simple DNA, how did that give rise to the billions of different DNA and RNA sequences we have today?
Matter has never been observed giving rise to matter, so extra-scientific presuppositions are required, which isn't scientific.
And, how did the first genetic code appear? What energy propelled the chemicals necessary for life into a collision course? How did these chemicals appear?
The theory is predicated on the thought that the conditions necessary for life were preexisting, but that would require pre-preexisting conditions.
Doesn't that make evolution a "faith"?
Evolution is a faith to some degree. And Charles Darwin was not as much of a racist as some are led to believe. For the time, he was actually more open minded than most. How is anything he promoted today irrevelant?
"And Son3, all of your quotes are from the founding fathers who died quite a long time ago. They are not living today and therefore I consider their quotes to be a little irrelevant."
~Alex Floyd, emphasis mine
Just using your line of thinking, that's all.
So, Darwin was just a little bit racist?
Yes, he was very open minded; so much so, he believed scum could evolve into a thinking, intelligent animal. That's very open minded.
But, what about simple genetic code becoming complicated genetic code, DNA increasing in size and complexity?
Evolution requires processes that have never been observed!
Admittedly!
What of that?
They can't be observed because evolution takes millions of years. And Charles Darwin is much more important to evolution. You took something I said and switched it around in an attempt to make it look like I was contradicting myself, buit you didn't read my words carefully. He is the father of evolution! He came up with the theory and started a revolutionary change of thought! And many people were a bit racist at the time, so he really wasn't that bad when you consider what else was going on.
Post a Comment