Topic: The Second Amendment
started by: damien_s_lucifer
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,02:13
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. I have highlighted the first half of the text because it usually gets ignored.
We can rewrite the statement as follows :
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon [by Congress] because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State."
Which means that 1. the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is derived from the need for security; it is not absolute; 2. each State has the responsibility to make sure its militia (all gun-owning citizens) is well-regulated; and 3. Congress and the Federal government have no business telling the states how to regulate their militias.
In short, gun control is a STATE issue, not a FEDERAL one.
Right now, the state militias are in fucking chaos.
Discuss.
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,02:31
< http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52223,00.html? >| Quote |
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week. |
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,02:56
back in the 1780's, the term "well regulated" meant "well trained", in other words, it meant people should know how to use guns well. it did NOT mean regulated in the modern sense of state or federal regulation.DSL you have completely lost the spirit of the 2nd amendment. the purpose of it was to prevent the government from disarming its citizenry, because that leads to tyranny.
oh yeah and the state militias are not in total chaos, where the hell did you pull that out of? you must have a lot of extra room up there!
jesus christ every time i go back to proof read i miss another line of your bullshit. literally every single line is outright wrong! the right for individuals to bear arms doesn't derive from the need for security, it derives from FREEDOM.
in my opinion, the 2nd amendment should have been the first. because without the right to bear arms, there can be no freedom of speech.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 22 2002,03:01
I think this is where the supreme court comes in.End discussion.
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,03:06
back in the 1780's, the term "well regulated" meant "well trained", in other words, it meant people should know how to use guns well. it did NOT mean regulated in the modern sense of state or federal regulation.i thought this was important enough to re-emphasize.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 22 2002,03:13
You are not appointed, so nobody gives a fuck what you think. Shouldn't you be happy enough that SCJ-conservative-fuck Rehnquist is there for you? He graduated from my HS, btw, which is now exceedingly liberal.Nice job on the picture, fucktard.
[good thing nobody noticed I said they were elected.]
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,03:16
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,03:26
first, the Executive and Legislative branches do not have jurisdiction over legal interpretations of the Constitution, so whatever the Solicitor General says is irrelevant.second, even if you interpret "well regulated" as "well trained," the Second Amendment explicitly notes that it is NECESSARY that individual States ensure their citizens are well-trained - and since the execution of State responsibilities is vested in their Legislatures, their Legislatures obviously have the right to regulate guns and their owners.
the number of gun owners who are NOT well trained is ridiculous - that's why I say state militias are in total chaos.
and finally, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent the Federal government from eliminating State militias (thus giving the Feds more authority than the States), and States from eliminating their OWN militias.
What you, ck, and most other Second Amendment nuts fail to understand is this :
if you know how to handle a gun responsibly - and yes, the States do have the authority to verify this - than they cannot deny you the right to own one.
It does NOT make gun ownership a free for all.
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,03:36
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 21 May 2002,21:26) |
| first, the Executive and Legislative branches do not have jurisdiction over legal interpretations of the Constitution, so whatever the Solicitor General says is irrelevant. |
you have no clue how things actually work do you? I'm sorry but that's all I can say to that and the rest of your posts, they sound like the rantings of a lunatic, I mean liberal.
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,03:38
| Quote |
| second, even if you interpret "well regulated" as "well trained," the Second Amendment explicitly notes that it is NECESSARY that individual States ensure their citizens are well-trained |
what? did you forgot your own first post??
| Quote |
| A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, |
"being nescessary to the security for a free state"
it says a well-regulated militia is nescessary for a free state, NOT that it is nescessary for the milita to be regulated for a free state!
the number of gun owners who are trained FAR EXCEEDS the number of illegal/untrained owners by a factor of something like 100,000 to 1. again, you are pulling statements STRAIGHT OUT OF YOUR ASS!
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,03:39
| Quote (veistran @ 21 May 2002,14:36) | ||
you have no clue how things actually work do you? I'm sorry but that's all I can say to that and the rest of your posts, they sound like the rantings of a lunatic, I mean liberal. |
THANK YOU
Posted by BlackFlag on May 22 2002,04:08
| Quote |
| 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. |
If this only grants the right of gun ownership to state militias, why doesn't it read:
| Quote |
| A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
back when this was written, a milita was more or less the equivelant of an armed neighborhood watch. They were just a groupe of guys with guns who tried to train themselves in combat in case they were needed, with or without official regognition by the state.
CK hit the nail on the head when he said that the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is to keep the population armed to prevent the US gov. from becomming tyranical.
Posted by Dysorderia on May 22 2002,04:10
| Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,22:16) |
 |
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,04:15
heh i just realized if i delete my own pictures, dysorderia will be crippled because all he does is link mine.
Posted by Dysorderia on May 22 2002,04:18
| Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,23:15) |
| heh i just realized if i delete my own pictures, dysorderia will be crippled because all he does is link mine. |
nope since ive uploaded both of those to my site now so
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,04:26
oh well since dysorderia has begun his trolling routine, I guess this means I have officially won the argument, since he only trolls because he knows I am right and has no other way to argue. gg
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 22 2002,04:31
CK and veistrain, you are so full of shit. You consitantly make posts that describe how liberals are wrong, and in doing so you do the exact same thing that you accuse others of.| Quote |
| you have no clue how things actually work do you? I'm sorry but that's all I can say to that and the rest of your posts, they sound like the rantings of a lunatic, I mean liberal. |
This is brainless rhetoric that Ck always accuses people of (most of the time just because they disagree with him) and then he goes on to praise this person. Interesting.
Also, as soon as someone posts a link to their disertation on 18'th centuray language, I don't give two shits about what you think well-regulated militia means in todays context. You're no more a valid speaker on it than anyone else here. Pertaining to that, if you go -find- a disertation on said subject I will do nothing but applaud your google skills, since there are probably 100's for and against each side.
| Quote |
| CK hit the nail on the head when he said that the purpose of the 2nd ammendment is to keep the population armed to prevent the US gov. from becomming tyranical. |
Again, this is just your opinion and I don't see any information here that proves that point of view any more than the alternative.
In -my- completely uneducated opinion, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, I'm pretty fucking glad their are gun regulations. If we don't let felons vote, why should they be able to own weapons since they have proved themselves to be detriments to society? I also don't want people bringing guns anywhere near a school, or quite frankly, most public places. I fail to see how it makes anyone any safer if you're toting around a .45 in your handbag. Chances are, whoever is carrying it wil just do something stupid if they ever pull it out.
| Quote |
| the number of gun owners who are trained FAR EXCEEDS the number of illegal/untrained owners by a factor of something like 100,000 to 1 |
I don't see any proof for this number either. How you manage to find that number, I really don't care, since there are both opinions online and I'm sure we could find both sides.
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,04:41
no one said anything about letting convicted felons buy handguns. usually, when you are convicted of a felony, you relinquish your rights.as for your other two arguments, you are basically saying "I don't believe you because you didn't show your source, but even if you did show your source, I could find an alternative viewpoint, so therefore, we both could be right, therefore, you are wrong."
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 22 2002,04:46
I'm pretty sure I didn't say you were wrong anywhere in my post (about your view on the 2'nd amend.). I did say you knock other people's opinions and do the same thing you accuse them of.Hence the word opinion.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 22 2002,04:47
| Quote (CatKnight @ 21 May 2002,22:41) |
| as for your other two arguments, you are basically saying "I don't believe you because you didn't show your source, but even if you did show your source, I could find an alternative viewpoint, so therefore, we both could be right, therefore, you are wrong." |
I think he's saying you are wrong, and would find some bullshit even you know isn't true to back up your argument, since misinformation is commonplace on the internet. OH, WAIT...that's what he DID say.
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,04:55
i will post the sources as soon as i get home. i didn't have time to look for them without my book marks here at work.just noticed this:
taxman: "I'm pretty sure I didn't say you were wrong anywhere in my post"
beastie (referring to taxman): "I think he's saying you are wrong, and would find some bullshit even you know isn't true to back up your argument"
lol
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,05:22
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 21 May 2002,22:31) | ||||||
CK and veistrain, you are so full of shit. You consitantly make posts that describe how liberals are wrong, and in doing so you do the exact same thing that you accuse others of.
This is brainless rhetoric that Ck always accuses people of (most of the time just because they disagree with him) and then he goes on to praise this person. Interesting. Also, as soon as someone posts a link to their disertation on 18'th centuray language, I don't give two shits about what you think well-regulated militia means in todays context. You're no more a valid speaker on it than anyone else here. Pertaining to that, if you go -find- a disertation on said subject I will do nothing but applaud your google skills, since there are probably 100's for and against each side.
Again, this is just your opinion and I don't see any information here that proves that point of view any more than the alternative. In -my- completely uneducated opinion, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, I'm pretty fucking glad their are gun regulations. If we don't let felons vote, why should they be able to own weapons since they have proved themselves to be detriments to society? I also don't want people bringing guns anywhere near a school, or quite frankly, most public places. I fail to see how it makes anyone any safer if you're toting around a .45 in your handbag. Chances are, whoever is carrying it wil just do something stupid if they ever pull it out.
I don't see any proof for this number either. How you manage to find that number, I really don't care, since there are both opinions online and I'm sure we could find both sides. |
take something out of context and you can make it sound however you want. He's acting like the the executive branch's stance on the 2nd amendmant means nothing, when it indeed means a great deal or did you miss the fact that the executive branch sets the tone for law enforcment around the country and the president has the power to pardon. In addittion my satirical reply was of course also in reply to brainless rhetoric in the face of facts. Of course you'll ingore that context as well in your attempt to make me look foolish, but then I don't expect any less in this debate.
As far as gun regulations and felons... TRY READING THE FUCKING ARTICLE I POSTED. The second paragraph reads and I quote...
| Quote |
| That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." |
It's not like were saying "HEY, everyone should have at least one gun." More, "Hey, every law-abiding citizen who's fit to make the descision on whether or not they want a gun should be able to have one."
check out this paragraph for even more clues...
| Quote |
| The change in policy is an extension of views expressed by Ashcroft in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year. In it, the attorney general said that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens, and not merely to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the amendment's text and used by gun control advocates to argue that the Second Amendment only refers to individual gun ownership when the individual is a member of the military or police forces. |
Posted by ic0n0 on May 22 2002,05:23
I am staying out of this, but let it be known I agree more with CK.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 22 2002,05:23
Then I'm saying you are bitch, so back it up.
Posted by j0eSmith on May 22 2002,05:44
hahahaha, crazy yanks. 
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,05:46
| Quote (j0eSmith @ 21 May 2002,23:44) |
| hahahaha, crazy yanks. |
at least we're not the french.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on May 22 2002,06:05
look, you all look at this wrong. speak it out loud. it was dictation. the stuff between commas is clarification.it can, however go both ways:
A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
<ot>
anyway, you two bitch too much. STFU. get some peace, or go out and meet each other for a deul. Kuru'd probably supply the guns.
I don't fucking care.
</ot>
Anyway, I read the whole thing as:
People should have guns. they should have training. The guns should be as powerful as the government's. the training should be as well as the government's.
otherwise, the government can make laws like the DMCA and the CBDTPA or SSSCA(sp?), or repeal the constitution, and erode your rights.
</0.02>
and one last thing: you two need to find common ground. stop your, (as Kamilion of #detnet puts it: "stop bitchfighting..."...
edit: godamn it editor! fix this dumb shit to convert IBcode to HTML and back when editing/previewing... >:
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,06:50
Ah! Thanks to Conservative re-education, I have seen the error of my ways. I know this is a long post, but please read it so you, too, may know the TRUTH:The Founding Fathers hated government so much that they wrote up a document that created a Government, whose purpose- as mentioned in the very first paragraph of this document- is this:
| Quote |
| ...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity |
They knew the tyranny an horror of government so well that the SECOND paragraph created a body with full authority to make law:
| Quote |
| Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. |
Inherently fearful of the Government they were creating, they made sure to grant it a broad range of powers in Article I, Section 8. It is interesting to note some of the powers they granted this government :
| Quote |
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; |
...this proves that the personal income tax is unconstitutional.
| Quote |
| To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; |
...this proves that the Founders believed in the right, nay, the duty of citizens to participate in armed revolt.
| Quote |
| To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; |
...this proves that neither the States nor Congress have any authority to govern the militia.
| Quote |
| To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. |
Yet more proof of their belief that Governments are inherently tyrannical and must be restrained as much as possible.
In order to further assure that their Government would not have any real power, they made sure to relinquish almost all of their authority to the State governments :
| Quote |
| No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. |
Because the government they created wasn't weak enough, some additions to the Constitution were made later on.
Amendment 14 gave away even more Congressional authority:
| Quote |
| Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. |
The 16th Amendment made sure that we would NEVER have such a tyrannical thing as a personal income tax:
| Quote |
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
There is much, much more, but I need to rest... but doesn't it all make sense now?
Posted by Beldurin on May 22 2002,07:17
A couple of things, from my own pov/interpretation, and then some advice.I think everyone has analyzed the literal meaning of the passage in the 2nd amendment, but you're forgetting that, in reality, laws have three aspects.
1.) The letter of the law: how it reads literally
2.) The spirit of the law: how it was meant
3.) The enforcement of the law: how it is upheld
This is really key to this whole debate as some of you are arguing about 1, and some about 2. When it was written, they were essentially the same. However, while the letter of the law has remained, the spirit has changed. Herein lies the problem.
IMO, the letter of the law is fairly clear.
| Quote |
| "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon [by Congress] because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State." |
People have the right, not the responsibility to keep and bear arms. BF asks why did the write it this way? Simple, they couldn't possibly imagine our nation as it is today. The did not envision a national army of this magnitude. The state militias were mandated because they saw it as necessary to the survival of the United States. If, as DSL argues, gun control is truly a state issue (as derived from this passage), then so is defense (as derived from the same logic). You cannot selectively separate those conclusions. Therefore, by your logic, the U.S. military is unconstitutional. A dangerous thought. I personally am comforted by the presence of the U.S. military. In addition, it also means that any citizen owning a gun [I]must [I] be part of the organized militia. This sounds like a form of conscription/pressing. Besides, you're telling me that my 65-year-old grandfather who loved to hunt squirrels with his .22 since he was 8 must now be a part of the state military? Please.
What it comes down to, then, is the spirit of the law, as it applies now. In many ways the Constitution, as it was written, is simply not applicable to our 21st century world. That was the true genius of the framers...they knew that they didn't know everything, and so they made it a living, flexible document that can be adapted. I believe that the spirit of the law is that, as a freedom, citizens should be allowed to own guns. There must be restrictions, of course (such as prohibition from felons owning them), but it is a constitutional right.
Besides, I think the major issue has been overlooked. The reason that we have a problem with things like accidental death and children shooting their friends while playing is not because guns do not belong in the home. It is because the parents have failed their children. One simple word would end the vast majority of these tragedies: Education. I've been exposed to firearms since I was 5. My father had several. The reason I was never in any danger was twofold.
First, they weren't hidden, they weren't secret. Parents, there's nothing that you can hide that your kids won't find, and nothing attracts kids like a secret. You take away the mystique, then you take away the attraction.
Secondly, the first thing that I was taught is a simple phrase that made a world of difference: "There is no such thing as an unloaded gun." My father taught me that, and I've lived by it whenever around guns. Never point it at anything unless you intend to shoot it. I don't care if you've dropped the clip and cycled the slide 1,000 times, or if you pumped the shells out of the gun...it's never unloaded. Treat it that way at all times, and you won't have a problem.
Education. It's the answer.
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,07:37
Fuck, DSL reminds me of PETA/Greenpeace mothefuckers.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 22 2002,11:33
| Quote (veistran @ 21 May 2002,23:37) |
| Fuck, DSL reminds me of PETA/Greenpeace mothefuckers. |
A fine example of detonate.net's brightest intelligence...
Beldurin, you managed to shoot several holes in my argument. Good point about the flexibility of the Constitution.
fyi, CK lied : "regulation" meant exactly the same thing then as it does now. The word hasn't changed in meaning since it first appeared in the 15th century and is derived from a Latin word that meant the same thing. - American Heritage says "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law"; Merriem-Webster says "to govern or direct according to rule" and "to bring under the control of law or constituted authority."
The Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate the militia. The Second Amendment opens up with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
That should tell you something right there about the intent of the law - they obviously liked militias, and they obviously liked them to be regulated. Most of these guys were military men; there is no way in hell they would think that Congress and the states shouldn't have the authority to regulate weapons and their use. And they quite obviously didn't think that the legal authority to regulate arms impinged upon the individual's right to have some sort of weapons.
But they would also think a man has no right to use a weapon he can't handle.... which is why the government gets to regulate them.
This is interesting:
all males between the ages of 17-45 are part of the militia (< US Code, Title 10, Section 311 >). This is a well-established law that goes back a long, long time.
There is a good reason you can't legally own a bazooka, or surface to air missiles, or AK-47's, or any number of other things. Those kinds of weapons are reserved for the organized militias and the military.
Same thing applies to guns and ammunition. Some guns are allowed. Some aren't. They are allowed in some areas and not in others. You can get more gun priveleges if you fill out the right forms and pass the right tests. The usual military bullshit. Deal with it.
It's amazing how many gun owners cry that their rights are being "inpinged upon"... and yet they own an entire COLLECTION.
what the fuck? How many fucking weapons do you need for self-protection?
If, however, you are truly paranoid that THE GOVERNMENT is out to get you and the Constitution has been suspended, you may try to raise your own private army... and when the Feds cook your ass, I will cheer for them.
For the record, I'd like to say the Government was entirely in the right at both Waco and Ruby Ridge. You do not have the right to raise a private army in this country. If you do so, the government - one which, I might add, is democratically elected, rather than being a cult of personality - the government has every reason to throw you in jail.
If you resist arrest, they have every right to use force to capture you... and if you so much as LOOK like you might shoot at them, they have every right to cook your ass.
And by the way, if you're cruel enough to mix your women & children with your soldiers, and they are casualties of the little war you tried to start - you are the asshole and the fuckup, not the dudes who gave you plenty of chances to get arrested rather than shot.
Posted by Beldurin on May 22 2002,15:09
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 22 May 2002,05:33) |
| Beldurin, you managed to shoot several holes in my argument. Good point about the flexibility of the Constitution. |
One of the best compliments I've yet received while here!
| Quote |
| The Constitution grants Congress the right to regulate the militia. The Second Amendment opens up with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". |
Here's another thought: could it be that by "State" the framers meant a soverign state, as in nation? Note the capitalization of the word.
American Heritage: "A body politic, esp. one constituting a nation."
If this view holds true, then the "militia" is a federal responsibility, as is then gun control.
| Quote |
| That should tell you something right there about the intent of the law - they obviously liked militias, and they obviously liked them to be regulated. Most of these guys were military men; there is no way in hell they would think that Congress and the states shouldn't have the authority to regulate weapons and their use. And they quite obviously didn't think that the legal authority to regulate arms impinged upon the individual's right to have some sort of weapons. |
Again, look at the times. I don't think they considered gun control an issue since almost everyone had to have one to hunt. Also, most people lived out their entire lives in an area less than 100 miles in diameter. Low contact = low opportunity for violence.
| Quote |
| This is a well-established law that goes back a long, long time. |
To a galaxy far, far away...(come on, you can't expect me to have a completely serious post, can you?)
Posted by Necromancer on May 22 2002,16:19
| Quote (CatKnight @ 22 May 2002,02:56) |
| DSL you have completely lost the spirit of the 2nd amendment. the purpose of it was to prevent the government from disarming its citizenry, because that leads to tyranny. in my opinion, the 2nd amendment should have been the first. because without the right to bear arms, there can be no freedom of speech. |
A country needing to use arms to keep the government under control? hmm seems pretty screwed up. tyranny might be an improvement.
Well hell of course you need a gun for free speech so that you can go off shooting people as an act of "free speech".
The need to bear arms to defend your country from internal or external threats usually applies to dictatorships or when the government has no ability to function as a means of defense. i.e during wartime when its resources are placed elsewhere (The army is there to protect the country now ya know). Well despite what you probably think of the government i dont think democracy has fallen to the point where you need to go shooting people to make a change in society.
But hell why do i care another dead american is a good thing
Posted by chmod on May 22 2002,17:30
| Quote |
| A country needing to use arms to keep the government under control? hmm seems pretty screwed up. tyranny might be an improvement. |
Not at all. If the government was tyrannical and decided to come barging into your house, taking all your possessions, murdering your family and oppressing your rights, you'd want to be armed, wouldn't you? There's a difference between having guns to PROTECT your rights and using them to overthrow, or as you put it, "control" the government.
| Quote |
| Well hell of course you need a gun for free speech so that you can go off shooting people as an act of "free speech". |
We're talking about responsible, law-abiding gun owners here, not murderous lunatics.
| Quote |
| The need to bear arms to defend your country from internal or external threats usually applies to dictatorships or when the government has no ability to function as a means of defense. i.e during wartime when its resources are placed elsewhere (The army is there to protect the country now ya know). |
I don't think the organizational structure of a particular government has (or should have) any relevance as to if its citizens bear arms. This right, with respect to the 2nd amendment, is endowed more with the provision that it will be used for self-protection rather than defending the country militarily.
| Quote |
| Well despite what you probably think of the government i dont think democracy has fallen to the point where you need to go shooting people to make a change in society. |
Who said anyone was shooting people to make a change in society?
| Quote |
| But hell why do i care another dead american is a good thing |
I can't believe you would say something like that.
Posted by Necromancer on May 22 2002,18:56
why would the government suddenly decide to come into your house and kill your family in this day and age? you havent been hiding the files on who REALLY shot JFK have you?if they're responsible law abiding people, why the fuck do they need a gun to proclaim free speech. They only need to open their mouth and speak.
Its the fact that because this law exist that you get so many nutcases carrying around guns. Sure you have all the people who are responsible and know how to use them a.k.a kuru etc. but they wouldnt need to have them at all if people werent allowed to own guns from the start.
These laws were written in a period of revolution where at the time it made sense as the government was unstable and a solution with militia etc. was viable. now its just an excuse for people to claim self protection in the name of buying guns cos they want one, when it shouldnt be nessesary to need to protect yourself with fire arms in the first place.
and the whole dead american thing was to incite people into anger so this thread would keep going
that and its fun to make people over-react
Posted by chmod on May 22 2002,20:21
| Quote |
| why would the government suddenly decide to come into your house and kill your family in this day and age? |
Hey it may sound ridiculous to some people but in other parts of the world (and certainly all throughout history) that sort of thing can happen.
| Quote |
| if they're responsible law abiding people, why the fuck do they need a gun to proclaim free speech. They only need to open their mouth and speak. |
Ok, you're missing my point, this really doesn't have so much to do with free speech. It's not that law-abiding people NEED guns, it's that they have the RIGHT to own them. If someone is a responsible person who would respect the commitments of legally owning a firearm and will not hurt anyone, then why not let him have it for self-protection? How would it bother you or anyone else for someone to keep a gun safely in their home? And why the fuck should the government be able to tell me that I can't buy a weapon to protect myself, even if I am capable of handling it responsibly?
| Quote |
| Its the fact that because this law exist that you get so many nutcases carrying around guns. |
That's bullshit. You seem to think that someone who buys a gun is doing it solely for the purpose of running around and shooting people, and is automatically a nutcase. For the most part all of the people who buy guns legally are not going to hurt anyone, so let them have their guns. Look at Switzerland, for example. Just about every adult male owns a gun, but their firearm-related crime rate is far lower than ours in the U.S.
And don't forget that most firearm-related crime in the U.S. is not committed with legally obtained guns, they're usually stolen, bought on the black market, etc.
| Quote |
| Sure you have all the people who are responsible and know how to use them a.k.a kuru etc. but they wouldnt need to have them at all if people werent allowed to own guns from the start. |
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.... you're saying that if we banned guns altogether, we wouldn't need them anymore? So if I can't own a gun, then what's to stop someone from breaking into my house and trying to rob me? If a criminal can't get his hands on a gun, that sure as hell isn't gonna stop him from getting away with breaking the law, especially when nobody else can own one either. History has shown that oftentimes instituting certain government policies will have an effect opposite to what it was intended...
Posted by Necromancer on May 22 2002,20:49
No but it doesnt mean you have the right to kill someone over your stereo. Think about it. if someone had a knife to your throat and he wanted your wallet. that $40 and credit card suddenly don't become all that worth dying for, so why do you think its worth killing someone over something thats insured? I think the excuse that they might go out of their way to hurt you is used too often as those things happen rarely and usually only because the victim decided to intervene.They will assume you have a gun so may have one themselves. It's one of those vicious circles where the more you try to go the aggressive route the worse it gets. The world isnt perfect but going around proclaiming that you have the right to fix it yourself by blowing people away is ridiculous and more to the point selfish as you are causing the detrimentality of society for your own benefit.Switzerland have guns because you are required to serve in the army for i think it is at least 3years and are issued one afterwards. People there think its dishournarable to use their army supplied weapons for anything other than hunting or invasion of their country (which never happens). If they want to kill someone they go and BUY a gun for that. Their morality on the situation is totally different to how it works in the US.
And don't get me wrong on this whole banning guns thing. I think to try and stop guns being sold now is futile. What i was trying to say is if guns hadn't been allowed to circulate for so long after the revolution it wouldnt have been so ingrained in US society that its normal and therefore the desire to own one legally or illegally wouldnt be as high as it is now. That part of my arguement was more a case of having 20/20 foresight.
Posted by a2n3d7y on May 22 2002,21:22
Go DSL, Go DSL!!!!"Well hell of course you need a gun for free speech so that you can go off shooting people as an act of "free speech"."
"We're talking about responsible, law-abiding gun owners here, not murderous lunatics."
No we are not. We are taliking about EVERY FREE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
Posted by CycleLady on May 22 2002,22:20
PLAY NICE CHILDREN!!!!
Posted by WrineX on May 22 2002,23:02
| Quote (veistran @ 21 May 2002,23:37) |
| Fuck, DSL reminds me of PETA/Greenpeace mothefuckers. |
Fuck!
you remind me of George, the moron, Bush.
Posted by kuru on May 22 2002,23:07
I have two things to say.One, there's a very valid reason that Constitutional scholars keep an 1853 edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary handy: because words do change meaning in the course of more than 100 years. The facile interpretation that the word 'regulate' has never meant anything other than what it means today ignores the entire existence of 'regular' machines and 'regular' army, which have historically and still do mean 'properly functioning'. Reading and evaluating historical texts with modern definitions is downright folly. You'll be wrong every time.
Secondly, the Second does NOT state that the only reason the right inherent of the people to own and bear firearms is that a militia is necessary. It recognizes only that a militia is necessary, and that in the interests of that militia, that Congress must not be allowed to establish laws barring the personal bearing of military grade firearms. Further reading of such documents as the Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers indicate that the foudning fathers were actually in favor of private ownership of firearms for a multitude of reasons that did not, whatsoever, interest government (such things as the 'inalienable right to life' e.g. self defense and the explicit mentions of self defense and foodstore made by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams).
Whereas with every other Amendment to the Constitution, 'the people' has always meant individuals, the anti-gun (I refuse to call them gun control. Gun control means proper firearm use.) contingent hinges upon those three words in order to declare that this is the ONE instance in the entire Bill of Rights in which 'the people' means 'the state.'
This is especially noticeable when one takes the Bill of Rights as a single cohesive document. In every other argument in courtrooms across America, it has historically been the position of every progressive liberal or libertarian to interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in such a manner as to hold most sacred the rights of individuals and most severely limit the power of federal government, except for one particular right. The Second.
While recognizing and arguing (to the death they say) that the Constitution does not confer the natural rights of free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc... upon the people, but instead recognizes those rights as held by the people by virtue only of their humanity and expressly prohibiting government from infringing upon them we see these rights get protected to a further and further degree every single day.
It goes so far that the right of a person to be secure in papers, person, and effects has caused the Supreme Court of the United States of America to decree that the 'Constitutional right to privacy also infers a Constitutional right to abortion' because medical issues are a private matter, and a person has the right to be secure in such.
But it is the very same contingent of people who so broadly interpreted the right to be 'secure in person, papers and effects' that have so narrowly defiend that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' applies only to a federally run government body instituted over 100 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the founders that a standing federal army of any type was an invitation to be tyrannized.
Put THAT shit in your peace pipe and smoke it.
Posted by kuru on May 22 2002,23:10
Third thing (sorry for the double post)Unless you can say 'No.' and back it up with force, your freedom of speech is meaningless.
Posted by CatKnight on May 22 2002,23:30
so, DSL wants to argue with the founders, eh?• Noah Webster, in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe."
• George Mason: ". . . to disarm the people; that . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
• Richard Henry Lee: ". . . to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
• James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist No. 46 scorned European despotisms as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured his countrymen that they need not fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
• Congressman Fisher Ames noted of Madison's proposals the "the rights of conscience, of bearing arms, . . . are declared to be inherent in the people."
Samuel Adams asserted in the Massachusetts convention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citiens, from keeping their own arms."
• James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in his list of basic human rights.
• Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
• Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms"; and advising his 15-year-old nephew, he wrote, "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Posted by veistran on May 22 2002,23:53
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 22 May 2002,05:33) | ||
A fine example of detonate.net's brightest intelligence... blah blah blah, faceticious bullshit.... blah blah blah... |
Fuck off, excuse me if I realize that what you're doing is nothing more than a well worded troll. You have no desire for actual discussion regarding this topic. This is just you trying to find a way to belittle people because you think they have a stupid position about some idea. You're not putting any thought into your replies they're about as cookie cutter liberal spin as you can come up with. I do not have any desire to waste any more time trying to point this out. Or in short, you = stupid troll reapeating ad hoc liberal spin.
Wrinex, if he's a moron then we must all be retarded, since he occupies the position of greatest power in the world. He must be just like the one eyed king in the land of the blind.
Posted by veistran on May 23 2002,00:03
sorry for the double post, but this was too good to skip posting about why I depsise greepeace/peta.Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder...
| Quote |
| When I helped to create Greenpeace from a church basement in Vancouver in 1971 I had no idea that I would spend the next 15 years as an international director and leader of many Greenpeace campaigns. I also had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum. |
and why I think PETA is just as bad...
| Quote |
| "If that hideousness[hoof and mouth] came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for the animals — they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers," said PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk. Interviewed on Friday in the office she shares with four cats, Newkirk said: "I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camplike existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment." |
or these great tidbits...
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be blowing things up and smashing windows.… I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference
"Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer. "
— Toni Vernelli, then-coordinator of PETA’s European operations
"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. "
— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue
Posted by Necromancer on May 23 2002,00:20
short of anti-personal weapons the gun is the only weapon capable of accidentaly killing someone from over 50m.you don't aaccidentaly skewer someone with a knife or baseball bat by dropping it to the floor.
the gun is the only weapon that needs a safety catch.
granted all weapons are built for killing, but guns just go against common sense when dealing with the masses.
EDIT: I in no way support stupid animal lovers claiming they have priority over animals capable of driving cars and deriving quantum physics.
Posted by CatKnight on May 23 2002,00:38
there were only 1500 accidental deaths by firearms in 1998. this is about 0.6 per 100,000. This is also about 30 times less then death by automobile accident. why are you for restricting guns based on accident rates, but not cars?[Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts]
Posted by kuru on May 23 2002,00:50
Every year doctors accidentally kill more people than the guns owned by the estimated 140,000,000 legal gun owners in the United States.Not just 'one more' or 'two more'.
Nope, they doctors accidentally kill 9,000 times as many people.
Posted by Rhydant on May 23 2002,01:15
hrm.... < the local cops are going to go on strike >id better get me a gun real soon. things could turn ugly.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on May 23 2002,01:30
some Animal Rights activists protested a yearly (deer, elk(?)) hunt on an island. a few years back.This island had had all of it's natural predators (wolves, bears, etc) killed off, population control was achieved by hunting, with strict limits.
one season passes, the people are still protesting, the game warden visits the island. (access only by boat)
he comes back, and dumps a rotted, flyblown corpse of an elk on the ground in front of the protest leader. leader promptly pukes and asks: 'WTF is this shit?!?'
Game Warden says: "The island's population control is achieved by a strict balance that requires hunters. You dumbasses ruined the balance. The bark is stripped off of the trees, because the island can't sustain that many animals. Good job."
PETA/Greenpeace members do not stop to think about man's impact that exists already. they think of what can happen, or what 'needs to' happen, without considering _all_ facets of the issue at hand.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 23 2002,01:33
Where in God's name do I say I think the Founders were against gun ownership? It's pretty obvious that they thought citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. It's also obvious that they thought that the government had the right to regulate their use.Kuru, do you have a link to the entry for "regulate" in an old dictionary? If so could you post it? I'd like to look it up. However, all the dictionaries I've looked at show that the meaning of "regulate" hasn't changed since it was introduced in the 15th century... and remember I'm highly trained in lexical matters
But I am interested in seeing other definitions if they exist.But as far as taking your right to keep and bear arms away - I am certainly not in favor of that. Especially yours, Kuru; I know you *need* one. Sounds like the cops in Pittsburgh are either incompetent or underfunded or both
What I *am* in favor of is tighter regulation on the manufacture and sale of firearms, as well as the forms of ammunition that are available to the general public.
I also believe that the government has the authority to require that you demonstrate that you understand the proper way to handle a gun, and to demonstrate that you are capable of upholding the law... in other words, to verify that you can hit your target, and that you intend to use your weapon in a lawful manner (home protection, self defense, protecting your Constitutional rights) rather than kill your neighbors with it.
The whole "arming the citizens against the government" argument is rather ridiculous. First, they have tanks, grenade launchers, ICBMs, tanks, fighter planes, bombers, destroyers, and a whole range of other armaments you could never hope to compete with, and that you would never want your neighbors to own. Government wins on that one.
The nice thing is that the vast majority of both military personel and Federal agents are nuts about the Constitution. They are sworn to uphold it above anything else, and they take that oath very seriously. One of my buddies is a federal agent, and having spent time with him and his coworkers and listened to their thoughts, I can tell you that these are guys who would happily shoot George Bush if he declared himself emperor or suspended elections or something.
So I'm not real worried about tyranny in our government. Checks and balances works pretty well
As for the argument that gun control inevitably leads to disarmament and tyranny, that's a slippery slope argument and thus total bullshit.
I wish that more gun owners would ignore the idiots who yell "they're taking our GUNS away! YAH! TYRANNY! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" and start helping the rest of us figure out how we can regulate weapons in a fair and effective manner. For example, it would be nice to have basic guidelines for weapons handling drawn up that could be enforced by law... nice if we could figure out ways to allow responsible gun-owning citizens to have more authority to stop violence before it starts (can you imagine Kuru going after the gangbangers?)... and wonderful if we could find mutually acceptable ways to reduce the insane levels of violence we have in this country.
edit : first, my concern is not so much accidental deaths as intentional ones.
second : veistran : take the Greenpeace / PETA rants to another thread. I'm not a member of either of them, nor do I agree with their ideals or their actions. You simply assumed I did because I'm liberal. Yes, I do think you're an idiot, but it has a lot more to do with the fact that you can't think beyond stereotypes than with the fact that you disagree with me.
Disagreeing with me is fine, as I hope Kuru and Beldurin will attest; I certainly don't think THEY are idiots.
Posted by kuru on May 23 2002,02:24
Merriam-Webster's 1853 edition is not on the web. Sorry. However, you might want to check out this site:< http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html >
Furthermore, I am not in support of your 'further restrictions' as pertains to obtaining, manufacturing, selling or purchasing guns.
Once something is licensed, and the citizens must go to the government to get permission to carry out an act, that act is no longer a right.
The requirements you're talking about turn the keeping and bearing of arms from a right into a privilege, and privileges are easily revoked.
Sorry, DSL, but the federal government has no compelling interest to require me to take a test of any type before purchasing a gun. Without compelling interest, the government cannot license a right. The Second has never been absolute, but it's also always been recognized as a right. What you propose would do away with the Constitutional right to keep and bear and instead implement a Federal Government Privilege to keep and bear so long as the Federal Government allows it. That rips at the core of the Second in the most eviscerating of ways, because the Second was specifically written to prohibit from doing just what you are proposing: licensing a right, turning it into a privilege, and denying it on the whims of those in power at the moment. What you propose would create exactly the tyranny Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, James Madison and so many others feared so very much. It would spit in the face of the sacrifices made by ordinary farmers who fought to end that exact same type of rule.
If you ever succeed in what you're proposing here, please, take the Constitution out of the National Archives and burn it. Because once you open the door allowing the state to license and deny fundamental human rights at will, this country and every premise it was founded on is dead.
Lastly, as to the arming of citizens against the government. Yes, the government has tanks, has ICBMs, has submarines, has warplanes. They also require 3,000,000 American citizens, many of whom also own their own private guns, and all of whom have taken an oath to 'Protect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic' to operate that equipment. Remember that some of the Revolutionary War Colonial Army Regulars were, before they became rebels, British soldiers themselves. How many of those 3,000,000 would turn? And if it ever came to rebels against the government, well, there are 140,000,000 legal gun owners in this country DSL. We're a sleeping giant and often very quiet. But heaven help the government that pushes too hard. That doesn't mean just our own. It means every government. After the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the Emperor of Japan stated that he was afraid all the attack had done (though it leveled Pearl Harbor, sank the USS Arizona and other ships, and killed hundreds) was to awake 'the sleeping giant'. The Japanese also attacked Pearl Harbor because they dreaded to attack the mainland. Why? Because there would 'be a gun behind every blade of grass.'
140,000,000 strong DSL, and every last one of us believes in the Constitution. We believe in inalieanable human rights. We believe the government is loaned temporary power from us, the true repository of force. We do not authorize the government to license our rights, to make them privileges, to take them away.
Get used to it.
Posted by kuru on May 23 2002,02:30
And as for laws regarding safe storage, sorry, no, the Fourth Amendment precludes the government from entering my house without probable cause that I've committed a crime.Those laws are completely unenforcable travesties unless you're going to advocate that they randomly check homes registered to have guns in order to make people 'prove' they are in compliance.
Then you're violating the Constitutional edict that people are 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' by treating them as criminals until they prove they are not.
Of course such random searches were employed a few years ago by a little known country that had just over a dozen colonies - and then those colonies became a country and wrote this lovely document called the Constitution to prevent those searches from ever happening again.
Everything you've proposed spits directly in the face of all the lives lost to even give this country birth. What the FUCK is wrong with that picture?
Posted by veistran on May 23 2002,02:31
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 22 May 2002,19:33) |
| second : veistran : take the Greenpeace / PETA rants to another thread. I'm not a member of either of them, nor do I agree with their ideals or their actions. You simply assumed I did because I'm liberal. Yes, I do think you're an idiot, but it has a lot more to do with the fact that you can't think beyond stereotypes than with the fact that you disagree with me. Disagreeing with me is fine, as I hope Kuru and Beldurin will attest; I certainly don't think THEY are idiots. |
You keep assuming that I think you're a member of them or some such nonsense, I don't, I think that you _THINK_ like them. I think that you use the same logic to justify YOUR position as they use to justify THEIR position. And you've done more than admirably demonstrate that, again imo. I think that you're pompous overbearing and otherwsie generally assholish. You've been trolling since your second post on this thread and you know it, why not come clean? As far as your opinion of me, I do not think I could care less, this will be my last post on this matter.
I leave you with this...
As far as not being able to think beyond stereotypes, no, I'm surrounded by thousands of "liberals," most of them are great intelligent rational people, you are not. Hell, the first post you've made on this thread that was rational was the last one and even then you're even remotely close be being rational. If you can't figure out why people jumped on your back and accused you of saying things you didn't say it just proves how little thought you actually put into your posts on this thread.
Your biggest problem is that you fail to understand that gun control amounts to nothing when it comes to your avg criminal, he's not going to care that it's illegal to have this ammo or that gun, he's a _criminal_. He doesn't buy his gun legally, he doesn't take classes on how to use it, he doesn't get a permit. He buy's the gun from the "black market" or steals it and uses it to break the law. So what is the point of all these laws that are designed to generally affect the people that they least affect?
The other biggest problem with gun control is that they use junk science, "surveys" that are anything but scientific, circular logic, strawmen and "scare tactics" to promote their agenda. Maybe people who enjoy legitimately uses firearms in the plethora of legitimate ways that they can be used wouldn't get so upset if they weren't demonized at every turn as evil for using a gun. You accuse me of stereotyping when you're promoting one of the most --in my opinion-- disgusting stereotypes of our time. You accuse me of idiocy when you use such wonderful tactics as faceticious doublespeak and strawmen. You accuse, accuse, accuse, you started this thread with one goal, and it was wasn't intelligent conversation, it was to burn your strawman. Your commentary has added no value to this conversation, and admitedly my constant dogging you hasn't been much better, however at least I was doing it to try and get people to notice your trolling.
Or in short: I bow to thee king of the strawman argument DSL.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 23 2002,06:08
well, now that Veistran has figured me out, I guess that just about wraps up discussion.... I'd like to debate with Kuru more, of course, because she's actually doing something interesting and discussing the law and the balance of powers rather than jumping up and down and calling me a stupid hippy.Unfortunately Veistran et. al have decided to shut down the debate because... well, because they don't LIKE debate, and they're not interested in discovering the truth. They want everyone to think just like them, and they think they have every right to jump and scream stupid shit until the real participants get tired of their antics and leave.
Then they proclaim "victory."
Before that happens, I am going to hit that little Veistran twat head on.
Here are some points to ponder regarding Conservative methods; see for yourself if you agree that Veistran and CK are guilty of them:
1. "Conservatives" in general believe that authority is derived by force, fear, and conformity, rather than discourse and reason;
2. Facts are secondary to dogma in their world;
3. If the facts don't match the dogma, they either delete them or twist them until they do;
4. If history doesn't agree with their dogma, they reinterpret it until it does;
5. In order to cover their tracks, they accuse everyone else of their own bad manners : arrogance, stupidity, and gross distortions of logic;
6. They can never admit thier mistakes, even when they have been bitchslapped so hard they see stars (think "the personal income tax is unconstitutional!" - huh?)
7. If they don't get their way, they have a range of techniques to shut down discussion, all of which involve a lot of ranting, inciting a mob mentality, witch hunts, and basically doing anything they can to squelch those who don't agree;
8. The people who claim they are the ONLY ones who stand for freedom and democracy are the same people who gave us Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy.
9. I think it is much more likely that they are one of the ONLY groups who pose a real threat to democracy;
10. Conservative Muslims blow up our favorite buildings, Conservative Jews think it's cool to shoot unarmed civilians if they're not Jewish, Conservative Christians want to make sure that the only thing we can see on TV is the 700 Club... do you really think that Conservative Americans == the people who want to defend your freedom? Just because someone claims something doesn't mean they are telling the truth...
11. You have the option of hating both sides if you wish. Think how you wish; it's your right, and quite frankly the more well-reasoned points of view we have the better. Only requirement for participation is that you believe that reason is a better ruler than force.
But for God's sake... kick these sick idiotic fucks out of office.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 23 2002,12:14
moved to politics forum by dsl 5/23/2002.
Posted by kuru on May 23 2002,14:02
| Quote |
| 1. "Conservatives" in general believe that authority is derived by force, fear, and conformity, rather than discourse and reason; |
Liberals believe that any opinion in dissent of theirs is 'hate speech' and/or racist/sexist/prejudiced and should be suppressed by law, thereby creating arbitrary conformity. Some liberal groups are proud of resorting to terrorism to impose their moral viewpoint on the private property of others.
| Quote |
| 2. Facts are secondary to dogma in their world; |
This one is true of liberals as well (e.g. HCI, Earth Liberation Front).
| Quote |
| 3. If the facts don't match the dogma, they either delete them or twist them until they do; |
Also true of liberals. Hi, Sarah, Rosie, Susan, Diane, Dan, et al.
| Quote |
| 4. If history doesn't agree with their dogma, they reinterpret it until it does; |
Also true of the left wing portion of the population. Jesse, Al, you guys do remember that it was a Republican who ended slavery and began the process of protecting civil rights for blacks in America, right?
| Quote |
| 5. In order to cover their tracks, they accuse everyone else of their own bad manners : arrogance, stupidity, and gross distortions of logic; |
As did the Clinton-regime with regards to both Enron (hmm, just how many times did these execs stay in the Lincoln Hotel^W Bedroom and pay money to have State Dept diplomats sent to strong arm foreign countries into buyin into Enron? Oh, and if Shrubbie was pre-warned about 9/11, how come the Clintons never did a thing regarding terrorist alerts they received dating back to 1998 that a large scale attack was planned? Why was this knowledge never shared with Shrubbie, and why did Clinton bomb an Al Qeada camp (empty at the time; killed one camel) in a 'Wag the Dog' move regarding his perjured testimony over Monica Lewinsky?
| Quote |
| 6. They can never admit thier mistakes, even when they have been bitchslapped so hard they see stars (think "the personal income tax is unconstitutional!" - huh?) |
'That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.' All the blatant lies coming out of HCI, PETA, ELF and various other groups, including the infamous 'cop killer bullet' debacle where the liberals calling for the ban refused to admit that this would have banned every commercially available long rifle round beyond .22 caliber, and any handgun round above .357 caliber. They also never acknowledged that the famous 'cop killer bullets' coated in Teflon that they *claimed* were the reason for their campaign had been developed by law enforcement for use against criminals who hid behind such things as Dumpsters and that law enforcement begged these liberals and their media outlets to not run the story because it would, for the first time, expose to the public the widespread knowledge that officers were wearing soft body armor and kevlar jackets. Subsequent to these news stories, a rash of shootings against cops were aimed at the unprotected legs, groin, arms and heads of the officers that, thanks to the liberal media, were now known by criminals to be wearing kevlar jackets.
| Quote |
| 10. Conservative Muslims blow up our favorite buildings, Conservative Jews think it's cool to shoot unarmed civilians if they're not Jewish, Conservative Christians want to make sure that the only thing we can see on TV is the 700 Club... do you really think that Conservative Americans == the people who want to defend your freedom? Just because someone claims something doesn't mean they are telling the truth... |
PETA and the ELF support, condone and even claim the use of violence against research labs, with blatant disregard for multimillion dollar research and the thousands of human lives medical testing saves. Tipper Gore spearheaded the Parental Advisory sticker campaign and fought to censor entirely such musical groups (not that I like them) as Too Live Crew because she considered their lyrics offensive. PETA has coldheartedly stated that they would be 'happy' if an outbreak of anthrax in the US killed off the nation's beef and milk cattle, because the 'cows are going to die anyway, and this way people might stop eating meat.' They have advocated charging parents with child abuse for feeding their children meat. Left-wing extremists consider throwing buckets of paint on other citizens an 'acceptable' means of protesting the fur industry, and a left-wing justice department went so apeshit over one wacko in a wooden building in Texas that they barbecued innocent children to get their man. The left-wing seeks to pass laws against 'hate speech', are leading the front to impose 'sin taxes' on such things as candy, fast food, soda, sugar and any other food item deemed 'unhealthy'. You think liberals want to defend your freedom?
| Quote |
| 11. You have the option of hating both sides if you wish. Think how you wish; it's your right, and quite frankly the more well-reasoned points of view we have the better. Only requirement for participation is that you believe that reason is a better ruler than force. |
And liberals, historically have advocated bigger, stronger central government with higher tax rates to support such a gigantic infrastructure and bureaucracy. They increase funding to such agencies as the BATF (which IS sanctioned to use paramilitary force against American citizens, and exists in direct contradiction to the Constitution only because the 'interstate commerce' clause has been bent to within an inch of its life.) and cut funding to the Armed Forces (which are NOT sanctioned to use military force against American citizens, but upon whose shoulders defending our borders, national sovereignty and Constitution rest).
| Quote |
| But for God's sake... kick these sick idiotic fucks out of office. |
In favor of who? Someone who publicly stated that the 'Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of government to reign in people's rights.'
Someone who said: "And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
Now here's a thought exercise. Without knowing the name of the man who said this, or which political party he was in, would you want this person to be President?
Guy #1: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Guy #2: "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
Guy #3: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Posted by C_Puppy on May 23 2002,15:58
Well, I believe that Liberal nor Conservative is right. Moderate is the only way to go. Now there are groups like PETA and Greenpeace that practice radical ideas in ways that are inherently flawed in both the execution and in thier logic. On your other point on big government--
But ever republician president that has been elected on a platform of reigning in big goverment always has increased the beuacracy more than any president(liberal or converative) that doesn't promise these things-- Regan, Nixon, and Hoover for instance-- If the goverment is too big-- it will become ineffective and inefficent. But the amount of people it governs grows with time- and so do the amounts of threats it has to protect the citizens from.
Posted by Necromancer on May 23 2002,16:40
| Quote (CatKnight @ 23 May 2002,00:38) |
| there were only 1500 accidental deaths by firearms in 1998. this is about 0.6 per 100,000. This is also about 30 times less then death by automobile accident. why are you for restricting guns based on accident rates, but not cars? [Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts] |
In my country we are for restricting car accidents. its illegal to have a car without any seatbelts in the front and back. children arent allowed in the front under the age of 8. There have been seatbelt campaigns since the 80's. Put simply we need cars to travel. You don't use your car to protect your home.
We also think wearing a seatbelt does actually save your life in any accident up to 80mph. Then we have air bags designed for people who wear seatbelts. Yours are designed to save people who arent wearing seatbelts (becuase most people dont wear seatbelts in america) and so inflate more and can actually kill a child leaning forward to change the radio station.
Did you also take into account that EVERYONE has a car in their family at least plus the statitics work on a totally different level which i would have assumed someone like you would have realised.
You've used a bad comparison so lets get back on topic shall we?
Posted by CatKnight on May 24 2002,18:27
| Quote |
| In my country we are for restricting car accidents. |
hey, I'm all for restricting gun accidents...
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 24 2002,22:18
| Quote (veistran @ 22 May 2002,15:53) | ||
|
Actually, only 49% of the voting population would be retarded...
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 24 2002,22:28
The problem I see, is in the trustworthiness of people in the present US. We aren't the same 'breed' of people that desided to sail over here, or usurp the government. Some people have no respect for human life, and many people don't have a large enough education (in my opinion) to understand the rhetoric of political personalities. I don't see why these people have earned trust in anyone. Becasue of this inherint lack of trust, I am glad that people aren't aloud to own semi automatic weapons. There have been so many cases where a few screwballs decided that they need to create their own republic, or overthrown a sector of government to -not- warrant modest gun control or anti-gun regulations.If we step away from the consitutionality of it for a moment it's very easy to notice changes in the worlds of the 18'th century and the 21'st century. People as a whole have no respect for firearms. If they did, kids would not die from getting a hold of dad's .22.
Why can't we deny people the right to own a weapon if they aren't 'worthy' to own one? If people can't responsibly use a firearm, they shouldn't have one, end of story.
Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,02:21
again, that is a myth. it is a myth that many kids die because they find their dad's gun. it is a myth that there are thousands of incompetent gun owners out there with itchy trigger fingers. this myth was created so that the anti-gun crowd would have an excuse to want to ban guns. otherwise, there is no reason. there have not been "so many cases" of people trying to overthrow the government. In fact, there have been exactly zero.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 25 2002,06:44
Three or four cases is too many (which there have been).How many deaths from mishandled guns is too many? One hundred? One hundred thousand?
One?
If there is just one fuckwit out there who gives his kid a revolver then that is a faliure of society as a whole. There are ways of making this never happen instead of ocassionall happen (gun control).
Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,17:12
Thirty or fourty thousand cases is too many (which there have been).How many deaths from mishandled cars is too many? One hundred? One hundred thousand?
One?
If there is just one fuckwit out there who gets behind the wheel drunk then that is a faliure of society as a whole. There are ways of making this never happen instead of ocassionall happen (ban all cars).
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on May 25 2002,18:25
for once, I'll have to agree with CK. Cars cause more deaths than guns, drugs, and murder.
statistically, if you went into the woods, and dressed in camo, and no orange, and walked around during deer season, you'd have better odds of survival than the 50-70 mile car trip that you took get to woods that you can hunt in.
cars are more deadly than almost anything. it's the anti-gun lobby that blows one accidental death out of proportion, and gets the average sheeple into "think of the children" mode.
ban guns? enough would say no. but many would say yes.
ban cars? almost everyone would say yes, few would say no, and the few who did would be labeled as being stupid, or in need of mental help.
Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,21:49
| Quote (Bob_the_Cannibal @ 25 May 2002,05:25) |
| sheeple |
hehe
Posted by kuru on May 25 2002,22:13
Pardon me for being the pedantic bitch, but semi automatic weapons still are legal. In fact, I personally own a few. No extra licensing or fees required. Just a BATF form 4473, a phone call, and the purchase price of the gun.And furthermore, to those of you who are all about banning automatic and semi-automatic guns on the grounds that slaughter is happening daily in the streets, can any of you tell me how many fatal shoots there have been with a fully automatic weapon since 1934?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Give up yet?
.
.
.
.
One. Exactly ONE shooting with a machinegun since 1934. And that one was legally owned. By a police officer.
Bad shit is gonna happen folks, but that's no reason to restrict the rights of all Americans. Quite frankly if I hear 'but if it saves just one life...' one more time, I'm going to vomit.
Those who sacrifice liberty for temporary security deserve neither.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 25 2002,22:16
for the record, it's not the accidental deaths that bother me. it's the intentional ones. 
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 26 2002,20:17
I'm all for taking cars away from people who can't drive as well. Get pulled over for DUI? Oust the vehicle. Do whatever you want, but as soon as you start putting other people in danger, you should start losing rights.So there!
Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,01:38
we already have laws like that. if you get caught DWI or if you kill someone, you will loose your license permanantly and never be able to drive again. Now this may keep some would-be drunk drivers from running you down, but there are still a large number of drunk-driving related accidents. I suppose this means that the laws aren't working, and we need stricter laws to ban cars to people who MIGHT drive drunk. We could have an instant check system that tells you whether you are likely to have an alcholic beverage in the next 50 years during your lifetime, and if so, prevent the person from buying the car.replace all instantes of "car" with "gun" and you see what is wrong with gun legislation today.
Posted by Dysorderia on May 27 2002,03:14
| Quote (CatKnight @ 26 May 2002,20:38) |
| We could have an instant check system that tells you whether you are likely to have an alcholic beverage in the next 50 years during your lifetime, and if so, prevent the person from buying the car. |
yes, but such a system would never get us anywhere if it was implemented because 80% of the poplace in America would never be able to drive a car.
that's like killing a cow just for the ears
Posted by CycleLady on May 27 2002,03:44
I thought that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution. I agree that the executive branch sets the pace of how things go, but the justices are appointed to a life term. We see a switch to one side of the aisle to the other, but the fact remains that one president in our U.S. history has never brought candidates to the Congress for ALL seats in the Supreme Court.
Posted by CycleLady on May 27 2002,04:03
| Quote (CatKnight @ 26 May 2002,19:38) |
| we already have laws like that. if you get caught DWI or if you kill someone, you will loose your license permanantly and never be able to drive again. Now this may keep some would-be drunk drivers from running you down, but there are still a large number of drunk-driving related accidents. I suppose this means that the laws aren't working, and we need stricter laws to ban cars to people who MIGHT drive drunk. We could have an instant check system that tells you whether you are likely to have an alcholic beverage in the next 50 years during your lifetime, and if so, prevent the person from buying the car. replace all instantes of "car" with "gun" and you see what is wrong with gun legislation today. |
Are you attempting to re-write the 2nd amendment or something? That amendment states:
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.
not abortion
not vehicles
The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. Ok, they didn't have cars then. They drove a horse and buggy, or rode on a horse. I imagine some of those ole boys did so drunk sometimes. I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights about this... ye shall have the right to get liquored up and ride ye horse. No mention of that.
Posted by chmod on May 27 2002,18:34
CycleLady, um, you're taking CatKnight too literally... I think he point he is trying to make with that analogy is something like this: Just because some accidents happen with guns doesn't mean we should regulate them and their owners to such a ridiculous extent that it defeats their entire purpose. It's like saying that you're allowed to have a gun to protect yourself in case someone tries to rob your house, but you can only have it if you keep it unloaded, stored in a locked safe at the bottom of the ocean, encased in a 10 foot thick block of concrete, and you don't have any kids, so we can "cut down" on the number of accidents.And, as you also quoted in your reply:
| Quote |
| 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. |
So the question is, if we must regulate these guns so much to prevent accidents, is it an infringement on that right? I would say no... gun control is strict, but not that strict.
Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,20:42
| Quote (Dysorderia @ 26 May 2002,14:14) |
| yes, but such a system would never get us anywhere if it was implemented because 80% of the poplace in America would never be able to drive a car. withstupid.gif |
Exactly my point! In case you didn't realize, I was pretty much summing up the Brady Instant Check system. They are opening court-ordered sealed documents on your past to see whether you might be a danger in even the slightest manner. Told your school counsuler in 8th grade that you were feeling depressed? Sorry, no gun for you 20 years later! Got caught smoking weed once when you were 17? Nope, sorry! No gun for you (even though you may be a police officer!). The brady bill was designed not to protect the people from dangerous individuals trying to buy guns, (which they wouldn't do legally anyway!!!), but to ban guns any way possible. First they get 80% of the population with very strict, ILLEGAL checks, and then they make the regulations stricter, and stricter, and stricter, until no one has a gun except for the criminals.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 27 2002,23:02
| Quote |
| First they get 80% of the population with very strict, ILLEGAL checks, and then they make the regulations stricter, and stricter, and stricter, until no one has a gun except for the criminals. |
Except this hasn't happened. You're just speculating.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 28 2002,02:26
| Quote (CatKnight @ 27 May 2002,12:42) |
| First they get 80% of the population with very strict, ILLEGAL checks, and then they make the regulations stricter, and stricter, and stricter, until no one has a gun except for the criminals. |
one step in the wrong direction, and the whole country is gonna slide down the slippery slope to HELL!!!!
Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,03:51
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 27 May 2002,10:02) |
| Except this hasn't happened. You're just speculating. |
< sure it has >
Posted by Beldurin on May 28 2002,04:47
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 27 May 2002,17:02) | ||
Except this hasn't happened. You're just speculating. |
It hasn't succeeded yet, but look at Great Britain and Canada...hell, even pre WWII Germany all went that route.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 28 2002,15:08
| Quote |
| From that intersting website: The Brady Instant Registration Check is the Trojan Horse that the gun banners will use later on to grab the people's firearms. |
This is specualtion too, as is 1/2 the article. Another 1/4 of it is sarcastic questioning and another 1/8 of it is poorly written and not understandable (or actually proves nothing). This leaves about 1/8, which is constitution quoting.
Posted by CatKnight on May 29 2002,18:10
what is wrong with speculation? you are acting as if we shouldn't feel, think, or do anything until bad stuff actually happens to us.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 30 2002,00:03
I speculate that the world will be over-turned by the evil communists in approximately one year.(becasue this is how off base your assumtions are).
And btw, realting cars to guns is completely irrelevant. A gun has a completely different purpose as a car. It's like relating girls to cakes (in Love is a Fallacy by some author I can't remember but probably should).
Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,00:37
just because you don't have the intelligence to connect the dots doesn't mean my analogy was incorrect. comparing guns to cars was a good analogy, because it shows what is wrong with restricting something that should not be restricted, and gets around the bias surrounding guns at the same time.my speculations were a teeny bit better then yours though, because I had some evidence and past experience to back it up. you just trolled.
oh, and you're still an idiot, in case you forgot.
Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,01:04
CK, please restrict your debates to the opinion of the poster or the argument presented. Calling other posters 'idiots' does not further discussion.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 30 2002,02:20
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 May 2002,16:37) |
| just because you don't have the intelligence to connect the dots doesn't mean my analogy was incorrect. oh, and you're still an idiot, in case you forgot. |
Who's trolling?
Cars != guns in any way at all. Things have to be related in order to use an analogy. Cars aren't weapons, and their main purpose is transportation. A gun is designed for one thing: killing.
apple:orange::gun:car
Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,18:38
I wasn't comparing a physical car to a physical gun, in the way you just compared a physical apple to a physical orange. I was comparing the designed use of cars, their misuse, and the unconstitutional legislation that would never be, to gun's, their misuse, and the unconstitutional legislation which has already passed because of bias against guns. The fact that I have explained this to you twice, and that you still don't get it, leads me to believe you are not quite intelligent enough for this discussion. You can argue your point of view on guns all you like, but don't flame about my analogy any more, as they will probably be deleted.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 30 2002,19:44
On the analogy...TaxMan, cars and guns don't need to be identical in every way for the analogy to be valid..., they only need to be identical with regards to the element being compared. I think the argument CK is making boils down to:
Guns and cars are both responsible for substantial illegal or unintentional deaths.
Cars cause more of these deaths than guns.
If you feel that guns cause sufficient illegal/unintentional deaths to warrant banning, then that same justification should be applied equally to cars. Since cars cause more of these deaths than guns, obviously they too cause enough to warrant banning.
That cars and guns have different purposes doesn't change the fact that the justification given for banning guns has to do with illegal/unintentional deaths. Unless that justification changes, then it should be applied to cars equally. (Obviously CK isn't advocating this position...but the point is that IF you really take this position then you MUST, if you are reasonable, advocate applying it to cars).
As for some kind of restriction...Kuru I think you said a few posts back that you're completely against any kind of restriction whatsoever...whether or not this was the initial intent of the founding fathers, it's pretty clear that the manner in which constitutional rights are accomodated is one that involves some degree of regulation. Even the freedom of speech is regulated somewhat (can't yell fire in a theatre, slander & libel laws, etc.), and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The constitution is worded to protect freedom of speech more than the right to bear arms. While the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, the freedom of speech is not to be abridged.
| Quote |
| Mirraim Webster: Main Entry: abridge Pronunciation: &-'brij Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF Date: 14th century 1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH <attempts to abridge the right of free speech> 2 : to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance> 3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE synonym see SHORTEN - abridg·er noun |
| Quote |
| Mirriam Webster: Main Entry: in·fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK Date: 1533 transitive senses 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent> 2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights> synonym see TRESPASS - in·fring·er noun |
note that to infringing is more severe than abridging (breaking rather than simply shortening). In other words, the freedom of speech is so important that the government should not even shorten it, or reduce it, but the right to bear arms shall simply not be destroyed. Given this, and that the freedom of speech is regulated (even to a point), then it is reasonable to say that within whatever context our laws are already written the government can regulate the right to bear arms to at least that level of regulation reserved for free speech.
I think the point may have already been brought up...but on "without a gun your right to free speech means nothing", empirically this seems false. Look to several countries with strict gun control laws AND/OR a mostly disarmed populace (such as Great Britain). I don't think you can make a compelling argument that the citizens of Great Britain are unable to speak with a degree of freedom comprable to our own.
Not to say owning guns is bad..., but IMHO there's more than enough justification for some degree of regulation and past legal precident would suggest that there's no compelling legal argument against ALL regulation (although certainly some regulations may be more valid than others, but the idea is that in principle it's okay to regulate to at least a certain degree).
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 30 2002,19:56
You just ignore what you want to, and pick out the points you want to attack, CK. Killing someone w/ a gun is not miss use, it's what it's designed to do and -only- what it's designed to do. Your entire argument is based around a proposel (sic) that cars don't have legislature preventing their use, so neither should guns although the two objects are -not- related. I -could- kill someone with a frying pan, but that is -not- what it's designed to do. There are laws aginst owning things like butterfly knives, older laws that deal w/ owning wire cutters (which was a big deal in the 19'th century west, as well. Why? becasue all of these things have to do with allowing people to break the laws we have to protect people and their property.Also, you never actually explained the analogy other than just blurtted it out and called me an idiot for describing how it wasn't rational. In my apple orange analogy, I could be comparing use as well. Here is another, this time comparing use:
frying pan:crock pot::gun:car
The design use of cars is for transportation and -only- that. A gun's design use is to kill people/things and -only- that. By your rationale, be should put laws on everything (becasue everything can be used to kill people) if we have them on guns but that is false. A gun's design purpose is to kill people, which is not the case with nearly everything else. Killing someone w/ a gun is debatably misuse (which is why we have things rules like self-defense) while killing someone w/ a car is caused by negligance by some party.
Guns = only kill people
Cars = Transportation except when misused (by some mentally unbalanced idiot who shouldn't have a car in the first place so be my guest and take it away).
Posted by kuru on May 30 2002,20:45
| Quote |
| Guns = only kill people |
Fallacious equality.
Guns are also used to provide food, as collectors' items, to prevent crime, to prevent death, to prevent injury, to target shoot, to compete in the Olympics, to defend against polar bears (and yes, there is a town in Canada where NOBODY goes outside during polar bear season without a rifle) and for many other purposes.
You have conveniently ignored them all.
Posted by ic0n0 on May 30 2002,21:08
I think I might be the only one here arguing that things are fine in terms of the second amendment. Gun ownership is an inherit American right, although I will never own one and they personally scare the shit out me I glad we have them.
Posted by Dysorderia on May 30 2002,21:13
| Quote (kuru @ 30 May 2002,15:45) |
| Guns are also used to provide food, as collectors' items, to prevent crime, to prevent death, to prevent injury, to target shoot, to compete in the Olympics, to defend against polar bears (and yes, there is a town in Canada where NOBODY goes outside during polar bear season without a rifle) and for many other purposes. |
this is true, but (like TheTaxMan pointed out in his last post) the original guns(when they were first made) were designed specifically to kill.
after that happened, some people kept those guns just for decoration and not to use.(thus the concept of collectible guns was born)
Posted by CatKnight on May 30 2002,21:31
| Quote (Pravus Angelus @ kickass newbie) |
| I think the point may have already been brought up...but on "without a gun your right to free speech means nothing", empirically this seems false. Look to several countries with strict gun control laws AND/OR a mostly disarmed populace (such as Great Britain). I don't think you can make a compelling argument that the citizens of Great Britain are unable to speak with a degree of freedom comprable to our own. |
The English may still have their free speech, for now, but look at many other countries where strict gun control laws are in effect. The former Soviet Union, several African countries, etc. The people have no free speech whatsoever, and no way to fight their own militia because guns are completely banned. The point of the second amendment was to make sure most people have guns so that fascists/dictators/communists don't take over. Without an armed populace, no other freedoms can be secured for certain.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 30 2002,23:13
CK, your examples of Russia and various African nations are good and make the point well. On the principle that private gun ownership limits (at least to a degree) a government's ability to impose tyranny upon it's citizens I think you're right. However, this doesn't mean that there is no need for gun regulation. Individuals certainly need weapons to defend themselves, however allowing them access to mortars, TOWS, or any other kind of military grade weaponry is somewhat exessive. While such weaponry would be useful in fighting off the government, I don't think it's practical for citizens to own such weapons (I'm not suggesting that this is a point you're advocating -- just finding some extreme common ground where we can agree regulation is acceptable) as they would greatly intensify incidents of weapon misuse.Furthermore I don't think private citizens need these sorts of weapons to effectively fight off their own government. If the federal government became so tyrannous as to have a significant portion of US citizens actively combating them, the federal government would quickly find it hard to operate effectively, as it relies on resources purchased privately and with private money (ie, personal income). The federal government does not have the expertise to operate as an autonomous nation without it's people.
The point of all this is to find some common ground. Clearly there is a well-defined need for citizens to have weapons. To defend themselves against individuals, and to (in a limited fashion) defend themselves against a tyrannous government. It is however impractical to properly arm citizens in the event of a tyrannous government (ie w/SAMS, planes, tanks and the like) and not even necessary. At that point, some regulation is justified (and now the question is simply to what extent).
By the way, the above analysis works just as well for the citizens of Britain. If the citizens of Britain actively opposed their government, even with limited or no weaponry, their government would suffer the same consequnces. Of course, it would be far more difficult for them to do so than for us (for exactly the reason that we have more citizens with guns), but the point is that if the shit hit the fan, they're not completely defenseless.
As for individual pieces of legislation...clearly we need to be careful (the point has been made before, and correctly, that one of the first acts of totalitarian governments such as Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia was to disarm the populace), but some legislation seems perfectly reasonable. Is there really a desperate need for citizens to not wait five days when buying a gun? Background checks only make sense if you intend to enforce a policy of no guns for felons. But since this debate has focused mostly on simply whether or not citizens should be allowed guns and whether or not it should be regulated, perhaps we can simply stop there. There are very compelling reasons for individual citizens to have weapons, and there are very compelling reasons for that right to be (somewhat) regulated.
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,01:40
I agree that ordinary citizens don't need F-15's or Paladin's, but you don't need or want the government to actively say and legislate that owning these items are illegal. It is kind of self-regulated, you see. Very few people have the resources or training to use powerful military weapons, furthermore, very few people own them as it is. You might say "Well since very few people own them anyway, why not make a law against it, it wouldn't do any harm", but this reasoning is flawed. If there isn't a problem, don't try to fix it, especially not with an even bigger system of laws or bureaucracy (FBI). Such laws would end up causing more trouble then they would prevent.Besides, I can only think of one instance in which a citizen used military equipment improperly, that being the guy who drove the tank through downtown LA. He wasn't really an ordinary citizen even, he was a disgruntled army tank driver. If you can think of any situation where a law against military hardware for regular citizens would have saved money or lives, please inform me. Otherwise, I'm not about to let the government take away my freedoms, even if I don't really need them at this time.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 31 2002,02:36
CK, I'll definately concede that last point to you...you're right there's no need to legislate a nonexistant problem. However, the basic argument I was putting forward remains unchanged. Citizens should have weapons, but certain regulations can be justified.
Posted by TheTaxMan on May 31 2002,02:49
I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that there is absolutely no reason anyone outside of the military will ever need a M-16. What are you going to do with it, hunt dear and show your friends?
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,05:32
Just because YOU don't have a use for one, doesn't mean many people do not. I personally used an AR-15 (m-16 target match rifle) in the rifle club, and I loved it. Who are YOU to tell the rest of the country what we can or can not do? Is that not facism?Side note: I can not find a single record of anyone ever using an m-16 in a violent crime. There has been only a couple instances of someone using an AK-47. Why would you want to ban something that has almost no harmful effects on society?
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 14 2002,00:37
Just a tiny (neutral?) question:Why would anyone elect a government they fear they might have to fend off in the future at point blank...?
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 14 2002,00:41
you dont know tony blair
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,01:02
the founders wanted as little federal government as possible, and to make sure it stayed that way, made sure people had the right to own guns. we didn't "elect" the massive federal bureaucracy we have now.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 14 2002,02:04
I asummed we were done with this for at least a couple months.How foolish of me...
*cough*
Posted by wix on Jun. 17 2002,07:28
On the issue of constitutional law, in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) the first case the SC really had the ability to determine the intent of the 2nd amendment it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the second amendment would do no more to outlaw firearms than repealing the due process clause of the 5th would authorize the government to imprision or kill people at will.I then find it interesting in terms of the government to derive why, just throw out some ideas why the government can regulate guns at the federal level.
1st is the disadvantage of the states doing so. Disunity. If california bans weapon X, and it's as easy to get as running to nevada, the law might well never have been passed in the first place. So just like Shneck v United States said congress could regulate free speech to the extent to protect freedoms (the old yelling fire in the theater analogy), the USFG has the right to regulate guns (in a manner that is effective) IF the power is given them by the constitution.
The 10th amendment of the constitution says that just because a right isn't listed in the bill of rights doesn't mean we don't have it. The 9th amendment reserves powers for the state not granted to the fed gov't in article 1 sec 8 of the constution. But I think congress could find powers to act in a statutory manner in order to provide for a) the common defense, and b) ensure domestic tranquillity by exercising interstate commerce restrictions, and maybe something to do with it's military powers. The constitution says a militia is needed, but that doesn't mean congress has to allow the militia to become more powerful than the USFG's army. One could make argument that gun regulations could met this need. In any case, I think all we establish is a dual jurisdiction-- concurrent powers for the fed gov't and the states to both exercise regulatory rights over guns.
Posted by wix on Jun. 17 2002,07:30
| Quote (CatKnight @ 13 June 2002,17:02) |
| the founders wanted as little federal government as possible, and to make sure it stayed that way, made sure people had the right to own guns. we didn't "elect" the massive federal bureaucracy we have now. |
| Quote |
| the founders wanted as little federal government as possible, and to make sure it stayed that way, made sure people had the right to own guns. we didn't "elect" the massive federal bureaucracy we have now. |
Yes but we elected those who put the bureaucracy into power. Surely you didn't think that the constitution doesn't allow congress to delegate?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 17 2002,21:53
yeah, we don't really need the bill of rights. I mean, it's just there for show. If it were abolished tomorrow, no one would know the difference. The government wouldn't do anything bad to us...would it?
Posted by kuru on Jun. 18 2002,14:52
Free speech in a country where the citizens are not the ultimate repository of force depends on one thing, and without that one thing, it's meaningless.That thing is a benevolent government.
The founders didn't believe that government granted unlimited power would stay that way, thus they made sure to write down their belief (in many, many places) that the citizens themselves held all the rights and power to themselves, and could only loan it temporarily to the government.
They wanted to make sure we never had to rely on the hope that maybe our leaders would be benevolent so that we could speak our minds. They recognized the citizen's right to say 'No.' and to back it up with force.
Today, as always, those rights exist only so far as you're willing to fight for them. 226 years ago people were willing to say 'No.', back it up with force, and choose death rather than submission.
I can only imagine that they'd be ashamed of the situation today, where people think that rights are doled out by the government while they sit on their asses and think that any discomfort in the name of freedom is too much discomfort.
Posted by wix on Jun. 18 2002,17:12
| Quote (kuru @ 18 June 2002,06:52) |
| I can only imagine that they'd be ashamed of the situation today, where people think that rights are doled out by the government while they sit on their asses and think that any discomfort in the name of freedom is too much discomfort. |
Ain't that the problem, they speak of the government as if it is a religious phenomenon.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Jun. 18 2002,20:14
"A Gun is as responsible for a killing as a spoon is as responsible for making rosie o'donnell fat."
Posted by CaptainEO on Jun. 20 2002,10:26
TaxMan - Have you every actually fired an AR-type rifle? Let me say this - the local sheriff was nice enough to let me shoot his at the range once, and within the month I bought myself a Bushmaster AR-15 (my first gun), which I use for target shooting quite often now... Don't knock it till you've tried it =)CatKnight - Sadly I do know of one instance where an AR-15 was used to commit several murders - the infamous Port Aurthur massacre in Australia. A wacko walked into a restaurant and killed 20-30 people...
Overall I just don't see the huge mental block some people seem to have about guns. A gun is a hunk of metal. It's a device to hold and ignite a cartridge, with a long tube to direct the bullet. It is no more or less dangerous than any other system of high-energy moving parts, like a car or lawnmower.
There are some people in this world who go ballistic at anything "nuclear," as in "nuclear power" or "nuclear weapons." Unfortunately they seem to have the same reaction to any occurrence of the "n-word," regardless of the risks and benefits of any particular application of nuclear energy. I see the same effect in many anti-gun advocates.
IMHO we should either ban all guns, or allow all guns. (you can probably figure out which one I'd prefer). Currently we have a ridiculous system of convoluted "can have / can't have" gun laws. e.g. I can possess an AR-15, but not in California (unless it lacks a detachable magazine). My barrel must be at least 16" long and my gun cannot fire more than one round per trigger pull (unless I pay $5k-$10k for a legal registered machine gun). I can buy new magazines that hold 10 or fewer rounds (but I can buy previously-manufactured magazines of any capacity). I am not allowed to have a mil-spec muzzle break or bayonet attachment (a small piece of metal) on my rifle unless the lower receiver unit was assembled into a complete rifle prior to 1994 (despite the fact that after the bullet leaves the barrel, there is no difference whatsoever in "dangerousness" or "killing power" between my gun and a military M16). etc... I am tired of all this bullshit.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 24 2002,16:48
< http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/ >
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 24 2002,21:42
| Quote (CaptainEO @ 20 June 2002,02:26) |
| TaxMan - Have you every actually fired an AR-type rifle? Let me say this - the local sheriff was nice enough to let me shoot his at the range once, and within the month I bought myself a Bushmaster AR-15 (my first gun), which I use for target shooting quite often now... Don't knock it till you've tried it =) |
Yawn...
I don't need to have fired a Bushmaster AR-15 to have a position on gun control.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 24 2002,23:04
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 24 June 2002,16:48) |
| < http://www.banscrewdrivers.com/ > |
ahh yes the dangers of screwdrivers. i remember once as a kid i snuck into my dads shed and found a screwdriver laying on the workbench. of course as i was young i didnt understand the TRUE DANGERS and accidentaly dropped the FULLY LOADED screwdriver. the kinetic energy released from me foolishly not having the safety catch on caused it to STREAK from the shed across the garden through double glazing glass the tv and my parents skulls.
i will never forget how dangerous screwdrivers can be.
i am currently campaigning for the legalisation of landmines for personal protection because everyone knows you can get these things on the black market so why bother having them illegal we should let every idiot in the country and their children have easy access to ballistic and explosive weapons.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,04:04
Yawn...I don't need to learn history to know that registering->banning guns has always led to a fascist regime.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 26 2002,05:40
As far as I know, The United Kingdom has banned guns, and has had them banned for a while too. They still have a democratic Parliament. Perhaps, CK, you should study that history. It comes in handy in the darndest places, like Detnet, when your'e refuting the arguement of an idiot.TaxMan, you are correct. You have not mentioned banning guns anywhere.
BTW, ever notice in a lot of british crime films that 1/2 the movie is "we need to get a gun"?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,06:40
I would say arresting someone for selling bannas by the pound instead of by the kilogram is a fair step towards fascism.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 26 2002,14:34
Every country has a few stupid laws. For example, Blue laws in the United States. They don't really serve a purpose, but theyr'e still on the books and enforced.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 26 2002,20:16
There were guns in Snatch, except that Tommy's didn't work and the two idiots with the big fat guy had replicas.But Boris always had a working gun, as did the original diamond thieves and Brick Top and Bullet Tooth Tony..
And let's not forget Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels... guns galore with a bunch of people who couldn't use them properly!
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 26 2002,22:40
well what do you expect its a fucking gangster movie. also both those films are made by the same person, guy richie.notice how the main charachters could only get hold of the dodgy antique shotguns if you're going to argue like that.
| Quote |
| I would say arresting someone for selling bannas by the pound instead of by the kilogram is a fair step towards fascism. |
you never have read the tabloids have you CK half that stuff is either made up or altered by the press to make it sound more interesting so it will sell. i go down markets and still see them selling them per pound so its hardly a facist regime.
go watch "the young americans". thats slightly more down to earth with gun crime in britain.
EDIT: and you probably make the key mis-assumption that we want guns in the uk. no-one except criminals and a few odd vigilantes want guns legalised in this country.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 26 2002,23:00
It astounds me how blindingly obvious your hypocracy is, yet you do not see it. You and DSL.Here, you accuse me of preaching out of fiction or propoganda, and simultaneously tell me to go watch a movie to get a better understanding of reality.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 27 2002,04:08
The movies were just a suggestion. I like those moves. Movies are not reality. I wanted everyone who read the post to check out those movies because I think they're cool, and they were kind of like a little side-topic.In short, CK has read things that weren't there again. Instead of countering my arguement, he pointed out that movies are not good analogies. I just wanted to say "LS&2SB and Snatch are cool." I thought they related to this conversation. I had a happy little anecdote going there, dammit. I wasn't saying "LS&2SB and Snatch are reality."
Also, what has DL done? If you're going to attack someone on this forum, don't do it with implications, you pansy.