|
Between work and school, it is usually several days until I have ample time for things like internet forum posting, so sorry if it seems like I dropped this and then turned tail.
Anyway,
21. Hmm. I WAS being constructive. Lobbying for gun proliferation is not what I call constructive use of ones time. If all you have to do is look for reasons why people should owns guns, you need to do a serious reality check.
R: Lobbying for civil rights, such as that of access to the best tools for one's own defense and the defense of others in the event of violent attack is something that I certainly would call a constructive use of my time. This point of view applies to many, many more things in my mind than just weapons. That so long as a person does not harm others or their private property, I have no problem with doing something. In fact, even if you DO harm something or someone else's private property I am okay with whatever, so long as that person has consented to whatever you are doing. Like I said before, if you want to commit sodomy and you have a person who wants to be sodomized, go right ahead. If you want to cut your own finger off, go ahead. If that guy down the street wants you to cut HIS finger off; even though you are harming him, he has consented, so I would have no problem with it. If someone wants to be killed, well they essentially wish to commit suicide. This is also something that I have no (political) problem with them doing, it should certainly not be against the law. Now I know that this seems morbid, but I am simply using extreme examples to make my point. Now, my tone about such topics may be different, so I feel it only fair to tell the readers that I am a fairly conservative Christian by faith and I have many things which I oppose ethically, but not politically.
In the end, for me, it is a matter of consistency. I want everyone, no matter what they think/feel/believe et cetera to have the greatest amount of personal freedom possible.
fingrpik (86 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 04:33 AM Response to Reply #8 11. Fair Enough Edited on Mon Apr-07-08 04:35 AM by fingrpik But do you really want your neighbor to own land mines? When the paperboy crosses his lawn and gets blown to smithereens, do you really think your neighbor should bear no responsibility? When you see your neighbor unloading a surface-to-air missile from his pickup, and he tells you it's for self-defense, are you going to take his word for it? And although I applaud your opposition to anti-sodomy laws, the comparison doesn't hold up. Sodomy doesn't carry the risk of inflicting death or dismemberment. (At least, if you're doing it right.)
R: What seems to be at the core of your objection here is that you think I wish to absolve those with dangerous things from personal responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am arguing for is individual rights, and while people generally like to ignore this part, with rights come responsibilities. The more gravity involved with the right the greater the responsibility involved in the exercise thereof. What I would like more than anything would be to see the individuals who make up American society finally stand up and start taking responsibility for their actions and decisions, and for their own personal safety and general well-being without trying to blame all of the failures and negative happenings on everything but themselves.
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 10:36 PM Response to Reply #11 17. We 2A advocates are often accused of paranoia, in spite of eight hours-a-night... But it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass. Have you actually seen this? My goodness. BTW, I had an uncle who ringed his little frame house in post-War Tampa with 500 lb bombs, fins up & nose-in-the-sand and painted in very, very random colors. O-o-o-o-o.
And you compare your vision with sodomy laws. Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top fingrpik (90 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 02:29 AM Response to Reply #17 20. Follow the Thread "And you compare your vision with sodomy laws." I wasn't the one making that comparison. "it seems you have an unwarranted fear of SAMs in the Chevy and Claymores in the grass." No, just a warranted astonishment that anyone would claim owning such weapons was an inalienable "right".
R: Okay, the sodomy thing...That was just my attempt to illustrate that this is, for me, a civil rights thing and that I no more approve of laws limiting such things as private sexual behavior than I do those laws limiting the ownership of arms.
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 11:28 PM Response to Reply #8 19. what????
If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is a fire, you are simply informing those in the theater as to the situation. If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus, well then I'd have a severe problem with your actions.
Do you not know your Bill of Rights -- ALL OF IT -- by heart???
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
And you have a problem with people shouting "fire" when there is no fire?? Surely you don't think there should, like, be LAWS against doing that!!!1!1!!
Whither FREEDOM OF SPEECH??
R: Please note "If you are doing it simply to cause a ruckus...." This means (in a nicer way) "with criminal intent to cause a public disturbance." You know that, you are reaching for straws. If I bear arms in defense of myself and others from violent attack fine and do so, fine. If I bear arms with the intent of causing harm, not fine. Please not the inclusion of "and do so" in the above statements before responding. Fin
gorfle (631 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 09:42 PM Response to Reply #4 26. Small arms vs. surface-to-air missiles... or nuclear weapons, or whatever.
This is a common anti-firearm argument. "Well, if we have the right to own firearms, why not nuclear weapons?"
In order to answer this question one must have some knowledge of the second amendment and the intent behind it.
The intent of the second amendment was to equip the civil population with the same small arms that the infantry of the day would carry. This would make the civil population equipped as an effective fighting force of infantry, and likewise be able to repel similar forces.
While the founding fathers could not foresee all the advancements in modern military arms, it is fairly well accepted that the founding fathers intended for the people to be armed with such arms as would be necessary to secure their own freedom from oppression both without and within.
Modern small arms fill this requirement easily. There is no need to increase the scope of the definition of arms to include surface-to-air missiles, explosives, artillery, or nuclear weapons.
This is not to say that no weapon more advanced that modern projectile weapons will ever be needed to meet that requirement. For example, if "ray guns" become the next standard small arm for infantry troops than I would expect this weapon to be allowed for standard civilian ownership as well.
R: I think this is a well-thought-out response to the argument. However, I politely disagree. By this argument, explosives, artillery pieces et cetera, being an integral part of modern warfare often carried or transported and maintained by small groups of people (admittedly: nukes, not so much unless you count DU rounds.) are therefore deserving of the same protection as small arms.
Beregond2 (674 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 06:33 AM Response to Original message 12. ... The logical corollary of this arguement is: if the people are sovereign, then they also have the right to restrict their own use of arms.
R: The purpose of the original post was to respond to those who would assert that there just flat-out is no right to have arms. While I have not seen such here (at least explicitly) the post was intended to check the veracity of the argument, as is stated in the original post.
jmg257
...There are many things we granted our governments alone the power to do - there is such a list in the Constitution - collecting taxes, passing/deciding/prosecuting laws, & raising Armies and Navies come to mind. It would seem fine to also designate (surrender) to the government the exclusive right to arms. Would it be smart? No. And so THAT right, along with a few precious others, was explicitly secured for the people.
Edit: re-reading your OP, I am not sure whether you are making the point about the "existence" of the right to arms, or the "ability" to have that power restricted only to gov't. Hmmm... OK, so anyway - the right exists, there is NO doubt about that. There is also NO doubt it was secured for the people in the Constitution. What happens "next" though is again up to the consent of the governed (currently decided and excuted according to the Constitution) on whether that security is maintained or if the designation of power is modifed.
R: I would disagree with your first statement there. Private militia groups are, as far as I am aware, not illegal. Blackwater immediately comes to the fore of my mind. As far as your edit, yes, you got it. Please see the response immediately above.
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 04:53 PM Response to Reply #14 15. Inalienable rights cannot be "surrendered and/or designated, for the good of the whole society." That is the only protection a minority has in a democracy against the tyranny of a simple majority, i.e. 50% of the vote plus 1.
R: Wrong, technically. That is the only protection that is to be had in a REPUBLIC. In a true democracy fifty-percent-plus-one...well the other forty-nine-minus-one are screwed. This is not meant to be an attack, simply to point out the important difference between a democracy and a republic.
iiibbb (45 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-08-08 09:07 PM Response to Original message 23. Overly complicated I don't fault your logic, but your reasoning makes it seem like you're trying to reach, when really you don't need to reach at all.
The bill of rights are the rights of "The people", the citizens. It doesn't define the rights of the states. These rights existed before the government even came into being.
People have a fundamental right to protect themselves... period.
Now, some will try to draw me into the argument that this must mean the public can own mortars and bazookas and nuclear bombs... but that is a hyperbolic argument. If I agree we don't have rights to nuclear bombs, that does not mean I also agree we don't have rights to handguns.
Here's a "reasonable" line, the public should have access to arms no worse than a police officer (e.g. handguns, shotguns, semi-auto rifles), and that the public have access to hunting equipment that allow for as humane a way to kill the animal as possible (i.e. high-powered rifles).
I think these arms are perfectly capable of allowing the general public to overthrow a hypothesized despotic gov't if the need really should arise.
R: I agree with you on all counts except that we must limit the rights of people to own certain weapons (at least, that is what I think you are saying here, please let me know if I am wrong). I place emphasis upon the people who own the arms and the use thereof by those people without regard to the nature of the arm itself. You may choose to do otherwise, of course. Am I reaching when I shouldn't have to? Absolutely, but this is an argument intended to counter the assertion that no actual right to bear arms exists.
In all, I am happy this got as much of a response as it did, and that most of the posts were not of the "oh ho, gotcha!" type. Though those can be fun too. :D
|