Will the Second Amendment survive? - Page 3

classicman · 12-05-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The indisputable fact remains that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and this right didn't come from government. We were born with this right. No person or group of people, regardless of their number or what they call themselves (including government) has any legitimate right or authority to infringe upon this or any of our other individual rights.

Were people born with that "right" before the gun was invented too? just askin.

Radar · 12-05-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

Were people born with that "right" before the gun was invented too? just askin.

Yes, they were. People were born with the right to use any weapon that they can honestly acquire for DEFENSE. This is true whether the weapons of the time are bows & arrows, guns, or death ray guns in the future.

classicman · 12-05-2007, 10:18 PM

excellent answer, thanks.

Urbane Guerrilla · 12-05-2007, 10:23 PM

"Gun -- sword -- we all die the same way." --Red Sun

Aliantha · 12-05-2007, 10:37 PM

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.

it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.

Radar · 12-05-2007, 11:04 PM

It's a shame when some people think that the freedom of others is a shame.

It's a shame when some people think they know better than others how they should exercise freedom.

It's a shame when people are so naive they think bad people will suddenly stop having guns if good people are prevented from exercising their right to own them.

It's a shame when anti-gun/anti-rights people don't realize that they are safer because of pro-gun/pro-freedom people.

It's a shame when anti-gun people give people a death sentence by infringing on their right to keep and carry guns. For instance Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins was told he could not have a gun for his own protection after using a gun to defend his property earlier. When criminals broke into his house, he had only a machete to defend himself and was killed by guns. If he had a gun, he would have probably scared them away and would still be alive. Several women have died because they were sentenced to death by a 3 day waiting period so they couldn't get a gun to protect them from stalkers and didn't have enough evidence to be put in protective custody.

Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens.

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject because he is subject to whatever control the people with the guns (government) tell him to do. These subjects can have their earnings, property, and even their lives taken from them and have no recourse or way to prevent it.

Ibby · 12-05-2007, 11:18 PM

When fighting the government, the only difference between a man with a gun and a man without one, is that the man with a gun goes down shooting.

Aliantha · 12-05-2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens.

Australia is a member of the Commonwealth. We are a nation in our own right and we legislate ourselves.

We are a free country. We just define freedom in terms other than whether or not we can walk down the street carrying a gun.

I see nothing wrong with our ties to the UK. More than half of the citizens of Australia have family still living there or are less than one generation removed. Rather I am proud of the fact that my country could evolve without the need to go to war to prove we had earned it.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-06-2007, 12:43 AM

Just kiss the Queens ass until she cuts you loose. Slackers.

Urbane Guerrilla · 12-06-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.

it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.

it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.

No, Aliantha; there is no shame in this, and I am a philosopher if I am nothing else. Human history proves beyond any reasonable doubt that mine is the correct view, and the correct view would be the one taken by intelligent people. We cannot see eye to eye on this until you undergo some sort of epiphany. For your sake I pray it will not be traumatic. After all, I did not have to be traumatized to get it. The same road is open to you.

Correct does not necessarily mean "nice" or "pleasant." There is sorrow in this correctness. But it's the people who don't expect the genocide that get devoured by it. Genocides ambush populations; always they begin in deception, in concealment.

History tells us, well, what can be summed up in very few words: People Ruin Everything. There are times when mankind is not kind at all, but behaves like a monster. If you do not wish nor deserve to be devoured by monsters, just what do you do? It seems your choices would be essentially three: die, flee, or prevail over them regardless of anything.

I like option three.

Freedom is never a thing of shame, therefore killing tools used as instruments of freedom are not things of shame either, but are instead ennobled.

It is rather a pity that you got so worked up by your misunderstanding of what is good and moral that you forgot to capitalize, if you're looking around for things of shame.

[Edit] I would go so far as to add, Aliantha, that there is no argument you could make that would carry the day for your point of view -- not against those who understand crime and genocide, how genocides begin, on what groundwork, and how vulnerable the genocidal groundwork is to being undone by eliminating one of its three preconditions: that of disarmament by law or in fact. Discountenance that, and genocide stops, or at the very least becomes so immensely difficult that it may instead consume the ones who start it. And where's the big loss in that, I ask you?

Aliantha · 12-06-2007, 06:06 AM

UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the kurds did, and the people of Rwanda...and and and... Guns did them no good, although I'm sure they were glad they went down fighting.

I'm not entering into the gun debate. I was interested in your new path about genocide UG. I think the statement you made is stupid and there's no argument you could possibly put forth which would change my view on it. To suggest that simply because someone doesn't believe one needs to carry a gun when they go to pick up their kids from school means they're pro genocide is pure lunacy. You've lost the plot mate.

Undertoad · 12-06-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

In Iraq, American soldiers went door-to-door kicking them in and took all weapons they could find. Now the Iraqi people are all easy victims of insurgents.

When you have to create an outrageous and bizarre narrative to support your point of view, that's not critical thinking.

Beevee · 12-06-2007, 07:32 AM

I haven't read all the threads on this subject but another shooting in another mall doesn't seem to bother too many Americans who seem to think it acceptable as long as they maintain the right to bear arms.

Now, it's strange to me that not one of the eight people who unfortunately died in Omaha, Nebraska returned fire. They had the right to bear arms but obviously weren't carrying. Or does it mean one has the right to bear arms as long as they are confined to the house. In which case, as soon as arms are taken from a house, is a crime being committed?

Sorry, but my conception of the 2nd amendment is the thought by Americans that they act in a more responsible manner and can bear arns whereas people in any other democratic country cannot and that obviously isn't so. Every American knows that next week it will be repeated somewhere else.

Now I know this happens in Canada too and lifestyles are similiar. But Canadians do not have such sweeping powers to bear arms and consequently the pro rata murder rate is much lower. Doesn't that say something?

Furthermore the media encourages the use of arms by not questioning the rights and wrongs of the 2nd amendment. Why? Could it be that the owners of these media and news outlets are all in favour of it as they see themselves as prime targets because of their perceived wealth?

I don't have any answers but conversely I don't believe sufficient Americans ask the right questions.

regular.joe · 12-06-2007, 07:52 AM

I'm not sure what you would call me in this debate. I personally own a 7MM Magnum hunting rifle. I have stored in my house almost 1000 rounds of 5.56 match ammunition. I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I do think it is imperative that there is a large pool of well trained, educated marksman within the US population. Hell, every houshold in Iraq is allowed to own an AK-47. Trust me, that is not the problem in Iraq. The presence of US troops in Iraq exacerbates the problem, they being there are not the real problem. The problem in Iraq is selfishness and self seeking. On many levels.

There are letters written as a historical record from The Congress directly following the ratification of the Constitution. The gist of one of these letters is that the ratification process was long and difficult. That every state had to give something up to become a part of the whole. It had to become an unselfish project. The questions had to be what would be best for the greater, and long term good.

In the debate on guns, the real question is what is best for the greater good? I obviously don't have all the answers on this question. I'm not sure if any one person does. I do appreciate well reasoned, even passionate debate.

Aliantha, Australia is a fine place, if I were a single man....lol. I digress, our histories are different.

Beevee · 12-06-2007, 07:58 AM

I have one question to Regular Joe.

Why do you need 1000 rounds of ammo? Wouldn't 100 be sufficient? Or do you believe there are at least 1000 animals in the vacinity for you to kill?

12-05-2007, 10:23 PM	#34
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	"Gun -- sword -- we all die the same way." --Red Sun __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

12-05-2007, 10:37 PM	#35
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free. it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe. it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

12-05-2007, 11:04 PM	#36
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	It's a shame when some people think that the freedom of others is a shame. It's a shame when some people think they know better than others how they should exercise freedom. It's a shame when people are so naive they think bad people will suddenly stop having guns if good people are prevented from exercising their right to own them. It's a shame when anti-gun/anti-rights people don't realize that they are safer because of pro-gun/pro-freedom people. It's a shame when anti-gun people give people a death sentence by infringing on their right to keep and carry guns. For instance Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins was told he could not have a gun for his own protection after using a gun to defend his property earlier. When criminals broke into his house, he had only a machete to defend himself and was killed by guns. If he had a gun, he would have probably scared them away and would still be alive. Several women have died because they were sentenced to death by a 3 day waiting period so they couldn't get a gun to protect them from stalkers and didn't have enough evidence to be put in protective custody. Sadly, Aliantha doesn't live in a free country so she doesn't understand such concepts. The people of Australia and the nations who didn't break away from the British Empire on their own like America, are used to being "subjects" rather than citizens. A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject because he is subject to whatever control the people with the guns (government) tell him to do. These subjects can have their earnings, property, and even their lives taken from them and have no recourse or way to prevent it. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

12-05-2007, 11:18 PM	#37
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	When fighting the government, the only difference between a man with a gun and a man without one, is that the man with a gun goes down shooting. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

12-06-2007, 12:43 AM	#39
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Just kiss the Queens ass until she cuts you loose. Slackers. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

12-05-2007, 10:18 PM	#33
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	excellent answer, thanks.

12-06-2007, 06:06 AM	#41
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the kurds did, and the people of Rwanda...and and and... Guns did them no good, although I'm sure they were glad they went down fighting. I'm not entering into the gun debate. I was interested in your new path about genocide UG. I think the statement you made is stupid and there's no argument you could possibly put forth which would change my view on it. To suggest that simply because someone doesn't believe one needs to carry a gun when they go to pick up their kids from school means they're pro genocide is pure lunacy. You've lost the plot mate. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

12-06-2007, 07:32 AM	#43
Beevee Eavesdropper Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 24	I haven't read all the threads on this subject but another shooting in another mall doesn't seem to bother too many Americans who seem to think it acceptable as long as they maintain the right to bear arms. Now, it's strange to me that not one of the eight people who unfortunately died in Omaha, Nebraska returned fire. They had the right to bear arms but obviously weren't carrying. Or does it mean one has the right to bear arms as long as they are confined to the house. In which case, as soon as arms are taken from a house, is a crime being committed? Sorry, but my conception of the 2nd amendment is the thought by Americans that they act in a more responsible manner and can bear arns whereas people in any other democratic country cannot and that obviously isn't so. Every American knows that next week it will be repeated somewhere else. Now I know this happens in Canada too and lifestyles are similiar. But Canadians do not have such sweeping powers to bear arms and consequently the pro rata murder rate is much lower. Doesn't that say something? Furthermore the media encourages the use of arms by not questioning the rights and wrongs of the 2nd amendment. Why? Could it be that the owners of these media and news outlets are all in favour of it as they see themselves as prime targets because of their perceived wealth? I don't have any answers but conversely I don't believe sufficient Americans ask the right questions.

12-06-2007, 07:52 AM	#44
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	I'm not sure what you would call me in this debate. I personally own a 7MM Magnum hunting rifle. I have stored in my house almost 1000 rounds of 5.56 match ammunition. I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I do think it is imperative that there is a large pool of well trained, educated marksman within the US population. Hell, every houshold in Iraq is allowed to own an AK-47. Trust me, that is not the problem in Iraq. The presence of US troops in Iraq exacerbates the problem, they being there are not the real problem. The problem in Iraq is selfishness and self seeking. On many levels. There are letters written as a historical record from The Congress directly following the ratification of the Constitution. The gist of one of these letters is that the ratification process was long and difficult. That every state had to give something up to become a part of the whole. It had to become an unselfish project. The questions had to be what would be best for the greater, and long term good. In the debate on guns, the real question is what is best for the greater good? I obviously don't have all the answers on this question. I'm not sure if any one person does. I do appreciate well reasoned, even passionate debate. Aliantha, Australia is a fine place, if I were a single man....lol. I digress, our histories are different. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

12-06-2007, 07:58 AM	#45
Beevee Eavesdropper Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 24	I have one question to Regular Joe. Why do you need 1000 rounds of ammo? Wouldn't 100 be sufficient? Or do you believe there are at least 1000 animals in the vacinity for you to kill?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)