Since we have an age limit on the ability to drink alcohol, it is not considered a right but a privilege. I will drink even if society thinks it is a privilege. Does this prove that the ability to drink is a right because its not something that I require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others?

You will say yes but other people will say no. That shows that rights are perspective based. You just have an absolute perspective, anything that I do not need permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others should be legal, so it is in your best interests to support that view. Other people think differently so it is in their best interest to support an opposing viewpoint where rights are more perspective based.

Once apon a time, everyone believed the world was flat, but then along came someone that proved it wasn't.

So was it a fact that it was flat before it magically become not a fact anymore?

Ooops, should have read this before I posted my last one.

not if the person violating your rights decides to act on his/her right to put themselves out of misery and shoot you first.

In the process of excercising your rights by shooting someone in the head, doesn't that mean that you're violating someone else's right? Or taking that right away?

If it's a right and it's based on the bill of rights, why do people still have to go to court to defend themselves after excercising their rights?

Surely if it's a right, it must be self evident why you shot someone in the head.

It was never a fact that the world was flat. The world was always spherical despite the beliefs of those who thought otherwise. The truth is the truth regardless of the ability of anyone's ability to recognize it. The truth is that we have human rights. They come from nature and are real and tangible and they can't be bought, sold, taken, given, or voted away. This fact will not change regardless of how many claim the world to be flat (or claim our rights are a social construct) regardless of how sure they are.

The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.

:dedhors2:

I agree. This is getting old.

Gee...I guess it was axiomatic at the time then.

Wrong. If his right to live is natural/inalienable then you've violated his right to live by taking away his life, regardless of the reason why you did it. Regardless of whether you were trying to preserve your own or not.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. It's still a right violated.

No. Axiomatic = True and widely known.

It IS axiomatic that we have undeniable, irrevocable, immutable, and unalienable rights.

WRONG. When you attack someone, any injuries you suffer (including death) are your own fault. It stands to reason you wouldn't understand something this simple since you're stupid enough to think it's Israel's fault when they retaliate for people blowing up their children.

No, you are WRONG.

Shall we go back and forth with this a little bit? Would that make you feel happy?

Sure. If you want to make yourself look more foolish while claiming that those who attack others are the victims when they get their comeuppance. Knock yourself out. You'll still be W-R-O-N-G :D

As I said, regardless of the reason, you have still violated the other persons right to live.

Either we all have that right or we don't. If the answer is yes, as you so vehemently state, then anyone infringing on that right to live is violating that right. I'm not even entering into the argument about what right you have to shoot someone else. I'm simply saying that if you do shoot someone, you're ending their life, therefore you have violated their right to live.

It's a pretty simple concept. One I'd have thought even you could manage to get your head around.

If I take part in a dangerous activity like Lion taming or hang gliding, I am agreeing to the dangers involved in that activity. If I die while taking part in that activity, I have nobody to blame but myself. If I'm killed by a lion (which does not have human sentience) the lion has not violated my right to life. If I crash my hang glider, the rock I hit is not violating my right to life. I have wasted my own life.

If I play baseball and get hit in the head with a pitch and die, nobody has violated my right to life. I consented to the dangers that are inherent in in that activity.

If I attempt to rape someone and they take a gun out of their purse and shoot me, they have not violated my right to life. I died as a result of taking part in a dangerous activity. Someone else defended their life and their person. The loss of my life is my own fault.

guess not

Actually, Aliantha, that is not accurate at all.

Civil "shootings to stop" are justified in both law and morals by whether the individual shot must immediately stop what he is doing or innocents suffer grave harm or death. You as the defensive shooter are not taking a right from him, but enforcing the very proper rights of others, securing these from his trespass. Properly understood morals place innocent life over not-so-innocent life. They value human goodness over continued respiration -- as a ramification of the whole idea of free will. Hard to argue against, isn't it? It is always possible to live a life so terribly badly as to destroy other lives around one, and we good folk have to have a means to pluck up such bad seeds.

while they will probly never be able to abolish the right, they are trying to put a cap on it. Like handguns are already illegal to own in DC. And they are trying to get it for the whole state, and it'll probly go over to all states. But they won't be able to outlaw rifles. Lots of people hunt and the goverment makes quite abit of money off of issuing hunting permits, and the majority of people hunt with rifles (though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little) though you don't use a pistol to go hunting, so why need one period? "makes you feel save" well it only makes you feel save in use as a protection till you actually shoot someone... then it's a violation of the law. Since you Shot someone.. seems rather contradictory to me. Wanting it for protection if you can't use it.

oh, this is going to be good.
:corn:

Whether discussing abortion or the second amendment, I am not fond of 'slippery slope' arguments. While everyone can point to something like Nazi Germany as an example of progressively restrictive laws reaching a terrible conclusion, the idea that any restriction can be rejected because it might lead to more and more restrictions is simply an excuse for no restrictions.

One argument holds that individuals need significant firepower to keep a possible rogue US government in check. If I remember correctly, aren't National Guard units under the authority of state governors? As for civilian ownership, if you look at Iraq, you will notice that every time the insurgency is limited to guns they lose. The only significant US losses are from IEDs VBIEDs. So using the 'government in check' theory would assume that the second amendment extends to rocket launchers, or at least a few hundred pounds of explosives.

The reality is that existing US law already denies citizens the right to sufficiently arm themselves for a revolution (or counter-revolution) against the US military. Get over it. If you want to prevent a rogue US government, then fucking vote.

The second argument is sports. Noone uses handguns to hunt deer (except for a funny scene in Hoffa), so the handgun argument is for target shooting. If 1 gun a month is insufficient for a target shooter, they should apply for an exemption.

The last argument is for personal defense. This is already in practice. In many cities, individuals selling drugs frequently end up shooting at each other. The second person to fire is practicing self defense. This usually reaches the headlines when a bullet ends up killing a 9-year-old girl (it appears that adult victims don't rate headlines) because she was outdoors or the bullet passed through the walls of a house. The argument becomes does the individual right to be safe from stray bullets outweigh the right of every citizen to be armed. Guns are not swords or knives, they are capable of killing indiscriminately.

That was incredibly smart.

"get over it"....

I just stepped in here again for a minute and got doo-doo on my shoes.

Mmmm......I'm imagining Lincoln and founding fathers, and someone telling them to get over it. Let's do it! I like that for how crass and thoughtless it is...

Attachment 16213
:D

Thank you. I try. Still, the original American revolution succeeded because the British were overextended and did not devote their full resources to the war. They also had a 2+ month voyage between England and the colonies.

Even then, the insurgents needed the support of French ships to win a decisive victory.

Our forefathers envisioned a technological edge where one side would have ships, cannon, and muskets, and the other side muskets. They did not consider armor, planes, etc.

The US military is supposed to 'support and defend' the Constitution. If they do not, then possibly a combination of states could secede, but it didn't work out so well the last time.

The law in DC is unconstitutional and will be overturned. No government at any level has any authority to "cap" our ownership. It doesn't matter if I want a gun to hunt, to go for target practice, to keep them as collectibles, or to prop up a wobbly table leg. My reasons for owning a gun are irrelevant. My right to own a gun isn't to be questioned, limited, or infringed upon. My reasons for owning a gun are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.

Also, a well-armed citizenry could overcome the weapons of the military. This is especially true when you consider that very few in the military would actually fire on American civilians. And for the person who suggested that the national guard was supposed to defend us from federal oppression, that is laughable. The national guard is considered part of the military. While the governor can call on them to do certain things, they are considered to be a smaller part of the whole army and they would refuse to fight against the regular army if ordered to do so by the governor.

The only thing that can stop the U.S. military from being misused against our own people is a well-armed citizenry. To those who say it can't be done, ask yourself how many people are in the military and how many millions of Americans own guns. Even assuming the U.S. Military has 2-3 million people which is ridiculous, we've got more than 50 million gun owners in America.

Quick question here Radar. If someone has committed a crime with one in the past, say armed robbery ( of someone without a gun :D ), does that person still have the right to own a gun?

If someone has gone to jail and been released, they should have 100% of their rights restored. This includes the right to vote, the right to own guns, and all other rights. If they pose an danger to others, they should not be released from jail.

Okay I'm just catching up, Radar if you have a professional Army with Navy and Air Force the best in the world and the National Guard and then the CIA FBI DEA NSA etc... and Federal Marshalls and State troopers and police who are also efficiently armed, Defense companies, security companies . Then sportsmen and women - hunters, skeet shooters, target etc.etc. then home owners, citizens ... who does'nt own or have access to a gun in America? I think American Hospitals must have the best gunshot wound doctors in the World except for those in battle zones.

I would very much hope that a released convict could never legally gain a firearms certificate upon their liberation - probation would forbid it even with State differences. I'm not arguing your right to bear arms Radar, but you are exactly arguing for them because of your next door neighbour potentially flying off the handle. Let the Police deal with it, I don't want you to pull the trigger. If someone pulls a gun on you and you're carrying what you gonna do? Give them anything they want. You and they will live.

But how does a well armed citizenry have anything to do with banning certain types of guns? If there was a revolution, we have to ask what types of guns will be used by the people and how we will get these guns. From what I am thinking right now, and as Richlevey pointed out already, the guns that will mostly be used are guns that are illegal as of now and guns that will never be banned (rifles, shotguns, etc).

I won't get into the rifles and such because there is no point but when we focus on the heavier assault rifles, where would we get these guns? I am assuming there isn't a big stock in the United States right now because of laws and even if they were overturned, I cannot see 50 million rocket launcher owners. So that means most of the heavier guns used in the revolution will be imported from other countries regardless if they are legal or not.

So for the legality issue the question comes, how worth it is it to have assault rifles and rocket launchers legalized? Those guns are not much more useful for personal protection unless you expect twenty guys to attack your home, which brings up questions about your lifestyle, they will be imported anyways in case of revolution, and will probably not be in high demand with those actually wanting to use it in ways that are beneficial to society so I personally don't really see what is so bad about banning those weapons as long as the people call for it.


Though as you pointed out Radar, the US is not in big trouble if the military does decide to take us over. Rifles and shotguns will never be banned (I would be against the ban as well) and those will make up most of the guns used in the revolution, in the beginning at least, and the rest will be imported anyways.

Ok. I'm just trying to understand your position.

Good answer. :D

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". All weapons can be used for defense or assault. When the L.A. Riots happened, several Korean store owners patrolled the roof of their business with uzi 9mm, and AK-47s and defend their store when the police wouldn't or couldn't. This weapon allowed them to defend against multiple attackers.

The U.S. government has absolutely zero authority to ban any kind of gun for any reason. The same is true of all state and local governments. 100% of gun control laws are a violation of the Constitution and more importantly of our civil rights.

If the government removed these unconstitutional laws, you can rest assured, there would be plenty of private rocket launcher owners.

Either way, the American people have enough firepower to overcome the U.S. military. The fact of the matter is all of the institutions you mentioned have very few people who would actually fire on Americans for defending their right to keep and bear arms. In fact very few would fire on Americans trying to overthrow the government and take their country back...with the exception of the most scummy elements like the NSA, CIA, etc.

The majority of those in the military, national guard, and local police would not fire on Americans and would fire on those who did.

I don't want to get all tinfoil hat here but what about foreign troops on US soil to round things up?

I'm not wearing the tinfoil hat either. Government oppression was the main reason the founders wanted to defend the right of individuals to own any kind of guns the government has.

I sincerely doubt foreign armies would get involved if the people of America were to revolt, and if they did, they'd probably support the people not the government.

I know of at least couple of organizations very eager to support 'the people' if and when the time comes. They come from the Middle East, and neither one of them is the Saudi family.

Let's see, if 22 people with boxcutters can kill three thousand, I think the US military could take on every single American citizen. It would take, oh, about 100,000.

You are smoking spearmint flavored crack if you think 100,000 military could beat an armed populace. They've got 140,000 in Iraq right now and can't handle Arabs with homemade bombs.

Deadbeater... you've got it back-fucking-assward. It's the other way around; like radar says, a civilian insurgency can take on a military force any day.

Especially a military force pitted against their own families, friends, and country's infrastructure. You might have a few deserters...

Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.

Pre 1986 they were much easier for citizens to own. Yes, there are still a good number out there in private hands still, though the paperwork now is costly.

An M16 with a pre 86 serial number may cost you $10k. An M60 around $30k, but you'd be very surprised how many are still in private hands.

Who needs one with an old serial #? The laws banning them sunsetted. They are legal again. Well, they were legal the whole time, but the unconstitutional law is gone.

How much is plenty? I know there are a good amount but enough to stop the need of importing those types of guns? I honestly don't know this so I am just making assumptions on the number.

I'd be willing to bet there are more machine guns in the hands of American civilians than in the hands of the U.S. military.

Legal manufacture or hacked?

By civilians you mean gang members or collectors and target shooters?

By civilians I mean those who are not cops or are not in the military.

Ok, I'll put 10 pesos on Radar for this one.

The gangs, the collectors, and the ex-military guys have more.

I would doubt that. The majority of all rifles in the inventory can fire on full auto. Plus the military has much more ammo than any civilian could hope to own.

I will now exercise my right not to read the last 9 pages of this circular argument.

Are you wondering, if civil unrest broke out it could be defeated by cutting off imports? No.


Which they rarely use, because more than 3 rounds is inaccurate and wasteful.

Correct.

Hey, I'm not just a pretty face ya know.

I don't think so. If civil rest breaks out in America, there would be no way to stop the import of heavy guns and bombs.

What I am wondering is if civil rest does break out, are there enough to heavy guns in the US right now so the importation of more heavy guns is not needed? If there are 300 million machine guns in civilian hands in the US right now, the importation of more machine guns will not be needed. Anyone who does fight the revolution will have three or four. But if there are only 300,000 machine guns, importation will be needed.

I'm not talking about just rifles. I'm talking about the miltary with tanks and airplanes as well. Can't shoot them all down. After all, this is American production we are talking about. And corporations will side with the government. The government and the corporation combined will successfully suppress even a gun-toting nation.

But corporations are worked by the people.

Well, they will just move somewhere else then wouldn't they?

Not if they are part of the military industrial complex. And who knows if foreign military industries won't help the government from these home grown 'terrorists'?

I'm surprised that none of the gun-totin' types around these parts have yet pointed out the difference between "automatic rifles" and "machine guns".

AKs, M-16s, Uzis, etc are automatic rifles (or pistols as the case may be) although it is common for folks to refer to them as "machine guns" in the sense of "hold the trigger in and bangbangbangbangbangbangbang".

Machine guns, strictly speaking, are things like M-60s or larger; usually belt fed, much larger caliber, heavier weapons.

I wonder if the disagreement above was due to mixing these two senses of "machine gun".
That US civilians hold more automatic rifles than the military is quite plausible. More (strictly) machine guns ... seems less plausible to this outsider.

And so, imagine 10,000 civilians with automatic rifles*, against 500 trained military with tanks, artillery, air support, full command and control networks .... if it came to a pitched battle, I'd rather be inside one of the tanks.

EDIT: * and a few heavier weapons...

Also, more importantly, America is not like Israel, where each citizen undergo mandatory military training and service. Israeli citizens can in this case take on the Israeli government.

So, I leave for a couple days, come back and..wow....I have of this reading to catch up on. I say to myself, "Self, all this circular arguing is going on...why not just skim and read like, every third post." I glance at this thing which says that shooting a gun takes relatively little skill.

The only thing I can ask is: have you tried, a 5.56mm round at 600 yards with a 7.5 mph to 10 mph full value cross wind?

I'm still amazed at how such a simple question as the first post asks, can generate so much talk. I"m amazed I've participated as much as I have. I'm amazed at how much more has been talked about in the few days of my absence.

Reminds me of a movie line: "98% of the people in the world are asleep..the other 2% are amazed."

I figured I'd interject a little more off topic drivel for the reading audiences perusal.

Everyone who likes coke should switch to pepsi, now!

No, no, no, everyone who likes coke should switch to crack, now.

Yea, well, the Govt. has been trouncing all over my right to hit the pipe when ever I want. The tyranny!

Welcome to my world...:neutral: