Will the Second Amendment survive?
The Supreme Court will finally hear a case regarding the Second Amendment and it's applications. Mainly, does it enumerate a collective right or an individual right?
LinkyPlease paste the text. Those of us who don't subscribe to the WSJ only get a paragraph and a 1/2.
A couple of points should be raised for those who haven't studied the matter. One, it is difficult to imagine how to exercise the collective right without also exercising the individual right, especially since the militia sections of the USC, USC Title 10 Secs. 310-311, and the texts of the precedent Militia Acts, presume the militia would do any shooting with arms privately owned by the citizens; and two, scholars acknowledge the Amendment acknowledges an individual, not a collective, right and the language admits of no other accurate interpretation. Some might misread the opening dependent clause, but it in no way modifies or restricts "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Comma as in original phrasing, the overpunctuation has excited comment for some time.]
classicman, I apologise. I know better than that.
Try
here or
here or
hereSome might misread the opening dependent clause, but it in no way modifies or restricts "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Comma as in original phrasing, the overpunctuation has excited comment for some time.]
So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?
Here are a few questions for you...
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military? Times have changed and our militaries have gotten fantastic at killing.
Do you honestly believe that the
reason people want to keep their guns is to form a militia? Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.
Do you really believe that the penmen of the constitution would throw in the first half of that amendment if they didn't mean to imply that weapons should be allowed for use in a well regulated militia?
I am not for abolishing firearms, but I am for regulating their use. I don't believe carry or concealed permits should be allowed unless you're a cop(because let's face it, if you're fighting some kind of geurilla war, you're not going to follow the laws at that point... so carry away!). I most definitely don't believe there's any reason someone needs a freaking arsenal in their basement.
And I don't believe I should pay for you to go to college in Hawaii.
But, you say, that was the deal... you can't change the rules.
You want to change the rules on me though.
Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.
Resorting to hyperbole blows your arguments for me. Plural because you've done it before, on the same topic.
[QUOTE=queequeger;412552]
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military?
Not toe to toe, I got to tell ya though...an unfunded, untrained people's militia is doing a pretty good job of harassing an organized modern military in a few countries around the world.
That is the point of the second amendment. It stems from a group of people who harassed, and eventually overcame the best military power of the day.
So, no I don't think the penmen would throw that in unless they really meant that it was necessary to the security of a free State. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and why.
Not recommended for the security of a free state, but necessary.
No matter how you slice the second amendment up and look at it, I think it will stand.
I think the arguments about the second amendment are a distraction from more important issues.
As I read it the second amendment is intended to create a balance of power between the government and the general population. As Queequeger points out, lightly armed militia could not realistically fight the US military in anything except guerrilla warfare. If the US government were to slide into a dictatorship, a guerrilla campaign would merely give them the excuse to be even more tyrannical.
Looking back at US history, it seems to me that the citizens are more able to struggle against the government through non-violent political protests and activism (eg civil rights, anti-war movements). These are based on freedom of expression, freedom of association, access to information, and a certain amount of privacy from the government. These rights are more important than guns. They should be protected. It seems to me that they are being whittled down, especially the right to access information about government, and privacy for the citizens.
Keep your guns if you like, but they won't do you much good if the government knows more about you than you know about it. But while you're busy arguing about the guns, what else is the government quietly doing behind the scenes?
Well, you could start with title 36 of the United States Code. That doesn't get much air time if any.
Could you be more specific, Rjoe?
Nope. :headshake :D I'm really just being a smart ass. The "government" is doing lots of things behind the scenes.
For instance as of 3 Jan 2005:
CHAPTER 307--BOARD FOR FUNDAMENTAL EDUCATION
Sec. 30702. Purpose
The purpose of the corporation is to foster the development of
fundamental education through programs and projects such as--
(1) giving citizens (children, youth, and adults) an opportunity
to acquire the understandings and skills necessary to relate the
resources of the community to the needs and interests of the
community;
(2) demonstrating programs of fundamental education and
measuring results; and
(3) training men and women as leaders in fundamental education
by providing internships and other experiences.
which has nothing to do with the second amendment.
But then there is:
SUBCHAPTER II--CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM
Sec. 40722. Functions
The functions of the Civilian Marksmanship Program are--
(1) to instruct citizens of the United States in marksmanship;
(2) to promote practice and safety in the use of firearms;
(3) to conduct competitions in the use of firearms and to award
trophies, prizes, badges, and other insignia to competitors;
(4) to secure and account for firearms, ammunition, and other
equipment for which the corporation is responsible;
(5) to issue, loan, or sell firearms, ammunition, repair parts,
and other supplies under sections 40731 and 40732 of this title; and
(6) to procure necessary supplies and services to carry out the
Program.
...which might have something to do with the second amendment.
A program which was mandated by Congress in 1903 called The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, and is now called the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
We have a very long history, tradition and culture which begins with the second amendment and is carried along by Congress throughout our national history. There are enough people who identify with this tradition and culture to keep the second amendment right where it is.
And I don't believe I should pay for you to go to college in Hawaii.
But, you say, that was the deal... you can't change the rules.
You want to change the rules on me though.
I don't get your point. Do you mean you don't think I should get the GI bill or... Could you elaborate?
And Jinx, I know! I've been slipping into those kinds of things, and it shouldn't have played any part in my post there. My apologies. Care to ignore it?
And all said and done, regardless of what I or others believe, there's no chance of a constitutional amendment nixing the 2nd amendment (at least not in our lifetime).
And all said and done, regardless of what I or others believe, there's no chance of a constitutional amendment nixing the 2nd amendment (at least not in our lifetime).
Agreed, there is no chance this will be overturnned, not by this court anyway. But it does not mean that Congress will not do it's dammdest to legislate changes to gun control that will attempt to ban guns anyway. And then we will be right back to the SCJ to overturn it again.
I think we should actually expand the second amendment, because I believe the new "arms" is actually technologically based advances, and everything they get we should be allowed to have.
Just a thought.
And a rather interestingly subversive thought.
Personally I'd draw the line at private nuclear weapons. It's so
very difficult to use nuclear weapons as designed and intended in a moral way. It's a lot easier with something a little less comprehensive. Like a B-25. :D
Now Queequeger, your opinions about arms in society are opinions I do not share -- because I have studied the matter. I used to agree with many of them, but then I actually started getting informed, and enlightenment followed. I'm pro-gun, and I'm really, genuinely, effectually antigenocide. If you're not pro-gun, you're not really antigenocide in any measurable way.
I recommend Stephen Halbrook's
That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right for an education in the fundamentals. It's not only knowledgeable and comprehensive, it's very readable -- a classic in the field. It is also quite true, and never been refuted, that a society full of arms is a society that does not suffer genocide, whilst those societies that disarmed do. To make genocide possible, you prohibit armed self-defense by law. Such law may take many forms, but the most effective one is to forbid private guns. So you can see what the reverse situation results in: crime both retail and industrial-scale can be effectually resisted, and in the opposing, ended, to paraphrase
Hamlet. This is too important to be left solely to officialdom, and it doesn't work very well if it is. Generalized, armed resistance to crime and oppression cleans up whole towns, and fast. Clean virtuous communities do more for mankind than all the hoplophobia in the world ever did. Ask Spexxvet what happened to him when he tried to convert the freedom-people on this board to his brand of hoplophobia, that the poor schmoe thought was so virtuous. It makes... instructive reading. It was a bit before your time. Search up the thread If You Own A Gun, or Do You Own etc., IIRC.
Thus saith the
JPFO, and their argument has not been refuted, despite plenty of time to research since 1991, when the theory was propounded.
So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?
Here being an example of misreading -- now mostly adhered to by non-gun people on the Left with no education in arms. That clause in the sentence does not and cannot restrict the rest of the Amendment. The Framers brought up the Militia as a national reason and a national security interest for not infringing on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. By no means was this the sole reason, merely the one they thought might be of greatest national interest. Subsequent Militia Acts -- say, the Militia Act of 1792 -- for some time specified in their texts what sort of armament the militia should bear to be at least minimally equipped sufficient for fighting.
A citizen's militia powers are nowadays primarily exerted in police matters, and depriving the citizen of these powers only empowers crime -- and that's at the best.
Thanks Urbane!
But I was thinking more along the lines of software and hardware. The new "arms".
Yea...I'm a kook.
:)
And Jinx, I know! I've been slipping into those kinds of things, and it shouldn't have played any part in my post there. My apologies. Care to ignore it?
Thank you. I'm sure I'll get over it...
Thanks Urbane!
But I was thinking more along the lines of software and hardware. The new "arms".
Hmm. Yes. Might you expand on this some more? Got some notions of what shape it might take?
Yea...I'm a kook.
:)
[Little-Man-from-the-Draft-Board voice]"We-ell -- I wouldn't say
that." [/voice]
You have more of an idea than some around here do of what it takes to keep and sustain liberty, and secure the economy from depradations. Criminal assaults and disrespect of property rights amount to leaks in the pipeline of economics.
The first part of the Second Amendment suggests to me that some form of obligation to the State exists for people who own firearms. I am not sure what that obligation might be. Maybe the owners of those firearms can be required to join a well-regulated militia on request. Maybe they are required to surrender them on demand to the police (who are themselves a well-regulated militia) when needed to assist with the apprehension of criminals.
Whatever the exact obligations are, in my opinion too much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment (the rights conferred by the amendment) and too little has been paid to the first part (the obligations that go with the rights).
The Supreme Court will finally hear a case regarding the Second Amendment and it's applications. Mainly, does it enumerate a collective right or an individual right?
Linky
There are no "collective" rights and our rights don't come from the Constitution. We are
BORN with an individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Having the right to life, means we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary as long as it does not infringe on the equal rights or property of others.
We are
BORN with the right to own any number of any type of weapon and ammunition we choose without limits. The 2nd amendment was created just to protect that individual right.
If the supreme court rules against this private right, it is also our right to alter or abolish this illegitimate government...aka OVERTHROW.
So what, we're just supposed to ignore the first half of the amendment? Why would they have even brought up the militia if that wasn't to imply the reason behind the right to bear arms?
The 2nd amendment mentions militias as one of the reasons that THE RIGHT OF
THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Here are a few questions for you...
Do you honestly believe that an unfunded, untrained people's militia could stand against any organized modern military?
The question is irrelevant. Our rights don't come from government and whether or not we'd stand a chance against the military is irrelevant when our rights are concerned. Also, yes millions of armed Americans can defeat a couple of hundred thousands military members.
Times have changed and our militaries have gotten fantastic at killing.
Where do you think military technology is developed? The private sector. Anything they have, we can have too.
Do you honestly believe that the reason people want to keep their guns is to form a militia? Chances are, they just like hunting or shooting people who are different colors than they are.
It doesn't matter
WHY someone wants to keep and bear arms as long as they don't use them to violate the rights of others. Merely owning guns doesn't endanger anyone or infringe upon their rights; nor does using them to defend your person, property, or rights. If someone wants to buy a gun to prop up a wobbly leg on his table, no other person or group of people have any say in the matter regardless of their number.
Do you really believe that the penmen of the constitution would throw in the first half of that amendment if they didn't mean to imply that weapons should be allowed for use in a well regulated militia?
The founders mentioned militias as one of the reasons that the individual people of America will have their right to keep and bear arms from being infringed. The mention of militias in that amendment means no more and no less than that. Militias are the reason we have a country in the first place. Without them we'd still be under British rule.
I am not for abolishing firearms, but I am for regulating their use.
In other words, you think YOU know better than someone else, how they should protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property, and you think you have some magical power to tell them how they will or won't exercise that right for themselves.
I don't believe carry or concealed permits should be allowed unless you're a cop(because let's face it, if you're fighting some kind of geurilla war, you're not going to follow the laws at that point... so carry away!). I most definitely don't believe there's any reason someone needs a freaking arsenal in their basement.
You don't believe in carry permits because you don't know the meaning of rights, and clearly don't know that in 100% of the states that have made carry permits easy to obtain, crime has dropped dramatically.
The first part of the Second Amendment suggests to me that some form of obligation to the State exists for people who own firearms. I am not sure what that obligation might be. Maybe the owners of those firearms can be required to join a well-regulated militia on request. Maybe they are required to surrender them on demand to the police (who are themselves a well-regulated militia) when needed to assist with the apprehension of criminals.
Whatever the exact obligations are, in my opinion too much emphasis has been placed on the second part of the amendment (the rights conferred by the amendment) and too little has been paid to the first part (the obligations that go with the rights).
The obligation (or duty) in question is to defend Americans even against the American government if necessary.
Well said, Radar.
And anyone familiar with the
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership will recognize their logo on the Hitler pic there.
Those people
can and
will convince you that selective-fire rifles ought to be over every fireplace. Or in suitable home firearms safes. They are... impressive. That's the word.
A citizen's militia powers are nowadays primarily exerted in police matters, and depriving the citizen of these powers only empowers crime -- and that's at the best.
Just like what is happening in Iraq. The whole lot of guns they got over there is really preventing genocide, isn't it?
Also, to really have self-defense, every person should have a pocket nuke. And I mean every person.
Sure is. Ask the genocide victims, such as, oh, the Kurds... quite well armed, and not getting problems of late.
Deadbeater, nobody can beat me on the antigenocide argument. It's been tried, but the arguments-against simply aren't good enough.
And I suppose the Sunni and the Shia were unarmed?
You may be an 'expert', but you are not an expert in manipulating me. We'll see how can their arms protect the Kurds from a Turkish onslaught. The Turks will deny what they will do in the name of the fighting the PKK is genocide.
That's good; I'm not manipulating. I am simply knowledgeable. What I am not here to do is steer you off the path of virtue.
If you're really, measurably, palpably antigenocide, you are pro-gun. Lots of them and ergonomically shaped and efficient, too. Until you are firmly pro-gun, no antigenocide philosopher would take you seriously as being yourself antigenocide.
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. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany but the Nazis had gun registration to help them out so they'd know which homes had guns.
If they had weapons, things would most likely be a lot more stable and peaceful in Iraq.
You know the old saying, "If everyone's got a gun, people are more polite".
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.
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.
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.
excellent answer, thanks.
"Gun -- sword -- we all die the same way." --Red Sun
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just kiss the Queens ass until she cuts you loose. Slackers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
When you have to create an outrageous and bizarre narrative to support your point of view, that's not critical thinking.
I guess it's a good thing I didn't create an outrageous and bizarre narrative and merely made a statement of fact.
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.
The rate of violent crimes in general is higher in nations that prohibit gun ownership, including Canada, Australia, and the UK.
I can easily shoot 80 to 100 rounds in about 1/2 a day on the range, practicing for a rifle match. 10 days worth of shooting is not much really. Don't worry, I only use one target.
Radar, have you been to Iraq?
Another shooting in another mall, is why we should ban guns?
There was another death on the highway somewhere in the U.S. up to 40,000 a year...every year. We are not banning cars anytime soon.
Guns serve a purpose, cars serve a purpose. Right now, those purposes outweigh the need to ban either one.
One does not need to go to Iraq to know what is happening there and what has happened in the past. That is the beauty of modern technology and communication methods.
Luckily I finished my time in the military before the first gulf war and were I still in and ordered to go to Iraq now, I'd refuse that unlawful order because I took my oath seriously.
The rate of violent crimes in general is higher in nations that prohibit gun ownership, including Canada, Australia, and the UK.
Radar, can you provide some evidence for this claim?
Wikipedia offers the following
list of murder rates per 100,000 people (most recent data):
USA: 5.9
UK: 2.03
Canada: 2.01
Australia: 1.28
You're MUCH more likely to be murdered if you live in the US than one of the other countries you claim have higher levels of violent crime.
Meanwhile this
site (NationMaster, they say their figures come from the CIA world factbook) gives figures for assaults per 1,000:
US: 7.569
UK: 7.459
Canada: 7.118
Australia: 7.024
Which are more pretty much the same. What this says to me is that these cultures are about equally violent, but in the US the violence is more likely to lead to death.
This site also gives the
figures for robberies per 1,000 (which combine violence with property crime)
UK: 1.574
USA: 1.385
Australia: 1.160
Canada: 0.823
Ok, second out of four, but first for assaults and clear first in murders. I suspect that this is simply because it is so much easier for an assault to become a murder when one or both parties have guns.
Maybe this is the price the USA chooses to pay in exchange for the benefits of an armed populace, and that is the decision of those who live there, that is, you and not me.
But you will be more persuasive if you can keep your facts correct and refrain from disparaging other countries.
Wait, I'm not an American but I thought the 2nd Ammendment says right to bear arms and militia meant: ( and here's my gap in understanding) At that time the said Amendt. was written the American militia defeated the Brits. To me the militia in the 2nd Amendt actually refers to the Armed forces as it was then - The USA Army as it is known today? N'est pas?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/192016.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece
I'm not impressed.
All these articles still agree that the US leads the list for murders and rapes.
You haven't got anything about Canada or Australia.
On the contrary, you do need to go to Iraq to really know what is going on. To different Areas as well, as a broad example Diyala is different then Anbar. Both are different then Baghdad.
The only weapons that are confiscated in Iraq are the RPK heavy machine guns, RPG launchers with or without warheads, and like items. Oh yea, large ordinance like 155 Artilary rounds, Det cord and bomb/IED making materials. The Ak-47's that are confiscated are the ones that are hot to the touch, having been recently fired at U.S. or Iraqi troops or police.
Every household in Iraq is allowed to have one AK-47. It's Iraqi law.
It is unlawful for an Iraqi citizen to posses an RPG launcher, much as it is unlawful for an American citizen to posses an AT-4 rocket launcher.
U.S. troops support Iraqi law.
So, you would advocate all military personnel to refuse service or deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, The Pacific Rim, Europe, and South America? Under the grounds that they have received unlawful orders to do so?
Also the article on Britain's crime figures is from 1998 and was from a US Department of Justice report which suggested the UK was in some ways a more dangerous place to live than America.
Also the article on Britain's crime figures is from 1998 and was from a US Department of Justice report which suggested the UK was in some ways a more dangerous place to live than America.
Hey SD when I grew up in England guns were so rare I had to read comics to see them but today in the U.K they are common. Whatever happend to boys comics? What does your Welsh signature mean?
Hmm. Yes. Might you expand on this some more? Got some notions of what shape it might take?
[Little-Man-from-the-Draft-Board voice]"We-ell -- I wouldn't say that." [/voice]
You have more of an idea than some around here do of what it takes to keep and sustain liberty, and secure the economy from depradations. Criminal assaults and disrespect of property rights amount to leaks in the pipeline of economics.
I'll pm ya!
:D
Where do you get your information that guns in the U.K. are common?
I'm an ex-brit. I lived in London and on the outskirts for 62 years. I have, truthfully, never seen a real gun other than in a museum, in my life and I never walked in fear of one. I was however fearful of being mugged after dark and never ventured out at night.
I accept there is a high crime rate in the U.K. What I don't accept is that the use of guns is anything more than a minimum inside of those figures.
When I grew up in England guns were rare, especially in crime: see ford transits and sawn-off shotguns, but I'm sorry a lot of teenagers have been killed by firearms in the U.K. recently, also by ever present stabbings.
Hey SD when I grew up in England guns were so rare I had to read comics to see them but today in the U.K they are common.
I'm with BeeVee on this. The only real guns I have ever seen have been on police at the airport. I may have seen armed police elsewhere and just haven't noticed, but I have never seen a civilian with a gun or heard a gunshot.
What does your Welsh signature mean?
It's a bit cheeky. Welsh posters on another site tend to have their sigs in Welsh and I think it's a little insular. Mine is "I thank God I'm not Welsh" (as opposed to the Catatonia song which translates as "Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh"). I love Wales and have nothing against the Welsh personally, just playing.
I was however fearful of being mugged after dark and never ventured out at night.
I suppose it depends where you live. I have never been mugged but HM has been mugged twice - once very seriously, involving stitches and broken bones. Then again he was very drunk and was trying to befriend a heroin addict - a situation I don't plan to get into.
But where are the Americans out there - the 2nd amendt. was for their present army to bear arms to fight. Translated it means the Armed Forces. The present day Army not householders, civilian Joes like you and me but the Army. Sorry for getting hectic but that's my question. Who wants?
It's doesn't say "present army" anywhere, it says "the people".
The people. who were not an army. But crushingly defeated the Brits. That people became an Army. The militia which became the state army. The people do not have to bear arms because the 2nd Amendment is the Armed Forces, but if you need to want to have a mini arsernal of arms in your possession - so be it.
the people had weapons and were thus able to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical power. these same people in forming a new government were just as afraid of a homegrown tyrant. do you really think with that mindset that they would have any desire for all weapons to be held by a force that is an arm of the government?
And doesn't the Constitution forbid a standing army?
The amendment specifies The People, not The Government or The Army.
Militia refers to ordinary, untrained citizens.
Wait, I'm not an American but I thought the 2nd Ammendment says right to bear arms and militia meant: ( and here's my gap in understanding) At that time the said Amendt. was written the American militia defeated the Brits. To me the militia in the 2nd Amendt actually refers to the Armed forces as it was then - The USA Army as it is known today? N'est pas?
At the time of the founders, we had an army AND militias. The army was not enough to defeat the British, and it was the militias that allowed America to win.
I'm not impressed.
All these articles still agree that the US leads the list for murders and rapes.
You haven't got anything about Canada or Australia.
I'm not trying to "impress" you. I picked the first 2 or three articles that showed up on google.
By all means go to fuckinggoogleit.com so you can learn how to look things up for yourself.
On the contrary, you do need to go to Iraq to really know what is going on. To different Areas as well, as a broad example Diyala is different then Anbar. Both are different then Baghdad.
The only weapons that are confiscated in Iraq are the RPK heavy machine guns, RPG launchers with or without warheads, and like items. Oh yea, large ordinance like 155 Artilary rounds, Det cord and bomb/IED making materials. The Ak-47's that are confiscated are the ones that are hot to the touch, having been recently fired at U.S. or Iraqi troops or police.
Every household in Iraq is allowed to have one AK-47. It's Iraqi law.
It is unlawful for an Iraqi citizen to posses an RPG launcher, much as it is unlawful for an American citizen to posses an AT-4 rocket launcher.
U.S. troops support Iraqi law.
So, you would advocate all military personnel to refuse service or deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, The Pacific Rim, Europe, and South America? Under the grounds that they have received unlawful orders to do so?
No, you don't have to be in Iraq to know what's going on. We're inundated with information daily about what's going on. Also, when America invaded Iraq without legitimate cause or provocation and started kicking down doors and taking not only guns (hand guns, AK-47s, rocket propelled grendades, etc.) it was still early in this unconstitutional war. America also shut down the Iraqi free press.
And yes, I'd defend the right of any person to refuse to follow unlawful orders to take part in any military action in another country that didn't follow a formal declaration of war. The U.S. military has one and only one purpose...to defend the land and ships of the United States from attack. It's not here to overthrow dictators, prevent other nations from developing nukes, train the military of other nations, to take part in peacekeeping or humanitarian aid missions, to enforce UN sanctions or resolutions, etc.
A militia is not the Army. Although the Army Reserve is a militia, it is a part of the Army. There are militias in the States that are not part of the Army.
June 14th, 1774 the Continental Army of the United States was formed. There were also militias separate from the Army at that time.
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789. There was a well founded Army, Navy, and Marine Corp. The writers of the Bill of Rights new the difference between the Army and a militia.
But where are the Americans out there - the 2nd amendt. was for their present army to bear arms to fight. Translated it means the Armed Forces. The present day Army not householders, civilian Joes like you and me but the Army. Sorry for getting hectic but that's my question. Who wants?
The right to bear arms has always been and will always be an INDIVIDUAL right that has nothing to do with the military.
Yes all that is true but where did the Army eventually come from. The peoples militia became the army despite the Constistution, the Bill of rights the ammendments etc. I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment written in it's day was to lay the foundations for the army today. Politics.
Yes all that is true but where did the Army eventually come from. The peoples militia became the army despite the Constistution, the Bill of rights the ammendments etc. I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment written in it's day was to lay the foundations for the army today. Politics.
Resolved, that a General be appointed to command all the continental forces, raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American liberty.
The above resolution of the 2nd Continental Congress, on 14 June 1775 established the beginnings of the United States Army.
The Army had been well established for 14 years, it didn't eventually come from anywhere. It was there. The writers new the difference between the militias of several states and the then Continental Army.
The U.S. military has one and only one purpose...to defend the land and ships of the United States from attack. It's not here to overthrow dictators, prevent other nations from developing nukes, train the military of other nations, to take part in peacekeeping or humanitarian aid missions, to enforce UN sanctions or resolutions, etc.[/QUOTE]
Taken from Field Manual 1 "The Army". Published by Headquarters Department of the Army in June of 2005
1-2. The Army, a long-trusted institution, exists to serve the Nation. As part of the joint force, the Army supports and defends America’s Constitution and way of life against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Army protects national security interests, including, forces, possessions, citizens, allies, and friends. It prepares for and delivers
decisive action in all operations. Above all, the Army provides combatant commanders with versatile land forces ready to fight and win the Nation’s wars.
1-8. Army forces are versatile. In addition to conducting combat operations, Army forces help provide security. They supply many services associated with establishing order, rebuilding infrastructure, and delivering humanitarian support. When necessary, they can direct assistance in reestablishing governmental institutions. Army forces
help set the conditions that allow a return to normalcy or a self-sustaining peace.
I'm not trying to "impress" you. I picked the first 2 or three articles that showed up on google.
By all means go to fuckinggoogleit.com so you can learn how to look things up for yourself.
Are you pissed off because your claim was false Radar (and any idiot knows it is without even bothering to look up fuckinggoogle.com), or are you pissed off because you can't find anything substantial to back up your false statement?
You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.
It's a very simple question: when all the constitencuy thingeys and the Amendments were written THEN at that time wasn't the militia and the right to bear arms written to birth the Armed Forces as it is it known today. My point is that the civilian element,no matter how much firepower it has, is unregulated and in no way attached to the overall plan of homeland defense as it stands today. I like that Alan Aarkin film "The Russians are coming"
To say that our Military today doesn't have militias in it's history would be out right lying. I would have to answer no, the 2nd amendment was not written to birth the Armed Forces as it is known today.
I'm begging to think that you are not aware of what you are saying, or that you are mis representing on purpose.
:thumb:
The Army traces its heritage to the colonial militias. These were precursors of today’s Army National Guard. Citizens answering the call to protect their homes and families began a heritage of selfless service and sacrifice that continues today. Opposition to British colonial policies in the eighteenth century led to war in 1775.
After the battles at Lexington and Concord, militia forces from across New England surrounded British forces in Boston. The Continental Congress assumed command of these units as “Troops of the United Provinces of North America” on 14 June 1775.
from the start, the Army comprised a small national force and the state militias’ citizen-Soldiers. In times of emergency, the standing army was enlarged with recruits and augmented by mobilizing the militia and creating volunteer units, initially by state and nationally by the time of the Civil War. This tradition of an Army that combines “full-time” regular Soldiers and citizen-Soldiers serving for short active service periods is still the cornerstone of Army organization.
-FM 1 United States Army
yes the 2nd amendment was tied to the idea of having armed citizens in the United States, in militias, and not. Militias in those days could not be formed unless the citizens were privately armed. You are right to see a connection between the militia and the Military. The second amendment was not written to create this connection. This connection was started 14+ years earlier in our history.
These were turbulant times. France at war with England (again) the Boston tea party', Science... Majour leaps in society, moving to cities etc. All I'm saying is that the 2nd amendment is the army today. We as citizens should not have the right to bear arms as so many people argue we can. What do i need with an assault rifle that fires armoured piercing rounds if I am a civilian? If I am a Soldier ok. But where is the malitia if your country has an army?
Militia refers to ordinary, untrained citizens.
"Well regulated militia" refers to trained, organized citizens.
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
These are quotes from people of the day. It should shed some light on why the second amendment came to be. We in the United States have a long tradition behind us. These quotes were made in 1788 a year before the 2nd amendment was ratified with the first ten.
Happy Monkey, I see where your'e going, are you law schooled by any chance?
Let's do another analogy: the Army in Iraq was disbanded before the Allies got there, Are we therefore now fighting their militia?
Are you pissed off because your claim was false Radar (and any idiot knows it is without even bothering to look up fuckinggoogle.com), or are you pissed off because you can't find anything substantial to back up your false statement?
You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.
Why would I be angry? Each and every single thing I've said is factual and true. I already know what I've said is a fact. If you are too lazy to look it up on google, don't get upset with me. The UK, Australia, and Canada have more violent crimes (rapes, assaults, etc.) than America on a per-capita basis. Many of those crimes aren't reported in those countries because the Ministry doesn't allow more than a certain number of reports to be made.
The only difference between America and those countries, is over there people use bats, knives, etc. rather than guns.
It's a very simple question: when all the constitencuy thingeys and the Amendments were written THEN at that time wasn't the militia and the right to bear arms written to birth the Armed Forces as it is it known today. My point is that the civilian element,no matter how much firepower it has, is unregulated and in no way attached to the overall plan of homeland defense as it stands today. I like that Alan Aarkin film "The Russians are coming"
An armed citizenry = militia. The founders listed a well-organized militia as one of the MANY reasons that INDIVIDUALS retain the right to keep and bear arms without any governmental oversight or permission. The militia in question is here more to defend Americans from the American government than from other governments.
Also, anyone who thinks a well-armed general citizenry of millions and millions of Americans can't beat a military with a few hundred thousand people
(even the best armed military on earth) is smoking crack.
The anti-gun nutjobs would have us believe that the words "the people" refer to individual rights in every single part of the Constitution other than the 2nd amendment.
Happy Monkey, I see where your'e going, are you law schooled by any chance?
No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.
At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".
Why would I be angry? Each and every single thing I've said is factual and true. I already know what I've said is a fact. If you are too lazy to look it up on google, don't get upset with me. The UK, Australia, and Canada have more violent crimes (rapes, assaults, etc.) than America on a per-capita basis. Many of those crimes aren't reported in those countries because the Ministry doesn't allow more than a certain number of reports to be made.
The reports that don't make it into the statistics go straight to you, I suppose?
Training has a lot to do with that Radar. The man who sent his armed militia up against U.S. Troops in....say...Fallujah in November of 2004 should be strung up by his yoohoo's. Even George Washington brought in a Prussian Military Officer to write one the Army's first regulations and help train his troops. It's a lot like the movie 300, without training they were just a bunch of farmers and city folk with rifles. The training, along with tactics learned from the Indians gave them what they needed to win.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise between federalists and antifederalists... those who wanted no constitution, no strong central government. The federalists believed that in the constitution, the people "surrender nothing, and retain everything" (Hamilton), rendering a bill of rights unnecessary. The antifeds didn't believe that shit for one second, and because of them, many states refused the ratify the constitution as is, instead stipulating that certain natural individual rights be enumerated - the important 9th amendment covering those natural rights not enumerated.
The feds and antifeds also disagreed about whether there should be a well regulated militia, "under the regulation and at the disposal of" the federal government. Patrick Henry et al didn't like the idea... at all (fearing the president would use his powers like a king and turn his army against the citizens)- the compromise on this issue is the second amendment.
If you're (in general) arguing that the 2nd amendment somehow limits the right of an individual to bear arms, I'd love to see some citations. Specifically, which of our founders were making that argument?
No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.
At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".
It says well-regulated militias are necessary for a free state to exist, and this is why THE PEOPLE (individuals) retain the right to keep and bear arms. This right isn't granted by government, it's a right we're born with that the Constitution protects. There is nothing "enforceable" about a militia. There is no requirement that those who keep and bear arms be members of a militia. The only enforceable part of that amendment is the part that says
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (note: It doesn't say "the people who are members of militias" or "the militias") SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDThe reports that don't make it into the statistics go straight to you, I suppose?
Even with the unreported crimes being taken into consideration, the countries with the most restrictive gun laws have more violent crimes than those with the least restrictive.
Why would I be angry? Each and every single thing I've said is factual and true. I already know what I've said is a fact. If you are too lazy to look it up on google, don't get upset with me. The UK, Australia, and Canada have more violent crimes (rapes, assaults, etc.) than America on a per-capita basis. Many of those crimes aren't reported in those countries because the Ministry doesn't allow more than a certain number of reports to be made.
The only difference between America and those countries, is over there people use bats, knives, etc. rather than guns.
OK, for one thing, it's quite clear that what you've presented isn't a fact, but let's just say it was for the sake of you feeling good about yourself.
In that case, it means that being an Australian I'm more likely to get punched or raped than I am of getting shot. Having been a victim of both these crimes, I'd say I'm pretty happy with the outcome...still being alive and all.
Having been a victim of both these crimes, I'd say I'm pretty happy with the outcome...still being alive and all.
Sorry but that is fucking sick. I would have rather killed the bastard.
yeah...or those people could have killed me.
It's a two way street. That's what people such as yourself seem to keep forgetting.
I'd rather have a two way street than a one way street where only the bad guys have guns. They would, like they do in every nation.
Well, there's bad guys and then there's the idiots that commit crimes on impulse. Crimes of passion. Call them whatever you like. Any crime that's premeditated can be committed with a gun regardless of where you live, but when idiots aren't allowed to walk around with them, it means they can't do as much damage (death) when they decide to act on their impulses.
How many people do you think commit murder on purpose? How many murders do you think might not have been murders if the purpetrator had not happened to be carrying a gun?
I don't know the answer, but I think it's a fair assumption to say there'd be less if people couldn't carry guns. I'd base that assumption on the difference in the number of murders per capita between the US and Australia as an example. However, if you believe Radar, then you couldn't possibly agree with that assumption. He thinks we have more murders per capita here in Australia than in the US. This clearly is not the case regardless of what his claims are.
UG, if my country is ever in a state where genocide is likely, then yeah I'd arm myself just like the Kurds did . . .
Okay, now when would you know enough to take that action? The JPFO's literary contributors have some hints.
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.
Oh. Fucking.
Lovely. If I understand you rightly, your grandchildren may die helpless because
your mind was so closed. Aliantha, that ain't exactly the nurturing way, and it isn't moral either. I'm not going to make your mistake -- I know too much.
The necessary preconditions for a genocide are three: 1) Hatred, on whatever pretext. Most of the time that's economic or religious. 2) Governmental power, which is why the State isn't much bulwark against genocides. Instead it's the sinews of the State that power or protect the actions of the haters. 3) Targets without weapons. The most efficient way ever found to do this is to forbid arms ownership and to make armed self-defense unlawful, as an occasional addition.
This is how they did it, in Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, in Red China, in the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. This is how they didn't get it done in Iraqi Kurdistan, still the habitation of Kurds. Where is European Jewry these days? Quite a bit of it is in ash piles.
Disgusting, is it not? Something to fight against, is it not?
So, if you don't have an anti-gun society, you don't have a society that can be wiped out by State-sponsored brutes, or brutes in charge of the State. Members of such societies would, I think, better approve of my approach than of yours.
Antigun attitudes are the handmaiden of antigun laws, which can lie in wait for decades to do their evil work, as was the case in Cambodia, where the relevant laws were enacted in the middle 1930s.*
Your battle is really not with me; it is with the
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They note that while so-called gun control laws are the most efficient means to disarm a population, laws are much more easily wiped away than either hatred or the State. Their argument has completely convinced me that they've found the better road.
*
Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Key To Genocide, Simkin, Zelman and Rice; pp. 303
et seq., particularly pp. 318-9
yeah...or those people could have killed me.
It's a two way street. That's what people such as yourself seem to keep forgetting.
Actually,
you're forgetting it's a two-way street. Antigunners are famous for that. Consider how much raping a guy can do with a smoking, spurting hole where his testes used to be, or if he's got the immediate concern of keeping breathing with a nasty case of pneumothorax from a round or two in the approximate center of his mass. Trying to shoot him right through the zipper is also good gunfighting tactics; if you get excited and take too much front sight, you hit high, and your assailant goes down with a blue hole between his eyebrows and the back blown out of his head, as Kipling put it.
If
you decide not to have armament in your hands, it all goes the other guy's way, doesn't it? Criminally assaulted and you can't stop it. That's not a life, that's a walking death. I'd rather have a life myself, and I think you should have something better than walking death yourself. I give a damn, Aliantha.
Frankly, your handling of arms would be responsible. You have the necessary and becoming reluctance to deal out death. Still, "He's dead, and I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it." Kind of hard to object to so favorable an outcome.
No. But, legally speaking, if they intended the only enforceable part of the second amendment to be the second half, they should have left the first half off and put their justifications into a separate document. None of the other amendments have introductions.
Though there is no reason to actually expect that idea to carry water, in the Constitution or out of it. The Constitution is not entirely nor purely a legalistic document; it is in the nature of setting up the provisions of the social compact as well as the lineaments of the government.
At the very least, the unique structure of the second amendment complicates an absolutist interpretation. Why have an explicit justification? Why, in that justification, further specify "well regulated" militias? The word "regulated" may have changed meanings slightly over he centuries, but I'd posit that whatever the meaning, it is there to differentiate between "a well regulated militia" and "a mob".
I would not read the clause as defying or complicating an "absolutist" interpretation at all. It is the consensus of Constitutional scholarship that the first clause of the sentence does not modify nor restrict the second clause. The sense of "well regulated" has been proven to have changed, also -- nowadays they would be termed "well trained," that is, skillful enough to be effective against an enemy force. Further, the explicit intent of the Militia Acts passed pursuant to this Amendment was to mandate the militia being every bit as well armed as the best national infantry and cavalry of the day. From this point of view, it is disturbing how comparatively less equipped we citizens, we Unorganized Militia as defined in USC Title 10, are in recent times. The Swiss show us that civilizations do not decay from exposure to selective-fire assault rifles with 200 rounds of ready ammunition in about every basement. Are the Swiss really so very different from us?
Your last point is your best; they weren't any happier about mobs then than they are now, as the developments of Shays' and the Whiskey Rebellions serve to illustrate. Put down with a bare minimum of casualties, too; maybe an officer's horse threw a shoe and some infantryman got a blistered heel. It was about like that.
Why Britain needs more guns
By Joyce L Malcolm
Author and academic
As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.
"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.
Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?
The 'wild west' image is out of date
Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Concealed weapon can be carried in 33 states
Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
Gun crime rates between UK and US are narrowing
The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.
According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".
Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.
Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stmThis is a good observation by J.L.Malcolm thanks TM. You should click the bbc news link you included and scroll down to the mini bio for J.L.Malcolm and just below click on "have your say..." and read the comments. It will give you an insight to the British way of life today, without guns. I agree with Ali on this, in the U.K. or Australia I wish to walk down a high street without worrying about who's carrying a firearm. In the U.K. we have gun shops and gun clubs which are seriously controlled. Apart from the odd homicidal maniac (very rare) it works fine.But in the U.K. armed robbery is still a shock to the public even if the guns were not used. The courts deal very severely with gun crimes - they throw the fucking book at you. The British are not comfortable with guns, as Ali said most crimes are passion or rage orientated. I'd hate to spill my drink on a gun carrying person. J.L.Malcolm is an American who has written good work for Havard but it simply will not do for the British Government to listen to her advices, when public opinion is so set. It may take a few generations yet TM to when people in the U.K. carry arms. I lament the recent violence of teenagers with firearms - this is not a happy time; firearms are not good.
i would suggest that most law-abiding gun carrying citizens would respond the same way to a spilled drink with or without a gun.
have you ever known a guy who was literally a bad ass? a guy who if he wanted to, could probably end your life with just his hands? a guy who could walk into any situation without fear because he was confident in his abilities? Generally these guys are soft spoken mellow characters who will avoid violence in any way possible. Why? because they are secure and confident and they have no point to prove.
the same can be said about a responsible gun carrier. the gun is for emergency use only after all other avenues have been explored.
it is the responsible law abiding citizen that will no longer be carrying a weapon if the weapon is outlawed. the criminal is a criminal - laws don't really mean that much to them anyway.
Actually, you're forgetting it's a two-way street. Antigunners are famous for that. Consider how much raping a guy can do with a smoking, spurting hole where his testes used to be, or if he's got the immediate concern of keeping breathing with a nasty case of pneumothorax from a round or two in the approximate center of his mass. Trying to shoot him right through the zipper is also good gunfighting tactics; if you get excited and take too much front sight, you hit high, and your assailant goes down with a blue hole between his eyebrows and the back blown out of his head, as Kipling put it.
If you decide not to have armament in your hands, it all goes the other guy's way, doesn't it? Criminally assaulted and you can't stop it. That's not a life, that's a walking death. I'd rather have a life myself, and I think you should have something better than walking death yourself. I give a damn, Aliantha.
Frankly, your handling of arms would be responsible. You have the necessary and becoming reluctance to deal out death. Still, "He's dead, and I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it." Kind of hard to object to so favorable an outcome.
UG, I explained my reasons for disagreeing with people carrying guns around the street. If you don't understand my point, then that's fine. You will not convince me to think otherwise no matter how dramatic you want to get about it.
I know how to handle a gun. I could have my hands on any number of weapons within a couple of hours if I wanted to. My children are in the process of learning how to handle weapons.
I don't disagree that people should own guns. I simply disagree that they should be carrying them around the street. I also happen to think there should be very strict laws about who should be allowed to own them. For instance, nut jobs should not be allowed to own guns. Clearly, many do. Clearly many of them own guns illegally also, but my concern here is for the people who commit impulse crimes and because they happen to be carrying a weapon because that's acceptable, the crime becomes exponentially worse.
Fortunately I don't live in your country though. So I don't have to worry about all the nut jobs out there who carry guns around.
I would walk down just about any street in Australia without carrying a gun and feel safe. Certainly I'd walk down any street in Brisbane and feel safe. There are some areas of Sydney and Melbourne I would avoid after dark because I know it's not prudent to be there after dark alone. Those areas are very small though, and I don't believe having a gun in my handbag would save me from opportunistic crimes anyway. It's been proven time and again that just because you carry a gun, it doesn't mean you're safe. See shopping centre shooter last week as an example.
I'm just saying that guns and firearms shock the British. In Europe as a whole they have more access to firearms with different rules - I still am bemused at the Itailian carrobernerie having a thick cord attached to their pistols and ut belts. In Britain the people don't want guns.
By what authority do you speak for the British people?
Ali you are absolutely right. I shouldn't carry a gun unless I'm prepared to use it to full affect. Good point too.
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 vicinity for you to kill?
Is there any pressing reason in morality or physics
not to have 1000 rounds?
Now I'll get snarky: how many rounds in a brick of .22LR? Secondarily, how big is that brick, and how heavy?
How big a plastic bottle to stow 2500 beebees for a Red Ryder Daisy BB gun?
You and UG are both on the same slippery slide here. That's patently obvious.
Though Radar and I fight like wombats ("Ow! Quit it!" "Take that!" "Oh shut up and bite!" "But then I can't add insult to injury!"), we are freedom people. We are not necessarily convinced the non-gun or the anti-gun are. There is the matter of the mindset Lookout123 mentioned. Meanwhile, arms and their skill are measurable. Votes, to be sure, are far more pleasant -- but tyranny is far more unpleasant.
Well -- more to follow soon.
Radar is a purist, and he hates yer guts.
I am a strict Constitutional constructionist and a pure libertarian, but I don't hate people who disagree with me unless they try to legislate their opinions or religious doctrine onto me or infringe upon my unalienable rights.
Radar, it almost impossible to disagree with you without you thinking we are trying to legislate our opinions or religious doctrine onto you or infringe upon your "unalienable rights".
I've said this many times, gun culture is much different from place to place in America. All the pro-gunners I've seen here talk from a responsible respectable gun culture. I am assuming where you guys are from, a gun is moral responsibility where when you are carrying, your moral level should be even greater than when you are not carrying. If the whole country was like this, then it would be very rational to not have any gun restrictions.
But unfortunately the entire country does not share this gun culture. If you go to the inner city or a neighborhood that has a lot of drug dealings, guns are not a moral responsibility, but a tool to enforce one's power on others. Once we get a change in gun mindset and culture, it is only rational to look over the current laws and see if maybe change is in order. I am not advocating any change, just that it would be irrational and foolish to refuse to take a look at our situation.
I do not have a strong stance in this debate but I know for a fact that a universal gun law in the United States will never work because of the two completely opposite gun cultures in our country. Guns laws should be made by either the state or local community, not the people in Washington.
Gun laws should not be made by the local, state, or federal government. No government at any level has any legitimate authority to place any restrictions or limitations on gun ownership.
We are born with an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight.
As long as people don't try to make laws that place limitations or restrictions on the number of weapons, type of weapons, or kind of ammunition or body armor civilians may own, I don't hate them.
If they support any restrictions, registration, waiting periods, etc. they are an enemy of liberty and are causing deaths to law abiding people. These people are my enemy.
If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.
You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work. If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.
You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.
You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats.
But our country was founded on this principle.
But our country was founded on this principle.
And isn't that the crux of the argument here. Many of us believe that this place, this society, gave us those rights by virtue of our birth place and establishment of citizenship. Therefore the problem in our society as I see is that not that we don't have that right but we now have a whole host of individuals telling us we no longer have that right. Our society and government can use a number of ways to remove those rights and some already do so. Most gun legislation has been pushed down from the Federal level to one of states rights for regulation, without removing our rights to keep and bare arms in accordance with the Constitution as it was written. I am certainly not going to tell other countries that they should grant the same rights as our Constitution and I do not expect others, who have not ever been given any such rights, to tell me that I do not have a right to them. And yet we are constantly being told by certain members of Congress and special interest groups that I should
not have the rights afforded to me by the Constitution.
If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.
You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work. If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.
You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.
My rights don't come from "society" and "society" has absolutely zero authority over my rights. Society is made up of individuals and individuals have rights, not society. And the rights of a billion people do not supersede those of a single individual.
My rights don't change depending on which culture or "society" I happen to live within.
If you deny that unalienable rights exist, I can kill, rob, rape, or otherwise abuse you and you have nothing to complain about.
If you believe we have the right to life, you believe we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary. If you claim I don't have the unlimited right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon I choose, you deny that I, or that YOU have the right to life.
If you think the exercise of my rights is shoving something down your throat, then fine I hope you choke on it. I'm not saying YOU must own guns or infringing on your rights, but those who want to make guns illegal ARE infringing my my rights and will pay with their lives if they push too far. I and the other gun owners will use our guns to defend this unalienable right.
The matter of rights has always been contentious. The problem is that all rights overlap other people's rights. One man can't have a right without it affecting someone else's rights somehow. That's why gun ownership and the fact that pro-gunners have such a hard time when they resort to the 'it's my right' argument. The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.
That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.
"I have the right" is not a good enough argument anymore, and it never was.
You falsely claim that one man can't have a right without it affecting another person's. That is laughable. My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. My right to keep and bear arms does not affect anyone else's rights. My rights do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Feel free to tell me how my right to own a gun has any effect on the rights of my neighbor.
We've got piercehawkeye45 stupidly claiming that rights don't exist in reality when they are as tangible and gravity. They are self-evident and real, and if you attempt to violate my rights you will get a very real bullet passing through your skull.
How is this for an argument...
I have the right to keep and bear arms. I was born with this right. If you attempt to violate this right, I will violate your right to life in return. Try to take my gun, and I WILL take your life...PERIOD.
My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live.
Yes it does. If that other person is threatening your right to live, you'll shoot them, thus eliminating their right to live. You are putting your right to live above that persons right to live.
It's very simple radar. All rights infringe on others.
Wrong.
My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. Nor does my right to defend my life. If you choose to infringe on my rights and I take your life, I have not violated your rights because I was using DEFENSIVE force, rather than OFFENSIVE force.
Try again.
I don't need to try again Radar. I have proved my point. You're just too obnoxious to realize it.
Cya.
Oh, just one more thing to correct you on before I do leave you to it though.
Your right to live is one right.
Your right to defend yourself is another right.
They are two separate rights, not one combined.
I don't need to try again Radar. I have proved my point. You're just too obnoxious to realize it.
Cya.
No, as usual you've proven nothing and are touting empty claims of victory. You're too dimwitted to realize that we all have inalienable rights including the right to wield any weapon we can obtain honestly and that our rights do not infringe on the rights of others.
You are acting in your typical idiotic way.
Oh, just one more thing to correct you on before I do leave you to it though.
Your right to live is one right.
Your right to defend yourself is another right.
They are two separate rights, not one combined.
Your right to life is not separated from your right to defend that life. You seem to be clueless on virtually every subject. I have to set the record straight every time you spew your nonsense.
The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.
What??? No it doesn't, lol.
That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.
And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...
It should be worded like this so people don't try to misconstrue it as they are now.
All individuals are born with the right to keep and bear arms without limitations on their number, type, or kind of ammo and this right will NEVER be limited, restricted, or kept track of by any level of government. This right will be defended at all costs by the federal government and if it is violated, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government will cease to exist.
What??? No it doesn't, lol.
If you say so.
And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...
I'm not qualified to say how it should be worded jinx. I do believe that if so many people who have to live according to that constitution of yours and can find the wording so obscure as to feel the need to argue about it constantly, then it's not worded correctly.
What??? No it doesn't, lol.
And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...
I find this amusing. Asking an anti-gun nut how they would word the 2nd amendment in a way that would keep with the original intent of the founders to protect the birthright of every person in America to keep and bear any number of any type of weapons they choose.
It reminds me of a tv show I saw recently where someone wanted to ask the Republicans in a debate if they could have gone back in time and aborted Hitler or Saddam Hussein when he was a fetus if they'd do it, or if the only way to prevent a nuclear war in America would be for them to have sex with someone of the same sex, if they'd do it.
I'm not qualified to say how it should be worded jinx. I do believe that if so many people who have to live according to that constitution of yours and can find the wording so obscure as to feel the need to argue about it constantly, then it's not worded correctly.
There will always be people who try to infringe on the rights of others, no matter how the protection of those rights is worded. Including the right of free speech apparently...
The simple act of them saying... infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.
That's true jinx. Perhaps the problem is that the constitution is based on a philosophy or philosophical thought, and I guess it's pretty easy to see that if philosophy is a way of thinking about things, then it follows that people will interpret what is written differently.
The philosophy behind the Constitution is known as libertarianism. It affords people maximum liberty at minimum cost. It means all power comes from the people and is retained by the people. It means government has only those specific powers granted to it by the people and that these powers will never be above those of individual Americans.
Some thought our rights were so self-evident that nobody would dare contest them and saw no need for a bill of rights. We can see how wrong they were. Now we have anti-gun nutjobs claiming that government should have all the guns....the exact opposite of the philosophy of our founders and the opposite of what they had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend.
We've got piercehawkeye45 stupidly claiming that rights don't exist in reality when they are as tangible and gravity. They are self-evident and real, and if you attempt to violate my rights you will get a very real bullet passing through your skull.
I've still yet to see proof to back up your argument.
Rights are not tangible to gravity. We've already been over this before and you have just shown your lack of knowledge in physics. Rights would be tangible to morals. Morals and rights mean shit when there is only one person because they involve the interaction between two people, so therefore you need a society to exercise rights and morals. Morals are influenced by society and so are rights.
Just because I probably will have to spell this out for you, I do believe in the idea of rights, it is imperative for our society to avoid falling apart, but I do not believe some magical creature or a nihilistic cage gave them to me either.
You believe a piece of paper gave them to you?
No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.
Rights work in basically the same way as morals do. To a single person, rights and morals mean nothing because you need a second a party for them to have any meaning. But once you get a society together, rights and morals are needed for that society to survive and just like a society will place special emphasis on some morals, it will also place special emphasis on some rights.
To think that our society has perfected unalienable rights while all others has not is foolish and it makes much more sense that we just embrace the rights that our society emphasizes as the "true rights".
Because honestly, how do we know which rights are the "true rights"? How did we discover them? The only way that makes sense is that we took the ones that benefited us the most and made them "true rights" just like religion has taken morals and tried to make them absolute.
I've still yet to see proof to back up your argument.
Rights are not tangible to gravity. We've already been over this before and you have just shown your lack of knowledge in physics. Rights would be tangible to morals. Morals and rights mean shit when there is only one person because they involve the interaction between two people, so therefore you need a society to exercise rights and morals. Morals are influenced by society and so are rights.
Just because I probably will have to spell this out for you, I do believe in the idea of rights, it is imperative for our society to avoid falling apart, but I do not believe some magical creature or a nihilistic cage gave them to me either.
We've been through this before and you proved that you know absolutely nothing about physics or about rights. You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff. Deny rights all you like, but as I said, you'll feel a very real and tangible bullet going through your skull when you try to violate my rights.
Society has no bearing on rights. Nor does the number of people who exist. Our rights are the same regardless of how oppressive a government we happen to be living under. Our rights are the same even if we're the only person on earth. If you believe our rights have anything to do with the society in which we live, or you believe rights have anything to do with morality, you are clueless.
Our unalienable rights are self-evident and are as real and tangible as gravity. If you deny that they are self-evident and tangible, you are just a 'tard and a childish little troll as we discovered during our last conversation.
I don't believe in god. I don't believe in magic. I do believe in rights because they are very real and tangible as I've proven many times over.
You come off as a pseudo-intellectual wannabe who is over compensating for your woefully pitiful understanding on the subject. Perhaps if you would actually read a few books, you'd have a better understanding of our very real, tangible, undeniable, and unalienable rights.
Start off by reading these...
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Peter McWilliams
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
Natural Law - Lysander Spooner
Libertarianism in One Lesson - David Bergland
Restoring the American Dream - Robert Ringer
The Discovery of Freedom - Rose Wilder Lane
The Ethics of Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Two Treatises of Government - John Locke
Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson
Man vs. the State - Herbert Spencer
Essays on Freedom & Power - Lord Acton
Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau
Then you'll be partially qualified to have a conversation with me on the topic of human rights. Until you've read those all twice and let them sink in, you know less than nothing about the subject.
That's a lot of reading to figure something out that is supposed to be self evident.
Some people are stupid enough to deny their own existence. They need things drummed into their empty little skulls. For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.
The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.
Deny rights all you like, but as I said, you'll feel a very real and tangible bullet going through your skull when you try to violate my rights.
Pardon me for butting in here but.....has it been proven that one would actually
feel the destruction of one's brain, the organ that registers the senses?
In that circumstance, would someone not just "wake up dead" without
feeling the bullet?
Just askin' here.
Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.
You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff.
Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.
Our unalienable rights are self-evident and are as real and tangible as gravity.
Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?
Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.
For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.
Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.
Radar, can you answer these questions.
What is the difference between philosophy and science?
Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.
How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?
How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?
The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.
Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?
This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...
Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.
Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?
We've been through this before and you proved that you know absolutely nothing about physics or about rights. You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff. Deny rights all you like, but as I said, you'll feel a very real and tangible bullet going through your skull when you try to violate my rights.
How is that relevant? A real and tangible bullet goes through brains with no regard to whose rights are what.
It's been my experience, and observation that peoples fears (real and perceived), the real and perceived need for self preservation, selfishness, greed, social standing, emotional condition, religious belief, all play a much larger role then their knowledge of any existence of rights they were born with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's been my experience that 99.9 % of the world does not know this thing about rights, and if they do, they really don't give a damn. If they do they sure do understand them differently then what we are discussing on this board.
We have such a luxury that we can laze around and discuss this. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.
I think it's ironic that in one breath people I know personally say that they are patriots, and American! Law abiding tax paying citizens! And in the next breath they say that if Congress repeals the 2nd amendment, and bans or restricts guns in the U.S. they will kill the guy that comes for theirs. Rather then run for office or get seriously involved in the process we have here for change. It sounds inconsistent to me.
What really burns my nads is this: when I have to give something up because someone else has abused something. A guy walks into a mall, probably mentally ill, drunk, high or all three. Kills some people with a fire arm. I have to give up mine, for that? I'm not mentally ill, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use mind altering drugs. Nope, it is not right that I should have to give mine up for that.
It's not the only place I've experience this type of thinking. Very few things get my blood up more then that kind of injustice.
It's like saying that flies cause garbage, and getting rid of all the flies will get rid of all the garbage.
Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.
Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".
Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.
By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.
Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?
Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.
Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.
No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.
Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.
Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.
Radar, can you answer these questions.
What is the difference between philosophy and science?
I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.
Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.
Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.
How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?
I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.
How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?
Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.
Now shut up your yap, and do some reading.
Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?
This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...
Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.
Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?
You've proven that you have not read the Declaration of Independence. As usual, you blather on and on about things you have no clue about. The Declaration of Independence does not say that "only white males are allowed to have rights". Feel free to back that up.
It's been my experience, and observation that peoples fears (real and perceived), the real and perceived need for self preservation, selfishness, greed, social standing, emotional condition, religious belief, all play a much larger role then their knowledge of any existence of rights they were born with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's been my experience that 99.9 % of the world does not know this thing about rights, and if they do, they really don't give a damn. If they do they sure do understand them differently then what we are discussing on this board.
We have such a luxury that we can laze around and discuss this. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.
I think it's ironic that in one breath people I know personally say that they are patriots, and American! Law abiding tax paying citizens! And in the next breath they say that if Congress repeals the 2nd amendment, and bans or restricts guns in the U.S. they will kill the guy that comes for theirs. Rather then run for office or get seriously involved in the process we have here for change. It sounds inconsistent to me.
What really burns my nads is this: when I have to give something up because someone else has abused something. A guy walks into a mall, probably mentally ill, drunk, high or all three. Kills some people with a fire arm. I have to give up mine, for that? I'm not mentally ill, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use mind altering drugs. Nope, it is not right that I should have to give mine up for that.
It's not the only place I've experience this type of thinking. Very few things get my blood up more then that kind of injustice.
It's like saying that flies cause garbage, and getting rid of all the flies will get rid of all the garbage.
The right to bear arms is the most important of all our rights. This is why people say they will kill anyone who comes to take their guns. Without our right to keep and bear arms, we have no means of protecting any of our other rights.
[INDENT][INDENT]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
We have a right to overthrow the government by force when it violates our rights.
The most important, to you. The framers of the Declaration put life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at the top. Otherwise I think it would have read: ..life, liberty, and the right to bear arms. The authors of the first ten amendments put the 1st amendment at the top. Don't get me wrong, it is very important. As important as any other of our freedoms and rights here in the U.S.
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.
I wonder why that amendment comes before the 2nd?
I don't think the second amendment will be repealed any time soon. If it ever is, it will be according to the framework set up in our constitution to do so. If that is the only amendment repealed it will not constitute a long chain of abuses and usurpations, it would constitute one amendment being repealed.
To jump immediately to armed rebellion and overthrow of the U.S. Government over the repeal of the second amendment to the constitution does not sound like the actions of a prudent man. Especially if the repeal was accomplished through the process set forth within our system of government.
You mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first among those is LIFE. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. In other words, the right to bear arms IS life.
If the 2nd amendment were repealed entirely, we'd still have the right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we choose without any government oversight.
The Constitution doesn't GIVE us any rights. It protects the rights we're born with. Even if the Constitution were no longer protecting that right, we'd still have it.
The federal government has already proven that it can't be trusted and that it works many times against the citizens and against our civil rights. repealing the 2nd amendment would be the last straw, and it would be prudent indeed to overthrow the government at such a time.
No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.
If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right? If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?
Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?
Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".
I must of missed it then. :rolleyes:
I honestly have not seen any proof of natural rights. Since I am obviously not as smarted as you, please explain it for me word for word.
By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.
You could theoretically take away gravity if you take away what is causing it. You can not take away what is giving us our rights. I can imagine what a world would be like without gravity, we would all die, but I can imagine it. I cannot imagine a world without rights.
If we lived in a universe without gravity space would just seem empty and all energy would probably be spread out. Since I am not as smarted as you, can you explain to me what the universe would be like if we did not have rights.
Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.
Ok, if you want it that way. If we take away that particle we can take away gravity. We can not take away nature so there is no way we can test your version of rights, which makes it philosophy, which means you cannot prove or disprove it.
No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.
Where the fuck did you get this from? I never said society has any effect on gravity, I said that particle or whatever causes gravity does.
What you are saying is completely retarded. That would be like a society saying that we should get rid of morals. Rights and morals come with society, you cannot have a society without rights or morals.
Remember, rights are just justifications. You do something because you have the right the do it. You justify your shooting at people who take away your guns because you have the right to own a gun.
If I am the only human on Earth, what would be the point of rights because I wouldn't need to justify myself. The same goes with morals, morals are basically guidelines on how we interact with other people. If there is no one to interact with, there is no need for morals. So since there are no need for rights or morals until a society is formed, why would nature create rights or morals when the chance of a society actually forming is so small? Since you don't believe in a god, you probably do realize how small the chance is of an organism that feels the need for justification (rights) to evolve.
That is what I am trying to get at. The fact that rights came with society and will leave when society falls. There is no need for nature to create rights when society can.
Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.
You are a joke aren't you? I never said we don't have the right to live. I said that rights are a sociological construct.
I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.
I already have a book list in double digits that I need to get too. I'm not going any of your books ahead of the ones I want to read, I just don't care that much.
Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.
Prove it.
I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.
Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.
Is there like a ten commandments saying what our rights are? Where are you getting this information? All I hear is what you are saying rights are, not what nature is saying what rights are.
If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right?
No. I am saying society determines rights. So if you go against what society says right are, you have human right violations.
If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?
There we have a conflict of interests. If a society determines that jews have no right to life, the jews have no right to life from THEIR perspective. But our, and the Jewish society, says that jews have a right to life, so we will protect them from that society that doesn't think they have the right to life. If the Jews think they have a right to life, they can protect themselves.
I can't think of a good human example, so I will go to animal rights. We as a society says that dogs have a right to life and if you breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will you will go to jail. But, we as a society says that pigs do not have a right life and it is accepted that we breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will.
Since life and pursuit of happiness is something that no sane society will deny themselves, I will have the stay with property. In many different ways of living, rights to property do not make sense. For example, owning property in a hunter-gatherer society would destroy that whole system. In a far left socio-economic system, right to property is also taken away as well because property goes against that political philosophy. They are not wrong in their beliefs, it is just a difference in culture in dealing with rights.
Owning property is historically a rightist mindset and does not work in a leftist system. So to say that owning property is an unalienable right means that you are saying that a far leftist system is wrong, which is absurd.
Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?
Yes I did, why?
rights are.
society can only limit them, not grant them.
Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...
Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.
Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?
That's not true.
Once again Pierce gives us a stunning display of his wanton stupidity and ignorance.
First, he claims we can get rid of gravity by getting rid of what causes it.... like all matter in the universe? I suppose you're right if we got rid of all matter in the universe, gravity would be gone, and so would all life so it wouldn't matter much.
I guess that means if you get rid of all matter in the universe, you'd get rid of nature too so we'd have no natural rights. What is the likelihood of this happening though? Oh, that's right...it's IMPOSSIBLE. That means it's IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of gravity or natural rights you douchebag.
That is SCIENCE!!
Society does not determine our rights. Our rights exist and have no connection to which society we happen to live in.
You say society determines our rights. What is society? A group of individuals. How large a group? If everyone on your block says you don't have a right to live, does that mean it's ok for them to kill you? How about everyone in your town? Would it be ok these people to tell you that you don't own your own body? Does it take everyone in your county? Your state? Your country? How many people exactly make up "society"?
Where does "society" get these powers to determine your rights? If society is a group of individuals, clearly power comes from the individuals who make up society. Where do these individuals get powers from? THAT'S RIGHT!!! FROM OUR INDIVIDUAL AND UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!!!
The "perspective" of a society is irrelevant. The opinions of the majority when it comes to rights is irrelevant. Our rights exist regardless of where we live, or what the opinions of others happen to be.
Human rights would not exist without private property ownership. If we don't own ourselves we can't complain if someone enslaves us. If we don't own our minds we have no right to think freely. If we don't own our thoughts, we have no right to express them.
Owning property genuinely is an unalienable right. This isn't a "rightist" mindset. It's just the correct one. The far leftist and far rightist systems genuinely are wrong and infringe on our natural rights and this is not absurd, it's just the truth.
Guess what? There is such a thing as wrong and right. And in this case, you are wrong. I'm guessing this is the case on most other topics as well. Murdering people because your "society" (whatever that is) doesn't think they have a right to exist is murder and it's wrong and it violates the RIGHTS of the people. This isn't up for debate.
For the record, we knew you went to a public school before you answered.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
I disagree. Marriage is a contract and we all have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 20 and if they are all of the same gender or even if they are related. As long as all parties are the age of majority and enter into the contract willingly there's no problem.
If the government recognizes one form of contract, it should recognize them all.
So, Radar, do you want pocket nukes for everyone?
As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.
Eh, you missed the point with my gravity argument.
I'll change it. If there was some way we could ignore gravity for one person, they would be able to float around like we see in videos of space shuttles. We can imagine what it would be like without the force of gravity. You cannot imagine what a person would be like without rights. If you can, describe a person without rights. If you cannot take away something, how do we know its true effects?
And you are being way too idealistic with your examples. I have stayed away with right of life because I do not know a single person who doesn't think they have a right to life. If there is a dispute, it is usually one group forcing what they think rights are on another group, which I ideally disagree with. I don't believe in unalienable rights but since right to life is something that everyone can agree on when it comes to themselves, we can assume it is. Same goes for pursuit of happiness.
The reason why I find this discussion funny is because our views are not that different. We only vary on a few small differences while the rest remain the same. I say that everyone agrees that they have a right to life so it is a right that everyone enjoys while you say it is fundamental and it cannot be taken away. The real only difference is where we get our rights from and I say in hypothetical situation where a group of people say they have no right to life, it wouldn't be immoral to kill them. Just that a group of people that say they have no right to life would be wiped out immediately from the gene pool.
Besides property in a few situation (that is only if no individual has property) I do not argue the rights to life, property, and pursuit of happiness because everyone can agree that they should have those rights. I do not look for rights that we automatically have, I look for rights that everyone can agree we have. Of course I know that some are idealistic (POH for example), because there are a lot of times when one has to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to promote one's own but that is a different issue.
If you can prove that we are born with UNLIMITED rights to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we want with any kind of ammo we want without any government permission, registration, or oversight I will agree with you.
I wouldn't take this kind of bait; Robert J. Ringer's writing shows us that rights are not unlimited, but in a balance. A right restricted is a right preserved, to paraphrase him; the right to shout "Fire!" aloud is restricted in, say, a theater; the liberty to swing a fist ends at the tip of the other fellow's nose, etc. So, no, not wholly
unlimited -- the art of the thing is to achieve the greatest right at the least practicable restriction. Pierce seems altogether excessive about his restrictions, which is altogether typical of the non-firearm-oriented persons of great ignorance.
They think they are going to thrash libertarians and gun people on points such as this. Unfortunately, for those with greater understanding of the matter, these points are as invalid as they are stubbornly held by the persons of ignorance. There is no worth in overdoing ammunition restrictions. There is very little republican, that is republic-preserving, worth in doing ammunition restrictions of any sort, really.
You are trying to make philosophy fact Radar, it just doesn't work.
This is not as a rule bad; you're just pretending it is because this philosophy doesn't happen to be agreeable to you. Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.
If a society agrees that we have the right to an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then fine, let them have it but if a society doesn't agree that we have an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms then gun laws should be in place.
Id est, the current state of affairs -- which is always subject to suitable modification if some details are unsatisfactory. Amend and repeal.
You cannot prove that the universe gives us rights, so don't force it down other people's throats. If you really want the right to bear arms, move to a place that will allow you too or protest to change/preserve your wanted right. If you don't want to move or you cannot change/preserve your wanted right, than you have to accept the rulings in that area. Its that simple.
This is not subject to proof or to disproof, Pierce. That you would complain about someone telling you of the freer way and insist on taking the less free way tells us something about your thinking: that it is not free, nor remarkably adult.
At its best, the Libertarian Party is the Party of Adult Thinking. This sometimes leaves the libertarian thinker just a bit uncomfortable. But that's the price of freedom -- and if you can have freedom at that price, that's a damned good bargain.
As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.
I do; as I've said on other threads here, it is difficult to use a nuclear weapon as designed and intended in a moral way. Collateral damage (counting radioactive pollution under that heading) and collateral deaths are too large a problem, and there doesn't seem a solution to it on the Earth's face.
In deep space, there the problem is much reduced if not completely solved, but evoking science fiction isn't a very present help in this present trouble.
Killing tools of a less comprehensive nature are easier to use morally: though some would have us believe that only killing those who should be killed is some kind of moral failure in itself. This is an idea I don't buy.
UG, you don't think that you might be a bit biased as well? It is natural for you and Radar to side with unalienable rights because your views do not allow you to have any leeway with those issue so making it absolute works best for your interests. While I and others accept some leeway in some scenarios so I will naturally side with the idea that rights were created by society. Now where we can see how our argument started, lets do this in a more laid out and break this down step by step. Remember, this is just philosophy so there are no right or wrong answers. ;)
By this I am not saying you do not have an answer, just I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Who gives us our rights?
You - ???
Me - We give ourselves rights by justifying our actions but society uses social norms and laws to influence which ones are more important.
What would humans be like without rights?
You - ???
Me - Humans cannot get rid of rights as long as we justify our actions. If we did that, we would still be able to perform the same actions like how any animal can defend itself (right to life) dig a den (right to property...kind of) or hump on my leg (pursuit of happiness) but we would just not justify our actions like how animals don't need to justify their actions.
If rights are just justifications, and humans are the only species that need to justify our actions, we can say that rights would not be discovered/created without the evolution of humans. Explain if you disagree with that logic.
When did the first human group discover/create rights?
You - ???
Me - When justification was needed to explain one's actions.
Did rights exist before humans evolved?
You - ???
Me - No, humans created rights so there was no concept of rights before humans evolved.
If you answer those questions I can get a better idea of what you believe and then we can further this debate.
Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.
We didn't make philosophy fact anymore than Iran made their Islamic philosophy fact or the Soviets made their philosophy fact. We all just made our philosophy into reality. Some will do better than others but that does not make a particular philosophy fact because of the enormous variation of initial conditions that can make or break a theory. Individual preference has a play in that as well because many Islamic conservatives would say their lifestyle is fact just as quickly as you have.
This is not subject to proof or to disproof, Pierce. That you would complain about someone telling you of the freer way and insist on taking the less free way tells us something about your thinking: that it is not free, nor remarkably adult.
At its best, the Libertarian Party is the Party of Adult Thinking. This sometimes leaves the libertarian thinker just a bit uncomfortable. But that's the price of freedom -- and if you can have freedom at that price, that's a damned good bargain.
Oh c'mon. Can you at least try not to be so extremely biased?
Not and remain a decent moral being, no. Not for all the -- youthful -- piercehawkeye sophistry under Heaven. You like to clatter on, and voluminously, but in the end it's all just sophistry, without much wisdom in it.
Can you not abandon a nigh-fascist evil and join the people of freedom?
I thought he laid it out pretty nice for ya UG - why not answer his questions?
Why should he answer pierce's questions when pierce never answered mine?
From where I'm sitting, PH laid it out extremely well, very well done, and UG evaded it with utter shameful weakness and an ad hominem jab.
One signal of how strong your philosophy is, is how thoroughly you are willing to sincerely test it. Not just amongst others, but in your own mind as well. An avoidance of tests is telling.
What we repeatedly see from you, UG, is knee-jerk avoidance with flowery language. UG, you're not just hiding things from us, you're hiding things from yourself. All these high-falutin' vocab words are just nuanced obfustication. You believe if you *say* it smart, you don't have to actually *be* smart. And every time you're called on it, you dig an ostrich hole and hide in plain sight.
A more confident person would be embarrassed by this behavior. A smart but self-centered person says, "I know I am right. Bring on all challenges so I can laugh at them." A wiser person says, "I think I am right, but I am not the arbiter of truth. I have not learned all I can learn. So I will honestly check myself at every opportunity. Bring all challenges so I can consider them."
A smart person of weak character says, "These people are not smart enough for me to learn from." A wise person of strong character says, "People are of differing intelligence, but all from different points of view. All people have found their own truths, from perspectives I cannot ever share; therefore, there are no people I cannot learn from."
I'd like to know why public school education makes a difference to this debate.
Edit: for the record, I think it's arrogant to ask a question like that and not explain why, especially when pierce asked for an explanation after answering the question.
Why should he answer pierce's questions when pierce never answered mine?
This one?
You say society determines our rights. What is society? A group of individuals. How large a group? If everyone on your block says you don't have a right to live, does that mean it's ok for them to kill you? How about everyone in your town? Would it be ok these people to tell you that you don't own your own body? Does it take everyone in your county? Your state? Your country? How many people exactly make up "society"?
I said I wasn't going to get into that because I have not met a single person who doesn't think that he or she does not have the right to life so trying to take away or debate the right to life becomes pointless but I will try to explain further.
First, I have changed my stance slightly from just society to a more justification standpoint. If someone attacks me with a knife I will defend myself because I think I have a right to life, no matter if society thinks I do or not. Like morals, how strong someone believes in which rights are worth defending are individual decisions, but society will play a role in molding and enforcing those rights.
Since right to life is basically universally accepted I will not get into that right now but if we look at the difference between gun culture in country of America, where belief in the right to bear arms is extremely high, and Britain, where belief in the right to bear arms is lower. Now, it is stupid to say that genetics has anything to do with views because most "rednecks" (I am not using that in a bad way, just a label for whites that live in the country in lack of better word) are Brits, so we can narrow that down to sociological effects.
In "redneck America", the feeling that we have a strong right to bear arms is enforced socially in many ways (preaching, seeing guns in households, learning to shoot guns early, learning importance of guns and gun safety, media) while that enforcement is not present in Britain so it is only natural for "redneck America" to defend the right to bear arms more than in Britain. These are obviously generalizations, it is extremely possible that someone raised in "redneck America" doesn't believe so highly about zero gun laws while there is an equally high possibility that someone in Britain thinks about gun laws in the same way as you Radar.
That is how I believe rights work. They seem to work in the same way I have seen morals work.
Now I will try to dwell into right to life. Now, as I said earlier, I haven't met a single person that doesn't think they have a right to life so not only will every society have a strong social enforcement of the right to life, the individuals that do stray from that will not last long and will be wiped from the gene pool. So assuming that everyone believes they have a right to life, our views come together where there is ideally no justification to taking a life. It would be seen the same, but just not to that extreme, as a group that forces another group to have extreme gun laws against their will or a group that forces another group to have zero gun laws when they do want some.
If a group does not want the right to own assault rifles, then enforce gun laws, its their choice. If a group does want the right to own assault rifles, then don't have gun laws, its their choice. If you live in a society where the sociological voice goes against your personal views, you can either deal with it, fight to get it changed, or move.
To answer your questions more throughly, when I say society, I am making a generalization about what that society says. It obviously gets extremely complicated when we deal with societies that are split on issues and getting into subgroups ("redneck" and Urban America are different societies but both part of American society).
Hopefully that explains my view that guns laws should be democratically voted on and enforced by state, country, or city governments because "redneck" and urban America have such different views on gun laws and rights a universal law would screw over one of the two groups. It makes things more complicated but it is the only solution that does not totally violate a group's wishes.
As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.
Then prey tell me why Iran does not have the right to have a nuke?
That's an excellent question deadbeater. I can't wait for the answer. lol
Then prey tell me why Iran does not have the right to have a nuke?
They do have that right. All sovereign nations have the right of self-determination and can choose for themselves which weapons they will or won't develop.
The problem is that those nations who got the technology first, like to bully around other nations and say they can't or shouldn't have them.
They do have that right. All sovereign nations have the right of self-determination and can choose for themselves which weapons they will or won't develop.
The problem is that those nations who got the technology first, like to bully around other nations and say they can't or shouldn't have them.
Like the United States?
to be fair radar has always stayed consistent on that point. he has said in the past that everyone has the right to have every weapon. they simply don't have the right to use those weapons for anything but their own defense. IIRC
So he would have been happy enough if Iraq had had nukes and used them on the US when their country was illegally invaded?
what a nice mess we'd be in now if that were the case.
If Iraq had nukes, America would not have invaded. Bullies like Bush are only interested in easy victims.
It seems these days the only way to stop America from invading your country is to get nukes.
I'd like to know why public school education makes a difference to this debate.
Edit: for the record, I think it's arrogant to ask a question like that and not explain why, especially when pierce asked for an explanation after answering the question.
Oh I'm sorry Ali, I didn't realize you had a time limit in place for conversations you're not involved with. Fuck off eh?
Pierce the reason why I asked is because I have intimate knowledge of the required curricula for elementary school - which includes the US history that should make the concept of natural rights abundantly clear.
I'm not trying to give you shit for being anti-gun, I'm just amazed and saddened that you don't seem to be able to grasp even the idea of inalienable rights. If anyone
should be able to, it is a graduate of US public schools, whether they're a redneck or not.
Who gives us our rights?
You - ???
Me - We give ourselves rights by justifying our actions but society uses social norms and laws to influence which ones are more important.
No one gives us our rights. If they could be given (by society, by the king, by whomever) - they would be privileges.
Oh I'm sorry Ali, I didn't realize you had a time limit in place for conversations you're not involved with. Fuck off eh?
It's a public forum jinx. I can ask any question I like. I guess I could tell you to fuck off after interjecting in the convo I was having with Radar in the first place?
Aside from that, I was interested to know why you'd asked in the first place. I wondered what the relevance was to the topic.
You could, but you probably have more important shit to stir somewhere.
No, I probably wouldn't because I wouldn't speak to you like that.
You wouldn't call me arrogant for asking a question - or you wouldn't tell me to fuck off?
I wouldn't tell you to fuck off jinx. I thought that was pretty clear.
I do think not explaining why you're asking a loaded question like that is arrogant. Maybe that's just my perception after being told on this very site that public school education is inferior etc blah blah blah.
So, in conclusion, I apologize if you were offended by my statement, however it was more Radars suggestion that it was clear PH was public school educated that pissed me off, so perhaps I should have directed my question directly to him rather than leaving it open for comment.
Yes, it was actually Radar's snarkyness that made me need to step away from the discussion. It wasn't my intention to belittle pierce, I went to public schools myself. That's where I first learned about inalienable rights. Apparently things have changed though.
I think all education is what you make of it. I've seen some brilliant results from public education and some really shitty results from the most expensive private education.
It all comes down to attitude in my opinion. that of the student which generally is imparted by the parent.
I also believe education has changed a lot since the generation of schooling you and I went through. Schools have far more leeway now with how and what they teach and where the focus is. I suppose if you went to a school which focussed on different issues, you might come up with a different education, or if you have a teacher who encourages you to look at things from a different perspective.
Holding a very similar viewpoint as PH, I have to say that I don't think his education can be blamed. He's certainly presenting his argument very well in my opinion. I wish I had half the patience he has and a quarter of his doggedness.
You think he's presenting his argument well?
He has changed his position on society bestowing rights on people. He thinks our rights change based on what the opinion of our rights happen to be. In other words, if Hitler thinks you don't have a right to live and the "society" of Germany agrees, it means you don't have a right to live. He wants to shy away from the right to life. But the right to life is no different than the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property ownership, or any of our other rights.
Jinx said it brilliantly
No one gives us our rights. If they could be given (by society, by the king, by whomever) - they would be privileges.
You think he's presenting his argument well?
Well, at least he's presenting an argument.
Your argument has been:
1) Because of gravity.
2) I've proven it in several unspecified locations.
3) I can shoot you.
Well you seem to understand what his argument is Radar. I'd say that means he's presented it well.
Whether you agree with his argument or not is another issue. One which we all know the answer to already anyway.
I disagree with your stance and I disagree with some of what jinx believes. I've stated the reasons why. Any further comment would be like flogging a dead horse.
Well, at least he's presenting an argument.
Your argument has been:
1) Because of gravity.
2) I've proven it in several unspecified locations.
3) I can shoot you.
Amen.
Well, at least he's presenting an argument.
Your argument has been:
1) Because of gravity.
2) I've proven it in several unspecified locations.
3) I can shoot you.
I've cited dozens of books and pamphlets he can read. I've explained it so simply a child can understand it. So you are either more dense than a child or just too stubborn to read.
I'll break it down once more.
Natural rights come from nature. We are born with our rights. They don't come from "society".
We are born with the RIGHT to life that even pierce doesn't dispute. Because we are born with the right to life, we are also born with the right to defend that life by any means necessary. Because we own our life, we own our body. Because we own our mind we have the right to think freely. Because we own our voice we have the right to speak freely. Because we own our labor, nobody else is entitled to it or to the fruits of it.
A right is the exact opposite of a privilege.
Michael Badnarik does a great job of explaining the difference between rights and privileges here....
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/assets/chapter2.pdf
Here are some links to pamphlets that explain natural rights and natural law...
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
http://jim.com/spooner.htm
Here is the Declaration of Independence
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
Here is the Magna Carta
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
Here is the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Here is Peter McWilliam's Book, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint
Take your fucking pick and actually read instead of lying by claiming that I haven't proved each and every word I've said, or that I haven't cited credible and reliable sources to verify what I'm saying
If you disagree with any part of anything I've said, you are a fucking blithering idiot.
I've also said that society is nothing but a group of individuals. Society has no more rights or powers than a single individual. If one person has no legitimate authority to tell another that they may not own a gun, neither do a thousand people, a million people, or a billion people.
If society decides what our rights are or bestows our rights upon us, where does society get this power or the rights? Society is made up of individuals. Clearly power comes from these individuals. And if individuals have power on their own before a society is created, it means individual people are born with these powers and they were bestowed upon us by nature.
A right is the exact opposite of a privilege. ~snip~ If you disagree with any part of anything I've said, you are a fucking blithering idiot.
I think this was from WIKI - I was doing investigating and forgot - sorry.
A
privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth. :eyebrow:
Juat a little fuel for the fire. I am torn by this whole discussion - I
was sure and now I'm vascillating on a workable definition.
radar is dead on.....as usual. hear him.
you give away your rights at your peril. i agree with limiting one's rights in order to get along in an equitable transactional relationship with the rest of society. but when you allow a government or a religion to dictate your rights.....you're already dead.
You just gave a very good one.
Oh, I'll answer, gentlemen, and in my own good time, thank you. There is none here capable of putting me on the defensive; I've read enough of you to know that.
I hide nothing from myself, UT. In that you are remarkably mistaken. Should you think you have reason to believe me wrong, try proving it. I can wait, too.
I suppose I should add that I only skimmed pierce's nice long posts, so there's only a skimmer of a response. A more thorough reply awaits a more thorough reading.
Oh, I'll answer, gentlemen, and in my own good time, thank you. There is none here capable of putting me on the defensive; I've read enough of you to know that.
I hide nothing from myself, UT. In that you are remarkably mistaken. Should you think you have reason to believe me wrong, try proving it. I can wait, too.
My goodness, dude, I don't even have to leave this message to see you hiding things from yourself. You express a beautiful madness right here.
You say "There is none here capable of putting me on the defensive." This is "conclusion first, argument second", and is not critical thinking.
You have positioned your argument as correct, even while noting (in other posts) that you've only skimmed the other statements and are preparing your retort. In your mind, there is no chance that PH has made a valid point. Now the game for you is merely to express your side well, with flowery language, and feel safe and secure that you have somehow "won".
True consideration of the others' points is not necessary, and in all your time here we have never seen you do it.
Now I can't "prove" to you that you are hiding things from yourself. All I can say is that I've seen a lot of people argue a lot of different things, using a lot of different techniques. Your approach is all insecure pseudo-intellectualism. You seem like a smart guy, but you don't write for communication, you write to make people think you're a smart guy. You construct the utterly passive "In that you are remarkably mistaken", avoiding the active and direct "You're wrong." It annoys your readers and waters down your points.
Now, I don't mean to drive you off -- really not my intent -- but if you aren't writing to communicate, and you believe that nobody here can offer you any fresh insight,... why are you here? You're not listening to anyone, and you're not speaking in a way that makes people listen to you. Do you not notice that this is a social website and that communication between us is the whole point of being here?
Take your fucking pick and actually read instead of lying by claiming that I haven't proved each and every word I've said, or that I haven't cited credible and reliable sources to verify what I'm saying
You haven't proven anything, just restated your assumptions. I don't necessarily disagree that they are good assumptions, or that they are a good basis for government, but they are nothing more than assumptions. There is no proof there.
And for good reason. Rights are ideals. They are not subject to proof.
I am here in part because I can offer you fresh insight. And why would there be refusal to accept it? Contemplate that.
And where would I get the idea I can offer fresh insight, you may ask? Well, just why wouldn't I?
There is a difference between "evading" and "taking my time. There are those who would loudly insist I'm doing the one, when I'm doing the other -- shame on you.
Are not those opposing my ideological points on ideological grounds speaking in service of a worthless ideology? Let's see: arms -- collective, without individual. What?! Foreign policy -- leave fascists and fascism/communism alone. To what end?! Offered an ideology of liberty, they cling the more to chains, as if there were virtue in shackles.
I mean, come on, people.
And why is your idea of madness, UT, so very strange? I'll put to you the question of what on Earth you're so sure I'm "hiding from myself." You post to allege I'm hiding... something. Something very unspecified.
Well, that's my filter: I require conversation, not lectures. Two-way honest communication, where two different collections of insights and perceptions are in play.
Because it seems obvious to me that there is more wisdom in the crowd than in any one person, even more wisdom in two smart people than in any one smart person. And the Internet is living, breathing proof of that concept.
And the more I think that I am communicating with someone who isn't a critical thinker, the less likely I am to accept their "insights" as up for heavy consideration.
And the less someone writes for communication, the less I am interested in what they have to say. Because not writing for communication is contempt for the reader.
Addendum. Since you have basically indicated that you are here to lecture, and that all of us are beneath your consideration, I wonder if there is anyone left who will take your opinion seriously.
Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?
i've often thought that UG was really just TW's sock puppet that he uses as a ridicule magnet for far right wackiness.
Tw wouldn't agree with that one, and for once he'd be right.
Make yourself worthy of consideration then. It's not impossible, just use all three digits of your IQ at once -- too many here just don't seem to do that, and it seems to have its root in regrettable unexamined assumptions. All I want is smart. I don't always get all I want.
Because it seems obvious to me that there is more wisdom in the crowd than in any one person, even more wisdom in two smart people than in any one smart person. And the Internet is living, breathing proof of that concept.
And then you take a hard look at how people have behaved when in bunches, sometimes. The record is not one to give complete confidence. Even the smart, at best, make avoidable mistakes, and there's the further difficulty that smart does not necessarily mean good.
But rather than sing a paean to autocracy, I say this is a dilemma. Heinlein summed it up well in an interlude in
Time Enough For Love that went something like this:
Democracy is based on the assumption that many men are wiser than one man. How's that again? Dictatorship is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than many men. Um, what?
Are you really going to fully trust either way? Not me, mister.
I gotta call you on this one UG. Just simply answer the simple questions put forth by Pierce? What you have done is a classic, albiet unsuccessful, attempt at a diversion. You have now been gently guided back to the issue at hand. Post #166 is still waiting for your eloquent reply.
It seems these days the only way to stop America from invading your country is to get nukes.
Yes, any country with a nuclear weapon will not get attacked by a conventional enemy. Iran notes this, that is why I even have doubts of them giving up their nuclear weapon program in 2003. The part about them bombing Israel or giving their future nuclear weapons away is a load of crap, it doesn't make sense, but I do believe nuclear weapons is on Iran's agenda.
I'm not trying to give you shit for being anti-gun, I'm just amazed and saddened that you don't seem to be able to grasp even the idea of inalienable rights. If anyone should be able to, it is a graduate of US public schools, whether they're a redneck or not.
We did learn about unalienable rights in public school, I just disagree with that idea.
No one gives us our rights. If they could be given (by society, by the king, by whomever) - they would be privileges.
If someone attacks me with a knife, I will defend myself whether it is a right or a privilege.
Either way, besides a minor few things all we are disagreeing on is semantics. When you say discovered I say created, when you say give up I say don't have the right. We get the same result either way, you just start at the top (unlimited rights) and come down (what we have now) while I start from the bottom (no right) and come up (what we have now).
I just believe that rights is an abstract concept, like morals, ethics, and freedom, because only humans can understand or use them and there is no way to test if they are actually there or not.
He thinks our rights change based on what the opinion of our rights happen to be. In other words, if Hitler thinks you don't have a right to live and the "society" of Germany agrees, it means you don't have a right to live. He wants to shy away from the right to life. But the right to life is no different than the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property ownership, or any of our other rights.
You did not read my post correctly Radar. I said since no one believes they don't have a right to life, no one can ethically decide if they have a right to life or not. Society can only mold people's beliefs of rights and enforce them. If Hitler believes the Jews don't have the right to life, that means he feels he doesn't need to justify killing them. If German society believes that a Jew has no right to life, that means a German growing up in that society will most likely believe that Jews don't have a right to life and that there would be no penalty for killing a Jew. A Jews can protect him or herself with the justification that he or she has the right to life. Rights, like ethics, are highly based on perspective.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of living with a few unalienable rights because it makes things much simpler and sets very ethical guidelines 99% of the time, I just don't believe they are real. "Do unto others as you would want them to do upon you" is a horrible idea in some situations, but it is a good generalization to live by 99% of the time. Like unalienable rights, I don't believe that quote is the correct way, but I will tell other people it is because it is simple to understand, easily avoids conflict, and would be the most moral decision, in my opinion at least, 99% of the time.
Another reason I don't believe in the idea of unalienable is because there is nothing to enforce those rights besides humans. If everyone in the world besides me believed that I don't have a right to live and all 6 billion people try to kill me, there is nothing the universe or nature is going to do to stop them. The only person that can stop them is myself. If nature says that everyone has a right to life, then it would make sense that nature would enforce it, but it doesn't, hence another reason why I believe rights are man-made. Humans are the only ones that can enforce rights, so it makes sense that humans created rights. Nature enforces the laws of gravity, hence why it makes sense that nature "created" gravity.
To further my point on my second last paragraph, I will put an example scenario in the Philosophy Forum.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16174Yes, any country with a nuclear weapon will not get attacked by a conventional enemy. Iran notes this, that is why I even have doubts of them giving up their nuclear weapon program in 2003. The part about them bombing Israel or giving their future nuclear weapons away is a load of crap, it doesn't make sense, but I do believe nuclear weapons is on Iran's agenda.
We did learn about unalienable rights in public school, I just disagree with that idea.
If someone attacks me with a knife, I will defend myself whether it is a right or a privilege.
Either way, besides a minor few things all we are disagreeing on is semantics. When you say discovered I say created, when you say give up I say don't have the right. We get the same result either way, you just start at the top (unlimited rights) and come down (what we have now) while I start from the bottom (no right) and come up (what we have now).
I just believe that rights is an abstract concept, like morals, ethics, and freedom, because only humans can understand or use them and there is no way to test if they are actually there or not.
You did not read my post correctly Radar. I said since no one believes they don't have a right to life, no one can ethically decide if they have a right to life or not. Society can only mold people's beliefs of rights and enforce them. If Hitler believes the Jews don't have the right to life, that means he feels he doesn't need to justify killing them. If German society believes that a Jew has no right to life, that means a German growing up in that society will most likely believe that Jews don't have a right to life and that there would be no penalty for killing a Jew. A Jews can protect him or herself with the justification that he or she has the right to life. Rights, like ethics, are highly based on perspective.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of living with a few unalienable rights because it makes things much simpler and sets very ethical guidelines 99% of the time, I just don't believe they are real. "Do unto others as you would want them to do upon you" is a horrible idea in some situations, but it is a good generalization to live by 99% of the time. Like unalienable rights, I don't believe that quote is the correct way, but I will tell other people it is because it is simple to understand, easily avoids conflict, and would be the most moral decision, in my opinion at least, 99% of the time.
Another reason I don't believe in the idea of unalienable is because there is nothing to enforce those rights besides humans. If everyone in the world besides me believed that I don't have a right to live and all 6 billion people try to kill me, there is nothing the universe or nature is going to do to stop them. The only person that can stop them is myself. If nature says that everyone has a right to life, then it would make sense that nature would enforce it, but it doesn't, hence another reason why I believe rights are man-made. Humans are the only ones that can enforce rights, so it makes sense that humans created rights. Nature enforces the laws of gravity, hence why it makes sense that nature "created" gravity.
Nature grants us life, and all of our natural rights. Nature does not need to "enforce" rights. We protect our own rights. Another part of nature is that we die. Our lives are fragile and we have a right to defend them. Nature doesn't "enforce" the law of gravity. Gravity just is and that's part of nature. Our rights just exist. Neither our rights, nor gravity can be bought, sold, taken, or given away. They can be overcome, but that doesn't mean they cease to exist.
I can overcome the gravitational pull of the earth by getting into a rocket. The gravity still exists. I can overcome someone's right to life by killing them. It doesn't mean they didn't have that right. I can overcome their right to private property ownership by stealing from them, it doesn't mean I have a right to do so or that they don't still have the right to own property.
Our rights have nothing to do with perception. I don't have a right to life merely because I perceive myself to have it. I'd have a right to life even if I didn't know what rights were and I were dim enough to think they were created by society.
Here's a question.
Society is made up of individuals. If individuals do not have rights, where does society gain its powers from? By what authority does "society" act? How can "society" grant rights to people when the people who make up society have no rights?
In other words, how can you give something to someone that you don't have?
Also, anything that can be GIVEN can also be taken away. These are privileges. If society could give rights to people, they would cease to be rights. They would be privileges. If rights came from society, there would be no such things as rights.
If you acknowledge that we have a right to life, (and you have done so) my entire argument is proven because rights can't be bestowed upon us, they can only exist on their own.
A right inherent and is something you do not require permission to do. A privilege is permission to do something and this permission can be revoked at any time.
For instance, if I own a piece of land. I can walk across my land all day back and forth, and there isn't a single person on the face of the earth who can tell me to stop. I don't require the permission of anyone to walk across my land.
If I want to take a shortcut across YOUR land, I'd require your permission. You could grant me permission and extend the privilege of walking across your land. But in the future, if you get tired of me walking across your land, you can revoke that permission. You can never revoke my right to walk across my own land.
You said that you would defend your own life regardless of whether it were a right or a privilege. This statement alone proves it to be a right. It's something you do not require permission to do. It's something you were born with the right to do. This right can not be taken away from you. You can't sell your right to defend yourself to me because I already have a right to defend myself. I was born with it. You can't vote away your right to defend yourself. Nothing you say or do will separate your right to defend your life from your life itself. You can end your life, but then you would have no life to defend so your right to defend it is irrelevant.
As long as you have a life, you have a right to defend it. As long as you have a life, you own yourself and no other person or group of people has any claim to your life or your person. As long as you own yourself, your thoughts, speech, and labor are your own and so are the fruits of that labor. Nobody else on earth has any legitimate claim to the fruits of your labor unless you have sold those fruits or otherwise traded them.
Nature doesn't "enforce" the law of gravity.
Yes it does. Anything that gravity prohibits can't be done. Rights prohibit nothing in the absence of human enforcement.
Our rights have nothing to do with perception.
If you attempt to do something without taking gravity into account, the punishment is failure.
If you attempt to do something without taking rights into account, the punishment is decided by yourself, in the form of guilt, and/or by the reactions of others, all of which are based entirely on perception.
Society is made up of individuals. If individuals do not have rights, where does society gain its powers from? By what authority does "society" act? How can "society" grant rights to people when the people who make up society have no rights?
This post is made up of sentences, each of which is made up of words, each of which is made up of letters. A letter doesn't have all of the properties of the post.
Again, I am not saying that we don't have rights, or that it's a bad idea to behave as if we do. What I am saying is that your assertions that rights have physical, objective reality outside the mind are unsupported. I suspect it is because they are unsupportable; not because they are false, but because the question of their validity is untestable.
Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label.
I'll try to organize my argument again.
As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach.
Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person.
Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will.
My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will.
The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else?
Another example.
Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right.
My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns.
Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well.
So I will try to sum it up:
Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated.
My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual.
So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them?
So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights.
Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically".
You: ???
Now to the right versus privilege.
Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can.
My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege.
Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege?
Your Perspective: ???
My Perspective: People decide.
Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what?
Hopefully that answers your question.
Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?
While I rarely agree with UG on anything, I much prefer discourse with him than some of the other arrogant arseholes around this place.
At least he doesn't take himself seriously enough to be truly deluded unlike some others.
I also have to say that UG does have a good sense of humour on a number of levels and while he is quite unbelieveable in some of his assertions, on the whole he's just another dwellar with a certain way of doing things.
Like all the others that rub the wrong way, there's no need to respond if you don't want to.
Yes it does. Anything that gravity prohibits can't be done. Rights prohibit nothing in the absence of human enforcement.
To enforce something is to use force. Since gravity IS a force, nature does not need to enforce it. Not being able to do something because gravity exists, is not enforcing gravity.
Most of the examples you have given me are just proving that our disagreements have to do with wording. When it comes down to it, privilege and rights are just words that you can use to turn the argument your way. To me, there really isn't a difference between the two besides a label.
I'll try to organize my argument again.
As I mentioned before, most of disagreements are just arguing semantics coming from my bottom up approach and your top down approach.
Lets take the right/privilege to life in the United States. As most of us know, some states allow the practice of capital punishment. With this, would life be considered a right or privilege since the government has the ability to take a life from a person.
Your perspective: We have the right to life and the state is just violating that right in a certain case. The person still has a right to life but the state is violating that right. The person dies against his will.
My perspective: Our society agreed that in certain cases, we allow the state to take away our right of life. From that person's perspective, assuming he still wants to live, he has the right to life so he will defend himself but from the state's perspective he doesn't so they will kill him. The person dies against his will.
The outcome is the same in both of our perspectives, it is just that you go from bottom down and I go from top down and mine allows for perspective. The only thing I don't get from your perspective is what does the state think? Does the state think that he has a right to life and they are knowning violating it or something else?
Another example.
Your Perspective:We all have the right to bear arms but the people have decided that it will let the government violate our right.
My Perspective:We as a society decided that we do not have the right to own guns.
Once again, we have the same conclusion but you go top down and I go bottom up. My question from the last example applies here as well.
So I will try to sum it up:
Your Perspective: We will have rights that can never be taken away from us, but only violated when the people decide that they can be violated.
My Perspective We as people give ourselves rights and decide which ones we should have and to the extreme. I am generalizing here because society doesn't necessarily reflect the individual.
So the question is really do we create our own rights or are we born with them?
So that gets into my previous question, what would we be like without rights? If we have rights, then there must be some way we can imagine someone without rights.
Me: Rights are an abstract concept so we physically wouldn't be any different, just our laws would be different and we would feel the need to justify our actions with "because I can ethically".
You: ???
Now to the right versus privilege.
Your Perspective: A right is something that cannot be taken away from me and a privilege is something that can.
My Perspective: They are just labels created by humans. If society agrees that we can not take something away from me, it becomes a right. If we agree that something can be taken away from me it is a privilege.
Then the question comes up, who decides the difference between a right and privilege?
Your Perspective: ???
My Perspective: People decide.
Honestly, I do not understand how we decide what the difference between rights and privileges are? How do we know that the ability to bear arms isn't an unalienable right but a privilege? How do we know that the ability to marry isn't a privilege but an unalienable right? Who decides what is what?
Hopefully that answers your question.
My perspective is never that people allow the government to violate our rights. I say the people are coerced and threatened into allowing the government to violate our rights because they fear if they stand up for their rights, they will be the nail that sticks out the most and they'll get hammered.
People aren't ALLOWING the government to violate their rights, they are merely scared they'll be outgunned. Most people pay income taxes not because they feel a sense of duty or because they think they are the right thing to do. They pay taxes out of force and coercion. If they knew men with guns would not show up when they refused to have their income stolen from them, they would cease to pay them and exercise their right to keep what they earn.
If someone is raped, it doesn't mean they ALLOWED themselves to be used for sex.
To enforce something is to use force. Since gravity IS a force, nature does not need to enforce it. Not being able to do something because gravity exists, is not enforcing gravity.
Semantics. The fact remains that you can't ignore gravity, you can only work within it. You can completely ignore rights, and the only results will be based on human perception.
I disagree. You can't ignore rights. You can violate them, but not ignore them. As a person with rights, you can choose not to exercise them, but they still exist.
This isn't a semantics argument, it's a HUGE point.
The fact that you can kill someone doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life. The fact that you can steal their property does not mean they don't have a right to that property. The fact that you can use a rocket to escape the gravity of the earth does not mean the earth has no gravity.
Also, since Pierce openly admits he doesn't know the difference between a right and a privilege I'll ask him to read the links I've provided again.
Rights and privileges are not labels. An apple and a Buick are very different things. Calling them something else doesn't alter this fact. A rights and a privilege are the exact opposite. People do not decide what your rights are, but they may extend a privilege.
Your rights can not be numbered because all people have the right to do ANYTHING as long as they do not infringe on the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other. Infringement means preventing another person's equal use of their rights, property, person, etc.
I disagree. You can't ignore rights. You can violate them, but not ignore them.
Why not? What happens if you do?
The fact that you can kill someone doesn't mean they didn't have a right to life.
Or that they do.
The fact that you can steal their property does not mean they don't have a right to that property.
Or that they do.
The fact that you can use a rocket to escape the gravity of the earth does not mean the earth has no gravity.
But the fact that you
have to use a rocket to escape Earth's gravity
does mean that the Earth has gravity.
The first two are unfounded assertions. The third has been supported by evidence.
The first two are unfounded assertions. The third has been supported by evidence.
False. All of them are supported by evidence and all are equally factual. You yourself say we have a right to life and so does Pierce. Ask every human being on earth if they have a right to live and they will say yes (assuming they can talk or communicate).
It is unanimous. It is factual. It is right. It is axiomatic. It is undeniable. And nothing you say or do will change it.
It's the truth
It's actual
Everything is satisfactual.
(Sidenote: just because every human being on earth believes something doesn't make it so. There was a time when every human on earth believed the earth was flat. Just sayin')
He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.
He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.
Radar, please stop with this bullet argument, will you? Its a fallacious argument.
Your shooting victim will not be feeling your rights. They will be feeling a bullet. The reality and tangibility of the bullet is no evidence for the reality and tangibility of your rights.
I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just that this argument doesn't support it.
I don't think that every single person on earth would agree that having their rights violated should result in any tangible experience for the violator.
Radar, please stop with this bullet argument, will you? Its a fallacious argument.
Your shooting victim will not be feeling your rights. They will be feeling a bullet. The reality and tangibility of the bullet is no evidence for the reality and tangibility of your rights.
I'm not saying your conclusion is false, just that this argument doesn't support it.
It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.
We've seen tangible results when people didn't stand up to defend their rights in the holocaust and other genocides. The end result is always the same. People eventually stand up for rights, and those who violate them find themselves filled with bullets. Ask every living person if they have a RIGHT to live and not a privilege and 100% of them will agree that they do.
This is in no way like people thinking the earth was flat anymore than if 100% of the people on earth thought we didn't have gravity. Gravity would continue to exist regardless of the opinions of observers as would our rights.
Is "being respected" a right?
I ask because I sometimes read news stories about how one person will put a bullet through the skull of another person because they were not being respected. That must make it a right.
False. All of them are supported by evidence and all are equally factual. You yourself say we have a right to life and so does Pierce. Ask every human being on earth if they have a right to live and they will say yes (assuming they can talk or communicate).
So your evidence for the universal, objective, physical existence of rights is group consensus?
It is axiomatic.
"Axiomatic" by definition includes a lack of proof. The right to life is a good candidate for an axiom. An assumption around which the rules of a good society can be built.
But an assumption nonetheless.
He is saying because gravity is associated with measurable results it exists and pretends there are no measurable results with rights. Violate my rights and you can measure how deep the bullet goes into your skull. You can't see gravity, but you can feel it. You can't see my rights, but you'll damn sure feel it if you violate them or try to deny me of them.
Bullets go into skulls without regard for whether they are violating or enforcing rights. They do it with regard only to the subjective views of the wielder.
And, as you hold that the US government violates your rights, and you haven't shot any of them, I would posit that not only is that "measurable result" meaningless, it is nonexistent.
It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.
Maybe the following example will show why this argument if fallacious:
A person (
not Radar, a strawman) falsely believes he has the right to shoot people for sport. The police come to "take away/violate" this right and the person shoots the police in the head with a very real bullet.
Does the reality of the bullet prove that the right in question exists? Surely not.
My point is, the reality of your rights are
not proven by the reality of your ammunition.
Again, this doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. Just that this particular inference is invalid.
Ask every living person if they have a RIGHT to live and not a privilege and 100% of them will agree that they do.
.
How can you say that? How can you know that? You can't. You don't. Every living person? Does this not include your aforementioned ability to "talk and communicate" persons or every single living person 100%?
This is in no way like people thinking the earth was flat anymore than if 100% of the people on earth thought we didn't have gravity. Gravity would continue to exist regardless of the opinions of observers as would our rights.
Correct. Group consensus is only a relevant argument on subjective issues. So stop trying to use it to support an argument for the objective reality of rights.
So your evidence for the universal, objective, physical existence of rights is group consensus?"
No, consensus doesn't prove it. Our rights are self-evident. The consensus just proves that people recognize that our rights are self-evident.
Axiomatic" by definition includes a lack of proof. The right to life is a good candidate for an axiom. An assumption around which the rules of a good society can be built.
False. Axiomatic means it's obvious and always true. It is self-evident and factual regardless of your denials. The right to life isn't an "assumption", it's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.
But an assumption nonetheless.
Wrong.
Bullets go into skulls without regard for whether they are violating or enforcing rights. They do it with regard only to the subjective views of the wielder.
Bullets go through skulls when they are fired from a gun. A gun is a tool used to defend oneself when our rights are being violated, whether those rights are our right to life, our right to remain unmolested, our right to defend our property or family, etc. Our rights are unquestionable and even YOU claim to have a right to life so you agree with me whether you spew more mindless garbage or not.
And, as you hold that the US government violates your rights, and you haven't shot any of them, I would posit that not only is that "measurable result" meaningless, it is nonexistent.
How do you know I haven't shot any of them, or that I won't in the future? I've also never said that a bullet through the skull is the ONLY measurable result.
Maybe the following example will show why this argument if fallacious:
A person (not Radar, a strawman) falsely believes he has the right to shoot people for sport. The police come to "take away/violate" this right and the person shoots the police in the head with a very real bullet.
Does the reality of the bullet prove that the right in question exists? Surely not.
My point is, the reality of your rights are not proven by the reality of your ammunition.
Again, this doesn't mean that your conclusion is false. Just that this particular inference is invalid.
I've already said, your BELIEF in rights is disconnected and unrelated from what your actual rights are. Your rights are the same regardless of your opinion. They exist regardless of your denials. They are the same for all people. Our rights do not include violating the rights of others such as offensively killing someone rather than defensively.
In your example, your strawman is an insane person
(much like those who deny the existence of immutable and unalienable rights) and he has violated the rights of another person. If he is killed using DEFENSIVE force by another cop, his rights have not been violated. Our rights never include violating the rights of others and a belief in such does not mean it's true.
False. Axiomatic means it's obvious and always true.
Assumed to be true without proof.
It is self-evident and factual regardless of your denials. The right to life isn't an "assumption", it's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.
And yet, everything you attempt to use to support that assertion is entirely subjective.
Bullets go through skulls when they are fired from a gun. A gun is a tool used ...
... for whatever the user has in mind when it is used. In support of a right, real or imagined, or in violation of a right, real or imagined. Someone being shot is only evidence of what the shooter was thinking, not whether they were right or not.
How do you know I haven't shot any of them, or that I won't in the future? I've also never said that a bullet through the skull is the ONLY measurable result.
It's the only one you've offered so far.
I've already said, your BELIEF in rights is disconnected and unrelated from what your actual rights are. Your rights are the same regardless of your opinion. They exist regardless of your denials. They are the same for all people. Our rights do not include violating the rights of others such as offensively killing someone rather than defensively.
In your example, your strawman is an insane person (much like those who deny the existence of immutable and unalienable rights) and he has violated the rights of another person. If he is killed using DEFENSIVE force by another cop, his rights have not been violated. Our rights never include violating the rights of others and a belief in such does not mean it's true.
Yes to most of this ... but I was just talking about your bullet-in-the-head argument.
Do you agree that strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right? It sounds like you do, I just want to be clear.
No, I do not agree. Having the ability to violate another's rights is not the same thing as having the right to do so. I have the ability to rape someone. I do not have the right to do it.
Might does not make right and does not make rights. You can deny rights all you like, but you and I both know that you have them. You have the right to life, so this childish exercise in futility proves nothing.
You have the RIGHT to blather on and on claiming we don't have rights.
Pierce said he would defend his RIGHT to life even if someone else thought it were a privilege. This alone proves it to be a right because it's not something we require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others.
How many of you are intellectually honest enough to have read the links I posted? My guess is none.
How many of you are intellectually honest enough to have read the links I posted? My guess is none.
You didn't even read the post you are replying to.
No, I do not agree. Having the ability to violate another's rights is not the same thing as having the right to do so. I have the ability to rape someone. I do not have the right to do it.
You
do agree that "strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right"
fails to prove he has that right?"
His ability to shoot the cop does not prove that the has the right to.
And your ability to shoot someone you percieve to have violated your rights doesn't prove that you have the right to.
My perspective is never that people allow the government to violate our rights. I say the people are coerced and threatened into allowing the government to violate our rights because they fear if they stand up for their rights, they will be the nail that sticks out the most and they'll get hammered.
So if a group democratically votes that they do not have the right to own an assault rifle or they vote a representive in who believes the people he or she is representing do not have the right to own an assault rifle that the people are scared of getting thrown in jail? That doesn't make sense. Just because you believe that we should never allow the government to violate/take away our rights doesn't mean that everyone does.
People aren't ALLOWING the government to violate their rights, they are merely scared they'll be outgunned. Most people pay income taxes not because they feel a sense of duty or because they think they are the right thing to do. They pay taxes out of force and coercion. If they knew men with guns would not show up when they refused to have their income stolen from them, they would cease to pay them and exercise their right to keep what they earn.
Then why are non-politicians trying to get guns outlawed? And I know people that know the income tax is technically illegal but wouldn't mind it if it went to places besides the military.
If someone is raped, it doesn't mean they ALLOWED themselves to be used for sex.
Not everyone thinks that gun laws are comparable to rape.
No, consensus doesn't prove it. Our rights are self-evident. The consensus just proves that people recognize that our rights are self-evident.
No it doesn't, it just proves that everyone agrees that we have that single right. I can just as easily say I don't have the right to life and your conclusion is proven false right there. You are using invalid logic.
It is like saying that just because every human thinks it is unethical to practice cannibalism makes that a universal ethic. But, in the past (actually present too but I am leaving that out for the sake of the example) groups thought it was not only ethical but sacred to practice cannibalism so it obviously isn't a universal ethic.
Also, since Pierce openly admits he doesn't know the difference between a right and a privilege I'll ask him to read the links I've provided again.
Finals week is coming up (I come on here to get my mind of studying right now) and I am not going to read through a bunch of links right now for something that you can answer in two seconds. Good way at avoiding my questions though so I will ask them again.
[SIZE="3"]
Questions for Radar:[/SIZE]
1) What would humans be like without rights?
2) Who determines the difference between a right and a privilege?
3) When did the first human group discover/create rights?
4) Did rights exist before humans evolved the ability to justify their actions?
You didn't even read the post you are replying to.
You do agree that "strawman's ability to shoot the police in defense of his supposed "right" fails to prove he has that right?"
His ability to shoot the cop does not prove that the has the right to.
And your ability to shoot someone you perceive to have violated your rights doesn't prove that you have the right to.
Thanks, HM, glad someone got the point ;)
Pierce said he would defend his RIGHT to life even if someone else thought it were a privilege. This alone proves it to be a right because it's not something we require permission to do and it does not violate the rights of others.
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.
False. All of them are supported by evidence and all are equally factual. You yourself say we have a right to life and so does Pierce. Ask every human being on earth if they have a right to live and they will say yes (assuming they can talk or communicate).
It is unanimous. It is factual. It is right. It is axiomatic. It is undeniable. And nothing you say or do will change it.
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?
It's the truth
It's actual
Everything is satisfactual.
(Sidenote: just because every human being on earth believes something doesn't make it so. There was a time when every human on earth believed the earth was flat. Just sayin')
Ooops, should have read this before I posted my last one.
It's not a fallacious argument. I have a right and will defend that right. If you claim I don't have a right and attempt to violate my rights, the result will be very real force used against you. The bullet they feel is a side effect of violating my rights.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.
I agree. This is getting old.
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.
Gee...I guess it was axiomatic at the time then.
The attacker is violating rights. If he becomes injured or dead when someone defends themselves, his or her rights have not been violated.
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.
Gee...I guess it was axiomatic at the time then.
No. Axiomatic = True and widely known.
It
IS axiomatic that we have undeniable, irrevocable, immutable, and unalienable rights.
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.
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.
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...
[ATTACH]16213[/ATTACH]
:D
That was incredibly smart.
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...
: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.
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.
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.
........... are completely irrelevant unless I commit a crime with one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone has gone to jail and been released, they should have 100% of their rights restored.
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.
....In fact very few would fire on Americans trying to overthrow the government and take their country back
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...
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.
Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.
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.
Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.
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.
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.
Ok, I'll put 10 pesos on Radar for this one.
The gangs, the collectors, and the ex-military guys have more.
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.
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.
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.
Are you wondering, if civil unrest broke out it could be defeated by cutting off imports? No.
I would doubt that. The majority of all rifles in the inventory can fire on full auto.
Which they rarely use, because more than 3 rounds is inaccurate and wasteful.
Which they rarely use, because more than 3 rounds is inaccurate and wasteful.
Correct.
Hey, I'm not just a pretty face ya know.
Are you wondering, if civil unrest broke out it could be defeated by cutting off imports? No.
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.
(though I perfur the bow, even though it's more expensive it requires actual skill to kill something.. which a gun needs little)
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!
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."
Welcome to my world...:neutral:
Am just wishing to say, not to be rude like, if the 2nd Amndmt. gives the right to bear arms ... trained Militia ... you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you. If you have to have a revolution I fear your Miltia is going to look like those guys in M.Moores film Bowling for Columbine. Ownership of guns is fine as long as you don't look for demons.
Everyone who likes Coke should switch to Pepsi, now!
I've been munching so much :corn: reading this thread, I need that Pepsi. Diet, if you please.
. . .you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you.
Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides -- crime built to government specifications, and committed either directly by government or with government as an accessory before, during, and after the fact.
The self-reliant do not place their trust so exclusively, regarding it at best as too passive, and more usually they start throwing around applicable wisecracks about "sheeple."
There is only one known cure or prophylaxis for genocides, and that is to keep an armed populace. Any jerks who think their might makes their right have to weigh their might against that of their targets. Genocide becomes an impracticality at that point -- Einsatzkommandos succeed because nobody can shoot them. Contrariwise, imagine their chances of success if they are wiped out. A happier outcome for the general good, right?
Ownership of guns is fine as long as you don't look for demons.
Am I to understand you see some need to explicitly remind us of this? Most of the guns and freedom people are very far beyond having to address this question. I suggest you consider that we gun people know far more about what guns are, and what they are not, than you presently do; was it not you worrying publicly about worrying who might be carrying concealed as you go about your daily occasions? Funny how such views never stretch to imagining oneself, the worrier, carrying concealed. How much "worrying" is called for then, regardless of who else might be carrying?
Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides --
I'm a Brit and we don't do revolutions hav'nt done since Cromwell but that was against a Monarchy oh and a feeble uprising that went away. We prefer to go on strike but only as a last resort. Anyway UG this is a very complex thread which leads to many Hydras. I am amazed that you hold your Government under a wary eye and are ready to act if necesseray - I never imagined that kind of commitment. I own and have owned a liscensed German 7.65mm auto. for years because of this comfort feeling I think you allude to. Americans have a short history but you had it hard for so long, I guess firearms are in you nature & culture similar to the importance of horses/transport to you which in todays terms means grand theft auto is a really serious crime: taking away someones ride (hanging offence!) - in Europe we call it car theft - not so historically important to us in little Europe but to you in the vast USA your horse and your right to defend yourselves/family was the meaning of life.
I'm sorry I did not understand your last paragraph but then I was talking about the European way of life - I often meet hunters in the mountains here with single shot rifles but down in the valley the only people carrying firearms are the Gendarmerie. I mean, from my point of view, I don't need to worry in town if a guy I cut up on the road is carrying coz he's not and the most I'm gonna get is loud klaxons or the finger. In the USA on a hot day I would worry about pissing a guy off. I don't think we can compare each others point of view due to the cultural differences but I an in awe of you UG if you think you could take on the USA Government if necessary though after all you, did a bitching job against the Brits all those years ago. That was awesome.
I don't think we can compare each others point of view due to the cultural differences but I an in awe of you UG if you think you could take on the USA Government if necessary though after all you, did a bitching job against the Brits all those years ago. That was awesome.
Bwahahahahahaha! "Thank you" for making me choke on my coffee.... Totally worth it. Awesome!
Bwahahahahahaha! "Thank you" for making me choke on my coffee.... Totally worth it. Awesome!
Why did I make you choke? And if you got any coffee on your T -Shirt bin it, those stains don't come out.
Ok... seriously... I choked on my coffee because I laughed while drinking. I drink a lot of coffee. I laughed because I found your remarks highly amusing--whether or not you intended them to be funny. Either way, they crack me up!
You are most welcome BigV, just spreading my good cheer. Glad you like my mien de la vie. But this is a complex forum. I miss Radars input though.
He won't stay out of this for long; not only is this a tangible application of his favorite subject, but I suspect that only some hectic preholiday running around would keep him from reading on this thread.
Essentially, IciLP, we account the one legitimate source of power to be the electorate, which seems to us an excellent paradigm of a Republic, which is definitely what we are. To retain this political power in full, the electorate must also hold powers of life and death -- just to keep government the people's servant and not its master. (For it will seek mastery.) The electorate does delegate authority and power to its representatives, and this is all up and down through all our governing bodies. That delegated power is limited in scope and in time, and at the end of its term it is to be returned to the people's keeping. I do understand you find that paragraph opaque yet, and I think perhaps we should correspond about it by PM as I'd rather not be tempted up onto a soapbox about it. I'm sure I can make myself clearer and make our motivations as citizens of our Republic clearer too. I'd go to that kind of trouble because I regard those ideas as the quintessence of our Republic's social contract.
A bit of regarding history will show that we had to do that "bitchin' job" twice, in two wars thirty years apart, 1775-83 and 1812-14 -- and with an intervening conflict with France about midway between called the "Quasi-War." 1798-99, IIRC without looking. Not exactly an era of placidity.
The War of 1812 settled permanently a few matters considered at least by England to be loose ends -- impressment of seamen of British birth, and entanglement one way or another with the Napoleonic Wars that had occupied the previous decade. It wasn't all burning Washington, John Paul Jones, and the Battle of New Orleans -- Davy Crockett made his reputation in the frontier regions of this war as did Andrew Jackson, later President and the face on our $20 bill. Jackson was nothing if not colorful, and if the term had been current then, the eastern-seaboard Americans would no doubt have called him a cowboy, as a couple of American Presidents have been termed since. And for the same reasons, too.
V, wrt coffee drinking, have some innocent good fun reading this site sometime when you're not super busy:
Girl Genius -- the coffee fun is about halfway down the table of contents.
Mad Science rules the world. Badly....the eastern-seaboard Americans would no doubt have called him a cowboy, as a couple of American Presidents have been termed since. And for the same reasons, too.
Please don't turn this into a defense of imperialism thread. Radar (presumably) and I prefer to agree with you during the holiday season.
Am just wishing to say, not to be rude like, if the 2nd Amndmt. [COLOR="Red"]gives[/COLOR] the right to bear arms ... trained Militia ... you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you.
[COLOR="Red"]Acknowleges[/COLOR] would be the proper word. We've had the fight here the last couple weeks about where rights come from but among the founding fathers there was no such squabble.
Amen Griff. I agree. And UG that is a whole lot of info I did not know. I get your point. thank you both.
By the way, what impact did Benedict Arnold have on the American People at that time? And what was his story? Just fascinated to know? Anyone...
By the way, what impact did Benedict Arnold have on the American People at that time? And what was his story? Just fascinated to know? Anyone...
He worked for us, got pissed on, got pissed off, defected to the Brits, retired to London, failed as a businessman and died poor. I would guess karma killed him fittingly.
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/arnold.html[QUOTE=TheMercenary;418960]He worked for us, got pissed on, got pissed off, defected to the Brits, retired to London, failed as a businessman and died poor. I would guess karma killed him fittingly.
Fuck him. Politics ruled then as today. This shit happens every day. And we keep paying. The 2nd Ammndmnt. is fine as it is - untill a new law comes into force. Then we will abide by it.
"We?"
Sustained, Ahem, you're right Clod, I meant the royale "we".
The second amendment came about because Americans rejected the royale we.... any royale we.... all royale we's.
Powerful US gun lobby searches for owners of guns seized by police after Hurricane Katrina
The Associated Press
Published: December 26, 2007
NEW ORLEANS: A powerful gun lobby organization has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week.
The National Rifle Association is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned homes and from people trying to take the guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.
The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms.
In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.
Today in Americas
Giving disorganized boys the tools for success
Huckabee and Romney battle to the wire in Iowa caucuses
Reconciling the realist with the rhetorician
The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes.
In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number.
In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents.
NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added.
"Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case — to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."
The NRA is asking that the February trial be postponed.
"Since a primary objective of this litigation is to cause the return of seized firearms to their lawful owners, more time is necessary to locate them," NRA lawyers wrote.
A U.S. District judge had not yet ruled on the request Wednesday.
Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the group will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners.
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police department has returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns.
"Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."
An attorney for the city and a police department spokesman did not return telephone calls for comment Wednesday.
I loathe the NRA, but this time I agree with them. Taking the guns was just plain wrong.
A little late but people are on the issue never the less...
N.O. Police Returning Guns Confiscated Post-Katrina
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
NEW ORLEANS — Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, police this week began returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina.
The police department is making the guns available three days a week. At the close of the second day Wednesday, police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned.
Police and soldiers removed guns from houses after the storm flooded the city, and they confiscated guns from some evacuees.
The NRA and other groups sued the city, saying it took away people's means of protection amid the lawlessness that gripped New Orleans.
"Natural disasters may destroy great cities, but they do not destroy civil rights," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which joined the NRA in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was dropped after the city agreed to return the guns.
Some owners complained it was difficult to get them back. Gun owners must bring a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. Police also are running criminal background checks on those claiming weapons.
Some gun owners found the weapons were evidence in a crime and not eligible for release. Others did not have the proper paperwork.
Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house. When he tried to get his gun back this week, police told him he would have to contact state police.
"I won't ever see that gun again, believe me," Taplet said. "It's gone like everything else in that storm."
Police Superintendent Warren Riley said police had legitimate reasons for confiscating weapons.
"We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons," he said. "Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192347,00.html They do have a point. Taking a gun from an abandoned house, while slightly ethically dubious (invasion of privacy/space), is a fairly reasonable disaster response. However, taking guns from people who are actually present or with the weapon, wrong.
Yea, we call that "covering one's ass in the press". I would have come up with some lame excuse as well if I were the Police Chief about to have my ass handed to me in a lawsuit I know I would never win. Most cops I have met completely support the legal civilian ownership of guns and CCW permit holders.
I cannot "loathe the NRA" because I've been getting better informed about what they actually do, and because they are an antigenocide NGO in the way absolutely no other non-gun group can be. This is both the NRA, singular, and its political wing, the NRA-ILA.
Also we NRA'ers inconvenience tyrants.
So what's not to like?
I can't stand the NRA. They are hypocrites and liars. They consider themselves part of the Republican party. They will support a Republican candidate who favors gun control over a Libertarian candidate who opposes any kind of gun control. They are actually very rude to LP candidates. They aren't much of a real inconvenience to tyrants. At least not as much as the JPFO. I love these guys and I'm not even Jewish and nobody knows more about the genocide that occurs through gun control like the Jews.
I'm very fond of the JPFO myself -- but then, I'm the sort who seeks allies and coalitions in political doings, and whatever your other virtues, Radar, you most definitely aren't. (An observation, from me to you, that you will completely yet unwisely ignore: that isn't politic.)
I've noticed NRA-ILA doesn't endorse LP candidates much, and the reasons are clear: one, NRA-ILA likes to maintain good credibility among the electorate, so they endorse the people they think are the likely winners among those pols they like. And face it: Libertarian Party candidates are so uniformly and emphatically pro-gun that NRA-ILA has to spend precisely zero effort influencing either the candidate or his supporting activists on gun rights and policy. So, yeah, taken for granted -- with complete justice. And the NRA lobbyist will drop by
after you've won office, all right?
The JPFO, whose arguments for assault rifles as preventers of genocide totally blow their opponents out of the water, reducing to a smoking hole any "Theory of the Evil Gun Type." Good for them!
I'm very fond of the JPFO myself -- but then, I'm the sort who seeks allies and coalitions in political doings, and whatever your other virtues, Radar, you most definitely aren't. (An observation, from me to you, that you will completely yet unwisely ignore: that isn't politic.)
I've noticed NRA-ILA doesn't endorse LP candidates much, and the reasons are clear: one, NRA-ILA likes to maintain good credibility among the electorate, so they endorse the people they think are the likely winners among those pols they like. And face it: Libertarian Party candidates are so uniformly and emphatically pro-gun that NRA-ILA has to spend precisely zero effort influencing either the candidate or his supporting activists on gun rights and policy. So, yeah, taken for granted -- with complete justice. And the NRA lobbyist will drop by after you've won office, all right?
The JPFO, whose arguments for assault rifles as preventers of genocide totally blow their opponents out of the water, reducing to a smoking hole any "Theory of the Evil Gun Type." Good for them!
Who needs the NRA
AFTER being elected. The whole point of having an NRA endorsement is to have it to help you get elected. Saying they won't support pro-gun libertarians in favor of gun-control supporting Republicans who are more likely to get elected is like saying...."I won't vote for you unless you don't need my vote. I won't offer my support to those who have the same position as me unless they don't need my support."
Which is not what I was saying, in any particular.