Topic: gun control

[Govtcheez]

From other thread

spoken like a true socialist.

Thinking that gun ownership isn't a right for everyone doesn't make someone a socialist, Jesus.

[KnuckleBuckett]

Elect who we wish?  Charlie.  When was the last time you really elected a candidate you wanted in office.  I can honestly say that since I have been voting I have never done more than vote for the lesser of two evils (sometimes barely).

No our society is not at that point yet.  But it will get there in a generation or so. 

[micah]

Thinking that gun ownership isn't a right for everyone doesn't make someone a socialist, Jesus.

thats not what I was saying.
his point was that some freedoms are now irrelevant.

I'm just saying that freedom is never irrelevant.  If the second amendment can be considered irrelevant then why not the first? or the fith?  why have any rights at all if we can just pick and choose which ones we think are relevant.

but you're right, i didn't mean to say he was a socialist for making the comment.  I apologize for the generalization and the comment I made.  I didn't intend it as a personal attack.

[KnuckleBuckett]

Well said!

[stealth]

>>his point was that some freedoms are now irrelevant<<

Yes, I am.

>>I'm just saying that freedom is never irrelevant. &nbsp;If the second amendment can be considered irrelevant then why not the first? or the fith? &nbsp;why have any rights at all if we can just pick and choose which ones we think are relevant.<<

Because "Freedom != give people everything they want".

Why have any rights at all? Because the rights chosen were just that - chosen based on relevance at the time. It's essentially down to what's good for the State vs what's good for the Individual. But we are living in societies where we pick and choose what serves the Collective not the Individual - the ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Justice have vastly different connotations today than they did during the time of the French Revolution/American Independence.

Amendment II was written at a time when there was no National Guard. As per the amendment (excuse me if I have misquoted) - "[A] well armed and well regulated militia [is] the best security of a free country".

The socio-politcal climate of the time was such that it was probably a good thing to have a gun under your bed at night in case of total anarchy breaking out because England tried to regain power or due to some other foreign or internal military or paramilitary threat to the State.

I realise I'm painting broad strokes here...but explain to me, why in 2007, American citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms when you have well established National Guard?

[micah]

there are few (somewhat over used, but still good) arguments against your played out points.

one, the 2nd amendment is not just about militias.  The case in Washington DC a month or so ago concluded that the 2nd amendment wording "the right of the people" is not referring to the people in the militia but to all citizens.


second, the phrasing in the amendment - while poorly worded - does not say that the purpose of the amendment is solely for the sake of a militia.

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

It would be a bit more obvious if there was a colon after the word 'State' but the point is that while the two phrase are related, the latter is not dependent on the first part.

if it instead read "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed" the meaning would be: since it is important for people to be educated when they vote and because voting is the most important part of our representative government, people have the right to keep and read books.   Clearly voting is the motivation for the right to read but it is obviously not the only reason why people should be allowed to own books.

[charlie]

Elect who we wish?  Charlie.  When was the last time you really elected a candidate you wanted in office.  I can honestly say that since I have been voting I have never done more than vote for the lesser of two evils (sometimes barely).

No our society is not at that point yet.  But it will get there in a generation or so. 

This doesn't address my point at all Mr. Bucket. The people elect the representatives. Sure, the choices are generally poor and the people often elect someone different than who I'd prefer, but it still the people who elect our representatives. So if you are worried about elected representatives needing to be kept in check by armed civilians, then you are worried about people elected by a majority (or at least plurality) of the voting population. So again, the only point to the armed militia would be to fight as a minority against the majority opinion in the country. And again, that is not a good thing.



And Micah, I feel that your interpretation of the second amendment is a valid one (I'm not sure I agree, but I cannot say it is wrong). However, that also doesn't address stealth's point. One of his main points is that the definitions of freedom and its benefits change over time. Discussing what the forefathers meant over 200 hundred years ago doesn't rebut the assertion that times have changed and society is different now.



Ohh... and ethic, I wouldn't mind it if tanks always won over guns, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might not still be going.

[JaWiB]

> Ohh... and ethic, I wouldn't mind it if tanks always won over guns, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might not still be going.

If we didn't give a damn about Iraqi civilians, guns probably wouldn't be such a big problem. I imagine the Kurds had guns, but that didn't do much against toxic gas.

[Perspective]

>Ohh... and ethic, I wouldn't mind it if tanks always won over guns, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might not still be going.


But you're comparing two well trained armies, one with tanks, and one with just guns but knowledge of the terrain, and the advantage of ambush (since they are the ones being hunted).

If anyone thinks well-armed american civilians could stand up to the US Army, you're in some severe denial.

So now that we all agree civilians stock-piling guns is pointless, why not disarm and save thousands of lives? oh wait, the we wouldn't be free

[charlie]

I don't see the difference between well-armed American civilians and the Iraqi and Afghani resistors currently fighting the US Army.

Having armed civilians means that if a corrupted government had control of the armed forces and civilians decided to use their right to bear arms to attempt to keep the government in line, then what you'd end up with is an ugly civil war.

However, if you control the amount of arms the general public has access to, and also change the culture so that violence and revolt aren't as easily attempted as solutions, then in my opinion you have a much greater chance at peaceful resolutions to any future conflicts.


The more I think about it the more I don't like the "we must protect ourselves from our own government" angle.

[micah]

The more I think about it the more I don't like the "we must protect ourselves from our own government" angle.

neither did Hitler

[stealth]

However, if you control the amount of arms the general public has access to, and also change the culture so that violence and revolt aren't as easily attempted as solutions, then in my opinion you have a much greater chance at peaceful resolutions to any future conflicts.

It's a nice idea, but in practice? I don't know, I don't have that much faith in Democracy.  On the other side of this, having a gun isn't going to stop the government taking your rights away or your life if wants to.

neither did Hitler

How and in what way does this relate to charlie's point?

[Govtcheez]

The more I think about it the more I don't like the "we must protect ourselves from our own government" angle.

neither did Hitler

Oh holy shit.

I wasn't really for gun control but you're making me rethink my position.

[charlie]

It's a nice idea, but in practice? I don't know, I don't have that much faith in Democracy.

I don't expect significant change to happen overnight, I don't even expect it in a generation or two. But we're headed in the right direction and modern democracies are a hell of a lot better than most alternatives.

neither did Hitler

You win!

[stealth]

The more I think about it the more I don't like the "we must protect ourselves from our own government" angle.

neither did Hitler

Oh holy shit.

I wasn't really for gun control but you're making me rethink my position.

AHAHAHAHA