Gun Control by Wulfenstar

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

You have a "God given" right to a gun?

Where in the bible is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2011 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have a "God given" right to a gun?

Where in the bible is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

It is in the Bill of Rights, where the enumerated rights are natural rights, not rights granted by the government.

Gun control isn't about guns. It is about control.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2011 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have a "God given" right to a gun?

Where in the bible is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

It is in the Bill of Rights, where the enumerated rights are natural rights, not rights granted by the government.

Gun control isn't about guns. It is about control.

But they ARE granted by the government. I know this, because other governments DON'T grant those same "natural rights", and they keep right on going on anyway.

"Natural rights" aren't exactly "god given", either, are they? I keep looking in my Constitution, and I can't find "God" listed there.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2011 2:43 PM

America loves a winner!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 20, 2011 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have a "God given" right to a gun?

Where in the bible is that?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

It is in the Bill of Rights, where the enumerated rights are natural rights, not rights granted by the government.

Gun control isn't about guns. It is about control.

But they ARE granted by the government. I know this, because other governments DON'T grant those same "natural rights", and they keep right on going on anyway.

"Natural rights" aren't exactly "god given", either, are they? I keep looking in my Constitution, and I can't find "God" listed there.

From the Declaration of Independence;

Quote:

...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...

Since the Declaration of Independence is considered one of the foundation documents of our country, this should be the first clue.

Second, consider that the anti-federalists refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added. In fact, it was so narrowly run that without the Massachusetts Compromise, the Constitution might not have been ratified at all. Eventually, 11 of the 12 submitted rights were ratified by the states.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:14 AM

Look, I'm a "gun guy" myself - I like the Second Amendment (I even capitalize it, out of honor and reverence!).

What I'm saying is, there isn't a "God given" right to a gun. There's a Constitutionally enumerated right to one; one could even say there's a right GRANTED by the U.S. Constitution (said right being derived not from "God", but from the constitutions of several of the existing states at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution).

There's lots of good reasons to support the Second Amendment and defend it. But claiming it's a "God given" right isn't a good argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God wants you to have a gun. It's not in the book. I've checked.

Quote:
...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...

You know what's missing from that quote? "... and a Gun."

We have people here arguing things on the tiniest of technicalities when it comes to the Constitution and what it says. We have folks arguing that torture isn't torture, because we've decided to rename it, so it can't be called "torture" even if that is in fact what it is. We have people arguing that even if it IS torture, it's okay, because (1) The Constitution doesn't say "torture" in it, and (2) the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

So I'll play along. The Constitution really DOESN'T say "torture" in it. It enumerates a prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". I find torture to fit the bill on both counts, but I'm probably just splitting hairs.

As for citizenship, if that's the case - that a ban on torture only applies to CITIZENS, and not to all human beings regardless of origin or station, then it is quite clear - by admission and insistence of those on the right - that the Constitution is a list of rights granted BY GOVERNMENT, to CITIZENS, and not to everyone, and not by "God".

So y'all need to make up your minds. I'm willing to debate the facts and issues with you, even on your own terms. But I'm not willing to let you change the terms mid-conversation.

If the Constitution is a list of rights granted to mankind by "God", then let's apply them equally to everyone, even those who don't apply them to us. If we're not willing to do that, then let's admit that it's a list of rights and restrictions granted to America by Americans. And "God" isn't a citizen here, and hence has no rights and no place in the conversation.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Liberty

Which means freedom from a tyrannical govt.

The Founding Fathers understood that those w/ the arms, the GUNS, had a far better chance of preserving their freedom than if all the guns were in the hands of the govt.

They understood that a govt which fears its citizens is far more accountable than when the citizens fear it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Liberty

Which means freedom from a tyrannical govt.

You'd have a better definition of "liberty" if you left off the last four words. "Liberty" isn't *just* freedom from government, you know.

Quote:

The Founding Fathers understood that those w/ the arms, the GUNS, had a far better chance of preserving their freedom than if all the guns were in the hands of the govt.

The Founding Fathers also were not "God", were they? I'm not arguing that we're granted the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution; I've pointed out that we indeed are, by dint of the Second Amendment. I'm pointing out that "God" didn't give us these rights - our government, very specifically, THE DOCUMENTS WE FOUNDED OUR GOVERNMENT UPON, give us these rights.

Say that we have a right to guns, and I'll join your parade. Say that "God" gave us the right to guns, and I'll point and laugh, because then you've just made an even bigger fool of yourself. There is no "God given" right to guns. There just isn't. There's a MAN-given right to them, though, which is plenty good enough.

And it can be taken away. The Constitution provides for that. Just pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second. Oh, and good luck with that... ;)

Quote:
They understood that a govt which fears its citizens is far more accountable than when the citizens fear it.

Since your beloved GOP uses fear as its stock in trade, it does not surprise me in the least that that's all you'd relate to. Fear, fear, fear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:10 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I also believe that a government should 'fear' its citizenry, in that the government should recognize that it serves only insofar as the people choose to allow it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Look, I'm a "gun guy" myself - I like the Second Amendment (I even capitalize it, out of honor and reverence!).

What I'm saying is, there isn't a "God given" right to a gun. There's a Constitutionally enumerated right to one; one could even say there's a right GRANTED by the U.S. Constitution (said right being derived not from "God", but from the constitutions of several of the existing states at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution).

There's lots of good reasons to support the Second Amendment and defend it. But claiming it's a "God given" right isn't a good argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God wants you to have a gun. It's not in the book. I've checked.

Yeah, it does. Luke 22:36, as in my sig file.

Quote:

Quote:
...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...

You know what's missing from that quote? "... and a Gun."

Jeez, happiness. Being free from predators makes me happy. When politeness fails, force needs to be used. Guns happen to be a handy means of transporting force.

Not to mention their handy ability to defend life.

Quote:

We have people here arguing things on the tiniest of technicalities when it comes to the Constitution and what it says. We have folks arguing that torture isn't torture, because we've decided to rename it, so it can't be called "torture" even if that is in fact what it is. We have people arguing that even if it IS torture, it's okay, because (1) The Constitution doesn't say "torture" in it, and (2) the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

So I'll play along. The Constitution really DOESN'T say "torture" in it. It enumerates a prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". I find torture to fit the bill on both counts, but I'm probably just splitting hairs.

As for citizenship, if that's the case - that a ban on torture only applies to CITIZENS, and not to all human beings regardless of origin or station, then it is quite clear - by admission and insistence of those on the right - that the Constitution is a list of rights granted BY GOVERNMENT, to CITIZENS, and not to everyone, and not by "God".

So y'all need to make up your minds. I'm willing to debate the facts and issues with you, even on your own terms. But I'm not willing to let you change the terms mid-conversation.

If the Constitution is a list of rights granted to mankind by "God", then let's apply them equally to everyone, even those who don't apply them to us. If we're not willing to do that, then let's admit that it's a list of rights and restrictions granted to America by Americans. And "God" isn't a citizen here, and hence has no rights and no place in the conversation.

You do know there are long standing SCOTUS decisions that the Constitution applies to anyone in the United States. And it applies to nobody outside the United States. Guantanamo was a dodge, but a legal one. Under those same SCOTUS decisions it is legal for the government to kill a US citizen outside the United States.

I'm not going to argue whether those are ethical or not. They may even be necessary. But if you don't like the law, you're free to fight to get it changed.

Now the non-use of God in the Constitution was probably for the best. The first amendment pretty much spells that out. But in the papers written by the FF, they fairly well spell out the place the envisioned religion to have in the society. Laws can punish you for breaking them. But religion can instill in a practicer a set of morals that prevent you from breaking the law in the first place.

But yes, natural rights are how they are described. Not God-given, but endowed on everyone born. Of course at the time they were written that didn't include women, native Americans or blacks. But they eventually got their own amendments.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Look, I'm a "gun guy" myself - I like the Second Amendment (I even capitalize it, out of honor and reverence!).

What I'm saying is, there isn't a "God given" right to a gun. There's a Constitutionally enumerated right to one; one could even say there's a right GRANTED by the U.S. Constitution (said right being derived not from "God", but from the constitutions of several of the existing states at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution).

There's lots of good reasons to support the Second Amendment and defend it. But claiming it's a "God given" right isn't a good argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God wants you to have a gun. It's not in the book. I've checked.

Yeah, it does. Luke 22:36, as in my sig file

BZZZZZT! Wrong answer! Luke 22:36 says, and I quote:

Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

It doesn't say "he that hath no GUN..."; it says "sword". Quite specifically. And the bible is full of lots of predictions about future events, so I'm pretty sure if they'd *meant* "gun", they'd have used the word "gun", not "sword".

The bible says you have the right to a sword. The Constitution says you have the right to "arms". Neither document says you have the right to a GUN, specifically. If we were truly a "christian" nation, those "arms" we're allowed to keep and bear would consists of swords only, yes?

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
...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...

You know what's missing from that quote? "... and a Gun."

Jeez, happiness. Being free from predators makes me happy. When politeness fails, force needs to be used. Guns happen to be a handy means of transporting force.

Not to mention their handy ability to defend life.

That's quite a reach. You know what makes ME happy? Free government-provided healthcare for all. Hey, it says "life", and without medical care, your very life could be impinged. Also, without healthcare, you can seriously be deprived of your "pursuit of happiness".

See what happens when you start interpreting what they meant, instead of what they actually WROTE?

Quote:

Quote:

We have people here arguing things on the tiniest of technicalities when it comes to the Constitution and what it says. We have folks arguing that torture isn't torture, because we've decided to rename it, so it can't be called "torture" even if that is in fact what it is. We have people arguing that even if it IS torture, it's okay, because (1) The Constitution doesn't say "torture" in it, and (2) the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.

So I'll play along. The Constitution really DOESN'T say "torture" in it. It enumerates a prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". I find torture to fit the bill on both counts, but I'm probably just splitting hairs.

As for citizenship, if that's the case - that a ban on torture only applies to CITIZENS, and not to all human beings regardless of origin or station, then it is quite clear - by admission and insistence of those on the right - that the Constitution is a list of rights granted BY GOVERNMENT, to CITIZENS, and not to everyone, and not by "God".

So y'all need to make up your minds. I'm willing to debate the facts and issues with you, even on your own terms. But I'm not willing to let you change the terms mid-conversation.

If the Constitution is a list of rights granted to mankind by "God", then let's apply them equally to everyone, even those who don't apply them to us. If we're not willing to do that, then let's admit that it's a list of rights and restrictions granted to America by Americans. And "God" isn't a citizen here, and hence has no rights and no place in the conversation.

You do know there are long standing SCOTUS decisions that the Constitution applies to anyone in the United States. And it applies to nobody outside the United States. Guantanamo was a dodge, but a legal one. Under those same SCOTUS decisions it is legal for the government to kill a US citizen outside the United States.

I'm not going to argue whether those are ethical or not. They may even be necessary. But if you don't like the law, you're free to fight to get it changed.

And if one doesn't like the Second Amendment, they're free to fight to change that, too. Nifty how that works.

Quote:

Now the non-use of God in the Constitution was probably for the best. The first amendment pretty much spells that out. But in the papers written by the FF, they fairly well spell out the place the envisioned religion to have in the society. Laws can punish you for breaking them. But religion can instill in a practicer a set of morals that prevent you from breaking the law in the first place.

But yes, natural rights are how they are described. Not God-given, but endowed on everyone born. Of course at the time they were written that didn't include women, native Americans or blacks. But they eventually got their own amendments.

So you admit that the rights people keep claiming are "God given" were REALLY given by MEN, to MEN (and quite notably, NOT to women, blacks, native Americans, etc.).

So we've settled this, and you concur that there are no "god given" rights in the Constitution. Thank you.

Quote:

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Again, no mention of a "gun" in that quote, is there? Unless you're trying to convince me that a sword is equal to a gun. Can I outlaw guns if I allow you to have a sword? ;)

ETA: Just kidding about outlawing guns, by the way. Hopefully everyone here would realize that. Just got back from the gun show, as a matter of fact. Didn't find anything that really caught my eye, though. Was hoping to pick up an AK platform in .22 caliber, just to make practice more affordable, while still having everything where I'm used to it being on my other AK-derived rifles. Thought about a .308 Saiga, but I've already got the 7.62x39 and the 5.45x39 Saiga, and a couple 7.62x54r rifles for longer ranges, so the .308 isn't a great fit for me. A bit superfluous. Plus I'm partial to my FN/FAL for the .308.

So I hoped for something like a .22 WASR (despite claims that "WASR" stands for "What A Shitty Rifle!", I find them to be not a bad rifle, just exceedingly cheap-looking. The stocks look like unfinished plywood), but didn't see any at a half-decent price. Thought about a Ruger 22/45 handgun (.22 caliber with grip size and angle designed to mimic a .45 cal 1911), but haven't been happy with the way the mags feed on them in the past; like the old Ruger Mk II better, but those were pricey, too.

So no new toys for the apocalypse, but I'm sure there will be other chances and other apocalypses (apocalypsi?) to come...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 10:28 AM

America loves a winner!

The rights are inalienable. With or with out the documents. The documents merely spell them out for all to see.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The rights are inalienable. With or with out the documents. The documents merely spell them out for all to see.

Define what YOU think "inalienable" means.

Do these rights apply to EVERYONE? Do they only apply to AMERICANS? Do they only apply to American CITIZENS? Do they only apply at home, and not abroad? Do they apply ONLY to "all men", as claimed in the documents, or do they apply to all people?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:12 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

The whole exchange goes:

Quote:
35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

And I think this passage is best understood with reference to an earlier one:

Quote:
Luke 9:

1When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. 4Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.” 6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

So the Bible does directly sanction people arming themselves: when they're going out preaching the gospel and healing the sick. Outside of that is maybe more of a grey area.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:14 AM

America loves a winner!

Applies to ALL men.

We set up this govt to handle the affairs of US citizens. We can't speak / dictate to the rest of the world.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Applies to ALL men.

We set up this govt to handle the affairs of US citizens. We can't speak / dictate to the rest of the world.

Again, I thank you for agreeing with me. OUR rights, as American citizens, are OUR rights, set up by MEN when they set up a government.

You confuse the issue when you say these rights apply to ALL men, though. Quite clearly, they don't, because other governments have said so, quite clearly. And it's not our place to speak for / dictate to the rest of the world, as you yourself have pointed out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

So the Bible does directly sanction people arming themselves: when they're going out preaching the gospel and healing the sick. Outside of that is maybe more of a grey area.

Yes, the Bible does sanction people arming themselves, WITH A SWORD. :)

It's the infallible word of God, after all, and God is omniscient and omnipotent. If he'd have meant to say we should arm our selves with guns or phasers, he'd have said so. After all, he's God, right - he can see everything, into the future, etc. - so he'd have known about guns, of course.

So, summarizing once again:

Bible says sword.

Constitution says "arms", but is widely understood to mean "guns".

My Constitution trumps your Bible once again, people! If you have a form of government set up well enough by men, you've no need of gods.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:08 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
If he'd have meant to say we should arm our selves with guns or phasers, he'd have said so.

I'm not sure he would, the disciples wouldn't really have understood. Jesus would've had to pause and describe and act out this strange, new weaponry, and that would've spoiled the solemnity of the moment.

No, all Jesus really has to do is tailor his message to the listeners of the time, and that would lay down a precedent for future generations to interpret how it applied to them.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 1:48 PM

Horse. Flogged. Dead now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:21 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But they ARE granted by the government. I know this, because other governments DON'T grant those same "natural rights", and they keep right on going on anyway.

Most discussions of the Bill of Rights indicate that these rights were considered by the Founders as "natural rights" which the U.S. government, in the Constitution, should guarantee not to infringe. The Founders seem to have believed that you can't 'grant' a natural right, you can only take it away by force or fiat, and they wanted folks to know that the government set up by the Constitution wouldn't do so. If other governments take away the natural rights of their citizens, that doesn't make it right, or natural rights any less valid.

As to whether natural rights really exist, or whether or not a deity has anything to do with them, further deponent sayeth not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 3:49 PM

KIRKULES

I believe the proper term for "natural rights" is unalienable. These are rights you can't give up even if you want to. Inalienable rights can be surrendered by the individual possessing those rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:26 PM

They are all just constructs, why get your knickers in a knot?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:35 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:10 AM

America loves a winner!

No one ever suggested that our govt speaks for anyone but its own citizens.

Seems to me you're bored , and are simply trying to invent ways to start a fight.

I've got better things to do.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:18 PM

Was that to me?

If so, I am bored by this discussion. I was trying to be humourous, but clearly failed.

I think the argument goes like this.

"Guns are our God given right. Anyone who wants to take them away from us goes against what God wants."

or

"Guns protect us from tryanny"

vs

"Guns kill lots of people. Maybe it would be okay if we had some limits around their ownership."

And then basically variations on the above.

Got it. Read it. Even saw the film.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:03 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm pro second amendment, gun ownership is a right that we get to have in the US. But I'm okay with things like background checks, waiting periods etc. In the 00s the ban on semi automatics expired, it seems we all survived, though that particular ban didn't bother me all that much, I guess I'm neutral on that particular ban.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:25 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

Just wondering, seeing as it says "right to bear arms" does that mean I can build a missle silo, or even just an artillery platform in my backyard (as Oxford just says "arms" means "weapons, armaments" http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0040400#m_en_gb0040400 ), if so I am moving to America artillerying (that's a word now) you all.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:38 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Was that to me?

If so, I am bored by this discussion. I was trying to be humourous, but clearly failed.

No, but I also tire of this thread. Just wanted to clarify that, is all.

Thank you.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2011 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Just wondering, seeing as it says "right to bear arms" does that mean I can build a missle silo, or even just an artillery platform in my backyard (as Oxford just says "arms" means "weapons, armaments" http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0040400#m_en_gb0040400 ), if so I am moving to America artillerying (that's a word now) you all.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

There are no laws against missile silos. Although you would have to comply with zoning laws. Local governments might rule the missile silo is a commercial venture and prohibit you from putting it up in a residential neighborhood. There are corporations that have missiles, so I don't see why you couldn't own one as well, provided you have the means. The town of Auburn, Massachusetts has a Polaris missile in one of its parks as a tribute to the location where Robert Goddard fired his first liquid fueled rocket.

There are black powder cannon owners all over the United States. However, most modern artillery pieces are demilitarized, i.e. they have a hole torched into the chamber to prevent their use. Again there are lots of WW2 surplus cannons and mortars decorating the fronts of VFW halls all over the United States. One VFW hall near me has an M42 Duster anti aircraft tracked vehicle in front of it.

As long as you play by the rules, you can own pretty much anything you can afford.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2011 7:19 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDD! I am so moving to Massachusetts and building a motherfucking silo!

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 23, 2011 7:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

WULF:

There are four of the biggest dirty bombs ever built going off in Japan right now. Eventually, the radioactive contamination is going to reach you. (Yes, even you.) What good are your guns going to do you? What good will they do in event of global warming? Or if a local bridge falls down from lack of maintenance? Your focus on guns as the solution to all of our collective problems only reflects your limited experience and narrow-minded lack of imagination, not any real practical answer to anything.

Oh, and BTW- The concept of "natural rights" is dumb. It's based on ideas of the French Enlightenment. French philosophers were fascinated with the idea of the "natural man" who exists free in nature. It was an understandable reaction to the artificiality of French court life, but not a realistic notion of what "man" in "his" "natural" state would be. I recommend "The Social Contract" by Rousseau.

The FF were contemporaries of the French enlightenment, and the leaders were all highly educated men. You do no one any good by remaining in a state of total ignorance. I really wish that you and your fellow troglodytes would get SOME sort of education about politics and philosophy. But that would be too much to hope for, I suppose.

*sigh*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are four of the biggest dirty bombs ever built going off in Japan right now. Eventually, the radioactive contamination is going to reach you. (Yes, even you.) What good are your guns going to do you?

The plan back in the Cold War was that your guns'd keep unwanted folk out of your fallout shelter. Maybe Wulf has such a shelter where he could hold the mob off.

Like this

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:56 AM

DREAMTROVE

And thus did the lord came down and sayeth unto the people Pack heat. And the people did flock to Jesus and one man asked Could he have Open Carry, and verily he could, as my father has carried as I have carried, thee shall carry. Blessed are the gun toters for theirs is the work of the lord.

I believe it is in the Constitution:

On Wednesday the fourth of March, the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine, the faithful of a number of the Churches of Christ, having been ordered by god to prevent misconstruction or abuse of his power, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

1. Congress shall make some laws respecting an establishment of religion.

2. A heavily armed thuggery, being necessary to the security of my stuff, the right of the people to keep and carry Guns, shall not be infringed.

...

Okay, no, it doesn't say that.

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

Wulf. Are you a well regulated militia?

My personal feeling is that when the Man comes for you, a gun is not going to do the trick.

When they come for me with this

I'm going to want this

To protect me.

ETA: I this it's obvious that Jesus and Jefferson thought the people should be armed with the weapons that their govts. might take against them, for use against those powers that would stop from doing good. They did not offer you anything for your personal self defense, but only for that of your holy mission or the security of a free state. It's about freedom, and the weapons are those of the time, and that's why arms. Guns are obsolete.

Select to view spoiler:

Sure, TSCC is filled with people shooting guns, because the audience wants to see it, mostly. In what scene are guns used to good effect? Seriously, maybe once or twice, but you really think a gun is enough?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:06 AM

Wow, DT. I am so glad SCOTUS disagrees with you, as they did in Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago. Thanks to those decisions the right to keep and bear arms definitely belongs to the people, for the purpose of self defense. And now the states have to make their laws conform to those decisions.

Doubly ironic, as Illinois is one of the 5 states that does not have right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution or has it in a limited manner.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:36 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/supreme_court_demands_californi
a_release_prisoners.html

Have fun.

Its amusing. I fight/argue/stand for the general populations ability to excercise self-defense, freedom, and a natural right.

In doing so, Im called "ignorant".

Hey, you are completely free NOT to own a gun. Just don't go telling me I can't.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:34 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I'm sure glad we have a gun control thread up 'cause them gunz are dangerous. And need to be controlled.

They should require cartridges of some sort that must be reloaded periodically to ensure their destructive power is limited.

They should come equipped with triggers and safeties or something to ensure they cannot fire on their own without a persons assistance.

Yeah, that should about do it. I don't think you can control people as easily though... maybe with cake?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/supreme_court_demands_californi
a_release_prisoners.html

Have fun.

Its amusing. I fight/argue/stand for the general populations ability to excercise self-defense, freedom, and a natural right.

In doing so, Im called "ignorant".

I call you "ignorant" when you display ignorance. Like when you claim a "god given" right to own a gun. That's an ignorant statement, made by someone who is being either blatantly ignorant, or willfully obtuse.

Quote:

Hey, you are completely free NOT to own a gun. Just don't go telling me I can't.

See, that's exactly how I feel. Of course, I also feel that way about government-provided universal healthcare - You're completely free to NOT sign up for it; just don't go telling me I *can't* sign up for it.

You'll argue that it will cost the taxpayers too much money, to which I'll ask: How much taxpayer money do you think we spend on gun crimes and their aftermath? Who's *really* wasting the taxpayers' money in this equation?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Wow, DT. I am so glad SCOTUS disagrees with you, as they did in Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago. Thanks to those decisions the right to keep and bear arms definitely belongs to the people, for the purpose of self defense. And now the states have to make their laws conform to those decisions.

Doubly ironic, as Illinois is one of the 5 states that does not have right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution or has it in a limited manner.

Hey, I'm with ya, and I'm with SCOTUS on the Heller and the McDonald decisions.

But there's a move afoot now from conservative corners to cite the more convenient parts of the 10th Amendment, which avers states' rights. They want to use carefully-interpreted language in the Amendment to claim that states can "opt out" of certain provisions within the Constitution (this is coming via revisionist conservative historians like David Barton) if they don't feel like following such provisions.

The danger here, of course, is that the reading they can use to skirt the First Amendment, other states can use to skirt the Second. Or the Fourth. Or the Eighth. And so it goes...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'm sure glad we have a gun control thread up 'cause them gunz are dangerous. And need to be controlled.

They should require cartridges of some sort that must be reloaded periodically to ensure their destructive power is limited.

They should come equipped with triggers and safeties or something to ensure they cannot fire on their own without a persons assistance.

Yeah, that should about do it. I don't think you can control people as easily though... maybe with cake?

The cake is a lie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

From the Declaration of Independence;
Quote:

...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...

Since the Declaration of Independence is considered one of the foundation documents of our country, this should be the first clue.

I had a History Prof a long time ago, a PhD in History, who got off on a rant about that during a lecture one day. The Declaration was never the law of the land. It was a "foundation document", that's true, whatever it (revised to " that"during editing) means, but it was never enforceable law. Ya wanta get right down to the fact, it was a propaganda document, a list of all the bad stuff George III of England had ever done, designed to gather the support of people of other nations, and if possible, the people of England, against the government of England.

That said, I came across this somewhere the other day. It is the most concise statement of what the Second Amendment means, given the context of the time, the experience of the original minutemen, the just completed Revolution, and the wilderness/frontier, that I have ever seen:

It protects the right of people to bear their own arms so that they can be organized into
a militia, if necessary. It doesn't say that the state of North Carolina can keep one
with my name on it in a closet. It says that I can keep my own, so that if I am called
to join a militia at the behest of the state of North Carolina, I am able.

and my thanx to a guy named DaJoe, who posted it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

What I'm saying is, there isn't a "God given" right to a gun.

( snip some...)
But claiming it's a "God given" right isn't a good argument. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God wants you to have a gun. It's not in the book. I've checked.

Seems like if it was a "God given " right, fully evolved ( Oops, pardon me, Intelligently designed... Double oops, created... ) guns would have grown naturally on trees, like bananas, instead of being the development of several centuries of invention, tinkering and development; and there would have been 93 naturally occuring chemical elements- black powder would have been a naturally occurring atomic substance, ready to dig out of the ground ready to go BOOM!

And what about all those folks in the time before black powder was invented ( 6th century A D in China, if I remember correctly) and before Marco Polo imported it to Europe in the 14th Century, also if I remember correctly. Why didn't God give that right to those folks?

(and Kwicko, I'm on your side here... I think I stepped on your toes once before, and I mean you no offense, nor disrespect to your words by snipping them.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And it can be taken away. The Constitution provides for that. Just pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second. Oh, and good luck with that... ;)

I was going to make that point as well. I do think the situation has changed since 1783.
I think we as a nation should consider some kind of change-- maybe something like allowing the unrestricted right only in places with a population or population density less than the most populous city in North America in 1783, or something--

but the way for me to bring that about is to organize several million of my fellow citizens, for all of us to put pressure on our Congressmen, write up an Amendment to that effect, then get it passed by 3/4 vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. If I remember correctly, those are the correct numbers. And very high hurdles those are. If I can get the votes to do that, it does become the law of the land.

Until then, the current jumble is the best law of the land there is, and I support the right of 'most everybody to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they think they need to, and to use them as they see the need, subject to review by the Police and the Courts.

And I support the right of anybody else to Amend the same Constitution in the same way. If they can do it, then I'll obey whatever law they manage to pass. 'S only been done, what?, 27 times in 225 years, so they gotta jump those pretty high hurdles themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:57 PM

Damn, Kwicko, I'm sorry. I shoulda read the entire thread, instead of jumping into the old part. Seems like you already made almost all of the points I made, as well or better than I did.

Only place I see a real difference is that I think some change might be desirable, even necessary, but I don't see it as ever being a pragmatic reality.

And I don't trust myself to be right on a world- changing issue like this one, without a whole lotta support from millions of folks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And it can be taken away. The Constitution provides for that. Just pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second. Oh, and good luck with that... ;)

I was going to make that point as well. I do think the situation has changed since 1783.
I think we as a nation should consider some kind of change-- maybe something like allowing the unrestricted right only in places with a population or population density less than the most populous city in North America in 1783, or something--

but the way for me to bring that about is to organize several million of my fellow citizens, for all of us to put pressure on our Congressmen, write up an Amendment to that effect, then get it passed by 3/4 vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. If I remember correctly, those are the correct numbers. And very high hurdles those are. If I can get the votes to do that, it does become the law of the land.

2/3 of the House and Senate, then 3/4 of the states. But other than that, I think we're on the same page.

Quote:

Until then, the current jumble is the best law of the land there is, and I support the right of 'most everybody to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they think they need to, and to use them as they see the need, subject to review by the Police and the Courts.

And I support the right of anybody else to Amend the same Constitution in the same way. If they can do it, then I'll obey whatever law they manage to pass. 'S only been done, what?, 27 times in 225 years, so they gotta jump those pretty high hurdles themselves.

Yup, amend the Constitution, and I'll follow the law, for it will BE the law of the land. And it's made necessarily hard to do, quite unlike the Texas Constitution, which gets amended seemingly just because today was a day of the week which ended with "y". As in, "Why did they make our state constitution so fucking ridiculous and toothless?"

NOBC, if we've crossed swords before, or had cross words, it's forgotten. I'm sure there are things on which we'd disagree, but on what you've posted here, I don't disagree with any particular part, sir. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:14 PM