Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

1) And I bleive you are wrong, for that is how it looks to me.

2) You, my freind, clearly forget how this started then.

1) For sure. It looks like quibbling from here. You're not 'afraid' that people will kill you, just 'concerned'.

2) Not sure where you're trying to go with that.

[Grave_n_idle]

If to take the food you must do as they tell you, it is accurate.

How? Even if you 'do as they tell you' - that doesn't imply an empty head - it just implies you do what they tell you.

[Grave_n_idle]

And I would vote to change that law.

Which law? The Sudafed one?

How did you vote on that issue? I mean - did you send letters, then protest against politicians that didn't back your concern, and cast a spoiler vote against them?

[Grave_n_idle]

I was refering to crimes for personal gain, not crimes in support of morality. I thought my previous post made that clear?

Ah - when you do crimes it's okay. It's only bad when other people do them.

[The Adrian Empire]

1) It seemed like you were saying it was a bad thing. I, however, would still see a differance between concern and fear.

Phrase it however you feel comfortable with it. *shrugs*

2) Does the defence of ones rights count as self-defence?

I wouldn't like to try to push it as a defence in court, personally.

Self-defence isn't a legal defence in your mind? so you're saying that insane people should get off easy but people fighting for their lives? Should go to jail?

[Omnicracy]

Untill I organize a massive armed rebelion against the opressive state. Then, I would say, its relevance is a tad higher.

What oppressive state?

As pointed out - this seems to boil down to your right to bear arms (since, I'm assuming you DIDN'T use the arms you CAN bear to combat the restrictions on OTHER rights over the last decade) - and that doesn't necessitate a corrupt government.

Or - are you saying you would fight to prevent the Second Amendment from being overturned?

quick note: opressive =/= corrupt

As I said, I am not nessisarily opposed to revolution at this point. As I also said, I am not sure if the right to bear arms would be the definitive tiping point for me to revolt or if I would simply stockpile weapons. The state I am rebeling against would be an oppressive one.

[Grave_n_idle]

Self-defence isn't a legal defence in your mind? so you're saying that insane people should get off easy but people fighting for their lives? Should go to jail?

Um.

...

huh?

[Grave_n_idle]

Untill I organize a massive armed rebelion against the opressive state. Then, I would say, its relevance is a tad higher.

What oppressive state?

As pointed out - this seems to boil down to your right to bear arms (since, I'm assuming you DIDN'T use the arms you CAN bear to combat the restrictions on OTHER rights over the last decade) - and that doesn't necessitate a corrupt government.

Or - are you saying you would fight to prevent the Second Amendment from being overturned?

quick note: opressive =/= corrupt

As I said, I am not nessisarily opposed to revolution at this point. As I also said, I am not sure if the right to bear arms would be the definitive tiping point for me to revolt or if I would simply stockpile weapons. The state I am rebeling against would be an oppressive one.

What would constitute oppressive?

You've argued you would take up arms against... something... but I'm not quite sure what. I don't know what the government would have to do for you to consider it valid to start voting with your gun. I'm not sure what rights you'd have to lose before it was okay to kill people... or whether you think it matetrs who stripped you of those rights.

I'm sure you're not being deliberately vague - but I really don't understand your platform.

[Omnicracy]

I was saying the roll roll played in socioty as stated by the Founding Fathers, not the roll of the Right to Bear Arms. The argument was about the former, not the latter.

But that doesn't describe the role in society, except as part of the role of the militia - which DOES argue against sole, un-regulated ownership.

I was addressing your argument on the role, but also applying it across to the actual 'rights' argument.

Let me put it this way

The right to bear arms extends to all free men. The dutie of free men with arms is to form a militia to ensure socioty remains free, and rebelion atempted if nessisary to acomplish that goal.

Except that other historical data of the time suggests that. no - it did not ever extend to all free men. And, certainly not to all free persons.

Who wasn't alowed to have a gun?

Women? Men under 18. Men over 45. Government workers. Politicians. Customs. Post office workers. Some stage drivers. Some ferrymen. Export inspectors. Maritime personnel under contracts both private and commercial, pilots, the disabled, and other exemptions by state.

Okay, in the original meaning of the constitution (wich is what I was speaking of) "free men" = men over the age of 18 who are white (with some exception to the white part). Could you pleas say where you get these examples from, because I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers wouldn't let pilots own guns. Also, I know early polititians owned guns. So... sorce?

The Militia Act of 1792. It's at Constitution.org.

EDIT: Tell you what, here it is: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The second one (wich seems alot like the swiss system) never says people outside the militia are not allowed to own arms, it only says who is in the militia. I, personaly, would have voted against the second one, and mabey even the first.

It says what the purpose of the arms is, which is to be able to service your militia obligation. Read through it again - the factors like the weapon that can't be taken from you to service debts etc are all contingent on your militia service. Those who are exempted from militia service, then, have no 'right' to keep and bear arms.

No, it does not say one does not have the right to bear arms if they do not qualify for the militia. It says militia men are not allowed to surender there arms to pay off debts. It is like how I have the right to own property. I can still sell that property to pay off debt, however. Here, the governemnt says they cannot sell there property. Do you see now?

[Omnicracy]

Not entirely true, soldiers and rebels will still need a method of identifying each other in this case of war, I suspect it wouldn't be too long until there is at least some form identification to tell one from another, hand signals, arm bands, tattoos whatever it will be they will need this in order to not shoot the wrong people in this revolution.

Tell me more about 'this revolution'.

You seem to make an awful lot of judgment calls based on knowledge I just can't see.

this theoretical revolution you and omnicracy are describing

Which Omni doesn't quite seem to decide if he'll be willing to participate in or not... and we can't quite make out who the enemy would be.

Oh, if an open revolution was going on I would definitly partisipate. I thought my actions refered to me or my group making an opening move, not acting on moves that have already been made. Also, the enemy would be the opressive government and its militant support. Civilians would be neutral.

[Omnicracy]

Is that how they teach it in whatever country your from? Here, it is the straw that broke the camals back.

I think it's rather telling that you think there are different versions of the story, and you choose to embrace the most partisan.

Do you say that history doesn't have many interpretations? You do also know that Independance wasn't what started the war, right? It started in the hope that the Colonial demands would be met, and to show that we would not stand for military occupation.

[Omnicracy]

If I do not revolt because the guns are removed, but instead stockpile them, it does not invalidate that weapons are needed to overthrow a corrupt government, it does absolutly noting to it in fact.

It does mean you'd willingly become a criminal, in breach of the Constitution, to suit your own desires, though.

So - what exactly does the Second Amendment mean to you, if you don't consider the Constitution important if it doesn't agree with you?

I would never appeal that Constitutional rights should be protected, but that rights should. If they are in the Constitution, leave them there. If they are not, try to democraticaly put them there. If one cannot, then one must rebell against the now-opressive Constitution.

66% of the populace can overturn the Second Amendment. Once it's gone - who exactly are you going to rebel against?

And how will you justify it?

That seems like a double-win scenario for me.

It seems like doublethink to me.

1) a. Only to the point of protection of liberty. I have many political oppinions that do not fall into this catagory. b. The second amendment secures a right in the Constitution. The Constittution is still important as it is the document the country is run by. As I said in a, I only oppose it with arms if it violates rights.

2) (Note: Thats not how amendments work at all. To call it an over-simplification would be giving it too much credit.) I rebell against the opressive governemnt if I rebel. I justify it the same way I would justify rebeling against democraticly elected Nazis.

3) Interesting, as that is how most of your points seem to me. What exactly is doublethinky about my possition? You probably just misunderstood me.

[Omnicracy]

1) And thats why there is never a fire fight in Iraq or Afganistan. What is one to do if discoverd in a safe house?

I agree, as it stands, most fighting would be done the way you suspect.

2) No you are not. You also have not answered the question.

1) Firefights are to be avoided as much as possible in asymmetrical war. The numerical advantage is never going to favour the smaller faction - obviously.

2) if you're going to allow private individuals to own military grade weaponry, how are you going to STOP Iran having a presence?

1) But they still happen, right?

2) What people are going to be in this "presence"?

[Omnicracy]

Wait, are you saying that if there were a revolution, there wouldn't be sides? If not, then I believe one have greatly misunderstood what the other is saying.

You seem to be talking about a revolution where you're at war with... I don't exactly know who you think the enemy would be...?

People who support overturning the Second Amendment?

No, that group would include civilians. The opressive government that does not allow citizens the right to bear arms. How did you not get that?

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it does not say one does not have the right to bear arms if they do not qualify for the militia. It says militia men are not allowed to surender there arms to pay off debts. It is like how I have the right to own property. I can still sell that property to pay off debt, however. Here, the governemnt says they cannot sell there property. Do you see now?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

The right to bear arms is expressly bestowed for the purpose of forming a militia (consistent with the interpretation I offered of the Second Amendment text), and carefully detailed. The text makes it clear that all eligible individuals SHALL be enrolled (mandatory) - with the notable exceptions (who are NOT enrolled). It further details the training, presentation, and arming requirements of enrolees. The actual armament is specific, and mandatory - as is the organisation into a formal militia (the act gives the precise adminsitrative structure of the militias - it doesn't just mean citizens).

No 'right' is accorded, either here, or in the Second Amendment, to people who are not militia.

[Omnicracy]

1) And I bleive you are wrong, for that is how it looks to me.

2) You, my freind, clearly forget how this started then.

1) For sure. It looks like quibbling from here. You're not 'afraid' that people will kill you, just 'concerned'.

2) Not sure where you're trying to go with that.

1) Not concerned that they will kill me. Concerned that people could have the power to kill me without my ability to adiquatly counter them.

2) You asked me if I wanted guns to be legal for self defence, or something to that effect.

[Omnicracy]

If to take the food you must do as they tell you, it is accurate.

How? Even if you 'do as they tell you' - that doesn't imply an empty head - it just implies you do what they tell you.

But how can one not lose themsleves to the opression of the state if the always do what they are told?

[Omnicracy]

And I would vote to change that law.

Which law? The Sudafed one?

How did you vote on that issue? I mean - did you send letters, then protest against politicians that didn't back your concern, and cast a spoiler vote against them?

I was not of voting age at the time. I, however, would cast such votes and have been involved with such letters.

[Omnicracy]

I was refering to crimes for personal gain, not crimes in support of morality. I thought my previous post made that clear?

Ah - when you do crimes it's okay. It's only bad when other people do them.

Not what I said. When one, anyone, commits crimes for a moral reason, they will not act as a criminal who commits crimes for some benifit that has nothing to do with morality. I do not even say that all people commiting crimes in support of morality would be what I consider good.

[Omnicracy]

Self-defence isn't a legal defence in your mind? so you're saying that insane people should get off easy but people fighting for their lives? Should go to jail?

Um.

...

huh?

I believe he misread what I said.

Also, could you get online earlier tomorrow so that I don't have to stay up past 4 in the morning again?

[Omnicracy]

Untill I organize a massive armed rebelion against the opressive state. Then, I would say, its relevance is a tad higher.

What oppressive state?

As pointed out - this seems to boil down to your right to bear arms (since, I'm assuming you DIDN'T use the arms you CAN bear to combat the restrictions on OTHER rights over the last decade) - and that doesn't necessitate a corrupt government.

Or - are you saying you would fight to prevent the Second Amendment from being overturned?

quick note: opressive =/= corrupt

As I said, I am not nessisarily opposed to revolution at this point. As I also said, I am not sure if the right to bear arms would be the definitive tiping point for me to revolt or if I would simply stockpile weapons. The state I am rebeling against would be an oppressive one.

What would constitute oppressive?

You've argued you would take up arms against... something... but I'm not quite sure what. I don't know what the government would have to do for you to consider it valid to start voting with your gun. I'm not sure what rights you'd have to lose before it was okay to kill people... or whether you think it matetrs who stripped you of those rights.

I'm sure you're not being deliberately vague - but I really don't understand your platform.

Opressive = violation of liberties

Arms taken against opressive government.

Government must be opressive.

Any rights make revolution arguable. Espetialy if democratic avenues fail, as they should always be the first resort

Only governemnt can take rights.

Does that clear things up for you?

[Omnicracy]

No, it does not say one does not have the right to bear arms if they do not qualify for the militia. It says militia men are not allowed to surender there arms to pay off debts. It is like how I have the right to own property. I can still sell that property to pay off debt, however. Here, the governemnt says they cannot sell there property. Do you see now?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

The right to bear arms is expressly bestowed for the purpose of forming a militia (consistent with the interpretation I offered of the Second Amendment text), and carefully detailed. The text makes it clear that all eligible individuals SHALL be enrolled (mandatory) - with the notable exceptions (who are NOT enrolled). It further details the training, presentation, and arming requirements of enrolees. The actual armament is specific, and mandatory - as is the organisation into a formal militia (the act gives the precise adminsitrative structure of the militias - it doesn't just mean citizens).

No 'right' is accorded, either here, or in the Second Amendment, to people who are not militia.

I would like to note that this is a law, not the amendment. The amendment says the people have the right to bear arms and that militias are important. It does not say militias have the right to bear arms. Re-read it if you don't believe me.

[Grave_n_idle]

If I do not revolt because the guns are removed, but instead stockpile them, it does not invalidate that weapons are needed to overthrow a corrupt government, it does absolutly noting to it in fact.

It does mean you'd willingly become a criminal, in breach of the Constitution, to suit your own desires, though.

So - what exactly does the Second Amendment mean to you, if you don't consider the Constitution important if it doesn't agree with you?

I would never appeal that Constitutional rights should be protected, but that rights should. If they are in the Constitution, leave them there. If they are not, try to democraticaly put them there. If one cannot, then one must rebell against the now-opressive Constitution.

66% of the populace can overturn the Second Amendment. Once it's gone - who exactly are you going to rebel against?

And how will you justify it?

That seems like a double-win scenario for me.

It seems like doublethink to me.

1) a. Only to the point of protection of liberty. I have many political oppinions that do not fall into this catagory. b. The second amendment secures a right in the Constitution. The Constittution is still important as it is the document the country is run by. As I said in a, I only oppose it with arms if it violates rights.

2) (Note: Thats not how amendments work at all. To call it an over-simplification would be giving it too much credit.) I rebell against the opressive governemnt if I rebel. I justify it the same way I would justify rebeling against democraticly elected Nazis.

3) Interesting, as that is how most of your points seem to me. What exactly is doublethinky about my possition? You probably just misunderstood me.

1) 'Liberty' doesn't mean anything if you won't say what it DOES mean. What amendment would you go to war over? At what point will you scrap the Constitution?

2) Yes, it's a simplification. But read the text of article 5 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

Theoretically, all you need is 2/3 of legislatures to call the convention, or two-thirds of elected representatives in both houses to propose amendment. It's not actually literally 200 million Americans, per se. I'm aware of that.

[Grave_n_idle]

2) What people are going to be in this "presence"?

I don't know - this is your idea.

Does it matter?

If civilians can have access to military grade equipment, then foreign powers can establish military presence by owning, those civilians.

[Grave_n_idle]

Wait, are you saying that if there were a revolution, there wouldn't be sides? If not, then I believe one have greatly misunderstood what the other is saying.

You seem to be talking about a revolution where you're at war with... I don't exactly know who you think the enemy would be...?

People who support overturning the Second Amendment?

No, that group would include civilians. The opressive government that does not allow citizens the right to bear arms. How did you not get that?

But the 'government' isn't automatically the agency that makes that decision - if electors send their representatives to Washington with a mandate to overturn the Second Amendment - it will happen, and it will be at the people's behest - not some capricious move by an evil establishment.