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.

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.

Right. You NEED the power to kill other people, because you're 'concerned' they might kill you.

[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.

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

A million ways, I'm sure. How about an example?

At my last job, I always did what my boss said. It was also, of course, the job description for what I was employed for.

I always did what he said, because he said things that coincided with what I was hired and paid to do - I didn not 'lose myself to the oppression' of my workplace.

[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?

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

It's still law now.

You're not opposing it?

I thought you said you would?

[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.

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.

Ah - so when you shoot someone for your moral crusade, they're a different kind of dead to the people that a murderer shoots?

[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?

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?

I post occassionally at work, but mainly after work. I apologise if that clashes with your schedule - it's just an artifact of my ability to post.


I don't actually mind if you don't stay up to hit them as they come. I'd be fine with it if you just bang out a block of ten replies tomorrow, and I'd do the same.

[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.

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.

1) Liberty = Anything that does not hinder the liberty of another. One does not go to war over an amendment, but a right, as I have said. You scrap the Constitution when it loses the democratic prosess or becomes too opressive.

2) Then I would most likely not be fighting a majority of the country.

[Omnicracy]

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.

Did you say Iran is going to pay American citizens enough money to betray there country? If so, they would have a handfull of people at best.

[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?

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.

Did I say there was some big evil conspiracy ever? No. I said there was opression. Wich there would be. Democracy =/= no opression.

[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.

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 government can take rights.

Does that clear things up for you?

No - because at least one of those things makes no sense.

Prohibition didn't happen because there were a lot of teetotal politicians - it happened because of a massive amount of pressure, focused through a couple of decades of the Temperence movement. The Second Amendment is most liekly to be suspended - if it ever is - through similar pressure, so why blame 'the government'?

[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.

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.

I've read it - it expressly starts out with the qualification of the militia.

And - I don't know why you want to disassociate it from the laws of the era - the Second Amendment - with it's discussion of the militia - is clearly going to be associated with what is understood in historical context to be militia law.

[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.

Right. You NEED the power to kill other people, because you're 'concerned' they might kill you.

Is that what I said? Hmmm... no, looks like I said something to the effect of; I would be concerned if people had a advantage towards killing me I was not given access to. So where did you get that then?

[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?

A million ways, I'm sure. How about an example?

At my last job, I always did what my boss said. It was also, of course, the job description for what I was employed for.

I always did what he said, because he said things that coincided with what I was hired and paid to do - I didn not 'lose myself to the oppression' of my workplace.

Did your boss tell you to do anything you moraly opposed?

[Grave_n_idle]

1) One does not go to war over an amendment, but a right, as I have said. You scrap the Constitution when it loses the democratic prosess or becomes too opressive.

So, you WOULDN"T go to war (revolt) just because the Second Amendment was struck down?

2) Then I would most likely not be fighting a majority of the country.

How not? If two-thrids of representatives are on a mandate to overturn the Second Amendment, and three-fourths ratify it - wouldn't that mean you probably ARE at war with three-fourths?

Probably more, actually - since the urban populations are actually massively UNDER-represented in the 'two-thirds' and 'three-fourths' figures.

[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.

It's still law now.

You're not opposing it?

I thought you said you would?

And how would you sugest I oppose it now? Letters rarely get read when they are not en mass. It is not something I am willing to revolt about in and of itself. There has not yet been an election I could vote in involving the issue.

[Grave_n_idle]

Did you say Iran is going to pay American citizens enough money to betray there country? If so, they would have a handfull of people at best.

Not necessarily 'pay', no - although now I think you have a laughable conception of Americans. If you don't think there are a million people in this country that would happily sell the US for the right price, I don't think you're being realistic.

But why pay Americans? Why not just immigrate?

[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.

Did I say there was some big evil conspiracy ever? No. I said there was opression. Wich there would be. Democracy =/= no opression.

That's nonsense.

Homosexuals have been oppressed in the US for centuries, democracy or no. They still can't even marry (in most of the US).

[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.

Ah - so when you shoot someone for your moral crusade, they're a different kind of dead to the people that a murderer shoots?

1) Do you honestly think I said something even kinda in the same room as that?

2) Well, they would definitly be dead for varry differant reasons, or are actions constantly moral/immoral regardless of context? Also, I would not raise a finger against a civilian, for then what good would I be?

[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?

I post occassionally at work, but mainly after work. I apologise if that clashes with your schedule - it's just an artifact of my ability to post.


I don't actually mind if you don't stay up to hit them as they come. I'd be fine with it if you just bang out a block of ten replies tomorrow, and I'd do the same.

But then the debate progresses so increadibly slowly.

[Grave_n_idle]

Is that what I said? Hmmm... no, looks like I said something to the effect of; I would be concerned if people had a advantage towards killing me I was not given access to. So where did you get that then?

So - it's not that you NEED to have the ability to kill people who might kill you, and it's not that you feel scared that someone might... it's just that you're 'concerned' that there's an inequity, and you simply WANT to be able to kil lthem?

[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.

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

A million ways, I'm sure. How about an example?

At my last job, I always did what my boss said. It was also, of course, the job description for what I was employed for.

I always did what he said, because he said things that coincided with what I was hired and paid to do - I didn not 'lose myself to the oppression' of my workplace.

Did your boss tell you to do anything you moraly opposed?

No. Which is why the 'empty head but full belly' or 'empty belly but full head' dichotomy is a nonsense in most reality situations.

[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?

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

It's still law now.

You're not opposing it?

I thought you said you would?

And how would you sugest I oppose it now? Letters rarely get read when they are not en mass. It is not something I am willing to revolt about in and of itself. There has not yet been an election I could vote in involving the issue.

There was an election only about a year ago.

The year leading up to that, you can bet EVERY letter arriving in a candidates inbox got read by someone.

But you say it's not something you'd revolt about - well, what about voting against -as you said you would... because it seems like you didn't actually vote against it at all - indeed, I'm wondering if you even know your local candidate's position on the issue.

[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 government can take rights.

Does that clear things up for you?

No - because at least one of those things makes no sense.

Prohibition didn't happen because there were a lot of teetotal politicians - it happened because of a massive amount of pressure, focused through a couple of decades of the Temperence movement. The Second Amendment is most liekly to be suspended - if it ever is - through similar pressure, so why blame 'the government'?

Because, at the end of the day, it is they who make the laws. If a governemnt were to succumb to Nazi preasures in a similar way, I would still revolt. Also, although I currently do not drink and do not plan on it, I possibly would have had I been alive during prohibition. I would have at least tried to help with an underground bar if an oportunity presented itself.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Do you honestly think I said something even kinda in the same room as that?

Absolutely. You justified criminal acts in 'moral' interests.

You then differentiated between those acts, and the 'bad' ones.

2) Well, they would definitly be dead for varry differant reasons, or are actions constantly moral/immoral regardless of context? Also, I would not raise a finger against a civilian, for then what good would I be?

But civilians are the most likely cause of the disarmament of the US. The most likely means by which guns are banned in this country, are because pressure from voters makes it so - indeed, it's the ONLY reasonable conclusion at this point - no political party is going to want to face an election after revoking the Second Amendment unless they are DAMN sure they were doing what will win them votes.

[South Norwega]

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 government can take rights.

Does that clear things up for you?

No - because at least one of those things makes no sense.

Prohibition didn't happen because there were a lot of teetotal politicians - it happened because of a massive amount of pressure, focused through a couple of decades of the Temperence movement. The Second Amendment is most liekly to be suspended - if it ever is - through similar pressure, so why blame 'the government'?

Because, at the end of the day, it is they who make the laws. If a governemnt were to succumb to Nazi preasures in a similar way, I would still revolt. Also, although I currently do not drink and do not plan on it, I possibly would have had I been alive during prohibition. I would have at least tried to help with an underground bar if an oportunity presented itself.

If the government makes laws that people are opposed to, then it will generally be voted out of office. Is that not the point of Democracy?

You appear to seriously be advocating rebelling against democracy here...

[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.

I've read it - it expressly starts out with the qualification of the militia.

And - I don't know why you want to disassociate it from the laws of the era - the Second Amendment - with it's discussion of the militia - is clearly going to be associated with what is understood in historical context to be militia law.

Amendment II

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.

I emboldend the part that you have shown no argument for, but said the first part of the amendment makes irrelevant. Why put it in at all if it means nothing?