Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

The point wasn't about whether you drink or not - it was about the government introducing a Constitutional amendment that 'removed rights'. It's a parallel. If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is revoked, the pressure will come from the voters. The government isn't going to just turn around and 'ban' guns - they can't.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

The right to keep and bear arms, following the specific qualification of the necessity for a well-regulated militia.

Such a right is NOT infringed - for a well-regulated militia.

The Militia Act of 1792 assured those rights were not infringed. For a well-regulated militia.

I'm not saying the second part is irrelevant or means nothing - I'm saying it absolutely means those rights can't be infringed - for a well-regulated militia.

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) It would not be because of the removal of the amendment, but the oression of the right. That is the point I was making.

2) No, it means that at least 51% 75% of state representatives are willing to vote out gun rights when faced with no armed opposition to such a move. Not similar things.

[Omnicracy]

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?

Oh, I'm sure the number is less than 1,000,000 but still quite large. My point was Iran would not have enough money to get ta sizable force.

Why would the US government allow such immagrants or there citizenship?

[Grave_n_idle]

1) It would not be because of the removal of the amendment, but the oression of the right. That is the point I was making.

That's a nonsense answer.

If the removal of the amendment removes the guarantee of the right - whats the difference?

Is it just so you can make the enforcer the enemy, so you don't have to face the reality of tyranny of the majority?

2) No, it means that at least 51% 75% of state representatives are willing to vote out gun rights when faced with no armed opposition to such a move. Not similar things.

You expect BI-partisan support for the removal of gun rights? Indeed - you'd have to argue that EVERY politician would be in on it - because, if the Second Amendment was simply overturned by politicians and was NOT the will of the people, some tiny third party (Probably calling itself the Second Amendment Party, by the time of the elections) would take every single seat.

I'm curious, though - why WOULD 75% of all elected representative suddenly decide to amend the Secobnd Amendment out of the Constitution? It's been clearly demonstarted over the last century or so that Americans will NOT use their Second Amendment rights to prevent other rights being suspended.

[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.

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).

And that is changing. It is moveing forward to greater liberty. The situation we have been taliking about is a retraction of liberty.

You know I didn't say democracy = no opression, right? You acctualy made my point with what you said.

[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?

Oh, I'm sure the number is less than 1,000,000 but still quite large. My point was Iran would not have enough money to get ta sizable force.

Why would the US government allow such immagrants or there citizenship?

You don't think there are Iranians in America today?

You don't think there are companies beholden to Iran, at some remove?


If you give civilians the power to own military grade machinery - you're arming terrorists with tanks and jetfighters.

[Omnicracy]

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?

Concerned that there would be an inequity and would want to have the ability to have an even, legal playingfield.

[Grave_n_idle]

And that is changing. It is moveing forward to greater liberty. The situation we have been taliking about is a retraction of liberty.

You know I didn't say democracy = no opression, right? You acctualy made my point with what you said.

But the oppression isn't applied by the government, except as messengers - the oppression is applied by the majority, who resist equality.

It's tyranny of the majority.

[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?

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

Not when speaking of an opressive government.

[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?

Concerned that there would be an inequity and would want to have the ability to have an even, legal playingfield.

So - you don't actually CARE that they can kill you, or about your ability to fight back?

You just want everyone to be in the same starting position?

[Grave_n_idle]

Not when speaking of an opressive government.

It's a nonsense phrase. It's something you say when you don't have an explanation for what really happened.

If two-thirds of the population want the Second Amendment gone - how is the government oppressive?

[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.

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.

... I'm 19 and my birthday was after the '08 election. The only thing I could have voted on last election was the schoolboard.

[Grave_n_idle]

... I'm 19 and my birthday was after the '08 election. The only thing I could have voted on last election was the schoolboard.

And? Did you?

[Omnicracy]

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.

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain. I did not say I intrinsicly agree with moral crimes, just that they have a differant psycology to them. A Nazi could commit crimes for moral reasons. Do you understand how that is not what I was saying even a little now?

2) So?

[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.

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...

If it is opressive and has majority support (or at least enough support to keep it from changing and practical political avenues are impossible) then I do advocate rebelling against a Democracy. Freiheit uber allas!

[Omnicracy]

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.

The point wasn't about whether you drink or not - it was about the government introducing a Constitutional amendment that 'removed rights'. It's a parallel. If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is revoked, the pressure will come from the voters. The government isn't going to just turn around and 'ban' guns - they can't.

Well, techniclay they could, but you missed my point. Just because it is democratic and caused by preasure from civilians does not make it good or would not mean I follow it. democracy =/= inherant good

[Omnicracy]

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?

The right to keep and bear arms, following the specific qualification of the necessity for a well-regulated militia.

Such a right is NOT infringed - for a well-regulated militia.

The Militia Act of 1792 assured those rights were not infringed. For a well-regulated militia.

I'm not saying the second part is irrelevant or means nothing - I'm saying it absolutely means those rights can't be infringed - for a well-regulated militia.

It does not say, "the right of the aformentioned well regulated militia." It says, "The right of the people." How can I make that any clearer?

[Omnicracy]

1) It would not be because of the removal of the amendment, but the oression of the right. That is the point I was making.

That's a nonsense answer.

If the removal of the amendment removes the guarantee of the right - whats the difference?

Is it just so you can make the enforcer the enemy, so you don't have to face the reality of tyranny of the majority?

2) No, it means that at least 51% 75% of state representatives are willing to vote out gun rights when faced with no armed opposition to such a move. Not similar things.

You expect BI-partisan support for the removal of gun rights? Indeed - you'd have to argue that EVERY politician would be in on it - because, if the Second Amendment was simply overturned by politicians and was NOT the will of the people, some tiny third party (Probably calling itself the Second Amendment Party, by the time of the elections) would take every single seat.

I'm curious, though - why WOULD 75% of all elected representative suddenly decide to amend the Secobnd Amendment out of the Constitution? It's been clearly demonstarted over the last century or so that Americans will NOT use their Second Amendment rights to prevent other rights being suspended.

1) The point of armed revolution is to resist tyrrany of the majority in the case we speak of now... Was that not clear?

2) a. I have not been saying they would not have substantial popular support! Why do you keep saying I have??? For the millionth time, just because enough people want to kill the babies to pass an amendment does not mean you should kill babies!!! b. it wouldn't be 75% of elected officials, it would be at least 37.5% of elected state officials and 66% of elected federal officials. c. We have not revolted because a clear democratic option and popular support for the restoration of rights existed. As I have said for the umpteenth time, I am not nessisarily opposed to a revolution as things stand.

[Omnicracy]

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?

Oh, I'm sure the number is less than 1,000,000 but still quite large. My point was Iran would not have enough money to get ta sizable force.

Why would the US government allow such immagrants or there citizenship?

You don't think there are Iranians in America today?

You don't think there are companies beholden to Iran, at some remove?


If you give civilians the power to own military grade machinery - you're arming terrorists with tanks and jetfighters.

True, but they would still have to pass a psych eval and under go a backround check to get any arms (and the apropriate training courses for proper use). The backcheck could lead to criminal investigations, leading to captured terrorists.

[Omnicracy]

And that is changing. It is moveing forward to greater liberty. The situation we have been taliking about is a retraction of liberty.

You know I didn't say democracy = no opression, right? You acctualy made my point with what you said.

But the oppression isn't applied by the government, except as messengers - the oppression is applied by the majority, who resist equality.

It's tyranny of the majority.

Wich is bad! Wich is to be rebelled against!

[Omnicracy]

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?

Concerned that there would be an inequity and would want to have the ability to have an even, legal playingfield.

So - you don't actually CARE that they can kill you, or about your ability to fight back?

You just want everyone to be in the same starting position?

Well, I obviousely care about those things, I also care about whether or not I have food and shelter. The pure civilian reason for the right would defeinitle be the latter point, not the former points.

[Omnicracy]

Not when speaking of an opressive government.

It's a nonsense phrase. It's something you say when you don't have an explanation for what really happened.

If two-thirds of the population want the Second Amendment gone - how is the government oppressive?

Because that is what has the power to enforce laws. That is what makes laws. Because we are democratic, the people have a direct say in governemnt, but that does not mean a majority dessision should not be rebelled against if it is opressive.

[Omnicracy]

... I'm 19 and my birthday was after the '08 election. The only thing I could have voted on last election was the schoolboard.

And? Did you?

Tried. By the time I could get to the polls they were closed.

[Omnicracy]

Okay. Same thing as yesterday to the minute. gut nacht.