The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1887 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 95  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Thu January 10, 2013 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Tue December 18, 2012 8:33 pm
Posts: 10577
There have been some crazy heated arguments on cnn about this stuff lately, and i made my thoughts known a few posts earlier, and as long as they are legal im ok with certain guns being owned by people who want o own guns, but some of these idiots trying to say they cant defend their himes unless they have assault rifles are just rediculous, you can defend from a burglar or break in with a hand gun, you dont need a fucking military grade assault rifle to stop an intruder


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 12:49 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1219
Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:
There have been some crazy heated arguments on cnn about this stuff lately, and i made my thoughts known a few posts earlier, and as long as they are legal im ok with certain guns being owned by people who want o own guns, but some of these idiots trying to say they cant defend their himes unless they have assault rifles are just rediculous, you can defend from a burglar or break in with a hand gun, you dont need a fucking military grade assault rifle to stop an intruder


What if the intruder(s) have rifles?



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Posts: 31919
Location: Mountains
are people this really fucking frightened of the government? Do people really believe Obama is trying to rule the country as a tyrant? Wow. I dont even recall such mass hysteria such as this when Bush was president. And us crazy libs hated him.

I dont know what is more frightening; The crazies that shoot up public areas or the crazies that truly think as this guy does:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2HgXn1lAh
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
Banned from the Pit
 Profile

Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 3:44 pm
Posts: 30
harmless wrote:
broken iris wrote:
It appears the moves against the gun lobby have actually strengthened the gun lobby. :shake:


Louder doesn't mean stronger.


Not interacted with Average Joe American lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Posting (live)
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Posts: 18711
homersheineken wrote:
harmless wrote:
broken iris wrote:
It appears the moves against the gun lobby have actually strengthened the gun lobby. :shake:


Louder doesn't mean stronger.


Not interacted with Average Joe American lately?


Nope, just RMers. Louder can mean stronger politically, agreed.

_________________
RisingTides wrote:
There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 5:42 pm 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1219
The above op-ed was by Pat Buchanan, unless I am mistaken.

A number of the radical left in the 60s armed themselves, and with good reason. The police may be nominally more 'professional' than 50 years ago but there are more than enough unarmed individuals shot by police with no accountability for me to be comfortable with a government monopoly on arms.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083
and you think shooting back is going to reduce the danger and the deaths? I understand the logic in theory but in practice my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.

Plus, once you and the cops are having your shoot out the likelihood of civilian collateral damage is that much great.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:20 pm
Posts: 106
Stip wrote:
my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.


Is this something you can back up with any evidence? Just curious.

_________________
Now, what would Oscar Winner® Michael Caine do?

-Cpt. Murphy


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 7:06 pm 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1219
Stip wrote:
and you think shooting back is going to reduce the danger and the deaths? I understand the logic in theory but in practice my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.

Plus, once you and the cops are having your shoot out the likelihood of civilian collateral damage is that much great.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Black Panthers did a lot of shooting and yet they probably had an impact on police brutality.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083
clavian wrote:
Stip wrote:
my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.


Is this something you can back up with any evidence? Just curious.


Yes? I've read articles making that argument but they aren't things I've saved since they weren't things I would likely end up distributing in class or using in my own work. So not currently.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2013 11:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083
simple schoolboy wrote:
Stip wrote:
and you think shooting back is going to reduce the danger and the deaths? I understand the logic in theory but in practice my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.

Plus, once you and the cops are having your shoot out the likelihood of civilian collateral damage is that much great.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Black Panthers did a lot of shooting and yet they probably had an impact on police brutality.


they certainly had the FBI watching them.

Ultimately I do not find the hypothetical harm guns are theoretically preventing a very persuasive argument against the very real harm we know that they cause

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 3:37 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1219
Stip wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Stip wrote:
and you think shooting back is going to reduce the danger and the deaths? I understand the logic in theory but in practice my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.

Plus, once you and the cops are having your shoot out the likelihood of civilian collateral damage is that much great.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Black Panthers did a lot of shooting and yet they probably had an impact on police brutality.


they certainly had the FBI watching them.

Ultimately I do not find the hypothetical harm guns are theoretically preventing a very persuasive argument against the very real harm we know that they cause


Excellent. So you agree: ALL police should be disarmed to prevent any future Lon Horiuchis.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 3:58 am 
Offline
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 187
Strat wrote:
are people this really fucking frightened of the government? Do people really believe Obama is trying to rule the country as a tyrant? Wow. I dont even recall such mass hysteria such as this when Bush was president. And us crazy libs hated him.

I dont know what is more frightening; The crazies that shoot up public areas or the crazies that truly think as this guy does:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2HgXn1lAh
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Mr. Strat: It is respectful of the author of such works that you a) delineate your thoughts from that of the author and b) identify said author if you're going to quote his or her work.

That being said, I don't have much use for the silly religious references, but this author that you didn't identify is making a fairly reasoned argument that I'm guessing half the country would support. I don't see anything particularly "hysterical" or "crazy" about it. I don't even see a mention of Mr. Obama, and knowing this author, he would be making the same argument no matter who was president (our un-named author was certainly not afraid to criticize the previous administration).


It is, I realize, an extremely uncomfortable fact to know that all of the best dictators of the past 100 years have "disarmed their people". I suppose our President doesn't really want to disarm the populace, but it's a slippery slope, isn't it?

Aren't you getting just a little wary of this federal government that has its hands in everything?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Posts: 31919
Location: Mountains
Did you just accuse me of plagiarism? You are a big boy. There are links at the end of the article for you to click on to read about said author.


And No, our gov't has had its hands in our business since the beginning of our gov't and all has been just fine and dandy. Mass hysteria no matter who is leading the oval office. I think it would be madness to react such ways during the previous administration and the administrations before. Its just an absurd argument. Putting assault weapons in our hands in case the governmetn tries to enslave us....really?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 5:51 am 
Offline
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 187
Strat wrote:
Did you just accuse me of plagiarism

No, just asking that you make it easier reading for everyone.

Quote:
And No, our gov't has had its hands in our business since the beginning of our gov't and all has been just fine and dandy

I believe that you might take back this sentence if given some proper time for reflection.
Prohibition, McCarthyism, Tuskegee, etc., etc., etc.

I mean, your government is killing innocent people in Pakistan as we speak.

Put your faith in them at your peril, my friend.


Last edited by Man in Black on Sat January 12, 2013 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 5:52 am 
Offline
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 187
Your message contains too few characters


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.


Philosophically speaking this isn't accurate. Jefferson, Locke, et all acknowledge that states can restrict the full, unfettered execution of our natural rights in the interest of the public (in particular if it helps create stability). That's why we form governments in the first place. It's the entire point of the enterprise. There are also long established legal precedents that say the full use of a right needs to be balanced against the larger interests of society, which is why there are perfectly constitutional laws limiting speech, for instance (libel, slander, public safety).

These restrains are legitimate provided:

A: laws are made via due process through a legislative process accountable to the people
B: Citizens who feel that the laws are so onerous as to consistently and persistently violate their rights are welcome to exit that society



Gun control violates none of these restrictions. And, in fact, you could make a very serious argument based on the people Buchanan is referencing that gun rights are the flimsiest rights there are, and are certainly not natural, since the whole point behind exiting the state of nature and forming a government is so you no longer have to take self protection into your own hands.


Pat Buchanan is a pretty shitty political philosopher

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083
simple schoolboy wrote:
Stip wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Stip wrote:
and you think shooting back is going to reduce the danger and the deaths? I understand the logic in theory but in practice my understanding is that the places that really follow an 'arm the good guys' approach tend to have a lot more violent deaths than the places that don't.

Plus, once you and the cops are having your shoot out the likelihood of civilian collateral damage is that much great.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Black Panthers did a lot of shooting and yet they probably had an impact on police brutality.


they certainly had the FBI watching them.

Ultimately I do not find the hypothetical harm guns are theoretically preventing a very persuasive argument against the very real harm we know that they cause


Excellent. So you agree: ALL police should be disarmed to prevent any future Lon Horiuchis.



yes, clearly I do. And of course this logically follows from what I just said. Well done. I surrender the field to you

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The worst
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 30083
also, as an historical aside

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.


it's also worth pointing out that many of these people came to power because of the local possession of weapons.

Also, once there is a civil war or the possibility of armed uprising native populations find someone to get them guns, since there is money to be made. The guns don't usually have to be there in advance.

_________________
So many tournaments, so little time


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?
PostPosted: Sat January 12, 2013 7:29 pm 
Offline
A Return To Form
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 187
Stip wrote:
Pat Buchanan is a pretty shitty political philosopher


Maybe, but he didn't write that piece.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1887 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 95  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: philpritchard and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sun January 21, 2018 6:44 pm