| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,147 Views) | |
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 30 2007, 02:10 PM Post #201 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
I'd like to walk the streets armed with a sword down my back
... are those banned?
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 30 2007, 02:27 PM Post #202 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
The idea of my friend Lee having an inter-continental ballistic missile silo in his back garden is horrifying. Weapons of that kind must be limited to reduce the need for actually using them - and democratically elected bodies are the most sensible groups to have sole ownership - assuming the weapons are allowed to exist at all. Imagine independent citizens, like Rupert Murdoch, with his nuclear submarines cruising around Indonesia. It's a great idea for a film but I'm not convinced its his personal right, or that of any other non-elected body. The crucial difference is the mandate of the people to bestow responsibility onto government, not an innate freedom that all can enjoy without restriction. The bizarre scenarios you can devise were all weaponry allowed as a freedom are madness wrapped in madness with the word mad written on it in hair. It's that mad. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 02:45 PM Post #203 |
|
Unregistered
|
No more so than any form of government having them. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 30 2007, 03:14 PM Post #204 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
But the British government, for example, has checks and balances, have been elected formally as governors of the country and if anyone can justify long range weapons, a democratic nation is the most legitimate - you even need a council of War to discuss implications - and a vote by elected representatives! My friend Lee, I'm telling you - nobody would want that nutball anywhere near weapons. He's worse than Bush. His idea of pre-emptive is firing everything at once at allies as well as enemies, particularly allies as 'it's the last thing they'd expect.' He's not actually insane, as it happens - but I would think it necessary that he is assessed for his ability and need for such weapons. About 50 million people in this country would vote against Lee on his ownership of nukes. Doesn't that apply to firearms too? |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 03:28 PM Post #205 |
|
Unregistered
|
No, rights don't get a vote. If they are subjected to one, then that's just a tyranny of the majority. Sure, "democratic" has a cachet as being the good guys, but one has to remember that an example of a democracy is "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner". Let's say that a majority of people in England decide to actually enforce the state religion, the Anglican church, and in an attempt to avoid possible strife, outlaw other religions. It's a democratic vote, but that doesn't make it ok. If you try to counter that religion doesn't kill people, then I would point to the last several millenia of history as a counter example. If you maintain that people have the right to practice religion free of government interferrence, I would say the same applies to self-defense. Once you start saying a democracy can remove an individual's rights, there's really no stopping. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | Apr 30 2007, 03:36 PM Post #206 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
Certain religions are banned whenever they actively propose violent acts. It is in the best interests of the populace at large. Islam isn't banned - but extremist interpretations most certainly are. If the country at large wished to impose one religion on all of its people, there would be a revolution. Telling someone what to believe is not the same as restricting people from destroying each other. Before you say 'revolution - with what weapons?' I would suggest a strike. There are enough people who disagree to cripple this country and its infrastructure. If the minority was very small, I would leave. It would no longer resemble the country I live in and would cease to be valuable. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 07:46 PM Post #207 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ah, but that wasn't the scenario I proposed. I simply postulated that a democratic vote resulted in the outlawing of other religions, not the forced adherence to the Anglican. This could take form in several "civil" ways, such as denying any tax benefits to other religions (just refusing to recognize them as a non-profit), eminent domain over non-Anglican places of worship, refusing permits for new construction of non-Anglican places of worship, and making it criminal to publicly assemble for purposes of observing these other religions. If it was voted for by a democratic majority, then that should be ok then. Furthermore, I never said the government shouldn't restrict people from destroying each other. That's actually one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government, to enforce a state of civil peace. No, rather I've maintained throughout that government can not achieve this end by violating the fundamental human right to protect oneself in the form of gun prohibitions. Well, actually, they can do it, obviously. History is rife with examples of disarmed populations. No, they can't do it and maintain any sort of legitimacy, even if this end is achieved with the blessing of a democratic vote. That's what rights really mean. It's an inherent property to an individual, not something bestowed by the government or the majority. |
|
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 30 2007, 08:16 PM Post #208 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Where does this right come from? Can we go back to that bit? WHY is it a fundamental right of the individual to have guns? |
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 09:21 PM Post #209 |
|
Unregistered
|
A person has a right to defend oneself. Denial of access to the means to do that is a violation of that right. Note that does not imply that anyone is required to provide the means. It's like free speech in that regard: an individual has it, but no one is required to provide the ability to disseminate his/her speech. However, denying the individual the means would be a violation of that right. As a concrete example, the government can not outlaw printing presses, but they certainly aren't required to provide them. Similarly, the government can not rightly outlaw firearms, and likewise they are not required to provide them. |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 30 2007, 09:26 PM Post #210 |
|
Davros Valid
|
Plague, Waco and Ruby Ridge are not examples of THE GOVERNMENT tyrannically oppressing innocent citizens. The Civil War could be such an example, if you consider secession a right, and, even so, the unfettered armament of the Confederacy wasn't even enough to win them the war, because the Union simply had more people and more resources. It was a very clear example of majority rule. The point that you missed, in my last post, is that, for most people, death is a real thing, that happens to innocent citizens 11,000 each year by gunshot, and, "Govt. Tyranny" is merely a theoretical possibility that's never occurred in the form of oppression. The aforementioned Civil War was a case of a militia group trying to, in effect, steal the lands and infrastructure of the USA, and impose its own set of laws upon the American citizens residing on those lands. The Union, in fighting the Civil War, was protecting the rights of its citizens as per the Constitution. But, I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of the Civil War any further, as it's a digression. The point was that you stated liklihood as your reason against restrictive laws. And, my point was that death by gunshot is a much greater liklihood than Govt. oppression. How many innocent people would have to die by gunshot, for you to consider it reasonable to regulate guns? What if you had a 50/50 chance of being shot, each and every day? Would that change your mind? What about a 100% chance? Which is more valuable to you - your life, or your perceived protection against the remote chance of being oppressed by THE GOVERNMENT? As for the my other point, raised again by Henry, if you're in favor of infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear certain arms - rocket launchers, nuclear RPG'S - then, you have nulified your own interpretation of Amendment 2. At that point, the debate shifts from Constitutionality to reasonableness and efficacy of public policy. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 10:33 PM Post #211 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ah, I was uncertain about those later items partially due to it being questionable whether they are personal arms. Hence, I have nullified nothing, unless one defines nullification to include expressing doubt and uncertainity. Actually, you'll have to point out where I "stated liklihood as my reason against restrictive laws". Unless I miscommunicated, I have never maintained that a person's right to firearms is somehow statistically dependent on outcomes. No, rather it is an inherent right by way of extension of the basic right to self-defense. If it means a 0.28% increased chance over the course of a lifetime of being murdered by a firearm, then so be it. I do have to say that is one of the more...interesting...interpretations of the Civil War that I've heard. The Federal government was protecting the rights of it's citizens by preventing their expression for self-determination. Unfortunately, due to the issues that have gotten intermingled with it, namely slavery, it's difficult to vigorously defend the Confederacy. Hence, a century and a half of trampling on individual and states rights and a mind-numbing expansion of the federal government. |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 30 2007, 11:21 PM Post #212 |
|
Davros Valid
|
Plague...
I think you know perfectly well that it was this reasoning, relating public policy and plausibility, to which I was referring. IF you're in favor of infringing on the right to bear certain arms, THEN, this position would nullify the argument of Constitutionality, shifting the debate to reasonableness and efficacy of policy. It's and IF-THEN proposition, Plague. Do you understand now? As for the Civil War, not all Americans residing in the Confederate States, in 1860, were in favor of seceding from the Union. Many of them were forced into joining the Confederate Army, by punishment of imprisonment and corporal punishment or death. The Union was acting in defense of those people. I don't see what's so "interesting" about that. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 30 2007, 11:53 PM Post #213 |
|
Unregistered
|
Except the quote you pulled:
was only in response to the "unlikely things happening" argument Wes put forward. She effectively said that if it could happen, then it should be prevented no matter whose rights were trampled upon. She only extended this to gun prohibitions, though. I did NOT use the statistical unlikelyhood as a way to defend my position, rather show the hysterical over reaction to the violence that does occur in the US. To me, it doesn't matter what the probabilities are, the principle stands on its own merit. However, the characterization of the US being some multiple more dangerous than Canada w.r.t. firearms does not withstand simple statistical analysis. The gain is but a 0.2% advantage in not being murdered by a gun during the course of a 75 year lifespan. Ok, the conditional is acknowledged, though as I pointed out, I am undecided on the IF part. Hence, I have not negated my position, I just haven't decided whether there is a class of weapons that individuals should not be allowed to own, and that hinges on whether certain classes constitute personal arms and whether the rights extend to non-personal arms. It's in an indertiminate state, undecided, unsure. Thus, your IF can not be evaluated. Well, as for the Civil War, there were several states that wanted to secede but were prevented by the Federal government. The duly elected Maryland legislature was detained to prevent their voting to secede. Likewise, the Union army drafted people who were sympathetic to the South, or at the very least thought they should be allowed to go their own way. Thus, trying to paint the feds as the protectors of citizens' freedom is incredibly disingenuous. |
|
|
| lori | May 1 2007, 12:58 AM Post #214 |
|
that chick, you know
![]()
|
I have a question, related to the societal issues posed way back in this thread. I know the UK has an extreme gun control program and that the numbers on it are positive. My question to those in the UK or anyone else with experience: what are your TV shows and movies like? Do they have the level of violence that ours do? For example, on Lost, there's no end of guns for the castaways to find and use. To me, living in the US and in the country where more people than not own guns, this doesn't seem odd (other than that they have access to more than I do). Scary, yes, but not odd. How is it in your entertainment? Is it reflective of your culture? EDIT: Extreme is not meant in any way derogatory. It's just the one I know more about and it is stricter, from what I've gathered, than say Canada's. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | May 1 2007, 01:41 AM Post #215 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
That's not what I was saying at all. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Cygnus-X1 | May 1 2007, 01:56 AM Post #216 |
|
Davros Valid
|
...just as you're saying if the government could turn tyrannically oppressive, then, it should be prevented, no matter the consequences. And, many would argue that being able to live without fear of being shot is a right that is trampled upon by allowing uninfringed firearm ownership. Just as you're citing what you judge to be a low probabilty of being shot, in order to reason that it doesn't justify infringing peoples' rights to keep and bear arms, I'm citing the much lower probabilty of the government turning tyrannically oppressive, in order to reason that it doesn't justify the consequences of uninfringed firearm ownership. It's the risk/benefit analysis that I referred to in my first post.
How convenient for you! I'll wait until you've made up your mind before resuming the argument.
It's not disingenuous. The Union was protecting the rights of many citizens, though certainly not every right of every citizen. Slaves and Southerners who wished to remain US citizens - the Union was acting in defense of all of those people, millions of them. Those who wanted to take lands from the United States of America, and use those lands and the infrastructure built upon them, to form another nation, as well as continue to unreservedly enslave people of African descent - you're right about them. The Union was not acting in accordance with their wishes. Though Maryland, as a State, may have voted by majority to secede from the Union, the residents of Maryland were citizens of the United States of America, and entitled all of the rights and privileges therein, and many of those citizens did not wish to secede. Serving in the US Army, when called to do so, in times of war, is one of the explicit duties of citizenship. Impressment, by pain of death, into an Army who's declared war on the US, is a violation of an American citizen's rights, and, hence, the US is justified in acting to protect that citizen. This is an argument of Constitutional Law, but a moot point, because, if the Rebels, having equal armament to the Union, were unable to win the war, then, a modern militia group with vastly inferior armament would certainly not succede. It's a moot point, unless you're advocating the uninfringed right to bear every weapon the arsenal of the US Military - nukes, cluster bombs, the lot. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | May 1 2007, 11:59 AM Post #217 |
|
Unregistered
|
You have to remember the name of the country as represented by the federal government-the United States. The feds completely trampled on the rights of the various states in their attempt to have self determination, and the millions of people who wanted to secede. I do love how you spin it though: The confeds impressed their people into fighting the war, while it's the duty of US citizens to serve in the US Army, when called to do so, in times of war. As if the various states were some impromtu rogue organizations, when in fact many of them were older than the federal government. Now, as for probabilities, I can only point to history: every large empire has turned tyrannical at some point. It is quite probable that the feds haven't been more oppressive due to the fact that the citizenry hasn't been disarmed, though the only way to find out is to disarm them. Fortunately, it's written in the founding document that can't happen, and attempts to nibble around the edges are vigorously oppossed. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | May 1 2007, 04:38 PM Post #218 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
Obviously programmes such as Lost, The Sopranos, 24 and others are very popular here and watched by millions - there are similar English productions though which I assume you're referring to. Spooks (shown as MI5 in the US) is a more cerebral version of 24 (not too difficult to be more cerebral though) - the violence is at the same level. Intelligence services use guns and they're frequent in this. Rome, an HBO and BBC production, is hardly shy of violence - but no guns, clearly. <_< There are quite a lot of murder dramas and crime thrillers, similar to something like CSI (Waking the Dead, Prime Suspect, etc) - and guns are less frequent due to the scarcity of firearms. The violence level isn't lower, though - it just wouldn't make sense to have hundreds of murders in an English setting with guns when they aren't particularly common. Essentially, if Cho 'whatever his name is' had gone to a University here he'd have real difficulty knifing 32 people to death. It'd take him some considerable time too. |
![]() |
|
| lori | May 2 2007, 02:42 AM Post #219 |
|
that chick, you know
![]()
|
I did know a lot of our shows were aired there, and I wondered if it seemed strange, seeing every character on a given show magically acquiring a gun and, amusingly enough, knowing exactly how to carry it, for example in the back of their pants. I would have no idea, other than TV, how to handle a gun and yet, being exposed to it in our media, seeing it doesn't strike me. I wondered if the reverse were true for you. And then the second part I wondered, you answered. That crime drama and whatnot don't show as many gun related crimes. Interesting. BTW, I heard on the radio this morning that the VA governor signed a... I have no idea, someone google it... executive order? that those ordered for outpatient mental treatment by the courts will go into the gun database the same as, I presume, inpatient did before. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Cygnus-X1 | May 2 2007, 09:09 AM Post #220 |
|
Davros Valid
|
The original 13 Colonies were older than the USA, but, the Confederate States of America was a rather ad-hoc, reactionary organisation, if you want to put it that way. They even referred to themselves as The Rebels. In any case, when the Confederate States of America declared itself a sovereign nation who was at war the the USA, those American citizens who did not wish to give up their citizenship were still guaranteed the rights and privileges enumerated in the US Constitution, as well as those assumed by it. But, again, this is an argument of Constitutional Law.
You really believe that? You really believe that the only thing keeping Uncle Sam from putting us all in chains are a bunch of pea-shooters, that can't even penetrate Swat Team body armor, let alone armored vehicles? The Feds could take out any militia from the air, in seconds flat, without even offering the would-be freedom fighters a target. It's time to face reality: your arms are no match for those of the Feds, and haven't been, probably, since the Civil War. Today, our nation is premised on the notion that the Federal Govt. should have superior arms than any militia group who would impose its will upon the rest of us. Now, I'm not advocating getting rid of all firearms. But, it being the case that the Feds will ALWAYS be better armed than any militia group, the ideal of protecting ourselves from govt. tyranny, by means of matching armament, has become outmoded and unrealistic. So, let people have their hunting rifles, and, even a hand-gun for protection. But, set up more checks to those privilages, in order to cut down on the number of Cho's who have them, and let's dispense with this irrational notion of being commensurately armed with the US military, which CLEARLY hasn't been possible since the Civil War. And, if you're now stating that you oppose attempts to "nibble around the edges" of the Second Amendment, then, you would seem to have finally made up your mind regarding the poing of strict construction. ![]()
|
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |




... are those banned?







7:14 PM Jul 11