| 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 (3,152 Views) | |
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 21 2007, 10:56 PM Post #101 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
I am quite happy being Canadian .
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 21 2007, 11:29 PM Post #102 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Cute, but completely unrealistic. You'll never have the entire United States of America overthrowing the government. You could have a few anti-government groups, but these would quickly be squashed. America is just too big, there would be no physical way to solidify the masses into one. Not to mention the fact that a government represents more than just the people in power - they are working for their own special interest groups that would happily fund a fight against the people. It would be like watching a farmer with a pitchfork defend his farm against a tank. Even a farmer with a semi-automatic rifle would lose...you people watch too many movies. Cho moved to the states when he was 8. He was 23 at the time of the shootings, the majority of his life was spent in the States. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 22 2007, 12:24 AM Post #103 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ah, the "helpless against the government" argument. Since we're helpless anyway, we should give them even more power over our lives for "our own good". Let them take away our guns, let them keep a watch on us in every public space, let them tap our phones and go through our finances with a fine-toothed comb. It's for the greater good. Pffft. See, the fundamental difference in worldviews is that the government should be afraid of its people rather than the converse. It's not about trying to overthrow the government, it's about having a check against rampaging government. Of course, there's all sorts of paranoid scenarios one can invent regarding an armed conflict. The fact that the US has a rather powerful military is usually presented as a trump card regarding the futility of such a matter. However, the military is made up of citizens as well. If those resisting have a just cause or grievance, one can not understate the effect of a divided military, not to mention the fact that using the military at all within the US would have severe political consequences. It would only garner sympathy. Look at Waco or Ruby Ridge. These were certifiable nutcases, yet there's a certain sympathy for them resisting the heavy-handed feds. Of course, the whole point is not to engage in armed conflict with the government, rather have a deterrent against a rampaging government. That's why it's important to keep the second amendment unscathed, despite whatever news stories come and go. |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 22 2007, 06:29 AM Post #104 |
|
Davros Valid
|
The gov. will ALWAYS have bigger, more powerful guns, and many more of them, than you, or any militia group. It's unrealistic fantasy to argue against gun laws for fear of no longer being able to check the gov. by means of firepower, when the gov is ALREADY far beyond your ability to check it. And, the military IS used domestically. Haven't you been in an airport since 9/11, and seen those camoflagued National Guard soliders patroling about, with M-16's at the ready? If some militia group manages to become a big enough threat, the National Guard would certainly be called in (in the future, that is, when the National Guard is no longer deployed in Iraq). So, don't you think it's about time to give up the fantasy that, ooh, if not for your stockpile of arms, "The Government" would oppress us all? The gov is made up of citizens - our very neighbors. It's not some "other" breed of human, with its own agenda. It's voted into power by us, and voted out of power when we become dissatisfied with it. Just look at what happens when people get a little too rowdy at protests. The gov tear-gasses everyone. And, if the protesters were to up the ante by producing firearms, the gov would simply producer bigger, more powerful firearms, and mow down the crowd, like the National Guard did on May 4, 1970, at Kent State, OH. The gov will have bullet-proof body armor, mounted machine guns, sidewinder missiles - you name it. No matter what you do, if you're on the wrong side of the law, you will lose the fight. And, who makes the laws? The majority of Americans do. So, your real adversary is not "The Government," but, rather, your fellow citizens. GW Bush didn't come to power by coup. He was appointed by the Supreme Court, after having gotten nearly half the vote. If ever there was a time to take up arms, and fight the gov, it was on the day that Bush was inaugurated. And, what happened? Nothin' but a few eggs thrown at his limousine. So, there you have it. The people found it all acceptable.
Sympathy? From whom? Other WASP militia groups in Montana and Idaho? But, there's your perfect example - those people and David Koresh, with his ten million rounds of ammunition, or whatever it was. No matter how many guns and bullets you amass, the gov will always beat you at your own game, because that's precisely what you and I have empowered the gov to do. And, why? Because, as much as you and I may distrust the gov, we're much more wary of some militia group overthrowing the gov, and taking over. Not to mention a foreign invader. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 22 2007, 06:56 AM Post #105 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
Every man for himself. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 22 2007, 06:48 PM Post #106 |
|
Satan Valid
|
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/comm...p?record_id=468 Certainly was the original point of the right to bear arms, by the looks of things. Not so feasible now, though. This was a time when the kind of weapons our governments have now weren't even in the realm of possibility. |
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Mock | Apr 22 2007, 08:05 PM Post #107 |
![]() ![]()
|
Not the scenerio in question. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 23 2007, 02:17 AM Post #108 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well, the thing is, the mighty U.S. military has all this capability and can't even quell resistance in a poor third world country that had been subjected to sanctions for a dozen years. I'm not sure how well they would do against their own people. I suppose they could start nuking cities if things got "out of hand", but somehow I don't see that happening. |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 23 2007, 03:02 AM Post #109 |
|
Davros Valid
|
* correction: I just saw that Cho had immigrated to the US, with his family, 15 years ago, and, not during high school as I'd previously thought. So, his experience in the US is more relevant that I'd suggested. As for Iraq, that's a nation in chaos. There are like 5 major militias opperating there, and, while they're fighting each other, they're also fighting the US military. The US military could put down the insurrection, and impose order, if we, the American citizens, were willing to do what was necessary. But, we aren't. And, hence, we won't. A major insurrection did occur, in the US, in 1860. And, the US government, with the support of a majority of Americans, did kill hundreds of thousands of Confederates in order to put down their insurrection. And, while the Union was fighting the Civil War, life went on in the North. The Union fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back. A limited draft was imposed, and limited industries were commandeered for the war effort. If it hadn't been enough to win the war, the Union would simply have brought the other hand out from behind its back, and engaged itself fully in the war effort. And, the Confederacy was just as well armed as the Union. Today, the gov is MUCH better armed than any insurrection could be. So, there you have it. What good will it do to arm citizens to the teeth, with spray-fire machine guns, that will necessarily increase gun deaths, when the gov will simply don bullet-proof armor, higher caliber mounted machine guns, tear gas, choppers with missiles, swat teams, the National Guard.... With respect to Monkey's quote concerning the Second Ammendment, it is slightly in error (and, not surprisingly, since she quoted a Republican from Texas). There is no implication, in Ammendment 2, of a need for defending against governmental tyranny. The Amendment is worded thus: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I suppose one could interpret the word "free" to mean free from governmental tyranny, but, then, why mention the "State," for whose security the militia would be fighting? The militia is clearly proposed in association with, and in defense of, the State, i.e. the USA. And, again, we've had a well-regulated militia, with uninfringed arms, for over two hundred years. The well-regulated militia gets all the arms it needs, but those citizens who are not in the militia have some restrictions. It doesn't violate the apparent intent of Amendment 2, though it might be interpreted to violate the letter of the law, if one interprets "...the people" to be ALL American citizens, and, not just those in the well-regulated militia. |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| RevWolf | Apr 23 2007, 09:32 AM Post #110 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
|
![]() |
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 23 2007, 10:22 AM Post #111 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Ah well - I tried. I know very little about the constitution.
|
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 23 2007, 12:00 PM Post #112 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
Guns come in handy when being overthrown by a hurricaine......
or something like that.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 23 2007, 01:01 PM Post #113 |
|
Unregistered
|
That's a bit of a misnomer and misreading. "The security of a free state" refers to the actual states, who were at that time seen as representing the people much more so than today. State(s) and people are used virtually interchangeably in the text of the constitution. So the "well regulated militia" was seen as a check against the feds, which pretty much went out the window with the Civil War, and the feds have been grabbing more and more power ever since. Here's the text of the second amendment:
There's all sorts of ways to parse this, getting ever more convoluted. Personally, the second clause is the real money shot to me no matter what the original justification (i.e. the first clause). That seems to be the way most gun advocates interpret it, and it's one of the few individual rights that is actively and vigorously defended. |
|
|
| Mock | Apr 23 2007, 01:16 PM Post #114 |
![]() ![]()
|
It's 'a' constitution. |
![]() |
|
| ErgonomicLogic | Apr 23 2007, 01:26 PM Post #115 |
|
Ninja Valid
|
Plague is correct about "the People" meaning we all as citizens are included in the 2nd amendment. The phrase "The People" is used later in the constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Also see the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution is not a limit on our rights, it absolutely guarantees citizens certain rights, it's supposed to be a limit on government. And just because a right isn't listed in the constitution doesn't mean the people don't have it. See 9th amendment. So unless people also feel we shouldn't have the right as individual citizens to be free from warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures, you might want to guarantee the second amendment rights. I found a Noah Webster quote as well. "Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." Much of Mr. Webster's sentiment has been disrespected because of the federal government's seizure of the national guard. Posse Comitatus my ass. All the more reason that individuals should be allowed even more access to firearms. "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." Notice that the second amendment provides no "reasonableness" language. It doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed. The fourth amendment includes reasonableness language. The 2nd amendment, rightly or wrongly BARS ALL prohibitions by its very language. Obviously the founders didnt forsee nukes, or weapons that can cause such mass destruction. The phrase "bear arms" may provide some limitation, meaning you can own any gun that can be held, but not something ridiculous like field artillery or a tank. I'm just pulling this out of my ass. But anyway, in legal terms the phrase "Shall not" is very certain. Especially when there is NO reasonableness language in the clause. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 23 2007, 01:48 PM Post #116 |
|
Unregistered
|
Yeah, the seizure of the National Guard is very disturbing. As I understand it, it was essentially done via the usual fed trick of offering money for support in exchange for loss of control. A good scam: tax the people via the IRS and then offer to give some of it back to the states to essentially "buy" power. The road system is pretty much the same way, and how the 21 drinking age was re-instituted back in the 80's by federal mandate. Some states held out for a while, but withholding of federal monies eventually caused their collapse. |
|
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Apr 23 2007, 01:56 PM Post #117 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Okay - you can have the award for Pedant of the Day.
|
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 24 2007, 01:32 AM Post #118 |
|
Davros Valid
|
So, what's the purpose of the opening clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," then? What, it just sounded kind of nice, so, they stuck it in as a frill? No, it was put in so as to explain the reasoning and purpose of the Amendment. And, OF COURSE gun-rights activists like to ignore that clause. The Second Amendment is so much nicer and simpler and black&white without that pesky clause in there. But, the world today isn't so black&white, and it wasn't back then, either. And, while Mr. Webster's opinion on the matter is very well and good, it's not part of the Constitution, and, it's not codified law. When you consider the opening clause of the Second Amendment as a qualifiying clause - and, it makes all the sense in the world to do so, considering that, even with the threats of 1789, they likely had the good sense to not want criminals, mental defectives, psychopaths and small children to have totally uninfringed access to guns, not to mention the emotional womenfolk, who weren't even viewed as sufficiently rational to cast a responsible vote - the exact meaning of "The People" in the other amendments is thus qualified in Amendment 2, i.e. The Peoples' militia. And, who would have served in that well-regulated militia? Women? Small children? Psychopaths? Violent criminals? Mental defectives? Not likely, hence, no need to arm those "people." And, neither is there any mention of defending against the Feds, in Amendment 2. But, every indication is that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure that the States would never be caught with their pants down. So, even if part of the purpose was to defend against the Feds - and, there's no evidence of this in the Constitution - the States' armed militias would certainly be able to do so, without needing every, single human with a heartbeat to have a gun. But, Plague's absolutely right about the Fed increasingly assuming power since the Civil War. And, the least ambiguous way to deal with this issue would be to amend the Constitution, but, we all know that's not going to happen.
Yeah, and the fact that we can all acknowledge that the founders didn't forsee those things, and that life in 1789 was very different than it is today, precisely because of the advancement in firearms technology, implies that we find it reasonable, at least, in theory, to treat the opening clause of Amendment 2 as a qualifier, if not to amend the Constitution to suit our modern needs. In theory, it's a nice idea to protect ourselves from the potential oppression of the Feds, but, it's no longer a viable reality, for reasons already explained. And, at this point, it just sounds like paranoia - Let's all be armed to the teeth, and have murder rates as high as the Old West, just in case the Feds ever turn on us. (I dunno about you fellas, but, I'm much more afraid of being killed by an irrational citizen than by the suddenly out-of-control Feds.) And, as Ergo pointed out, a literal reading of Amendment 2, ignoring the opening clause, of course, would have us allowing criminals, psychotics and children to own any kind of arms they wished, and in unlimited quantities. It should be clear, regardless of your position, that this is not a good idea. Even if we were to interpret "arms" as limited to hand-held weapons - and, this would already be an infringement, by strict contstructionism - an RPG, shoulder-mounted missile launcher and briefcase nuclear (dirty or biological) bomb would all qualify as legally obtainable for every, living American human. Does this make any sense, in real life? And, this is to say nothing of future weapons, that will be even more destructive - lasers, sonic weapons, you name it. So, why don't we just dispense with self-evidently unreasonable arguments that hinge upon the admittedly anachronistic Second Amendment, which has ALREADY gone by the wayside, and just do what makes the most sense in 2007? |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 24 2007, 03:03 AM Post #119 |
|
Unregistered
|
And that's another way to parse it. Just because there's an explanatory clause preceding the money shot doesn't mean the money shot is dependent on it or limited by it. Regardless, the ability to defend oneself is a fundamental human right, whether in the constitution or not. It sure seems to be there to me. I do agree that we should always do what's right for our time. It just so happens that what's right for 2007 is the same thing that was right for 1907, or 1807, or probably 2107, and that's not to infringe on the rights of individuals for some twisted "defense of society". |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 24 2007, 04:54 PM Post #120 |
|
Davros Valid
|
Of course, it's the fundamental right of a person to be able to defend themselves. But, think of it as an arms race, between people instead of nations. If we promote more, and more powerful guns for everyone, then everyone has an increased chance of being killed by a gun, and, therefore, has more incentive to buy more, and more powerful guns with which to defend themselves against those other people with guns. After all, it's not bears and mountain lions that assault weapons are supposed to defend against. It's other people. And, the better armed those other people, the greater the threat for each of us. (How would you feel, as a Black or a Jew, with the knowledge that the local White Supremecy chapter was armed to the teeth?)"The Government" is composed of other people as well, and, if we're afraid of those other people coming after us, then, we should also be afraid of other citizens, who have not been vetted by society, coming after us - whether in a random shooting, like the recent one at VA Tech, or, subsequent to a heated argument, road-rage, or what have you. I live in NYC, where guns are severely restricted. Basically, you can only legally own a gun here if you need it for your job. Now, New Yorkers are probably the most common-sense, pragmatic people there are. A law or policy that doesn't work, in a dense city of 9 million, becomes evident very quickly. We want our trains to run on time. We want the streets cleared of snow in a timely fashion. And, we know what happens when you introduce more guns into a city as dense as this one. Rushing to work, you get bumped into several times a day, especially in the subway. Some people have noisy neighbors, above, below, next door, or that one asshole on the block that makes you have to tense up when you pass by him each day. At any given moment, there's at least one person in this city who's so irritated and fed-up, that he's ready to go on a kill-crazy rampage, and just start shooting people. And, while someone would eventually stop him, he'd kill dozens in a matter of seconds with a semi-automatic pistol, let alone a spray-fire machine gun. So, the point is that you don't hear people complaining about gun infringement around here. Yeah, it means I can't own a gun to defend myself, but it also means those other FUCKING PSYCHOS can't legally own one either. Of course, the gangster kids have guns that are smuggled up from VA, and several times a year, some little girl gets killed in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting, or street shooting, with no warning at all, of course. But, all things considered, we'd rather leave it to the police to crack down on the people who've got illegal guns, than to have everyone armed. But, at any rate, in general, which makes more sense: to put our energies into arming everyone, or, to reasonably limit gun availability, and put our energies into emotional, psychological, societal health which would reduce the sort of knee-jerk responses and other urges that lead people to shoot others so much more often in the USA than in other first world nations, like Canada, which has no shortage of guns?
|
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |




.






or something like that.

7:14 PM Jul 11