Amppax Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306815858' post='2248023'] so anyway....is Obama out to take our guns? [/quote] Only if he gets to keep them
Lil Red Posted May 31, 2011 Author Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306815928' post='2248025'] Only if he gets to keep them [/quote] naw, he'll just turn them over to our new Dear Leaders.
4588686 Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306816570' post='2248031'] naw, he'll just turn them over to our new Dear Leaders. [/quote] Know who else tried to take America's guns? Muhammad. Coincidence? I doubt it.
4588686 Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306816794' post='2248035'] [/quote]
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306771609' post='2247669'] I'm very much in favor of gun control. [/quote] Okay, but are you in favor of executive orders to bypass the normal means for changing the Constitution?
Amppax Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306847403' post='2248117'] Okay, but are you in favor of executive orders to bypass the normal means for changing the Constitution? [/quote] Nope, not me. Although I think that interpretations of the 2nd amendment would allow for gun control as is. then again, i'm not a constitutional scholar, so idk. Edited May 31, 2011 by Amppax
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306797515' post='2247832'] Just for the record Gun deaths in Canada 4.78 per 100,000 per year Gun deaths in US 15 per 100,000 per year If it is immoral and unjust, I do like the outcome. [/quote] That number by itself means nothing. You need moar information to like those 4.78 deaths per 100,000. I, for instance have never murdered anyone with a firearm. You have no right to threaten me with death for owning one.
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306847512' post='2248118'] Nope, not me. Although I think that interpretations of the 2nd amendment would allow for gun control as is. then again, i'm not a constitutional scholar, so idk. [/quote] Is control a form of infringement? Is the Constitution intended to create as classed society? The reason it all has to be "under the radar" is because a vocal minority of people want gun control. If they want to infringe on that right, then push for repeal of the amendment. One may cite gun deaths, but one needs to divide those deaths up to figure the affect of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. There is nothing immoral in owning or carrying a firearm. There is nothing special about a police officer that should increase his right to carry. We do not have a classed society, and we do have equal protection under the law. If I can be punished for having a firearm in a place that an off duty officer may carry, then we do not have equal protection under the law. I am then a subject of the state and not in a government of by and for the people. Edited May 31, 2011 by Winchester
Amppax Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306847860' post='2248123'] Is control a form of infringement? Is the Constitution intended to create as classed society? [/quote] what are you talking about, i'm confused. I'm talking about the different interpretations scholars have given for the second amendment, some of which would seem to say that guns aren't [i]really [/i]an individual right, rather a collective one (as in, guns are allowed for the formation of militias). With that interpretation, seeing that we don't have a true militia anymore, it would stand to reason that guns are up for restrictions. However, looking at the amendment, it also seems that the founders would think we've already violated there text, as we don't have militias. Idk, i'm just throwing out random thoughts. *edit: dang it, didn't see you edit Edited May 31, 2011 by Amppax
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306848623' post='2248130'] what are you talking about, i'm confused. I'm talking about the different interpretations scholars have given for the second amendment, some of which would seem to say that guns aren't [i]really [/i]an individual right, rather a collective one (as in, guns are allowed for the formation of militias). With that interpretation, seeing that we don't have a true militia anymore, it would stand to reason that guns are up for restrictions. However, looking at the amendment, it also seems that the founders would think we've already violated there text, as we don't have militias. Idk, i'm just throwing out random thoughts. *edit: dang it, didn't see you edit [/quote] Since militias are necessary, the people should be able to own weapons. It doesn't say the the people must form militias or that militias have a right to keep and bear arms. If the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, then the government owns all rights to defense. If they had wanted the collective to have that right, they would have said "militias" and not people. It proceeds from a collective with a purpose to "the people." The government may therefore not infringe on the right of "the people." That militias, which are not subject directly to Federal authority, may exist indicates also an individual right to defend life without prior approval of the government. It indicates the government has no monopoly over violent action in defense of human rights. Also, a collective cannot "bear" arms. Edited May 31, 2011 by Winchester
Amppax Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306849071' post='2248131'] Since militias are necessary, the people should be able to own weapons. It doesn't say the the people must form militias or that militias have a right to keep and bear arms. If the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, then the government owns all rights to defense. If they had wanted the collective to have that right, they would have said "militias" and not people. It proceeds from a collective with a purpose to "the people." The government may therefore not infringe on the right of "the people." That militias, which are not subject directly to Federal authority, may exist indicates also an individual right to defend life without prior approval of the government. It indicates the government has no monopoly over violent action in defense of human rights. Also, a collective cannot "bear" arms. [/quote] I would start by saying many would disagree with your first statement, i'm not positive that militias [i]are [/i]still necessary. [font="sans-serif"][size="2"] [quote][/size][/font][font="sans-serif"][size="2"]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.[/size][/font][font="sans-serif"][size="2"][/quote][/size][/font] [font="sans-serif"] [/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]It seems, based on the text, that the founders assumed that militias are necessary (like you do), and that the right is based on that. However, I think it could be reasonably argued that they are not (although again, i'm not firmly set one way or the other on this). If militias are deemed no longer necessary, it seems logical to then conclude that guns are also no longer necessary, based on the amendment. But again, I think this would probably involve changing the amendment. I was merely pointing out that some have argued for gun control without a change to the amendment. [/size][/font] Edited May 31, 2011 by Amppax
Jaime Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306814545' post='2248005'] If an opinion expressed by a Vatican official lies outside his competency then it may be right or wrong, but that person, even if he is a bishop, enjoys no special teaching authority or protection from error with regards to those aspects outside his competency. For a more mundane example of what I'm talking about, if Cardinal Arinze writes out his personal favourite recipe for cake, I am perfectly free to say that he is mistaken in the ideal amount of flour, because he is not a chef, and he is probably not an authority on the issue of cake baking. [/quote] [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1306814986' post='2248010'] Nope. Your critical thinking in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. [/quote] Ok Josephine, let's take a look at your critical thinking and you can help me with the logic of it. I certainly agree with you on the Arinze cake analogy. I've eaten the Cardinal's baked goods and this is not his area of expertise. I mean twinkies have a better recipe than his chocolate truffle cake. But then you seem to be saying that when Archbishop Magliore is speaking at the UN in his official role as Vatican representative, that his opinion holds as much weight. That logic doesn't seem to hold water. Do you think that the Holy Father just randomly selects Vatican UN duty? Perhaps there is a a bucket with all the archbishops names and he just draws one from time to time? Msgr Eterova has litterbox duty Msgr Frezza is on garbage Magliore's got the UN!! Or would it make more sense that when Cardinal Arinze is speaking about cupcakes, we can take or leave his opinion. But when he is talking about interreligious matters, (his job for a long time) he is speaking on behalf of the Vatican and the Holy Father? Wouldn't the same be true for the person who was personally chosen by the pope to represent the Vatican in global issues?
ParadiseFound Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 One of the things I don't like about Europe is the strict gun contro in a lot of the counrties here...It's at its worst in the UK where you can't even own a basically harmless BB gun unless it is see-through or painted a bright colour. I think it shows how the state does not trust its own people enough to believe that they are capable of acting like responsible adults. I find it pretty disgusting. And the twisted irony of it is, despite all the control, people still go on crazed rampages (although it's pretty rare and makes national news for days whenever it happens).
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306850324' post='2248136'] I would start by saying many would disagree with your first statement, i'm not positive that militias [i]are [/i]still necessary. [font="sans-serif"][size="2"] [/size][/font][/quote] What change has taken place, that an armed populace is no longer necessary? [quote][font="sans-serif"] [/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]It seems, based on the text, that the founders assumed that militias are necessary (like you do), and that the right is based on that. However, I think it could be reasonably argued that they are not (although again, i'm not firmly set one way or the other on this). If militias are deemed no longer necessary, it seems logical to then conclude that guns are also no longer necessary, based on the amendment. But again, I think this would probably involve changing the amendment. I was merely pointing out that some have argued for gun control without a change to the amendment. [/size][/font] [/quote] I know that some people have advocated violating the amendment. They twist history in order to make the argument. It's difficult to change an amendment, easier to violate it with capricious rules. My right to bear arms is based upon my right to defend my life against any and all unjust aggressors. The Constitution is merely a tool to defend that. No change has taken place in human nature or in the State that makes weapons in the hands of private citizens unnecessary. You can find ample evidence of State abuse of power throughout the globe. In the UK, you can be arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting", and there is no reason to believe the government in the US is immune to this. You will also find organized and armed men who would take the lives of citizens--something the police may respond to, but not prevent. The government exists to protect the rights of citizens. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not accomplish this protection. Nations with strict gun control are not havens of safety--gun control does not stop criminals from arming themselves, but it does end up harming private citizens who have violated no one else's rights. Someone walking down the street with a weapon of personal defense is not harming anyone. If it is concealed, he is protected by more than one amendment, but if he is carrying illegally, and is assaulted and uses the weapon law deprived him of, he may be subject to imprisonment. This is what gun control accomplishes. The cartels in Mexico are empowered by Mexico's violation of human rights in disarming its citizens. Rapists are empowered by laws against concealed carry in the United States. Gun control does not empower citizens. It is ineffective in reducing crime. Of course, if we're going to pursue a truly effective campaign against crime, might we not use Singapore as a model? If we are going to be consequentialists about crime, that would be the country to emulate.
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 This is why I support research into directed-energy weapons.
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306852761' post='2248143'] This is why I support research into directed-energy weapons. [/quote] [size="7"]FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS[/size]
Don John of Austria Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1306815858' post='2248023'] so anyway....is Obama out to take our guns? [/quote] Yes.
Winchester Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306853422' post='2248151'] Yes. [/quote] So, the leader of a nation that codifies the slaughter of innocents is out to disarm us? Is codified murder of innocents rule of law?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now