Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you should give them up.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you should give them up. Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 1:42:00 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Your first mistake Mark would be in the search for "middle ground".This topic,along with abortion,does not seem to have a middle ground.To suggest searching for one you will come under attack from the "unfettered"crowd and the gun- control crowd....this subject is truly(along with abortion)the third rail of polite and reasoned discourse in American society.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 1:52:26 PM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

...well i could imagine an individual within government having such thoughts, but not a whole government. Whatever one thinks of governments in general, many of those people in them are at least trying to be good people.......even if they're wrong about the means.
But genocide? How does that solidify power for anyone? One thing about the Nazi holocaust is that it has alerted people to the possibility. That includes members of a nations armed forces and police. My brother is a copper (an armed one at that) and he's a twat too......but even he wont stand for government sponsered genocide. The idea that banning handguns is part of a long term, wide spread conspiracy to commit genocide seems to me to be paranoid scaremongering sophistry........

The Holocaust alerted people to the possibility, but did not stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, nor the genocides in Rwanda and the Darfur region of Sudan.

How does genocide solidify power? Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and others demonstrate the considerable power of demonizing a portion of the population as a precursor to establishing greater control over the remainder.

Would most in a government stand still for genocide? Yes, actually. With slow steps and the right preparation, people will accept a great deal of inhumanity to others.

Now, if the Australian government attempted to round up and cart off a sizable chunk of the population right today, yes, a great many would object. With enough malicious rhetoric targeting a specific group, and a proper building of a case "in the public's best interest", could such a round-up occur without generating much protest? History tends to suggest that, sadly, it can.


CL, et. alia, Naomi Wolf (or it Watts? I can't get her name committed to memory) wrote eloquently on the steps and processes needed to convert an open society into a closed society in her book "The End of America." She looked at those who were successful in doing such previously - Hitler, Stalin, etc. - and compiled a list of 10 things she believed to be crucial to doing such.

We have all of them in place already.

Has it been done by design and intention? I don't know and can't say. Regardless the potential is rather frightening.

One handed Uncle Nasty

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 1:54:13 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Meanwhile, plans are in place for 20,000 troops to be deployed inside the US to 'protect' us, in theory, against terrorist attacks and/or other domestic catastrophe; damn 'good intent'! Wonder how some future agenda based administration can do with those troops. Wonder how much easier it will be to accomplish that agenda on an unarmed citizenry?

Some time ago I read that the USA is renovating an enormous WWII concentration camp. They say it is meant to be some kind of monument. I am paranoid and I wonder why a government that is having a huge deficit, is spending tens of millions of dollars, or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, to make a dilapidated concentration camp fully functional again. (I am weird that way.)

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 1:55:34 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Is there never a middle ground on this issue?


The text of the 2nd Amendment does not allow for any middle ground.

"....shall not be infringed."

Even the freedom of speech is not so categorically defended in the Bill of Rights as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment, viewed from any era, is a categorical guarantee to the people of their right to arm themselves.

Where the language is categorical, compromise is not possible. Any restriction on gun ownership is a violation of the Constitution.

_____________________________



(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 2:02:36 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		So sayeth CL.....and yes CL,I know your merely quoting the 2nd ammendment,but I must ask one question.If it was so cut and dry....why do we need constitutrional lawyers and supreme court justices to decipher the meaning of and placement of a fucking comma?


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 2:18:28 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

.why do we need constitutrional lawyers and supreme court justices to decipher the meaning of and placement of a fucking comma?

Damn good question, actually. The entire subordinate clause at the head of the amendment is a parenthetical. No matter where the comma is placed, grammatically speaking it does not alter the thrust of the indepentent clause at the end of the amendment. As a parenthetical, it stands as explication of the independent clause, but it does not act as a modifier.

Question for you: If the entirety of the 2nd Amendment read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," would that alter your view of things?

_____________________________



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 2:28:59 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Well now you have removed the modifier "A well regulated Militia beingg necessary to the security of a free state"....That would seem to be convient and expediant considering your POV....but we can't do that can we.Lets turn this question on its head,lets remove "bear"....now you can keep them but not carry them.I fail to see the point in this exercise...other than for the 2 of us to suggest alterations in which we have no power to insist...neither of our POV's will change.You claim an Unfettered right...and I claim there is no such unfettered right.It's simple ....we disagree only on which of thee "simple" point of view is correct

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 2:48:37 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline 		Nice area. I used to live on the other side of the river and it is a very nice area. Almost a shame to call it Cobb County.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
Close-in East Cobb near the river is more accurate. I don't know anywhere in GA where people don't own weapons. AFAIK, no one in my circle owns them.


_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:02:58 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well now you have removed the modifier "A well regulated Militia beingg necessary to the security of a free state"....That would seem to be convient and expediant considering your POV....but we can't do that can we.Lets turn this question on its head,lets remove "bear"....now you can keep them but not carry them.I fail to see the point in this exercise...other than for the 2 of us to suggest alterations in which we have no power to insist...neither of our POV's will change.You claim an Unfettered right...and I claim there is no such unfettered right.It's simple ....we disagree only on which of thee "simple" point of view is correct

Mike, the point of the exercise is that the parenthetical IS NOT A MODIFIER. It does not stand as a modifier, and should not be regarded as a modifier.




_____________________________



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:04:35 PM   
Crush


Posts: 1031
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

We actually have no "God Given" Responsibilities except for those we accept through our own personal code.

We can be held responsible for our actions, via laws of society, but we don't have Responsibilities in the same sense as we have Rights.


.....so, by your logic, no-one is responsible for their own actions unless they choose to be?


Actually, the point is that we have inherent Rights, but not inherent Responsibilities.

However:
We can HOLD people accountable for their actions, as a society. 

Consider people who lie.  Why do they lie?  Often because they don't want to be "responsible" for the results that the truth may bring. 

edit:  changed responsible to accountable for clarity.


< Message edited by Crush -- 12/1/2008 3:32:27 PM >

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:13:19 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Well now CL we are back to interpretation are we not.And BTW the modifier I was referring to was not so much the comma as the well regulated militia part....surely that qualifies as a modifier.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Crush)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:17:34 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

We actually have no "God Given" Responsibilities except for those we accept through our own personal code.

We can be held responsible for our actions, via laws of society, but we don't have Responsibilities in the same sense as we have Rights.


.....so, by your logic, no-one is responsible for their own actions unless they choose to be?


Correct.  We can HOLD people responsible as a society. 

Consider people who lie.  Why do they lie?  Often because they don't want to be "responsible" for the results that the truth may bring.  




......however they are responsible for the effects of their lies, just as they are responsible for the effects of their truths.

Individuals are responsible for their actions, even if they believe they are not.......to argue otherwise is simply foolish and, quite frankly, irresponsible. Your argument suggests that some homophobic bastard with a gun bears no personal responsibility if they kill people who are gay......as long as they believe they are doing society a favour.
Your logic is also incomplete.....you argue for personal rights, yet not for personal responsibility......both come from the same place, so to advocate one while denying the other is just idiotic.

(in reply to Crush)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:18:53 PM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		People want to believe whatever they want and clearly the facts could matter less.  Considering how many state constitutions were written prior and short after the adoption of the 2nd that never bothered to even mention militia and only mentioned the fact that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but why bother with inconvenient things like that.

Nope, much better to cling desperately a revised meaning of what was meant by regulated, which of course at the time meant you could march and shoot straight....

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:21:28 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		From your mouth to gods ears...Don't be upset if I choose not to accept your POV either.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:24:12 PM   
Crush


Posts: 1031
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I still don`t see anyone addressing the other realities of ownership.

Family members,friends and associates getting shot or killed by accident or during fights/squabbles.

Firearms that are stolen and therefore in the hands of criminals.

And the NRA`s efforts to stop any reasonable regulation is extreme.Their positions to allow anyone,even nutters,wife beaters,drunks,etc. to get access to guns is extremist and beyond the pale.



The realities of gun ownership?  The realities are that you take care of them and use them properly, like any other tool.  And secure them, like any dangerous tool.  That is, if you accept responsibility for owning them. 

Otherwise, you aren't accepting responsibility for ownership, though you will be held accountable for the consequences of their use. 

And frankly if they die, they die.  I don't recall anyone ever being truthfully told that life is fair or safe.  Sad, but not unexpected.   Evolution in action. 

Darwin Awards recognize those that die more spectacularly.  News of the Weird gives many examples of people gone wrong.  People are murdered in a variety of strange ways by others.  

People get in squabbles all the time without someone dying.  Firearms are stolen, as are cars, money, jewelry, etc.  People are carjacked.  Home invasions happen.

Stuff happens. Always has; always will.  The best approach is to finish up the paperwork, flush and move on.






_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:31:39 PM   
Crush


Posts: 1031
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

We actually have no "God Given" Responsibilities except for those we accept through our own personal code.

We can be held responsible for our actions, via laws of society, but we don't have Responsibilities in the same sense as we have Rights.


.....so, by your logic, no-one is responsible for their own actions unless they choose to be?


Correct.  We can HOLD people responsible as a society. 

Consider people who lie.  Why do they lie?  Often because they don't want to be "responsible" for the results that the truth may bring.  




......however they are responsible for the effects of their lies, just as they are responsible for the effects of their truths.

Individuals are responsible for their actions, even if they believe they are not.......to argue otherwise is simply foolish and, quite frankly, irresponsible. Your argument suggests that some homophobic bastard with a gun bears no personal responsibility if they kill people who are gay......as long as they believe they are doing society a favour.
Your logic is also incomplete.....you argue for personal rights, yet not for personal responsibility......both come from the same place, so to advocate one while denying the other is just idiotic.


No, I stated that we have inherent Rights, but not inherent Responsibilities. 

I never said that people SHOULDN'T be responsible, I stated that we didn't have any "by default".

We as a society hold those people responsible/accountable,  but people don't inherently have those responsibilities.




_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:32:17 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Simply Michael there is something about that "cling desperately" line that is buzzing around my head.Seems I have heard it before....something about clinging to religion and guns....oh well it will come to me in due time(can swear I've heard this before...hmmm)

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Crush)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:41:13 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush


No, I stated that we have inherent Rights, but not inherent Responsibilities. 

I never said that people SHOULDN'T be responsible, I stated that we didn't have any "by default".

We as a society hold those people responsible/accountable,  but people don't inherently have those responsibilities.





.........utter gibberish. Whatever authority that grants rights, also gives responsibilities. If you believe otherwise how about laying out precisely why responsibilities don't come from the same place as rights?

(in reply to Crush)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:45:25 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

The realities of gun ownership?  The realities are that you take care of them and use them properly, like any other tool.  And secure them, like any dangerous tool.  That is, if you accept responsibility for owning them.   



And yet we have had numerous people saying on this very thread that this "tool" is of no use unless it is loaded and within easy reach.

Apparently to fend off the hordes of crackheads, rapists, and evildoers ready to kick in the front door of anyone they suspect is not heavily-armed.

(in reply to Crush)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you s... - 12/1/2008 3:57:15 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

surely that qualifies as a modifier.

No, it doesn't.

The most generous interpretation is that of a parallel construction to combine two sentences into one.

Sentence one--A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

Sentence two--The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Two subjects each independently using the verb "shall not". Under this construction, you have an unmodified sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "being" appears as a nonstandard (and somewhat superfluous) conjunction binding "necessary to the security of a free State" to "a well regulated militia."

This reading is very much in keeping with the aversion of the Founding Fathers to overbearing central government. "State" appears several times in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in all cases references the individual states, each as a distinct body politic. Thus, the Amendment would be seen to guarantee two rights, one of each state to regulate its own militias, one of the people to keep and bear arms. Both rights, in this reading, would receive categorical and unequivocal protection against the predations of the federal government.

However, the simplest explanation is simply grammatical error--two commas are superfluous, and should simply be deleted, leaving "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." As a parenthetical, the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" becomes then slightly more ambiguous, because "State" arguably could reference the federal government as well as the individual states, thus rendering murky whom had final disposition over militias and the regulation thereof. Yet even in that reading, we are still left with a categorical statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Even if we attempt to attach "being necessary to the security of a free State" to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", we still come back to the complete and categorical proscription "shall not be infringed."

What is not murky is any Constitutional reference to "the people". In all cases, "the people" stand apart from government, be it state or federal, and the rights of the people are respected ahead of the rights of either the individual states or of the national State--that being the government. "The people", in all cases, is you, and me, and every other inhabitant of this country.

We can (and perhaps should) debate at length what constitutes a well-regulated militia, but within the confines of the English language and the 2nd Amendment, that discussion does not alter the statement of the 2nd Amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

At the end, "shall not be infringed" is a complete and categorical prohibition of any manner or mode of restriction. Whether it applies to states and their militias or no, it undeniably applies to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

_____________________________



(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Gun Lovers ... Some Facts for those who think you should give them up. Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109