quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It might have direct backlash against any 2nd Amendment adherents that participate. Indirectly, it will likely be used against 2nd Amendment supporters if something bad happens, regardless of who starts it (but worse if LocknLoad starts it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Gun control restricts the liberty of citizens to freely own, carry and use guns in peaceful ways.

Traffic controls (speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, painted lines, auto registration, mandatory insurance, etc) restrict the liberty of citizens to freely own and use motor vehicles in peaceful ways. Why is the restricton on one liberty acceptable but not on the other? Or would you prefer no traffic laws?

they can freely use them, on private land, seriously, build a road and drive it however you want.... You don't own the road, therefore the road has rules you have to follow. That is a false comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Traffic controls (speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, painted lines, auto registration, mandatory insurance, etc) restrict the liberty of citizens to freely own and use motor vehicles in peaceful ways. Why is the restricton on one liberty acceptable but not on the other? Or would you prefer no traffic laws?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Gun control restricts the liberty of citizens to freely own, carry and use guns in peaceful ways.

Traffic controls (speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, painted lines, auto registration, mandatory insurance, etc) restrict the liberty of citizens to freely own and use motor vehicles in peaceful ways. Why is the restricton on one liberty acceptable but not on the other? Or would you prefer no traffic laws?

they can freely use them, on private land, seriously, build a road and drive it however you want.... You don't own the road, therefore the road has rules you have to follow. That is a false comparison.

No. It isn't. No one cares much about your use of a gun on your proerty as long as you don't harm anyone or make so much noise you affect your neighbors use of their property. It's when guns are brought into the commons that problems occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Traffic controls (speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, painted lines, auto registration, mandatory insurance, etc) restrict the liberty of citizens to freely own and use motor vehicles in peaceful ways. Why is the restricton on one liberty acceptable but not on the other? Or would you prefer no traffic laws?

C'mon. I never said it wasn't acceptable. I even said, in the next sentence, that I support moderate gun control.

Just because I think a modicum of control is acceptable doesn't change the fact that it's a restriction of liberty. That's the tradeoff we try to make in any society, and sometimes we run into situations where battle lines are drawn over what we can live with. I have mine, you have yours, they have theirs.

Where in that do you see any implication that I oppose modest controls?

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I do think you have to make a distinction between the government having the loaded arms, and the protestors.

Of course, but in this case, the breaking the right law requires carrying the loaded arms, as the law against them is the one being broken.

quote:

Gandhi's followers (and my grandfather was one of them) did NOT walk around carrying loaded weapons. So NO, the comparison doesn't really hold for me at all. The protestors in India were unarmed. It was known as the peaceful nonviolent movement. And it was the very fact that they were unarmed that made the statement so powerful - that was the point.

I think your perception is partly because you see an inherent threat in carrying a loaded firearm.

There was a peaceful, nonviolent velvet glove with a very real and credible alternative of violence inside it, at least in the minds of the British, and it was that perception of that potential for violence that told the British it was time to pack it up and leave, in effect. I like Ghandi and think very highly of him, so I'm inclined to credit him with being completely aware of this.

But, sure, tell me: if the British had tried to arrest Ghandi during the salt march, would the crowd have let him, and then gone peacefully back to their homes? If violence erupted, such as the British attacking Ghandi or trying to arrest him and escalating a confrontation with the crowd over that, do you think the crowd would've remained peaceful and nonviolent? Or do you think there would've been a raging, violent mob, tearing the British apart?

quote:

To me a protestor walking around with a loaded gun is sending a very different message to other people and their government that has nothing to do with peace or nonviolence.

Again, as I told vincentML, it's not in nonviolence I see a parallell, but rather in the choice being offered: we can have peace or violence.

quote:

We can argue about the merits of gun control and the Bill of Rights, but please do not compare these people to Gandhi's followers. My grandfather's soul is undoubtedly grieving over comments like that.

My apologies on that point, but given the diversity of human opinion and the fact that over 90% of humanity is dead, no doubt countless souls grieve every day over my various thoughts and opinions, to say nothing of the comparisons and other transposed patterns I perceive in the world around me, so I really cannot live my life based on never doing or thinking anything that might upset or offend the dead.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Gun control restricts the liberty of citizens to freely own, carry and use guns in peaceful ways.

Traffic controls (speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, painted lines, auto registration, mandatory insurance, etc) restrict the liberty of citizens to freely own and use motor vehicles in peaceful ways. Why is the restricton on one liberty acceptable but not on the other? Or would you prefer no traffic laws?

they can freely use them, on private land, seriously, build a road and drive it however you want.... You don't own the road, therefore the road has rules you have to follow. That is a false comparison.

No. It isn't. No one cares much about your use of a gun on your proerty as long as you don't harm anyone or make so much noise you affect your neighbors use of their property. It's when guns are brought into the commons that problems occur.

only if they are used. The use of firearms is already very restricted. I cannot discharge a firearm on my property legally, that is the way it is. Even if it is silenced and I harm no one or nothing (except those infernal bunnies eating my garden). You can possess a car without a license. you can haul it around on a trailer without plates or working tail lights. You just can't 'use' it. Same is true for guns already. You can possess in public if you follow certain rules, otherwise it is illegal. Finally, you still aren't allowed to just discharge it anywhere.

The gun control measures that have been discuss affect none of that, just ownership and possession.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

America is not a large land occupied by a small but oppressive foreign nation. I fail to see the equivalency. Now, if you want equivalency for peaceful protest have a look at the work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. His followers put their lives on the line in their civil disobedience without carrying loaded weapons. This proposed breed of "protest" is naught but frontier machismo run amok in the minds of fantasizing fools who are out to play war games of intimidation.

quote:

Yes, but you don't have one of those.

ETA: Consider this a gentle reminder that DC rules by consent of the people, and a notice that consent is iffy right now.

One man's opinion. You are entitled to it but it is faulty.

quote:

A restriction of liberty is always a real grievance, and indeed the highest grievance there is.

Exactly what liberty is being restricted?

Secondly, conflicting liberties are indeed restricting. That is why we have Laws and Courts to settle matters. Unrestricted liberty is anarchy.

Have a good day . . . .

Vincent

Thats right not a foreign nation but by small group of extremely wealthy elitist men acting mostly in concert, to pull all the strings.

The government has no obligation to protect you. The supreme court said so.

The question is what liberties are NOT being infringed upon?

When was there a vote by the commoners to waive grand jury indictment for ALL crimes accused?

When was there a vote by the commoners to waive a fully empowered jury, one that judges BOTH the law and finds the fact, for ALL trials?

When was there a vote by the commoners to waive the right to EXERCISE their religion?

When was there a vote by the commoners to waive the ability to opt out? (oh wait that vote was tallied by FORCE, AT THE END OF A BARREL OF A FEDERAL GUN in 1868.)

Show that the commoners actually voted on these state or federal constitutions in the first place! (good luck with that)

What gives the corporate citizen the right to FORCE the inhabitants in the area to do ANYTHING?

or maybe inhabitants are subhumans and have no rights?

need I quote marbury?

Not so. That vote was tallied in a peaceful four way presidential contest in 1860, the results of which were nullified by conventions in several states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It has as much to do with yours as any, none of those things were guarenteed you or that you could ever personally vote them.

There is no plebiscite, nor was a one ever even considered in the founding of this country, nor in its laws. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I was just trying to parse your concept of Liberty.

quote:

We agree that tradeoffs have to be made then.

quote:

No longer a frontier nation. So, modest trade offs may not be sufficient.

quote:

We disagree as to the type or equivalence of protest that can be tolerated without rising to the perception of treat which infringes on the Liberties of those that make up the larger community the protesters are trying to persuade.

quote:

Given the history of Civil War in this nation a band of armed men/women marching on the capitol poses imo an imminent threat of violence. This is where you and I disagree.

quote:

I doubt the English had in place a set of rules and procedures for peaceful assembly and protest.

quote:

The protesters' refusal to apply for a permit places any culpability for violence on them.

quote:

It may be as you suggest the police will allow the parade safe passage.

quote:

Even if it comes off without incident the optics of an armed march in our capitol city will be an infamous event imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Yes, there is an inherent threat to carrying a loaded firearm. That's why in the U.S. our policeman carry them. And it's also why in other countries they don't allow all policemen on the street to carry guns. I hope you never have the experience of being stopped by an NYPD cop on duty if they are suspicious of something. Try telling me that their having a loaded gun on their person does not make that a threatening exchange?

quote:

Gandhi was repeatedly arrested during the peaceful nonviolent movement.

quote:

And his followers did not erupt in violence because they all understood that arrest was part of the plan - it was their way of showing the unreasonableness of the government in those particular circumstances.

quote:

I find the notion that a loaded firearm is NOT an inherent threat to be odd.

quote:

Weaponry that is readily usable on another human being IS inherently threatening regardless of who is holding the weapon.

quote:

And at least the police have rules about when they are allowed to use their weapon.

quote:

So you would see no difference between me holding the weapon and a psychotic person or mass murderer holding the weapon?

quote:

Which is not to say I think this march will have too many solid people.

quote:

You seem to neglect that the more tradeoffs you do, the more toes you will step on, and the more people you will give just cause to strike back at you for stepping on their toes. This is part of the balancing act of such tradeoffs.

quote:

Then kill those people. That's a choice. Me, I'm not much for tolerating police killing people that haven't killed anyone, but your standard of justice and what it means to have civiliation may differ.

quote:

Whenever a policeman attacks a nonviolent protester, the culpability rests with that policeman and the government he serves.

quote:

Yes, it would stand as the pinnacle of civilized conduct in the history of the US government and of the US gun rights movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Perhaps. For sure if the psychotic person were wearing an identifying sign around his neck. They don't usually, however. What guarantee that there would not be any in the march? Unbelieveable.

quote:

Reason enough to stop it before it begins.