quote:

Originally posted by RJT Second, my idea of personal defense is making sure that no one can shoot me. ... Jefferson was referring to government taking away the right of individuals to purchase and own weapons without the consensus of the population - not a democratic decision to remove gun rights.

Exactly.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Tranceporter99 When you criticize someones post, for it to be legitimate, you have to include the entire post, not one part that can be taken out of context to suit your needs. Nice try Keith Olbermann.

Furthermore, for someone who is so concerned about including the whole of someone's argument, you sure do know how to cherry-pick Thomas Jefferson quotes.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RJT ...the democratic decision to remove gun rights.

This is a very strange way of putting the issue.

The idea of "democratically" removing rights is really a very frightening one.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is a very strange way of putting the issue. The idea of "democratically" removing rights is really a very frightening one.

But we do it all the time already - even if people don't phrase it that way.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is a very strange way of putting the issue. The idea of "democratically" removing rights is really a very frightening one.

You have to ask yourself if it should be a right in the first place.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RJT But we do it all the time already - even if people don't phrase it that way.

True enough.

I think the phrase "democratic removal of rights" might make an anarchist out of me if I thought about it enough.

LOL. Best not think about it I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles True enough. I think the phrase "democratic removal of rights" might make an anarchist out of me if I thought about it enough. LOL. Best not think about it I guess.

Meh - it's just life, and in my mind, part of the evolutionary process.

I don't really agree with a lot of Hobbes, but I do think that that bare-bones idea of social contracts really drive our lives, and when we engage in them (either explicitly or passively), we are removing "rights" from people - or at least demarcating the bounds of acceptable social practice in terms of "You certainly have the right to do X, but if you do, I (we) have the right to punish you."

The whole notion of people having "rights" in the first place is a bit of a misnomer in my mind anyway, because even in the U.S. or any other large first world democracy, people really don't have as many as they seem to think they do.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Simply put, your participation in this thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are of the same close-minded, paranoid, and completely clueless stock as the bulk of others still championing gun rights in this country without even thinking about how irrelevant something like the second amendment has become.

I mostly agree with you, I think it is highly unlikely that the US will be invaded by a foreign power where defense of the country falls on its armed citizens rather than the army. I also doubt highly that at any time in the near future will it be necessary for armed citizens to band together to overthrow a corrupt government in this country, we have elections for that. And no matter how much paranoia is spread, I think the odds of the government going door to door to confiscate guns are slim to none as well. I highly doubt that we will see armed citizens need to form up into well regulated militias any time soon.

However, I don't think I'd go as far as to say the Second Amendment is irrelevant. I prefer that the right to own a gun be specifically laid out in the way that it is so it cannot be easily taken away. People should have the choice as to whether or not they want to own a gun for personal protection.

Lets face it, local, state, and federal government have all shown us that they are not capable of providing security immediately following a large scale disaster like hurricane Katrina. And unfortunately there are those among us who would take advantage of those kinds of situations to commit crimes against people.

And even under normal circumstances, depending on where you live you might fair a lot better defending yourself from a home invasion/assault/burglary than you would if you decided to call the police and hide in the closet until they arrive.

Yes, of course there are risks associated with owning a gun. But then there are also risks associated with not wearing your seat belt or smoking cigarettes but people are still free to choose if they deem those risks to be acceptable to them or not. That is one of the things that makes this country great.

lol at the young hillary clinton.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Lets face it, local, state, and federal government have all shown us that they are not capable of providing security immediately following a large scale disaster like hurricane Katrina. And unfortunately there are those among us who would take advantage of those kinds of situations to commit crimes against people.

Ideally, no one would have a gun and we'd all be on the same playing field with baseball bats and knives. However, that's obviously not the way it would be. But if the government makes it a priority to crack down on illegal guns, we might see a day when cops are the only ones that have them.

Like I said, ideally.

___________________

Well this thread has taken a turn...

quote:

Originally posted by RJT For someone who's such a die-hard advocate of understanding "context", you really seem to fail to note the context in which Jefferson made the above statement. This isn't 1776, and we aren't trying to escape militant oppression. Second, my idea of personal defense is making sure that no one can shoot me. Moving on... Again with a Jefferson quote taken completely out of context and just assumed to still be relevant. Jefferson was referring to government taking away the right of individuals to purchase and own weapons without the consensus of the population - not a democratic decision to remove gun rights.

The point of including this in the Bill of Rights as one of the primary rights in the land was an understanding of history and knowing that societies occasionally had to defend themselves from threats abroad and from within their own government. Aren't we supposed to learn from history? Also, the Constitution wasn't written in 1776, it was in 1787, after the war. They didn't include it because the colonists were trying to escape militant oppression. They had already escaped and were attempting to prevent it occurring again in the United States. I really don't see how that motive has changed.

Also, you make it sound like it would take so much for society to change into a situation where gun rights might be needed. I hate to make the analogy, but the most recent one that I can think of is Germany. Just look how quickly Germany went from being a prosperous nation to being enveloped by the depression that led to the rise of the Nazi Party. One of the first thing that the Nazis did was disarm the population and only allow members of the Nazi party to own weapons. It was one of the main ways that they were able to expand their power so rapidly.

Nothing has changed history and as much as we like to think we're so progressive and reformed to the point that weapons would never be needed again, we're not.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie Ideally, no one would have a gun and we'd all be on the same playing field with baseball bats and knives. However, that's obviously not the way it would be. But if the government makes it a priority to crack down on illegal guns, we might see a day when cops are the only ones that have them. Like I said, ideally.

See above. If we lived in a utopia, no one would have guns, but allowing one faction, one where many members are already on a power trip, is a terrible idea.

Ideally, gun crimes should be punished more severely, acting as a deterrent. If you make the cost of committing a crime greater than the benefit, you'd wipe out a good deal of the problems.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Well this thread has taken a turn... The point of including this in the Bill of Rights as one of the primary rights in the land was an understanding of history and knowing that societies occasionally had to defend themselves from threats abroad and from within their own government. Aren't we supposed to learn from history?

Absolutely, but I fail to see exactly why allowing such widespread gun ownership is deterring either of those from occurring in a more efficient fashion than democratically decided legislature - there's a reason the U.S. is one of very few first world countries left with such liberal gun laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Also, the Constitution wasn't written in 1776, it was in 1787, after the war. They didn't include it because the colonists were trying to escape militant oppression. They had already escaped and were attempting to prevent it occurring again in the United States. I really don't see how that motive has changed.

That first bit seems like little more than nitpicking. And as far as the motives changing, well I guess I'd just relate that to context as well - I don't particularly see how the threat the initial colonists faced from the English is at all relevant today.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Also, you make it sound like it would take so much for society to change into a situation where gun rights might be needed. I hate to make the analogy, but the most recent one that I can think of is Germany. Just look how quickly Germany went from being a prosperous nation to being enveloped by the depression that led to the rise of the Nazi Party. One of the first thing that the Nazis did was disarm the population and only allow members of the Nazi party to own weapons. It was one of the main ways that they were able to expand their power so rapidly.

That's certainly an extreme analogy if ever there was one, but perhaps it's apt. I'd like to hear how you think something like that is brewing right now, however - WW2 and the rise of the Nazi party had a lot more going on in it than just the disarming of a population - there are an almost infinite number of variables that led to the situation you described, not the least of which was the fact that the rest of the world effectively shit on Germany following the first world war, leaving them with little option beyond a totalitarian dictatorship. I'm not saying it was right, I am however saying I understand where it came from - and that I don't really see even remotely similar circumstances existing today.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Nothing has changed history and as much as we like to think we're so progressive and reformed to the point that weapons would never be needed again, we're not.

Hold the phone, no one is saying that weapons will never be needed again. All anyone is saying is that it shouldn't be as easy as walking to the pawn shop down the street and purchasing a handgun with little or no background check - weapons are far too easy to procure in this country, which I actually think plays well with your last point.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Ideally, gun crimes should be punished more severely, acting as a deterrent. If you make the cost of committing a crime greater than the benefit, you'd wipe out a good deal of the problems.

You're probably right - but isn't harm reduction in general part of the motivation for repealing the second amendment? How many "accidental" incidents occur with guns every year could be prevented without them?

Sorry bro, but I really have to disagree with you on basically all counts here, though you and Xanax have clearly raised better arguments for gun rights than Tranceporter - they just still haven't convinced me.

___________________
last minute disco dot net