NationStates Jolt Archive

... which would it be? (Poll coming; this may take a while.)

Rightmost single hair I think.

Crud, I forgot to include the obligatory Myrth/Melkor/Fris option. In any case, let the polling begin!

In all honesty I'd drop weaponry. OK so I'm in the UK but it's still the right that matters least to me.

From the poll: The right to bear arms.
Otherwise: The right to determine what happens with my body after death.

I wouldn't give up any of my rights willingly. I'd rather fight to keep them all.

The right to worship. Since I don't do any.

None. I'd refuse to sacrifice any of my rights.

But of the ones listed, the most pointless one is the right to bear arms. The full text of the Second Amendment (gotta love the complete context) is, "A well-regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in that does it say anything about allowing people to keep military-styled weapons just for their own sake.

All of the other rights are absolutely essential. Give up freedom of expression and association and you give up freedom period.

Keep in mind that this discussion does not necessarily refer to the American Constitution and therefore "the right to bear arms" in the poll is just that and is not restricted by a militia-related clause.

Also keep in mind that the right to worship freely includes the right to choose not to worship. An atheist who gives up that right may find him or herself forced to attend the functions of and participate in a religion that they secretly do not believe in, on pain of death, as in Calvinist Geneva and the medieval Vatican.

as I don't have the right to bear arms I'm not going to miss it

None. I'd refuse to sacrifice any of my rights.

But of the ones listed, the most pointless one is the right to bear arms. The full text of the Second Amendment (gotta love the complete context) is, "A well-regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in that does it say anything about allowing people to keep military-styled weapons just for their own sake.

All of the other rights are absolutely essential. Give up freedom of expression and association and you give up freedom period.
Ah, got to love people who don't even have a basic grasp of english grammar. Note how the sentence is set up. The first half is dependent upon the second half. The second half can stand alone. The people who wrote that weren't fucking stupid. The first half gives one reason why the right exists, but it doesn't make the right dependent on the reason's existence. In all actuality the right should be called the right to self defense. However the drafters of the Bill of Rights probably assumed that to be common sense and not something that needed to be spelled out. The most effective way to defend yourself from most threats is with a gun, especially when that pattern is repeated by your neighbors.

I can say this much. For everyone who voted to lose the right to bear arms, be ready to lose the rest of them real quick. Also be ready when you all give up your guns, and the criminals don't! I really hate it when people bring up the second amendment on BOTH sides of the argument. The gun rights advocates bring it up because they believe it gives them the right to own 500 machine guns and the gun control advocates think it means that you can't own a pistol unless you are in a "well regulated"militia!
Nobody stops and thinks about the fact that this was written over 250 years ago! The language is very different today! I think if you study the founding fathers, read some quotes, and study context, you'll see that most of them came down somewhere in the middle!
1)Machine guns and missiles? NO
2)Take away our guns? NO
3)Pistol in the nightstand YES
4)Pistol in your car? YES
5)Pistol in school? NO

Quit making it a black and white issue! You ALL know who you are! The hippies and the hillbillies strike again, saying A is bad, B is bad, so lets scrap the alphabet!

I forgot to make this a public poll, so if you answer, please also leave a post saying how you voted (if not why).

most of those rights are non-negotiable even if i dont "use" them.

they are essential to a free society. speech, press, assembly, religion, property, privacy, due process, elections. gotta have them all

the right to bear arms is near and dear to my american heart. i dont use guns. im not interested in using guns, but my paranoid nature is not going to allow the government to have total control over us. guns are essential to maintaining freedom. gotta keep it

that leaves "the right to own the means of production" and "socialist rights"

in a choice between those 2, more people are helped with "socialist rights" (me included) than by the right to own the means of production.

so even though i would not want to give up any right, if i HAD to it would be "the right to private ownership of the means of production"

"The right to private ownership of means of production" without a doubt. Calling it a right is inaccurate, anyway. I'm probably always going to be a member of the working class (or the inaccurately dubbed middle class), so this "right" does me no good, anyway. It's really a privilege rather than a right.

I can't believe anyone would give up their right to healthcare and education! :eek:

Hmm the same people who don't care about education are the same ones who are defending guns so rabidly. Correlation? :p Kidding!

Interesting...

I think I would go with voting. I've always been enchanted with the idea of a benevolent dictator and I really would have no objection to not picking the guy as long as I kept every one of those things. And, really, the right to bear arms is a vote itself :p

It's distressing to see how many people would give up the right to own weapons. That is the one right which guarantees the others.

It's distressing to see how many people would give up the right to own weapons. That is the one right which guarantees the others.How's owning a gun get you an education?
On a side note, why did you choose privacy?

It's distressing to see how many people would give up the right to own weapons. That is the one right which guarantees the others.

Yep. :D

Anyway, I chose to give up the socialist “rights”, because, in my opinion, those aren’t rights in the first place.

"The right to private ownership of means of production" without a doubt. Calling it a right is inaccurate, anyway. I'm probably always going to be a member of the working class (or the inaccurately dubbed middle class), so this "right" does me no good, anyway. It's really a privilege rather than a right.
If you invent the means to produce a product, why shouldn't you own the means to produce said product? It's not a privilege, it's a right.

Being a pacifist, I'd have to say the right to bear arms. After all...who needs them when you have a black belt in martial arts? :D

It's distressing to see how many people would give up the right to own weapons. That is the one right which guarantees the others.

Because as everyone knows, much of Europe is controlled by totalitarian dictators.

The right to bear arms -- I don't have it anyway.

How's owning a gun get you an education?
On a side note, why did you choose privacy?
Civilian gun ownership insures that the government is comprised of the duly elected representatives of the people. Without that, the government can do as it damn well pleases, including denying things the people want ... like public eduction. Kapisch?

I choose privacy because it's an inferred "right," at least in the US. It's not in the Constitution anywhere. Plus, if the citizenry is armed, they can always insure that their elected representatives don't get carried away with government intrusiveness.

Being a pacifist, I'd have to say the right to bear arms. After all...who needs them when you have a black belt in martial arts? :D
That's rather like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Impressive, but fails to get the job done.

Civilian gun ownership insures that the government is comprised of the duly elected representatives of the people. Without that, the government can do as it damn well pleases, including denying things the people want ... like public eduction. Kapisch?

I choose privacy because it's an inferred "right," at least in the US. It's not in the Constitution anywhere. Plus, if the citizenry is armed, they can always insure that their elected representatives don't get carried away with government intrusiveness.


How so? Do you really believe that even a well armed citizen militia could over take the armed forces?

Because as everyone knows, much of Europe is controlled by totalitarian dictators.
Give it another 50 years.

How so? Do you really believe that even a well armed citizen militia could over take the armed forces?

No sane person does, but politicians aren’t willing to call in the armed forces to enforce some trivial intrusive law that they might have gotten way with otherwise.

Give it another 50 years.


Why 50 years? Why don't they just do it now?

Civilian gun ownership insures that the government is comprised of the duly elected representatives of the people. Without that, the government can do as it damn well pleases, including denying things the people want ... like public eduction. Kapisch?

Counter example:Why are places without guns(Australia, Finland, Sweden...) so well off on educational levels than the US? You don't need guns to get rights. Ask Ghandi.

Who cares if a nut in Montana has a four .50 caliber machine guns, an anti-aircraft gun, and a howitzer? He won't hurt anyone unless they go out of their way to bother him.

No sane person does, but politicians aren’t willing to call in the armed forces to enforce some trivial intrusive law that they might have gotten way with otherwise.


But they would for something like an armed uprising against said politicians.

Because as everyone knows, much of Europe is controlled by totalitarian dictators.
Very funny. Ha. Ha. :rolleyes:

I'm sure you're going to make much of this that was not intended, but I'm going to say it anyway: the US is not a European country. European countries are far more homogenous* than the US and thus have much greater consensus without resort to more serious means of enforcement. The US is comprised mostly of people other countries didn't want, remember? :p

*In European nations, such as the Netherlands, where immigration has been increasing, an increase in violence, including terrorism, has been noted.

It's distressing to see how many people would give up the right to own weapons. That is the one right which guarantees the others.

I don't have the right to bear firearms. (I live in Germany)
Does this mean, I lost all the other constitutional rights some time ago?
(Oh, no, I forgot, it's the brave US army who grants me these rights, even in defense against the bureaucracy of the German government)

I might arguably not fully enjoy the other constitutional rights listed in the poll.
(I can give lots of examples where my rights are... uh, besieged.)
Is this fact a consequence of me not carrying an assault rifle?
If you are restricted in your right to e.g. speak your opinion freely, do you shoot the offender with your watchacallit? - M 14? And believe, you get away with it?
The US is a much weirder place than I thought it was. ;)

Who cares if a nut in Montana has a four .50 caliber machine guns, an anti-aircraft gun, and a howitzer? He won't hurt anyone unless they go out of their way to bother him.


Who cares if some nut is building bombs in his shack in the middle of nowhere he aint gunna bother nobody unless he plans on blowing up a federal building and killing hundreds of people.

Who cares if a nut in Montana has a four .50 caliber machine guns, an anti-aircraft gun, and a howitzer? He won't hurt anyone unless they go out of their way to bother him.
Those weapons are illegal, except for the .50 caliber machinegun, for which it is possible to get a license, although it's very difficult to do so.

How so? Do you really believe that even a well armed citizen militia could over take the armed forces?

Yes. There are 67,742,879 men eligible for military service in the United States, and if they were to be all armed, they could take on the military quite easily. That's only the men ages 18-49, not even including women and those younger than 18 or older than 49. If the military tried anything it would be crushed.

Yes. There are 67,742,879 men eligible for military service in the United States, and if they were to be all armed, they could take on the military quite easily. That's only the men ages 18-49, not even including women and those younger than 18 or older than 49. If the military tried anything it would be crushed.


BS - for one that aint gunna happen because it just couldnt be coordinated without the military detecting it and disrupting it. Also, the aremd forces could merely put on their bio suits (or go into underground bases) and kill all resistance with chemicals and biotoxins and whatnot.

But they would for something like an armed uprising against said politicians.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's highly unlikely, IMHO, that American military personnel would obey an order to fire on American civilians who were trying to enforce the Constitution. It is, after all, an unlawful order, and military personnel who obey unlawful orders are subject to Courts Martial.

BS - for one that aint gunna happen because it just couldnt be coordinated without the military detecting it and disrupting it. Also, the aremd forces could merely put on their bio suits (or go into underground bases) and kill all resistance with chemicals and biotoxins and whatnot.
"We saved the Nation by killing all its people."

Say what? :rolleyes:

Maybe. Maybe not. It's highly unlikely, IMHO, that American military personnel would obey an order to fire on American civilians who were trying to enforce the Constitution. It is, after all, an unlawful order, and military personnel who obey unlawful orders are subject to Courts Martial.


Why should they fear reprisal from the same people that gave them the orders.

Edit: Yeah hey lets court marshall an entire army. We aren't gunna need them for anything.

Originally posted by Etrusca
Those weapons are illegal, except for the .50 caliber machinegun, for which it is possible to get a license, although it's very difficult to do so.

What I mean is that there's no point taking weapons like that away from people if they're just going to sit in a concrete bunker and look at conspiracy theory web sites.

"We saved the Nation by killing all its people."

Say what? :rolleyes:

NO, no, you are right. They would rather be killed than defend themselves. Thats how the military and govt. works.;)

I choose privacy because it's an inferred "right," at least in the US. It's not in the Constitution anywhere. Plus, if the citizenry is armed, they can always insure that their elected representatives don't get carried away with government intrusiveness.
i know why you value gun rights. but why do you value privacy lower than the rest of the list. i would give up freedom of religion before freedom of privacy.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's highly unlikely, IMHO, that American military personnel would obey an order to fire on American civilians who were trying to enforce the Constitution. It is, after all, an unlawful order, and military personnel who obey unlawful orders are subject to Courts Martial.
How likely would they be to let someone that they politically disagree with enforce the constituition? Soldiers are only human too (you of all people should know :p), and not all of them can be expected to believe in the constitution as much as you do.

i know why you value gun rights. but why do you value privacy lower than the rest of the list. i would give up freedom of religion before freedom of privacy.

Even to a fundamentalist extremist church?

The right to worship. Since I don't do any.

But then doesn't that mean that you could be forced to? I was going to choose this one too, because atheist, but I realised that you could be forced to follow whatever religious beliefs your government did.

The weapons one is the easy one. :rolleyes: I will not cry when my right to carry a weapon is taken away from me. :p

But then doesn't that mean that you could be forced to? I was going to choose this one too, because atheist, but I realised that you could be forced to follow whatever religious beliefs your government did.

The weapons one is the easy one. :rolleyes: I will not cry when my right to carry a weapon is taken away from me. :p


Oh thats a really good point!

Counter example:Why are places without guns(Australia, Finland, Sweden...) so well off on educational levels than the US? You don't need guns to get rights. Ask Ghandi.
Australia, Finland and Sweden, as I indicated in an earlier post, are homogenous. The US is not.

"A little revolution now and then, is a good thing." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Crud, I forgot to include the obligatory Myrth/Melkor/Fris option. In any case, let the polling begin!WHAT? Cog isn't an obligatory option? *my world implodes*


:rolleyes:

Australia, Finland and Sweden, as I indicated in an earlier post, are homogenous. The US is not.

"A little revolution now and then, is a good thing." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
You also said that America was built on the people everyone else didn't want. Considering that after they lost Georgia, the British used Australia as a penal colony, wouldn't that mean that Australia was also built on people everyone else didn't want?

WHAT? Cog isn't an obligatory option? *my world implodes*I knew I was leaving one of them out ... :rolleyes:

How likely would they be to let someone that they politically disagree with enforce the constituition? Soldiers are only human too (you of all people should know :p), and not all of them can be expected to believe in the constitution as much as you do.
They take an oath upon enlistment:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

True, not all will remember their oath, and not all will follow their oath, but most take it very seriously and would, IMHO, have a real problem with firing on American civilians, armed or not.

Right to bear arms.

I don't have a right to bear arms (and I don't need one), so by giving it up I don't lose anything.

You also said that America was built on the people everyone else didn't want. Considering that after they lost Georgia, the British used Australia as a penal colony, wouldn't that mean that Australia was also built on people everyone else didn't want?
You're speaking only of the British and only of those placed in penal colonies. After 1776, the US began accepting immigrants from virtually every country in the world. [ yes, I know ... not immediately after, but over time ]

Unless I miss my guess, Australia is still rather homogenous.

They take an oath upon enlistment:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

True, not all will remember their oath, and not all will follow their oath, but most take it very seriously and would, IMHO, have a real problem with firing on American civilians, armed or not.
How would you differentiate between someone enforcing the constitution and a domestic threat, though? Where would you draw the line?

That's rather like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Impressive, but fails to get the job done.That's exactly why. :rolleyes: It will scare off a mugger, but not necessarily hurt him/her.

That's exactly why. :rolleyes: It will scare off a mugger, but not necessarily hurt him/her.

Tell me, have you ever seen Indianan Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc, the first one?

The right to worship. Since I don't do any.Giving up your right to worship freely would create a situation where a God or creed could be imposed upon you wether you liked it or not, and you would have no say in the matter whatsoever.

Why should they fear reprisal from the same people that gave them the orders.

Edit: Yeah hey lets court marshall an entire army. We aren't gunna need them for anything.
You suffer from a lack of understanding, being charitable.

Officers take the same oath. ALL members of the US military take the same oath. Assuming the entire US Army would kill civilians is specious.

How would you differentiate between someone enforcing the constitution and a domestic threat, though? Where would you draw the line?
Fortunately, I wouldn't be the one to draw the line, except for myself, and perhaps for my family. That sort of decision would have to be made by each individual American citizen, and by each individual American military person.

You suffer from a lack of understanding, being charitable.

Officers take the same oath. ALL members of the US military take the same oath. Assuming the entire US Army would kill civilians is specious.
People probably said the same about the Wehrmacht in the early 30s.

If you get enough crazy folk involved they would do anything, its the same for any army in any country.

That's exactly why. :rolleyes: It will scare off a mugger, but not necessarily hurt him/her.
And make it more likely that he would shoot yer ass if he had a gun.

People probably said the same about the Wehrmacht in the early 30s.

If you get enough crazy folk involved they would do anything, its the same for any army in any country.
America isn't 1930's Germany, and there is no Hitler on the horizon, nor would many people support anyone like Hitler. Jeeze! Give us some credit! :(

Even to a fundamentalist extremist church?
yes

keep in mind that freedom of religion was NOT my choice of rights to dump. it is an extremely important right. i just feel that the right to privacy, if i had to choose between the 2, is more important to me. after all if i have the right to privacy i can do as i please in my own home, including private worship of whatever sort appeals to me.

America isn't 1930's Germany, and there is no Hitler on the horizon, nor would many people support anyone like Hitler. Jeeze! Give us some credit! :(
No, that's not what I meant. I'm just saying that anythings possible, and that just because America (I'm just using that as an example, you could replace it with any 'western' country) isn't like that not doesn't mean that it might not be at some point in the future...and the right for the citizens to bear arms would because pretty useless against a well trained, equipped and regulated army who is willing to use force against its people.

Unless I miss my guess, Australia is still rather homogenous. You miss your guess.

You suffer from a lack of understanding, being charitable.

I guess - hmmm I thought we were having a decent debate and then you pull the same old crap you always do. Oh well. It was nice talking to you.

America isn't 1930's Germany, and there is no Hitler on the horizon, nor would many people support anyone like Hitler. Jeeze! Give us some credit! :(
50% of Americans already disagree with this.

Being a pacifist, I'd have to say the right to bear arms. After all...who needs them when you have a black belt in martial arts? :D
That black belt let ya strike 200 yards away,huh?

No, that's not what I meant. I'm just saying that anythings possible, and that just because America (I'm just using that as an example, you could replace it with any 'western' country) isn't like that not doesn't mean that it might not be at some point in the future...and the right for the citizens to bear arms would because pretty useless against a well trained, equipped and regulated army who is willing to use force against its people.

Thank you! That is all I am trying to get across.

50% of Americans already disagree with this.

Then how come the other 50% are able to say things like that without being shot on the spot?

The 'right' to healthcare, and transportation. Education is a more debatable one but the way most public education systems are right now, I doubt we'd lose anything privatising it. Anyways, those aren't rights, those are products and services one should purchase.

I hope everyone who voted 'right to bear arms' understands the impliactions of their choice.

Tell me, have you ever seen Indianan Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc, the first one?No. :)

And make it more likely that he would shoot yer ass if he had a gun.Why? In martial arts you're not supposed to turn your backside to the opponent. :p ((I love making fun of this kind of slang.))

Seriously, it's just a self-defense thing. In real life I suppose the best defense would be running away, or tripping him so he can't shoot, then running away. (And picking up the gun in the process, lol.) And anyway, even if I don't have the right to bear arms, I could do it anyway. Like, people don't have the right to get abortions in the Constitution, and what are they doing over at the hospitals, may I ask?

That black belt let ya strike 200 yards away,huh?You'd be surprised how far a short-bladed knife can go. :)

Seriously, it's just a self-defense thing. In real life I suppose the best defense would be running away, or tripping him so he can't shoot, then running away. (And picking up the gun in the process, lol.) And anyway, even if I don't have the right to bear arms, I could do it anyway. Like, people don't have the right to get abortions in the Constitution, and what are they doing over at the hospitals, may I ask?

Uhuh. I'm quite sure it's a simple matter to outrun a bullet.

Fact: Non-resistance causes more injuries than resistance with a firearm. The most assured way to escape injury is self-defense with a gun.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm just saying that anythings possible, and that just because America (I'm just using that as an example, you could replace it with any 'western' country) isn't like that not doesn't mean that it might not be at some point in the future...and the right for the citizens to bear arms would because pretty useless against a well trained, equipped and regulated army who is willing to use force against its people.
Better to die on your feet than serve on your knees.

You miss your guess.
Ok. Got some stats on racial composition for Australia, or better yet, on country of origin?

I guess - hmmm I thought we were having a decent debate and then you pull the same old crap you always do. Oh well. It was nice talking to you.
Whatever.

You really do lack understanding about the US military. Sorry if you think that's somehow "pulling crap."

Better to die on your feet than serve on your knees.
Well done on refuting my point that the right to bear arms, ultimately, means jack shit.

Well done on refuting my point that the right to bear arms, ultimately, means jack shit.
You hypothosized that America could develop a Nazi-like military. My statement merely indicated, that should such an unlikely event happen, I would rather die fighting it than simply kowtow to some putative "Hitler." ( shrug )

Well done on refuting my point that the right to bear arms, ultimately, means jack shit.

Then why's it such a big deal to so many people?

I knew I was leaving one of them out ... :rolleyes:You left out my favorite mod. I'll never forgive you! :(

none of the above, too many of my ancestors fought died and killed people to have these rights! I will fight, kill, and if necessary die in defense of those same rights, because all of them are important.

Uhuh. I'm quite sure it's a simple matter to outrun a bullet.

Fact: Non-resistance causes more injuries than resistance with a firearm. The most assured way to escape injury is self-defense with a gun.Yeah. And shooting people in self-defense isn't a crime.

Besides, pepper spray or something of the sort will distract them long enough anyway.

You hypothosized that America could develop a Nazi-like military. My statement merely indicated, that should such an unlikely event happen, I would rather die fighting it than simply kowtow to some putative "Hitler." ( shrug )
No, I hypothesized that any country could develop a Nazi-like military, and used the US as an example, because most European countries don't have a right to bear arms so it would have been useless using one of them.

Ok. Got some stats on racial composition for Australia, or better yet, on country of origin? Here's a link that shows the ethnic diversity of Australia in 1999. The largest single group is that of people with anglo-celtic origin. They make up 69.88% of our population.

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf

Interestingly, if one takes a look at the U.S.A.'s ethnic diversity in 1999, the levels are actually remarkably similar. With those of "white" origin standing at roughly 67-72%.

http://cirtl.wceruw.org/DiversityInstitute/resources/workshops/retreat_notes_files/textmostly/slide3.html

The 'right' to healthcare, and transportation. Education (...) Anyways, those aren't rights, those are products and services one should purchase.Americans... :rolleyes:

Whatever.

You really do lack understanding about the US military. Sorry if you think that's somehow "pulling crap."

Perhaps he does, but you act like an expert, which you're not. You also are under the false assumption that because you were in the military it means this also gives you some advantage in understanding politics, it doesn't. The military is not really per se a prerequisite for anything but violence.

I might as well give up the right to freely worship seeing as how capital hill is trying to shove their beliefs down our throats based on religious principals.

-Gay Marriage (Marriage is sacred? lmfao!)
-Abortion (Although they're the first to execute a prisoner :p)

Keeping church and state seperate is a principal I'm willing to fight for.

... which would it be? (Poll coming; this may take a while.)

"Socialist Rights" do not in fact exist. Since that is the case, i'd happily give that up, but I'd also give up the right to elect leaders since I think democracy is inefficent and slow.

Perhaps he does, but you act like an expert, which you're not. You also are under the false assumption that because you were in the military it means this also gives you some advantage in understanding politics, it doesn't. The military is not really per se a prerequisite for anything but violence.

What's wrong with that? Sometimes, violence is necessary to defend our nation and our rights. If we didn't have a military, we would have long since been conquered. No nation has been successful or safe without a well trained, professional military to defend it from those who want to take their territory .from them.

No nation has been successful or safe without a well trained, professional military to defend it from those who want to take their territory .from them.

Yeah, like Iraq.

*cough*

Perhaps he does, but you act like an expert, which you're not. You also are under the false assumption that because you were in the military it means this also gives you some advantage in understanding politics, it doesn't. The military is not really per se a prerequisite for anything but violence.
What's up, Stephie? Your surrogate couldn't handle the job, so now you jump in to help him ( her ) out? ROFLMAO!

I refuse to be baited. Sorry about that! :D

What's wrong with that? Sometimes, violence is necessary to defend our nation and our rights. If we didn't have a military, we would have long since been conquered. No nation has been successful or safe without a well trained, professional military to defend it from those who want to take their territory .from them.

No, no, don't get me wrong, the military is of vital importance to most countries. Lets face it, the world still is run on fear and war and money and all the stuff it shouldn't. But it does. Of course it's a valuable asset. However, serving in the military doesn't make you an expert on the military was my point. And it certainly doesn't help you in any way understand politics.

Soldiers do what they're told. They don't need to understand anything, just follow orders and yes, there are times in this world that is needed. But it's not exactly the same as making one of the "Joint Chief's of Staff" LOL. ;)

Perhaps he does, but you act like an expert, which you're not. You also are under the false assumption that because you were in the military it means this also gives you some advantage in understanding politics, it doesn't. The military is not really per se a prerequisite for anything but violence.


Of course I lack understanding about the military. But does that mean I have no understanding what-so-ever about the military? Who is all-knowing about anything? It's the way Eut always has to put people down when he doesn't agree with them that makes him not worth debating with. He does it time and time again and though I don't wish a permaBAN for him I think that's where it will eventually lead.

Of course Eutrusca knows everything about human psychology, the military and politics and can predict what anyone will do in any situation. If he doesn't think something will happen, then there is no chance that it will.

There is no use having an opinion that contradicts him.

What's up, Stephie? Your surrogate couldn't handle the job, so now you jump in to help him ( her ) out? ROFLMAO!

I refuse to be baited. Sorry about that! :D

Wow, a little ego going on?

I think you just put way too much stock into what I just said..

All I was trying to say was that you are fast to tell people they don't know what they're talking about, when how often I see it is you who seems a little lost in the shuffle. So, if you think the person is wrong, explain why, don't insult them. I was only making or trying to make a point.

What's wrong with that? Sometimes, violence is necessary to defend our nation and our rights. If we didn't have a military, we would have long since been conquered. No nation has been successful or safe without a well trained, professional military to defend it from those who want to take their territory .from them.Yeah...The USSR in WWII, Vietnam in Vietnam, Iraq in Gulf War II, all had no militaries... :rolleyes:

Yeah...The USSR in WWII, Vietnam in Vietnam, Iraq in Gulf War II, all had no militaries... :rolleyes:

What do you mean? I said that no nation has been safe without a military to defend it.

What's wrong with that? Sometimes, violence is necessary to defend our nation and our rights. If we didn't have a military, we would have long since been conquered. No nation has been successful or safe without a well trained, professional military to defend it from those who want to take their territory .from them.

Not true! Costa Rica has no military and they have yet to be attacked since. Especially remarkable considering their volitile neighborhood.

That said, a military definitely acts as a deterrent to aggression from others as well as a means to defend your own interests. The reason nobody invades Costa Rica is because they don't want to/ don't want someone else (the US) to retaliate.

Not true! Costa Rica has no military and they have yet to be attacked since. Especially remarkable considering their volitile neighborhood.That said, a military definitely acts as a deterrent to aggression from others as well as a means to defend your own interests. The reason nobody invades Costa Rica is because they don't want to/ don't want someone else (the US) to retaliate.

Correct; more accurately I should have said "no nation has been safe or successful without a military or a larger nation defending them".

"Socialist Rights" do not in fact exist. Since that is the case, i'd happily give that up, but I'd also give up the right to elect leaders since I think democracy is inefficent and slow.

I think we're supposed to pretend that we have them. In that case, I would give them up as well.

What do you mean? I said that no nation has been safe without a military to defend it.LMAO! I'm being sarcastic.

So you're saying...Russia didn't have a 6 million man army during World War II, and/or the battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc. never happened?

Likewise, Costa Rica's never been attacked because it has the strongest military in the world? :rolleyes:

It is impossible to give up any of these rights without giving up all of them.

1) The right to worship freely.
As Canada6 said:

Giving up your right to worship freely would create a situation where a God or creed could be imposed upon you wether you liked it or not, and you would have no say in the matter whatsoever.

If we gave up our right to worship freely our government could become religious. If that happened the powerful people in that religion would gain a very large amount of power in our government. The religious leaders could then tell everyone how to interpret the teaching of the religion. They could say that the religion is against violence, so guns would be outlawed. They could say that the CEO's of large companies are uncharitable, which would slowly erode the right to private ownership of the means of production of profit (as a result we would turn into a communist nation, and no one wants that). You guys can probably see where I’m going with this, and see how we would lose all of our rights if we gave up the right to worship freely.


2)The right to private ownership of the means of production of profit.

If we gave up this right we would also lose our economy. Without our economy we would be nothing. We would have no money to spend on defense, and another country could easily come in and take over. This new country could very easily take away all our rights.


3)The right to private ownership of non-profitable property (a toothbrush)

Well, this right is just useless, there is no such thing as non profitable property. The toothbrush you mentioned is profitable, you own a toothbrush, you brush you teeth, you don't get cavities, you get a smaller bill from the dentist. the toothbrush has many other ways of bringing you profit though, you brush your teeth before you go out one night, you meet a girl, she isn't offended by your breath, you take her home with you and gain a very large profit (not necessarily sex guys, keep your minds out of the gutters). There really isn't such a thing as non-profitable property, and so there is no reason for this right (I’m not even sure it's in the bill of rights).


4) "Socialist" rights, like the right to healthcare/education/transport

Actually, you probably should have said the right to public healthcar/education/transprot. But anyway, if we lost this right, the wealthy would be the only healthy/educated/mobile people in our country. Because they would be healthier/more-educated/more-mobile than everyone else they would also have a greater chance of gaining power in the government by giving money to people they wanted to elect (they would use the money to trick the sickly/stupid/stationary commoners with snazzy campaign ads)(also it would be harder for the commoners to get to the place where they vote without public transportation). The rich people could then take control of the government and outlaw all of our rights, much like the religious leaders.


5) The right to freedom of speech and the press

If we gave up this right whoever was in power could force the press to put out whatever propaganda they wanted. Also the person in power could stop anyone from saying anything against him/her. Also, the right to free speech and press is basically the right to voice your opinion, which is what elections are. So the current leader could stay in power indefinitely (or until the people revolt or he/she dies) by forcing everyone to vote for him/her. And they could therefore outlaw all our rights.


6) The right to privacy

Without the right to privacy the government could eavesdrop on conversations people are having, or spy on people. This could be good, because they could catch criminals easier. However, they could also spy on anyone who apposed the current leader. They could blackmail people with the information they gain from spying. They could blackmail their political opponents and get people to vote for them until they had complete power an then they could outlaw our rights.


7) The right to bear arms

This is probably the worst right to give up. If we aren’t allowed to own firearms legally then we won’t be able to protect ourselves from the criminals who will still own guns. But I’m not as concerned with fighting the criminals as I am with fighting the government. If we aren’t allowed to own guns that doesn’t mean the police won’t also lose their guns. The government would be able to control us very easily because they wouldn’t have guns to protect themselves with. The current leader could force the citizens to vote for him/her and his/her supporters.


8) The right to due process

Without this right the leader could accuse any one who apposed him/her of committing a crime and keep them in jail indefinitely. Then he/she could force everyone to vote for him/her.


9) The right to elect your leaders

Well, this one’s rather obvious, if you can’t elect your leaders then whoever is in power will stay in power and they will gain more power and outlaw all of our rights.



You see, our founding father were some smart guys, they thought all of this through and figured out which rights were needed to keep a stable democracy and they put them into the bill of rights.

LMAO! I'm being sarcastic.

So you're saying...Russia didn't have a 6 million man army during World War II, and/or the battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc. never happened?

Likewise, Costa Rica's never been attacked because it has the strongest military in the world? :rolleyes:

Sorry. :p (another mistake on my part)

They never happened in Josef Goebbel's mindset...those were victories for him. :rolleyes:

Costa Rica does have the strongest military in the world...the United States' Army. :D

Sorry. :p (another mistake on my part)

They never happened in Josef Goebbel's mindset...those were victories for him. :rolleyes:

Costa Rica does have the strongest military in the world...the United States' Army. :DLMAO! Anything but... the strongest military in the world is currently North Korea's, with SK a little behind, then Japan... the US has a standing army of about 576,000 compared to NK's 3 million. I mean, that is ridiculous! :p

4) "Socialist" rights, like the right to healthcare/education/transport

Actually, you probably should have said the right to public healthcar/education/transprot. But anyway, if we lost this right, the wealthy would be the only healthy/educated/mobile people in our country. Because they would be healthier/more-educated/more-mobile than everyone else they would also have a greater chance of gaining power in the government by giving money to people they wanted to elect (they would use the money to trick the sickly/stupid/stationary commoners with snazzy campaign ads)(also it would be harder for the commoners to get to the place where they vote without public transportation). The rich people could then take control of the government and outlaw all of our rights, much like the religious leaders.

Why would "the rich" (which is the majority of the country since it obivously has to include the middle classes, who can and would pay for education because they know it's one of the most important things to have to get a good paying job) outlaw their own rights, anyway?

The right to bear arms obviously. Its a stupid right as well, I'm glad it isnt really the case in Britain.

The right to bear arms, obviously.

Here, that's not a right, it's a privilege, and one the vast majority of people happily can do without.

LMAO! Anything but... the strongest military in the world is currently North Korea's, with SK a little behind, then Japan... the US has a standing army of about 576,000 compared to NK's 3 million. I mean, that is ridiculous!

well, we might have fewer people enlisted, but strength doesn't always mean the most manpower. the US is by far superior to NK militarily. we might not have as many people in our military, but we are more technologically advanced. and i think china probably has the largest military.

I'd love a sidebar to see how many of the folks that voted for this already LACK that right. It's easy to give up something you don't have. :rolleyes:

I'd love a sidebar to see how many of the folks that voted for this already LACK that right. It's easy to give up something you don't have. :rolleyes:

Well as I said I dont want the right. Ever considered why Britain has less gun crime than America? :rolleyes:

Well as I said I dont want the right. Ever considered why Britain has less gun crime than America? :rolleyes:

Same here... speaking for Ireland and Germany.

Well as I said I dont want the right. Ever considered why Britain has less gun crime than America? :rolleyes:

Because you're an island the size of Oregon and can more easily control your borders? :p

Same here... speaking for Ireland and Germany.

Okay... I waive my right to Socalized Medicine. Oh, wait! America doesn't HAVE that as a right. See how easy that was?

THAT was my point. Not who's better off.

Because you're an island the size of Oregon and can more easily control your borders? :p

Yes, that and the fact we dont need to carry guns for the fear of others doing so. If no one has guns no one gets shot, plain and simple. You will probably be thinking in your American Constitution is great mind that that way those who do have guns have great power, but it hasnt worked that way now has it.

Okay... I waive my right to Socalized Medicine. Oh, wait! America doesn't HAVE that as a right. See how easy that was?

THAT was my point. Not who's better off.

So you're saying you don't want socialiced medicine. Just like I'm saying I don't want guns.

well, we might have fewer people enlisted, but strength doesn't always mean the most manpower. the US is by far superior to NK militarily. we might not have as many people in our military, but we are more technologically advanced. and i think china probably has the largest military.Whatever....

Doesn't the right to worship fall under other rights?

LMAO! Anything but... the strongest military in the world is currently North Korea's, with SK a little behind, then Japan... the US has a standing army of about 576,000 compared to NK's 3 million. I mean, that is ridiculous! :p

Strongest in numbers, but not in quality. If there is a war, we'll pummel them from the skies and sea, and roll over them with mechanized infantry and tanks. They have numbers, but not the technology.

It is funny that the US army is smaller, however. :D

Yes, that and the fact we dont need to carry guns for the fear of others doing so. If no one has guns no one gets shot, plain and simple. You will probably be thinking in your American Constitution is great mind that that way those who do have guns have great power, but it hasnt worked that way now has it.

Yeah. Whatever. :rolleyes:
A man shot dead by police in Northumberland had a homemade gun, an initial investigation has revealed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/4698009.stm

They cost £20 at a High Street toy shop. So why are the police taking action against BB guns?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4694601.stm

The Ulster Volunteer Force paramilitary grouping has been linked by loyalist sources to an attack in east Belfast.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4695469.stm

Holy run-on sentances, Batman!
Actually, yes, it has. We STILL don't have a King. :D

So you're saying you don't want socialiced medicine. Just like I'm saying I don't want guns.

Right, but more to the point, it's less impressive that we each don't want what we don't already have. ;)

Yeah. Whatever. :rolleyes:
A man shot dead by police in Northumberland had a homemade gun, an initial investigation has revealed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/4698009.stm

They cost £20 at a High Street toy shop. So why are the police taking action against BB guns?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4694601.stm

The Ulster Volunteer Force paramilitary grouping has been linked by loyalist sources to an attack in east Belfast.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4695469.stm

Holy run-on sentances, Batman!
Actually, yes, it has. We STILL don't have a King. :D

Two words - Columbine Massacre.

Hardly think a few isolated incidents compare to American gun crime.

Right, but more to the point, it's less impressive that we each don't want what we don't already have. ;)

I guess if I wanted that right, I would simply go to a place where I would have that right...
But me, I went from a place where police carry guns to one where they don't, and I feel happier and safer about it. :D

True, I'm not really "giving up" anything, rather not pursueing that particular right.

Doesn't the right to worship fall under other rights?

I should hope not. The right to freely worship also means that people who don’t want to worship anything can do just that. If you get rid of that right, the government can force you to adhere to whatever religious belief they want.

Plotting a revolution in seceret to over-throw the would be dictator who is really just looking for a starting point of least resistance so that he may steal all of our rights one by one.

Yes, that and the fact we dont need to carry guns for the fear of others doing so. If no one has guns no one gets shot, plain and simple. You will probably be thinking in your American Constitution is great mind that that way those who do have guns have great power, but it hasnt worked that way now has it.

Well let us consider something. Since before its founding, the average person living in what would become the US had firearms to protect themselves. This was not true of England. As time progressed, Americas continued to own large amounts of firearms, the English continued to not. It’s a cultural difference, you twit. Get over yourself. I could care less if the British don’t have guns, so don’t pretend you know what’s best for us. If they made guns illegal here, the criminals would still have guns, and then everybody would be screwed.

Well let us consider something. Since before its founding, the average person living in what would become the US had firearms to protect themselves. This was not true of England. As time progressed, Americas continued to own large amounts of firearms, the English continued to not. It’s a cultural difference, you twit. Get over yourself. I could care less if the British don’t have guns, so don’t pretend you know what’s best for us. If they made guns illegal here, the criminals would still have guns, and then everybody would be screwed.


Im not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what you have done is wrong. Dont forget what you are is pretty much us changed a little by the society our colonists developed. Its a cultural difference caused by the owning of firearms. If you can own a firearm without prosecution you will use it - If you are going to kill then you arent afraid of the retribution of the shooting itself. Also if you intend to cross the police and the police have guns, you have to have guns.

Two words - Columbine Massacre.

Hardly think a few isolated incidents compare to American gun crime.

So... the 99 exposive devices they had were ok? The fact that the guns were STOLEN is okay? :rolleyes:

I hardly think a few isolated incidents compare to the MILLIONS of Americans whom own guns safely.

You *are* aware the most all gun crime in the US is done with illegal weaponry, right?

The right to private ownership of the means of production of profit.

It was between that, the other private ownership thing, or the socialist rights. I like my public education and healthcare, so I eliminated socialist rights. And quite frankly, I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that you can't privately own something you're not even making money off of.

Right to bear arms, I notice, is the popular option. While this is the right I will exercise the least in life, I do think it's important to have, due to the fact that arms are so dangerous and therefore, whoever it is to whom we give up this right ends up much more potentially oppressive.

Because you're an island the size of Oregon and can more easily control your borders? :pSo what you're saying is that crimes with guns are mainly an ethnic problem?

I should hope not. The right to freely worship also means that people who don’t want to worship anything can do just that. If you get rid of that right, the government can force you to adhere to whatever religious belief they want.
What about freedom of speech then? I mean. Religion is surely a form of it

If you had to sacrifice one of your rights ...... which would it be?I wouldn't give up any of my rights willingly. I'd rather fight to keep them all.I would give up my rigth to Gay marriage :D

There is no need to bear arms, so it shouldn't even be a right.

So what you're saying is that crimes with guns are mainly an ethnic problem?

I'm saying that the UK has a much smaller border to control that's entirely surrounded by water. This is why London isn't a major drug distribution hub like Miami or Los Angeles.
When you can easily patrol your borders, it is easier to control items that are illegal -- be they untaxed cigarettes, drugs, guns, whatever.

As for crimes with guns: since the supply of illegal guns in the UK is much lower, *of course* they're going to have less of it.

Now, show me a statistic that KNIFE violence is lower in the UK than the US, and we can have an ethic debate. ;)

There is no need to bear arms, so it shouldn't even be a right.

...says the poster that lives in a Communist country that regularly shoots it's own folks, including the peaceful protesters at Tiannamen Square. :rolleyes:

...says the poster that lives in a Communist country that regularly shoots it's own folks, including the peaceful protesters at Tiannamen Square. :rolleyes:

He lives in Hong Kong, smart guy. Perhaps you should brush up on the political arrangement between Hong Kong and the PRC.

He lives in Hong Kong, smart guy. Perhaps you should brush up on the political arrangement between Hong Kong and the PRC.

"Pursuant to an agreement signed by China and the UK on 19 December 1984, Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997. In this agreement, China has promised that, under its "one country, two systems" formula, China's socialist economic system will not be imposed on Hong Kong and that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense affairs for the next 50 years. "

So: it's part of China. China routinely crushes dissent, usually with soldiers. Did I miss something???

"Pursuant to an agreement signed by China and the UK on 19 December 1984, Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997. In this agreement, China has promised that, under its "one country, two systems" formula, China's socialist economic system will not be imposed on Hong Kong and that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense affairs for the next 50 years. "

So: it's part of China. China routinely crushes dissent, usually with soldiers. Did I miss something???

From your own damn submission. In 42 years you'll have a relevant point.

Right to bear arms. I don't have one anyway, I can't and don't want to know how to handle one.

After that, right to private ownership. Provided the social benefits are solid and well-funded, the heck with property.

Anything beyond that, and I'm joining the rebellion.

Not going to bother reading all the posts. I chose 'private ownership of means of production' as all the other rights are usually conferred on human beings in Western society, while this particular right is usually given to corporations.

People before profits.

Also, it is the one right in this list that is not necessarily dependent on any of the others,nor does it support the others.

I'm saying that the UK has a much smaller border to control that's entirely surrounded by water. This is why London isn't a major drug distribution hub like Miami or Los Angeles.
When you can easily patrol your borders, it is easier to control items that are illegal -- be they untaxed cigarettes, drugs, guns, whatever.

As for crimes with guns: since the supply of illegal guns in the UK is much lower, *of course* they're going to have less of it.

Now, show me a statistic that KNIFE violence is lower in the UK than the US, and we can have an ethic debate. ;)Criminals importing guns into the USA is something I'd expect to hear as a Conan O'brien punch line.

The guns goin' round in the states are manufactured, bought, stolen and sold in the USA. The UK has lower gun violence because of a thing called "efective gun control".

Just freedom of press for me, I mean most of the time the press does exaggerate and blow things out of proportion. Or the right to bear arms, either one really.

From your own damn submission. In 42 years you'll have a relevant point.

I apologize for having a different opinion from yours, o high and mighty one. :p
[/sarcasm]

Criminals importing guns into the USA is something I'd expect to hear as a Conan O'brien punch line.

The guns goin' round in the states are manufactured, bought, stolen and sold in the USA. The UK has lower gun violence because of a thing called "efective gun control".

(yawn). Clean up your own back yard, will you?
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/03-04-01.htm
she added noting that while rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often recovered in crime in Canada, more that one half the handguns recovered in crime are illegally imported.

Bull.Shit. They have "effective gun control" because they are a smaller place with easier borders to control and less open spaces. You think it's a coincidence that the guy who blew away 4 Mounties was in a rural area? Or why Columbine and Jonesboro didn't occur in LA or NYC, which are much larger? :rolleyes:

(yawn). Clean up your own back yard, will you?
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/03-04-01.htm
she added noting that while rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often recovered in crime in Canada, more that one half the handguns recovered in crime are illegally imported.

Bull.Shit. They have "effective gun control" because they are a smaller place with easier borders to control and less open spaces. You think it's a coincidence that the guy who blew away 4 Mounties was in a rural area? Or why Columbine and Jonesboro didn't occur in LA or NYC, which are much larger? :rolleyes:

It's not a coincidence based on area. If you've ever been to New York and watched the news here, you hear about people dieing everyday in this state. Canada does have better gun control than us, that's for sure. If they can just sell bullets and sleep with their doors unlocked, they are in a much better state than we are. People who live in LA and NYC have to worry about gettign jumped at night and having a bullet fly through the window from the rival gangs. It's sad that the USA is like that.

It's not a coincidence based on area. If you've ever been to New York and watched the news here, you hear about people dieing everyday in this state. Canada does have better gun control than us, that's for sure. If they can just sell bullets and sleep with their doors unlocked, they are in a much better state than we are. People who live in LA and NYC have to worry about gettign jumped at night and having a bullet fly through the window from the rival gangs. It's sad that the USA is like that.

Isn't it funny how those communities and municipalities in the US with the MOST restrictions on guns have the highest rates of crime with them? Hmmm...

Anyway, I find it abhorrent that anyone would have to give up any right whatsoever.

The problem is that there are those out there that think health care (which is provided by someone else trying to make a living doing so) is a a right of any sort.

It's your responsibility to take care of yourself, to move yourself, to get an education. It's not my responsibility to make sure you get those things.

There are few good arguments for the freedom of religion. Usually religion is just a front for political or even violent activities.

By default, religion could be illegal. This would allow the government to crush any Islamists, Jehova's Witnesses, Scientologists, or such. Now, they can shout "freedom of religion"!

I chose the right to elect your leaders, as if they maintained all of those other rights I would have no problem. However, if they began to infringe on our rights, we could use the right to assemble, the right to property, and the right to bear arms to choose our own leaders again.

I do find it amazing that, were people forced to give up their rights, the majority would forsake the right that insures they can actually fight for their rights.

The right to bear arms.

Man, that was easy. I thought this would be a difficult poll (but it's easy to give up a right you don't have).

Since I hate guns and believe they should be illegal anyways, you can take away my right to bear arms all you want.

I do find it amazing that, were people forced to give up their rights, the majority would forsake the right that insures they can actually fight for their rights.

I'm trying to remember: How many people did Gandhi shoot?

I'm trying to remember: How many people did Gandhi shoot?

He didn't. But he DID blast (verbally) the British government when they took away the Indian citizens' right to arms.

Gandhi was pro gun, even though he didn't use them.

He didn't. But he DID blast (verbally) the British government when they took away the Indian citizens' right to arms.

Gandhi was pro gun, even though he didn't use them.

That doesn't matter. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy. I own two. But the "RAAAAAAR THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS IF WE DON'T HAVE GUNS" argument is absurd. There are plenty of ways to insure the retention of our rights without blasting the shit out of each other. I'm tired of hearing it.

That doesn't matter. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy. I own two. But the "RAAAAAAR THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS IF WE DON'T HAVE GUNS" argument is absurd. There are plenty of ways to insure the retention of our rights without blasting the shit out of each other. I'm tired of hearing it.

Amen

Amen

Seconded.

That doesn't matter. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy. I own two. But the "RAAAAAAR THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS IF WE DON'T HAVE GUNS" argument is absurd. There are plenty of ways to insure the retention of our rights without blasting the shit out of each other. I'm tired of hearing it.
I agree.

If the government were to sudden turn militaristic and take over, they would have the bigger guns, anyway.

That doesn't matter. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy. I own two. But the "RAAAAAAR THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS IF WE DON'T HAVE GUNS" argument is absurd. There are plenty of ways to insure the retention of our rights without blasting the shit out of each other. I'm tired of hearing it.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on the absurdity level of the government taking the rest of our rights after the right to defense is gone. There are too many previous examples of that exact order of operations throughout history--tyrants taking away weapons, and then proceeding to trample over the citizens' remaining rights.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on the absurdity level of the government taking the rest of our rights after the right to defense is gone. There are too many previous examples of that exact order of operations throughout history--tyrants taking away weapons, and then proceeding to trample over the citizens' remaining rights.
Thing is, the government has, through rights, guaranteed that it will be our defense. That's what rights are.

If the government no longer defends our rights, we have none, plain and simple. Having guns won't change that.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on the absurdity level of the government taking the rest of our rights after the right to defense is gone. There are too many previous examples of that exact order of operations throughout history--tyrants taking away weapons, and then proceeding to trample over the citizens' remaining rights.

Such as? Other than the ubiquitous Nazis, I cannot think of a single elected government who took away the right to firearms and then started taking away more rights. Almost always the right to firearms, if it even exists, is taken away well after other rights have already been curtailed.

I agree.

If the government were to sudden turn militaristic and take over, they would have the bigger guns, anyway.

They'd have bigger guns, yes. But last I checked, the US military is STILL having problems with Iraqis.

I'm sorry, but the number of snipers (that's what hunters are) in the US to resist the government is huge.

They'd have bigger guns, yes. But last I checked, the US military is STILL having problems with Iraqis.

I'm sorry, but the number of snipers (that's what hunters are) in the US to resist the government is huge.
That's what the nukes are for. :)

The so-called 'right to bear arms' actually implies grave responsibility, and a potential usurpation of others' right to life. Leave it to the militia to handle lethal weapons in the name of the state. 'Be careful what you ask for, as you might get it' is such a true statement. I wish America were more like Britain.

Thing is, the government has, through rights, guaranteed that it will be our defense. That's what rights are.

If the government no longer defends our rights, we have none, plain and simple. Having guns won't change that.

See, that's a common misconception of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't actually grant rights. It just enumerates/clarifies/defines for others some of those rights that already exist.

Nobody grants rights. Government grants some privileges.

You know whats hilarious?

Anyone who bashes the right to bear arms and then goes on about Bush and how dangerous he is.

Its great how they go "OMG OTHER WAYS TO ENSURE FREEDOM WTF", and then in the same breath start talking about Bush, who:

-Cheated the electoral system and got in anyway
-Is trying to make neoconservative ammendments to the constitution without so much as a concensus from the population
-introduced legislature that allows the government to track what you take from the library

etc, etc,...

Government oppression doesn't have to be MIB herding minorities to camps. Ruby Ridge qualifies as far as I'm concerned; so do Oka and Ipperwash. In all three cases, private parties were victimized, tried to resist peacefully, and were punished with lethal force for their attempts. In all three cases, they were armed, and were able to make it very, very difficult for the government thugs to do so.

The so-called 'right to bear arms' actually implies grave responsibility, and a potential usurpation of others' right to life. Leave it to the militia to handle lethal weapons in the name of the state. 'Be careful what you ask for, as you might get it' is such a true statement. I wish America were more like Britain.

When you are a criminal, and you attack someone else, the target of your attack has the right to defend themselves from you. When you attack someone, you accept the responsibility of your actions, and those actions may include lethal force being used against you because you assaulted someone.

When you are a criminal, and you attack someone else, the target of your attack has the right to defend themselves from you. When you attack someone, you accept the responsibility of your actions, and those actions may include lethal force being used against you because you assaulted someone.

Fine in principle, but how do you judge when it's time to pull your gun out? If you wait until an assault is made on you it's too late and if you pull it out before the situation escalates to a violent confrontation you are in danger of shooting someone who bears you no more malice than a shouting match.

See, that's a common misconception of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't actually grant rights. It just enumerates/clarifies/defines for others some of those rights that already exist.

Nobody grants rights. Government grants some privileges.
Ah, well. I live in Canada, where what I said holds true according to OUR constitution. There is no right to bear arms, and no need of it to uphold rights.

Ah, well. I live in Canada, where what I said holds true according to OUR constitution. There is no right to bear arms, and no need of it to uphold rights.

Okee doke, then. It sounds like it works for you where you are, so more power to ya. :)

i find it annoying how many people seem to feel that one only has rights by pointing a gun at the head of howevers in charge.

i don't get what NYAAA's talking about with Bush, so please could someone inform the idiot britain.

Fine in principle, but how do you judge when it's time to pull your gun out? If you wait until an assault is made on you it's too late and if you pull it out before the situation escalates to a violent confrontation you are in danger of shooting someone who bears you no more malice than a shouting match.

I guess I'd suggest being a bit more polite in public, then. ;) If someone's rushing at you, that's perceived as hostile intent (at least in the US). Shouting is shouting, and like I've posted elsewhere, guns aren't the silver bullet (pun fully intended). They'll help in some situations--not all. And you won't always have the opportunity to bring the weapon to bear. That's reality. I just want to improve the odds that I'll survive--and that's what a gun does in some situations.

See, that's a common misconception of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't actually grant rights. It just enumerates/clarifies/defines for others some of those rights that already exist.

Nobody grants rights. Government grants some privileges.
I puzzled over this for a moment, then looked up "granting" in the dictionary. There were two definitions that stood out: to consent to, and to bestow. If you mean the latter, then yes, government does not bestow rights. They do, however, grant them with the former definition: they consent to these rights, whether pre-existing or not. They guarantee them.

I puzzled over this for a moment, then looked up "granting" in the dictionary. There were two definitions that stood out: to consent to, and to bestow. If you mean the latter, then yes, government does not bestow rights. They do, however, grant them with the former definition: they consent to these rights, whether pre-existing or not. They guarantee them.

Yup, they do not bestow.

I also argue that they don't consent, either. They obey. They don't agree to do these things--the government is forced to obey those amendments enumerated in the Constitution, supposedly backed up by the three branch check-and-balance system. I say supposedly because it's not working anymore.

It's not a coincidence based on area. If you've ever been to New York and watched the news here, you hear about people dieing everyday in this state. Canada does have better gun control than us, that's for sure. If they can just sell bullets and sleep with their doors unlocked, they are in a much better state than we are. People who live in LA and NYC have to worry about gettign jumped at night and having a bullet fly through the window from the rival gangs. It's sad that the USA is like that.

I'm posting this from Madison Ave in Manhattan, right now. :)

Right. And and soon as Canada increases their population ten fold, I'm sure they'd have similar problems.

The right to bear arms.

Man, that was easy. I thought this would be a difficult poll (but it's easy to give up a right you don't have).

Thank you. :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9279986&postcount=111

Yup, they do not bestow.

I also argue that they don't consent, either. They obey. They don't agree to do these things--the government is forced to obey those amendments enumerated in the Constitution, supposedly backed up by the three branch check-and-balance system. I say supposedly because it's not working anymore.
Obeying is consent, and it is the guarantee. The contents of the Constitution were agreed to when the document was ratified.

I quote, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same" (amended to include more States, of course).

A State is a political, governmental body. The guarantees it contains are of and by the States.

That doesn't matter. I'm as pro-gun as the next guy. I own two. But the "RAAAAAAR THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS IF WE DON'T HAVE GUNS" argument is absurd. There are plenty of ways to insure the retention of our rights without blasting the shit out of each other. I'm tired of hearing it.

The right to bear arms and form a militia was included to give the citizenry the ability to militarily defend themselves and their rights, whether it is still relevant is another question.

Thing is, the government has, through rights, guaranteed that it will be our defense. That's what rights are.

If the government no longer defends our rights, we have none, plain and simple. Having guns won't change that.

The government is not our source of rights. It is up to us to defend the rights we are born with, and right now we can use the government to defend our rights, but if that ability dissolves I would like to have a backup plan.

The government is not our source of rights. It is up to us to defend the rights we are born with, and right now we can use the government to defend our rights, but if that ability dissolves I would like to have a backup plan.


My backup plan is simple and non-violent.

I'll move to another country where the rights I wish for are prevalent in society.

What's your backup plan?

The government is not our source of rights. It is up to us to defend the rights we are born with, and right now we can use the government to defend our rights, but if that ability dissolves I would like to have a backup plan.
As I said above, whatever the "source", whether pre-existing or not, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution is a guarantee that government will uphold those rights, and defend "We the People...."

If they do not, those enumerated civil rights are gone (civil = of the citizens). Then all we are left with are natural rights, and anarchy.

My backup plan is simple and non-violent.

I'll move to another country where the rights I wish for are prevalent in society.

What's your backup plan?

So what do you do when there is nowhere else to go? Think it can't happen? Ask a Native American.

I love folks whom love living in a country so much that they'll do nothing for it. :(

Since I don't believe healthcare, transportation or education are inalienable human rights, I'd be happiest to give those up.

:( None. I'd refuse to sacrifice any of my rights.

But of the ones listed, the most pointless one is the right to bear arms. The full text of the Second Amendment (gotta love the complete context) is, "A well-regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nowhere in that does it say anything about allowing people to keep military-styled weapons just for their own sake.

All of the other rights are absolutely essential. Give up freedom of expression and association and you give up freedom period.


the right to bear arms by the people protects all your other rights.
not to the extent it did 100 years ago,but the gov.that is bent on tyranny tends to be wary of an armed populace.
seems to me that all the tyrants...hitler,stalin,mao..all disarmed the population.
i forget the exact quote by hitler,but he said something to the affect that never before in history has a population been disarmed and it will be the most peaceful society in history...i may be wrong about the wording.
i am actually very suprised to see so many pick the second amendment.
i picked the right to transportation and other such nonsense.i just dont feel i deserve to be driven or get free medical care.would i like it...of coarse.
i just do not want to give up my inalienable rights....to protect myself,to have free speech,to have the freedom of worship(which i do not practice any religion)or the right to privacy and property rights.
jmho

So what do you do when there is nowhere else to go? Think it can't happen? Ask a Native American.

I love folks whom love living in a country so much that they'll do nothing for it. :(


awww I love you too.

Theres always somewhere else to go. I'd find a cave or an island or soemthing. I dont HAVE to live in a city. In fact I'd be happier as a hermit farmer, I think. If I only knew how to make that happen. IF I was forced though I would find a way.

When did I say I loved living in my country? Why should I love living in this country so much? If there's a better place to live, why not go there?

ANyway - What was your backup plan again? Was it to fight and die?

My backup plan is simple and non-violent.

I'll move to another country where the rights I wish for are prevalent in society.

What's your backup plan?

I would like to fight for my country and my society, as I have a lot invested in it.

However, I am not a gun owner, so I would have to fight in non-violent ways as well.

As I said above, whatever the "source", whether pre-existing or not, the enumeration of rights in the Constitution is a guarantee that government will uphold those rights, and defend "We the People...."

If they do not, those enumerated civil rights are gone (civil = of the citizens). Then all we are left with are natural rights, and anarchy.

Natural rights still maintain all of the civil rights, it just doesn't maintain the protections of society.

However, it can be assumed that, were the government to begin suppressing rights, society would still be maintained without government until it became completely unreasonable to do so. So, even though government is no longer insuring rights, and may be working to take them away, societies will still exist that will fight to maintain their rights.

Your rights are never gone until you give them up or you die.

:(

the right to bear arms by the people protects all your other rights.
not to the extent it did 100 years ago,but the gov.that is bent on tyranny tends to be wary of an armed populace.
seems to me that all the tyrants...hitler,stalin,mao..all disarmed the population.
*snip*
jmho
The problem with this interpretation is that it pits the people against the government, as if the government were an enemy; rather than recognizing, as the Constitution and those who wrote it did, that the government is made of the people.

The government of the United States exists for the people, by the people.

I think it sad to see a mentality that feels it has to protect itself from those who have already guaranteed they'd be safe.

awww I love you too.

Theres always somewhere else to go. I'd find a cave or an island or soemthing. I dont HAVE to live in a city. In fact I'd be happier as a hermit farmer, I think. If I only knew how to make that happen. IF I was forced though I would find a way.

When did I say I loved living in my country? Why should I love living in this country so much? If there's a better place to live, why not go there?

ANyway - What was your backup plan again? Was it to fight and die?

Are you 12 or something, or just being obtuse?

I've been to four Communist nations in my day, plus about half of Western Europe, half the US, and some of Canada. There are places much worse to live than the US. In fact, most of the places I've been to.

Depends on the situation. Sometimes one fights. Sometimes one works for change in the system.

You're just along for the ride, like a cockroach that made it into the trunk of the car.

Natural rights still maintain all of the civil rights, it just doesn't maintain the protections of society.

However, it can be assumed that, were the government to begin suppressing rights, society would still be maintained without government until it became completely unreasonable to do so. So, even though government is no longer insuring rights, and may be working to take them away, societies will still exist that will fight to maintain their rights.

Your rights are never gone until you give them up or you die.
The rights are still there, but only by natural law; they can no longer be called "civil" rights. Civil rights exist for citizens in a political body.

I feel that the government who turns against its constitution forfeits the role of governship, and therefore the right to be called government. But maybe that's just me.

Im not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what you have done is wrong. Dont forget what you are is pretty much us changed a little by the society our colonists developed. Its a cultural difference caused by the owning of firearms. If you can own a firearm without prosecution you will use it - If you are going to kill then you arent afraid of the retribution of the shooting itself. Also if you intend to cross the police and the police have guns, you have to have guns.

If we didn't have guns in the 1770's, there would be no America now. We came here with guns to hunt with, and as times changed, to protect ourselves. The militia was made up of farmers and the like. They used their own weapons, at least in the beginning. If we didn't have an armed militia, America wouldn't be here right know. Britan would have never changed, and pretty much all of Europe and North American would have ended up under the King of England's oppressive rule.

The problem with this interpretation is that it pits the people against the government, as if the government were an enemy; rather than recognizing, as the Constitution and those who write it did, that the government is made of the people.

The government of the United States exists for the people, by the people.

I think it sad to see a mentality that feels it has to protect itself from those who have already guaranteed they'd be safe.

i have to agree with you,i too find it sad that many need to fear what is perceived as a gov.bent on dominating them.
the sad fact is that in many cases,the gov.has crushed innocent people that they deemed a threat.
however,that said,i hate the fact that i have to view my gov. with suspicion.i hate any us against them mentalities.
i really do not feel all that threatened by the gov.and i am not a gun owner to protect myself from a tyrannical gov.i mostly enjoy target shooting with my friends,and i have children,so i like to have the ability to protect myself from a crimminal attack on my family.
also,i believe the supreme court just recently held that law enforcement,municip.cant be held liable for any harm that comes to citizens due to there inaction.(i believe the case had to do with the police failing to enforce a restraining order on a man who subsequently murdered his wife)
the police duty is to protect the community and enforce public safety...ie.drunk driving,etc.
it is not exactly tasked to protect individuals,if it is in the position to help an individual,it obviously intervenes,but they cant be everywhere..all the time
i do kinda disagree with your assessment that the gov. is we the people and for the people.i think the gov.has gotten pretty far from that ideal.

Are you 12 or something, or just being obtuse?

I've been to four Communist nations in my day, plus about half of Western Europe, half the US, and some of Canada. There are places much worse to live than the US. In fact, most of the places I've been to.

Depends on the situation. Sometimes one fights. Sometimes one works for change in the system.

You're just along for the ride, like a cockroach that made it into the trunk of the car.

So you can't answer my question without putting me down and I'm being obtuse? Well, I guess I can't expect everyone to be civil. YOu might want to work on that though, if you want anyone to actually listen to what you have to say.

I've been to Canada, Mexico, and much of western Europe and found that there Are better places to live than the US. Even moreso now that conservative neo-con fundamentalist religious nutballs are taking over the country and trying to enforce Christianity on everyone in this used-to-be-great-land. And yes I will move when I can so you can say "good riddance" now. I'll be saying the same thing. Of course where ever I go I won't be able to fully escape American culture (if you can call it that). No matter where you live on this planet, it's just like that Rammstein song goes "We're all living in America".

Right now I am fighting to change the system but if it looks like a lost cause, then its much easier to enjoy my life in another country where there are more freedoms, the people are smarter/nicer, there is less gun violence, religion does not influence the govt., the govt. is populist, and the list goes on.

If you want the right to bear arms to fight to retain your rights then good luck, I doubt it will help you any.

So you can't answer my question without putting me down and I'm being obtuse? Well, I guess I can't expect everyone to be civil. YOu might want to work on that though, if you want anyone to actually listen to what you have to say.

I've been to Canada, Mexico, and much of western Europe and found that there Are better places to live than the US. Even moreso now that conservative neo-con fundamentalist religious nutballs are taking over the country and trying to enforce Christianity on everyone in this used-to-be-great-land. And yes I will move when I can so you can say "good riddance" now. I'll be saying the same thing. Of course where ever I go I won't be able to fully escape American culture (if you can call it that). No matter where you live on this planet, it's just like that Rammstein song goes "We're all living in America".

Right now I am fighting to change the system but if it looks like a lost cause, then its much easier to enjoy my life in another country where there are more freedoms, the people are smarter/nicer, there is less gun violence, religion does not influence the govt., the govt. is populist, and the list goes on.

If you want the right to bear arms to fight to retain your rights then good luck, I doubt it will help you any.

What freedoms are you missing that you would personally take advantage of in another country?

i do kinda disagree with your assessment that the gov. is we the people and for the people.
Well, it wasn't really my idea, so I can't take credit for it.

"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." A. Lincoln

What freedoms are you missing that you would personally take advantage of in another country?

Freedom from religion being shoved down my throat by activist chritian/catholic judges/presidents/whatnot (the law has no place for religion in my eyes)- freedom from mornoic corporate news that seems like it's trying to dumb us all down and shows govt. sponsored propaghanda pretending to be news - freedom from a lot of cencorship that takes place in our public media - I'm sure there's more but I doubt you will agree so I wont waste my time anymore.

You left out my favorite mod. I'll never forgive you! :(What's so great about Cog? (No offense Cog)

So you can't answer my question without putting me down and I'm being obtuse? Well, I guess I can't expect everyone to be civil. YOu might want to work on that though, if you want anyone to actually listen to what you have to say.

Nope. I was asking a serious question. I really don't understand why you think you'd be "safe" or "free" in a cave or island. Being a hermit? Please.

I've been to Canada, Mexico, and much of western Europe and found that there Are better places to live than the US. Even moreso now that conservative neo-con fundamentalist religious nutballs are taking over the country and trying to enforce Christianity on everyone in this used-to-be-great-land.

Ah. Now turn off the TV and go outside, will you?
That's been playing on cable news for a couple of years, and it's getting old. Please show me where abortion has been overturned, prayer has been brought into public schools, the 10 Commandments are on a courthouse (as a religious artifact, not among other law codes) or any OTHER Christian-uber-conspiracy has come to pass. :rolleyes:
Yes, there are neo-con fundamentalist religious nutballs out there. There are also Michael Moores and Al Frankens. That's what being in a free country is all about: people get to SPEAK THEIR MINDS.

And yes I will move when I can so you can say "good riddance" now. I'll be saying the same thing. Of course where ever I go I won't be able to fully escape American culture (if you can call it that). No matter where you live on this planet, it's just like that Rammstein song goes "We're all living in America".

I lost all respect for Rammstein when they sang "Du Hast" as "You Hate" in English.

Right now I am fighting to change the system but if it looks like a lost cause, then its much easier to enjoy my life in another country where there are more freedoms, the people are smarter/nicer, there is less gun violence, religion does not influence the govt., the govt. is populist, and the list goes on.

If you want the right to bear arms to fight to retain your rights then good luck, I doubt it will help you any.

I've heard of such a place. It's called Utopia. If you've not read the book, it's worth a gander.

I prize the Constitution above all else. So, thanks.

Freedom from religion being shoved down my throat by activist chritian/catholic judges/presidents/whatnot (the law has no place for religion in my eyes)- freedom from mornoic corporate news that seems like it's trying to dumb us all down and shows govt. sponsored propaghanda pretending to be news - freedom from a lot of cencorship that takes place in our public media - I'm sure there's more but I doubt you will agree so I wont waste my time anymore.

Interesting that the very freedom from censorship that you are so in favor of defend you are not willing to grant those who's views differ from your own. No one is forcing religion on you, that much I am sure of. Moronic cooporate view, moronic though they may be are just as protected from censorship as any other.

Counter example:Why are places without guns(Australia, Finland, Sweden...) so well off on educational levels than the US? You don't need guns to get rights. Ask Ghandi.

America didn't win independence from Britain by holding hands and signing. Neither did the Jews in Germany in the 30's and 40's. As far as "getting rights"? You don't gain or lose rights, we already have basic human rights that no man can steal from us; they can merely be violated, and they're worth every bit fighting for.

Nope. I was asking a serious question. I really don't understand why you think you'd be "safe" or "free" in a cave or island. Being a hermit? Please. .

uh huh, and the cockaroach remark? I could make statements like that too but I am above that. Yes, I am saying I am better than you. lol - j/k




Ah. Now turn off the TV and go outside, will you?
That's been playing on cable news for a couple of years, and it's getting old. Please show me where abortion has been overturned, prayer has been brought into public schools, the 10 Commandments are on a courthouse (as a religious artifact, not among other law codes) or any OTHER Christian-uber-conspiracy has come to pass. :rolleyes:
Yes, there are neo-con fundamentalist religious nutballs out there. There are also Michael Moores and Al Frankens. That's what being in a free country is all about: people get to SPEAK THEIR MINDS.


I bet I spend more time outside than you do. I rarely watch tv. People can speak their minds all they want but DOMA? Thats not making people live by what some nutballs think are christian standards? If you don't think so then that is fine but I think you are closing your eyes to a dangerous reality. See how I didn't insult you there? See how I didnt call you dull witted or a child for believe otherwise?


I lost all respect for Rammstein when they sang "Du Hast" as "You Hate" in English.

I never liked Rammstein, but that song makes a good point.

I've heard of such a place. It's called Utopia. If you've not read the book, it's worth a gander.

I prize the Constitution above all else. So, thanks.


Or Canada or the Netherlands or...

Sometimes I think people are dangerously Nationalistic.

Such as? Other than the ubiquitous Nazis, I cannot think of a single elected government who took away the right to firearms and then started taking away more rights. Almost always the right to firearms, if it even exists, is taken away well after other rights have already been curtailed.

<cough, cough>Lenin<cough, cough>

Damn, you said elected.

I guess it doesn't matter how they get to power--just that they have the capability to get that power.

I would sacrifice the right to bear arms, which I don't really have anyway. Or maybe the right to worship, which I don't use. But in seriousness the first I would sacrifice would be the right to privacy.

That's what the nukes are for. :)

Problem #1, if you are going to rule, it helps to have a country TO rule. Can't use nukes in your backyard so much, to quell uprisings and such.

The problem with this interpretation is that it pits the people against the government, as if the government were an enemy; rather than recognizing, as the Constitution and those who wrote it did, that the government is made of the people.

The government of the United States exists for the people, by the people.

I think it sad to see a mentality that feels it has to protect itself from those who have already guaranteed they'd be safe.

Every single government in the history of man has had corruption in it. The founding fathers of the US saw this as well--that's why they tried to limit the government as much as possible because they knew that those in power would want to get more power. And that's very prevalent the world over today. No government is there for the benefit of the people, ultimately--in the end it's just used by the few elite to rule the masses. It's just sold as being beneficent. And that kinda rankles with a lot of Americans. We have authority issues. We don't like being told what to do by those that think they know better.

Interesting that the very freedom from censorship that you are so in favor of defend you are not willing to grant those who's views differ from your own. No one is forcing religion on you, that much I am sure of. Moronic cooporate view, moronic though they may be are just as protected from censorship as any other.

I am for freedom of all speech and corporate news can say what they want, but its painfully obvious how lacking of anything resembling real news it truely is. And when a govt pushes it's propaghanda secretly as news, that is just plain scary. I will voice my opinions about how I think they should go another direction but I am not trying to censor them.

My response to things such as this is to move to where they don't exist. If the Christians win the fight and instill a theocracy and I feel that the situation is hopeless to change, then I will just move where I don't have to deal with it. Simple as that.

As for forcing religious views upon the people... I need say no more than "DOMA"

I am for freedom of all speech and corporate news can say what they want, but its painfully obvious how lacking of anything resembling real news it truely is. And when a govt pushes it's propaghanda secretly as news, that is just plain scary. I will voice my opinions about how I think they should go another direction but I am not trying to censor them.

My response to things such as this is to move to where they don't exist. If the Christians win the fight and instill a theocracy and I feel that the situation is hopeless to change, then I will just move where I don't have to deal with it. Simple as that.

As for forcing religious views upon the people... I need say no more than "DOMA"

Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what "DOMA" means. I'm assuming it's an acronym for something.

Are you okay with the government forcing the views of science on children?

As for propaganda in the news, I don't think there is anywhere in the world you can get away from that. It is just a matter of who's propaganda you most want to listen to.

Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what "DOMA" means. I'm assuming it's an acronym for something.

Are you okay with the government forcing the views of science on children?

As for propaganda in the news, I don't think there is anywhere in the world you can get away from that. It is just a matter of who's propaganda you most want to listen to.

My bad sorry, I meant teh Defense Of Marriage Act.

I've had the opportunity to see the news in Canada and in Europe and I found it to be much more informative and balanced than any news here in the US. This is why I have such an opinion about said corporate news.

My bad sorry, I meant teh Defense Of Marriage Act.

I've had the opportunity to see the news in Canada and in Europe and I found it to be much more informative and balanced than any news here in the US. This is why I have such an opinion about said corporate news.

Yes, yes, I've watched the BBC and local Croatian, British and South African news. There's propaganda in all of it. The amount of "balance" to any of it is purely subjective to ones personal opinions.

I don't like the defence of marriage act. I don't think the Gov. should have anything to do with Marriage. It is a religious institution and should be left that way. Civil contracts between individuals should be allowed to anyone, couple or group that wishes to create one.

Yes, yes, I've watched the BBC and local Croatian, British and South African news. There's propaganda in all of it. The amount of "balance" to any of it is purely subjective to ones personal opinions.

I don't like the defence of marriage act. I don't think the Gov. should have anything to do with Marriage. It is a religious institution and should be left that way. Civil contracts between individuals should be allowed to anyone, couple or group that wishes to create one.


There is propoganda in all of it but to a MUCH lesser extent, plus there is more information and opposing viewpoints raised in those outside the US that I have seen.

DOMA sucks I agree but I don't think marriage belongs to religion. There is no proof of that. Marriage, or forms of it, has been around long before religion.

There is propoganda in all of it but to a MUCH lesser extent, plus there is more information and opposing viewpoints raised in those outside the US that I have seen.

DOMA sucks I agree but I don't think marriage belongs to religion. There is no proof of that. Marriage, or forms of it, has been around long before religion.

Religion has been around as long as humans so I don't know how that is possible. As for the differing view points being presented, I'll grant you that you get different ones from different sources, but most all of the sources have their own biases and come far short of "balance".

uh huh, and the cockaroach remark? I could make statements like that too but I am above that. Yes, I am saying I am better than you. lol - j/k

I couldn't think of much else would be "along for the ride", but to me, if you're not willing to work for the betterment of the country, you are a cockroach. Yes, I am saying you're not as good as those which work so. ;)

Seriously: it was not meant to be insulting.

I bet I spend more time outside than you do. I rarely watch tv. People can speak their minds all they want but DOMA? Thats not making people live by what some nutballs think are christian standards? If you don't think so then that is fine but I think you are closing your eyes to a dangerous reality. See how I didn't insult you there? See how I didnt call you dull witted or a child for believe otherwise?

Given I work in NYC and spend 8-10 hours working plus 3 hours a day on a train, yeah, probably. So? My point was it felt like you were parroting any number of cable news shows.

DOMA? As in Defense of Marriage Act? Dunno. Don't really care, either, since I feel that marriage should not be subject to the state, but that's just me.

I'm closing my eyes? You're the one that wants to go live in a cave on an island somewhere. :D Seriously: The average person I talk to (granted, this is NYC & Connecticut) doesn't care about DOMA.

I never liked Rammstein, but that song makes a good point.

Yes, American culture is everywhere. Fringe benefit of being a superpower. Just as other nations have been in the past such as Rome or Victorian England or the Incas.

Or Canada or the Netherlands or...

Sometimes I think people are dangerously Nationalistic.

If that's how you feel, there is little I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm not about to discuss which is better, since it's a moot point: it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Some are. And some aren't enough.

Religion has been around as long as humans so I don't know how that is possible. As for the differing view points being presented, I'll grant you that you get different ones from different sources, but most all of the sources have their own biases and come far short of "balance".


Got any sources to back up that point because I haven't seen evidence of that myself. I would not say that spirituality = religion. When an atheist gets married it is not a religious institution or even spiritual. So even if there was a fact to back up that marriage fell ONLY in the realm of religion (which there isn't), it doesn't anymore.

Re:News... No, I am talking about one news station presenting diverse viewpoints on a single story. I've seen it over and over again - especially on the BBC. That isn't to say that bias doesn't shine thru on some of it. But I wouldnt agree that news from a source like the BBC falls short (especially far short) of being balanced.

I couldn't think of much else would be "along for the ride", but to me, if you're not willing to work for the betterment of the country, you are a cockroach. Yes, I am saying you're not as good as those which work so. ;)

Seriously: it was not meant to be insulting.



Given I work in NYC and spend 8-10 hours working plus 3 hours a day on a train, yeah, probably. So? My point was it felt like you were parroting any number of cable news shows.

DOMA? As in Defense of Marriage Act? Dunno. Don't really care, either, since I feel that marriage should not be subject to the state, but that's just me.

I'm closing my eyes? You're the one that wants to go live in a cave on an island somewhere. :D Seriously: The average person I talk to (granted, this is NYC & Connecticut) doesn't care about DOMA.



Yes, American culture is everywhere. Fringe benefit of being a superpower. Just as other nations have been in the past such as Rome or Victorian England or the Incas.



If that's how you feel, there is little I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm not about to discuss which is better, since it's a moot point: it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Some are. And some aren't enough.

Actually I do work for the betterment of the country but I am not willing to throw my life away on what would look like a lost cause (IF it looks like a lost cause). Though I may not have been clear on that, that is what I was getting at.

I would say becomming a hermit would be more of an example of not taking part in trying to change things rather than closing my eyes to them. Having dealth with mostly west coast Americans most of my life, I ahve a rather low opinion of most people, although I lived in Iowa for a while and I never made so many friends in such a short time. So I really wouldnt become a hermit as long as I have a place to go where there are kewlio people to live around.

As for DOMA, I am part of the LGBT (the Bi part :p ) community and there are many many people I know who are bothered by it.

In my eyes the spreading of American 'culture' thruought the world is a disease , so I am going to express an ill opinion of it of course. McDonalds spreading to every corner of the globe my look like a good thing to the locals when they can buy breakfast luncha nd dinner for 39 cents, but when they later learn it's poison it's too late. If maybe a beautiful culture was spreading aroudn the world it would be different but cold bland corporate America taking over everything is a far cry from positive.

(yawn). Clean up your own back yard, will you?http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Temp/03-04-01.htmI'm pretty confident that in "my backyard" the Crime rate and use of guns will put the USA's to shame any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Bull.Shit. They have "effective gun control" because they are a smaller place with easier borders to control and less open spaces. You think it's a coincidence that the guy who blew away 4 Mounties was in a rural area? Or why Columbine and Jonesboro didn't occur in LA or NYC, which are much larger? :rolleyes:The USA's ineffective or non existant gun control has nothing to do with borders. I repeat... the guns don't come from other countries.
In this matter the NRA is the lobby to blame.


And while you're yawning... psst... I don't live in Canada.

I'm posting this from Madison Ave in Manhattan, right now. :)

Right. And and soon as Canada increases their population ten fold, I'm sure they'd have similar problems.By saying this you demonstrate that you understand very little about Canada.

... which would it be? (Poll coming; this may take a while.)

OMIGOD I JUST REMEMBERED WHO YOU ARE!!!

I have been trying to get to you on IM... oh yeah and these are really intelligent threads you've been posting, much more original and interesting than what I usually see around here.

Because you're an island the size of Oregon and can more easily control your borders? :p

Alright then, how about Canada? We share two borders with the US (Alaska) and we're the second biggest land mass in the world.

I'm pretty confident that in "my backyard" the Crime rate and use of guns will put the USA's to shame any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Please stop the bait and switch, eh? I've been posting with you on this thread for several posts, and as in other threads, you tend to ignore points and speak around them.
And, if you're from the UK, please explain the per capita crime rate in London.

The USA's ineffective or non existant gun control has nothing to do with borders. I repeat... the guns don't come from other countries.
In this matter the NRA is the lobby to blame.
And while you're yawning... psst... I don't live in Canada.

I assumed by your handle. Sorry about that. Where DO you live, then?

By saying this you demonstrate that you understand very little about Canada.

Really? You have a super-secret Canada with 300 million people, so you KNOW it'd be EXACTLY the same? (Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.)

Alright then, how about Canada? We share two borders with the US (Alaska) and we're the second biggest land mass in the world.

You still have more gun crime per capita than the UK. Not AS much, but then, you also are concentrated within 100 miles of the US border. So not too many criminals are going to run guns through Nunavut -- no real infrastructure.

Also, Canada is blessed with a low population. It's hard to have folks desperate for jobs (and therefore money) when you're understaffed. :)

My UK/island/lower population theory is just AN ASPECT and is NOT a total reason why the US has more gun violense. But it is an important aspect.

Also, Canada is blessed with a low population. It's hard to have folks desperate for jobs (and therefore money) when you're understaffed. :)
I hope that smile means you're joking. We are in no way generally understaffed.

Please stop the bait and switch, eh? I've been posting with you on this thread for several posts, and as in other threads, you tend to ignore points and speak around them.
And, if you're from the UK, please explain the per capita crime rate in London.

nothing to explain. I'm not from the UK.

I assumed by your handle. Sorry about that. Where DO you live, then?Portugal since 1997.

Really? You have a super-secret Canada with 300 million people, so you KNOW it'd be EXACTLY the same? (Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.)You suggested that Canada would have the same or similar crime problems that your nation does with a similar population. This is the second time I catch you discussing hypothetical situations.


If you find that I'm ignoring any points, it's becuase I either agree with them or find them totally irrelevant.

:) Well, it wasn't really my idea, so I can't take credit for it.

"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." A. Lincoln

it was a brilliant idea,and still the best system i can think of.

however,you ignored the end of my sentence with regards that the gov. has gotten pretty far from the ideals of the founding fathers.

pay to play,etc.

the gov. does not serve the "people" anymore,like all the neo con religous zealots trying to dominate the country thru legislating from the bench,etc.

i am actually a pretty liberal,maybe centrist person.kinda pragmatic really.
but i see the gov. has no interest in serving me or improving my life,nor would i want them too,i will take care of myself.i think they are serving themselves,as power tends to do to people that have a taste of it.

are all public servents power hungry fascists?of coarse not.but the far right christians and the far left liberals scare the#### outtas me.

if you honestly dont think this country has strayed from the ideals spelt out many years ago,may i humbly dissagree.

heres a quote....anyone who trades freedom for security..may lose both...i think it was ben franklin...i may be wrong about the author,but truer words have never been spoken.

again,i don't want my government to coddle me and provide for me,and i also think that the weak and infirm should be taken care of.
i just lean towards the idea that the gov. and many lazy people want to have the gov. do what they can do for themselves and are willing to trade there freedom for it....not me.

i think the gov. should only be involved in my life,and i will happily pay taxes for it,to provide national security,a safety net for the old and children,and a few other things.i guess that makes me a libertarian maybe,but i will not trade my freedom so i can get free health care or a free bus ride.and be disarmed so they can tighten there control over my freedom.

if i want to go out in my back yard,buck nekid,and shoot my evil ak...it is no ones biz,especially the gov's,unless of coarse i am creating a public hazard.then the police can rightfully ask me to cease my behaviour or arrest me if i endangered some one.

i want to do what i want to do,within reason and without endangering someone..and i dont want some ivory tower,living in a gated community tell me i cant protect myself or enjoy my life.

if you want to dictate how i live my life and i am not harming or endangering anyone,asign me a full time bodyguard and i will fall in line..lol

if not,do what the reporter and the member of hci did,and be a hypocrite,buy a gun,kill an intruder,not be charged,and tell me i cant defend myself.
again,only the elite or wealthy can be protected in this we the people country. :fluffle:

by the way,not trying to be antagonistic,just trying to explain my point of view,of which,we are both entitled too.
i do think it is an interesting discussion,and i feel alot of people are uncomfortable with guns,which i can understand.i just think people are afraid of guns and will happily give up a fundamental freedom to feel safe.

i was raised with guns,i am pretty old..i have never fired a gun in anger,nor do i know any of the people that i know that own/ have guns either.

i think maybe people are afraid of guns,rightfully,and since fear makes people want the fear to go...jump on the chance to eliminate the fear.

one could stretch logic and say the same about people being afraid of people of color,people of different religions,people that are just different(gays come to mind)i am a live and let live person,i judge people on there actions,not there orientation(religous or sexual)i just expect the same courtesy.

i hate to beat a dead horse..but...there is like 300 million guns in america,and i would wager a very substantial bet that,out of all those guns,maybe 99.9% of them are kept in a safe and fired at the range...and never once was used in a violent unpremeditad act.

i would also wager,that you could disarm all of the legally owned gun owners in america,and it would not dent violent crime.why?because crimminals dont obey the law,i could make a gun in about 10 minutes,i am sure i am not the only one.

so you have effectively made everyone that is not a crimminal,a potential victim with no way to defend themselves.
i guess you could call a cop...but that goes back to the fact the cops cant be everywere and have no civil liability to protect the individual.

just my 2 cents...oh,by the way,i forgot to mention the fact that america has a gun culture and if all the gun owners were crazed..ready to shoot on a whim or a moment of anger,the streets would be red with blood.
yes we have gun violence,but it is from crimminals that have no respect for the law...we should address the issue that creates these crimminals,like lack of oppurtunity in life,heavy drug use,abject poverty,jobs...not creating a new class of crimminals by banning guns,because myself and millions of others,will not give up my right to protect myself.

:)

it was a brilliant idea,and still the best system i can think of.

however,you ignored the end of my sentence with regards that the gov. has gotten pretty far from the ideals of the founding fathers.
I only ignored it because I have nothing to say in response to it. It's not relevant, because we are talking about the ideals the nation was founded on.

At least I was.

The government I work for exists to serve the people. The people in service of the people. If the United States government does not, that is a major difference between our nations.

Got any sources to back up that point because I haven't seen evidence of that myself. I would not say that spirituality = religion. When an atheist gets married it is not a religious institution or even spiritual. So even if there was a fact to back up that marriage fell ONLY in the realm of religion (which there isn't), it doesn't anymore.

Re:News... No, I am talking about one news station presenting diverse viewpoints on a single story. I've seen it over and over again - especially on the BBC. That isn't to say that bias doesn't shine thru on some of it. But I wouldnt agree that news from a source like the BBC falls short (especially far short) of being balanced.

The oldest writings known to man from the Chinese language to Egyptian heirogliphs to Native American cave paintings contain references to religions. Of course you don't accept the Bible as evidence so I suggest you pick up a text on religion in Archeology if you'd like a source you might trust.

Having also watched the BBC, I have found it to be as biased in what it reports as the U.S. media. The only major difference is that its primary focus isn't the U.S. I will admit that the U.S. media ignores the rest of the world unless we have a personally vested interest in a specific happenstance. I find that to be rather inexcuse able. But, when it comes to actually reporting about a given event, the BBC is just a biased as the U.S. media.

The oldest writings known to man from the Chinese language to Egyptian heirogliphs to Native American cave paintings contain references to religions.

Interestingly (and totally off-topic, sorry!), the oldest known document is a cuniform tablet found in the fertile crescent... it's a tax record. (Bastards!!)

References to religion or spirituality? I am pretty sure that it is documented that the oldest known religion is Hinduism. In these oldest known writings that you are making reference too but have not shown proof of, do these supposed references to religion make any references to marriage?

I found an extensive article on the The History Of Marriage (http://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml) and it shows that it is similar to relationships had by other mammals as well, so I am pretty sure marriage predates religion and even though the article doesnt say that specifically, it does say that is is a social institution.

I don't think this post is off topic because we are debating rights, marraige, DOMA, etc...

The right to worship. Since I don't do any.

But it seems to me that this would be even more important to you - otherwise, what's to say that you wouldn't end up living in a theocracy where you had no say-so in the matter? Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.