NationStates Jolt Archive

As far as the attempt to illegalize guns of all shapes and size?

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

IF the second amendment is done away with, then the populace is subject to the overall control of the primary government.

Okay... I'll leave it at that since if you go on, then you start to dove into the subject of disenfranchisment... What I believe to be included in the worst case senario for this god forsaken country.

he cant "illegalize" guns of all shapes and sizes. the constitution forbids it.

No source for your bizarre and extreme assertions, I notice. How unsurprising. Go look up some facts, build your argument around them, post it, and if it's better than what you did here, it will be addressed.

Looks like someone just finished reading The Turner Diaries. Take a breath, calm down, regain your perspective.

I see there is nothing but a loony gun nut scenarion about "deh gov'ment is out to turn us communist".


When you have an arguement and some sources maybe I wont see your arguement as worthless.

Yes it does, I guess I will specify my argument here early in the game... He plans to have MANY (Not all as its impossible AS stated in the second amendment).

He could very well take away the right to own any sort of semi-automatic rifles thought. Bottom line... Nothing to have in your possession except maybe a single load dear rifle. I personally have an AK-47 and a couple Mini-14s

I've been stocking up on ammo before he outlaws the sale of 7.62cal. bullets. (General ammo used in most military weaponry)

Yes it does, I guess I will specify my argument here early in the game... He plans to have MANY (Not all as its impossible AS stated in the second amendment).

Source.

He could very well take away the right to own any sort of semi-automatic rifles thought. Bottom line... Nothing to have in your possession except maybe a single load dear rifle.

Source.


His main gun issue hes addressed since he was on the public stage was the DC-gun ban, which he took a "states rights" stance on (it was funny to watch all the ani-Fed pro-state rights libertarians who defend "states rights" all the time suddenly against a "states rights" issue. Hypocrits.) and the automatic weapons ban, which I support.

And again, you have linked to no sources even suggesting that this is in any way a valid "concern".

Now, while you stockpile AK-47s, I'm going to worry about, you know, paying my bills and having enough food to eat.

Bottom line... Nothing to have in your possession except maybe a single load dear rifle. I personally have an AK-47 and a couple Mini-14s

A single load dear rifle? Is that what you use to shoot at loved ones? I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that second sentence as well.

Yes it does, I guess I will specify my argument here early in the game... He plans to have MANY (Not all as its impossible AS stated in the second amendment).

He could very well take away the right to own any sort of semi-automatic rifles thought. Bottom line... Nothing to have in your possession except maybe a single load dear rifle. I personally have an AK-47 and a couple Mini-14s

I've been stocking up on ammo before he outlaws the sale of 7.62cal. bullets. (General ammo used in most military weaponry)

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

Yes it does, I guess I will specify my argument here early in the game... He plans to have MANY (Not all as its impossible AS stated in the second amendment).

He could very well take away the right to own any sort of semi-automatic rifles thought. Bottom line... Nothing to have in your possession except maybe a single load dear rifle. I personally have an AK-47 and a couple Mini-14s

I've been stocking up on ammo before he outlaws the sale of 7.62cal. bullets. (General ammo used in most military weaponry)
i suppose he might well hope to reinstate the weapons ban that lapsed under george bush. i dont find it burdensome to not be able to have my own AK47 (if those were banned before)

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

ZOmbie attack. *nod*

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

To shoot deer. Or blacks. Or to fight the gov'met.

To shoot deer. Or blacks. Or to fight the gov'met.

AK-47s: for those times when you don't just want to kill a deer, you want to turn that motherfucker into chum!

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

cuz' it's muh right to have'n! muh gawd given' right!

Canada's gun laws definitely restrict my ability to possess an AK-47 (as well as other automatic weapons), and wouldn't you know it, I don't feel myself even slightly deprived. I feel safer knowing that these weapons are not available to the common civilian..

cuz' it's muh right to have'n! muh gawd given' right!
You forgot the RAWRRRR! FUCK YEAH!! at the end of that.

Look, I'm not one of these anti-gun liberals on NSG who insist that there's no legitimate reason to own a gun. I support gun ownership and am willing to accept that there are compromises, regulation, and certain kinds of weapons being legal to own in one state and not so in another.

But I don't see the need to get all panicky about what Obama "could do." It reminds me just a bit about how people were afraid that Bush "could" declare martial law, postpone the elections, dissolve Congress and blow up the Moon. Yes, that was silly too.

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

You might as well ask why a private citizen needs a 56 inch flat-screen plasma TV in the house.

On the other hand, the AK is a bit over-rated and has an odd hold on the imaginations of some of my more...excitable compatriots. I have an entire room in my house set aside for storing various firearms, and I don't have an AK. Mostly because there is nothing you can do with one that can't be done with a firearm that's easier and cheaper to obtain.

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?


no.

Also, learn was "socioeconomic" means.

Look, I'm not one of these anti-gun liberals on NSG who insist that there's no legitimate reason to own a gun. I support gun ownership and am willing to accept that there are compromises, regulation, and certain kinds of weapons being legal to own in one state and not so in another.

But I don't see the need to get all panicky about what Obama "could do." It reminds me just a bit about how people were afraid that Bush "could" declare martial law, postpone the elections, dissolve Congress and blow up the Moon. Yes, that was silly too.
I'm still waiting to find out just why he thinks Obama "could do" this. No source = bullshit accusations.

You might as well ask why a private citizen needs a 56 inch flat-screen plasma TV in the house.

A question I would certainly be asking, if said TV had been designed to kill.

On the other hand, the AK is a bit over-rated and has an odd hold on the imaginations of some of my more...excitable compatriots. I have an entire room in my house set aside for storing various firearms, and I don't have an AK. Mostly because there is nothing you can do with one that can't be done with a firearm that's easier and cheaper to obtain.

I do hear that they're durable as hell, but that could be part of the hype.

no.

Also, learn was "socioeconomic" means.
Aw, c'mon. Don't you want to see him construct an argument on the evils of a socioeconomic system? ;)

Actually, now that I think more about it, there's some utter hilarity in "Obama is turning america into a socioeconomic society!".

But I don't see the need to get all panicky about what Obama "could do." It reminds me just a bit about how people were afraid that Bush "could" declare martial law, postpone the elections, dissolve Congress and blow up the Moon...

with Bush, those may have been more legitimate concerns...

Aw, c'mon. Don't you want to see him construct an argument on the evils of a socioeconomic system? ;)

....yeah, kinda, I do...

Looks like someone just finished reading The Turner Diaries. Take a breath, calm down, regain your perspective.

Yes, because we all know the last famous person to read The Turner Diaries. And he wasn't Muslim.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Mcveighmugshot.jpg

....yeah, kinda, I do...
I'd pay good money to see that, if I had any.

A question I would certainly be asking, if said TV had been designed to kill.

TV does rot your brain, I'm told...and it could fall off the wall onto your head, I suppose.

I'd pay good money to see that, if I had any.

I'm actually cracking up right now. "who will save us from the evils of socioeconomics!"

Also, hilariously topical pun dear.

As far as the attempt to illegalize guns of all shapes and size?

What are you talking about? Is there even such an "attempt"? Where?

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

No. And what is a "socioeconomic government"?

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government.

It's an illusion to pretend that citizens, in terms of military power, will ever match the state--the entire point of political authority is to centralize the means of violence such that they are wielded in accordance with law and not each person's whim.

Of course, it is equally an illusion to pretend that political authority is independent of the complicity and participation of the people in the society over which it rules. There are many ways to rebel and to resist. An armed insurgency is just one.

(To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to teach me. Interestingly, there is no mention here of any capacity to rebel against an oppressive government.

IF the second amendment is done away with, then the populace is subject to the overall control of the primary government.

...which is in turn subject to the population's control. That's how democracies work. What matters is not the raw power of the "government" but the degree to which its leaders are bound by law to stay within their authority--and it's not at all clear to me that the possessions of arms by the people is the only or even the best guarantor of that.

No. And what is a "socioeconomic government"?


My best guess would be "a government that has at least some vague idea of how society and economics function together." I can see why this might be a bit of a terrifying unknown to people who are used to the Bush administration.

I'm still waiting to find out just why he thinks Obama "could do" this. No source = bullshit accusations.

He would use the power of The Smile, revealing The Teeth of Sauron.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk173/clomata/darklord.jpg

It is hopeless to resist.

My best guess would be "a government that has at least some vague idea of how society and economics function together." I can see why this might be a bit of a terrifying unknown to people who are used to the Bush administration.

........

fucking win.

TV does rot your brain, I'm told...and it could fall off the wall onto your head, I suppose.

No, no. It only softens the brain, which is why Hulu was invented. Alec Baldwin admitted it when he declared that he was really an alien.

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?
In case of attack by a savage pack of tin cans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8
Youtube link if anyone cares for it.

And now... Here is an artical analyzing Obama's ideas on firearms

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions_pg2.html?cat=75

As far as the attempt to illegalize guns of all shapes and size?
Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

Yes, of course. Comrade Barack Husseinovic Obama, the son of Saddam Hussein and Valentina Stalinovna Bin-Laden (the half-russian cousin of Osama Bin Laden), will soon establish the islamic dictatorship of the black proletariat and send white christian farmers to gulags at the border between Zimbabwe and South Africa.

But that's just the beginning. Things will be getting even worse. He'll even sign the Kyoto Protocol! AYEEEEE!!!


Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

So, basically, in your ideas, if the cops come to enforce a law you don't like you're entitled to fire on them?
Bye, bye, rule-of-law, if the source of power is weapons. Because the State will always have more (afaik, not even Charlton Heston supported the citizens having tanks and nukes).


Seesh. American ultra-right-wingers can be quite funny sometimes.

I'm still wondering what's wrong with socioeconomics....

He would use the power of The Smile, revealing The Teeth of Sauron.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk173/clomata/darklord.jpg

It is hopeless to resist.

Winner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8
Youtube link if anyone cares for it.

And now... Here is an artical analyzing Obama's ideas on firearms

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions_pg2.html?cat=75

God, these are both as insane s your post. The conclusion that the blogger in the second source draws just makes no fucking sense.

what I find most amusing, is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment presupposes that it's necessary to stop an oppressive government, as if said oppressive government, having run roughshod over every other right, would be ok with you owning guns.

And now... Here is an artical analyzing Obama's ideas on firearms

An artical?

Let's see: english words beginning with "arti"
Artichoke
Article
Articulate
Articulation
Artifact
Artifice
Artificer
Artificial
Artillery
Artisan
Artist
Artiste
Artistic
Artistically
Artistry

No "Artical". :confused:

Okay. Bottom line... There are many times where Obama has displayed is distaste for firearms with past statements claiming the revival of some semi-auto rifle ban that was brought forth some years ago along with numerous cases where he voted to have regulations tightened on the purchase and ownership of firearms.

If you want to argue so strongly about how this arguement may be a lost cause... go find your counter-evidence.

An artical?

Let's see: english words beginning with "arti"
Artichoke
Article
Articulate
Articulation
Artifact
Artifice
Artificer
Artificial
Artillery
Artisan
Artist
Artiste
Artistic
Artistically
Artistry

No "Artical". :confused:

An "artical" is like an "article", except it bases nothing on facts and has no journalistic integrity. Its really a paranoid ideology given voice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8
Youtube link if anyone cares for it.

And now... Here is an artical analyzing Obama's ideas on firearms

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions_pg2.html?cat=75
i dont watch lou dobbs in the best of times but what does a piece on how people THINK he might work on banning guns prove anything? (i could only take about 30 seconds of it)

and as to the link... why not believe the quote?

When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president? His answer? "I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement."

an article about how people dont believe him isnt proof of anything but disbelief

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

Beats me.

First the trigger-happy ones claim it's to shoot at bears.
Then they claim it's to scare off thieves.
Then they claim it's to topple the government.

What can be the next step in this climax: it's to shoot at aliens?:tongue:

Okay. Bottom line... There are many times where Obama has displayed is distaste for firearms with past statements claiming the revival of some semi-auto rifle ban that was brought forth some years ago

You have yet to display this is the case.


along with numerous cases where he voted to have regulations tightened on the purchase and ownership of firearms.

I dont object to tightening the regulations and restrictions on owning fire arms. But tightening restrictions does not equal banning.

If you want to argue so strongly about how this arguement may be a lost cause... go find your counter-evidence.

Counter evidence you what? Besides, the way thins work around here...you mke the claim, you back it the fuck up.

An "artical" is like an "article", except it bases nothing on facts and has no journalistic integrity. Its really a paranoid ideology given voice.

I thought it would be a compound of "artichoke" and "caliber". Sort of a gun-toting thistle-like plant.

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

No. Obama's trying to take away your guns to leave you defenceless against his army of robot jihadis from the future.

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

I've read the constitution, and a document written two hundred years ago totally outweighs the fact there's a bunch of countries with low gun ownership that somehow don't have one of these oppressive governments (and, as you have so rightly pointed out, if a government is authoritarian, it would also automatically be communist, because only the left can be oppressive)

Okay... I'll leave it at that since if you go on, then you start to dove into the subject of disenfranchisment... What I believe to be included in the worst case senario for this god forsaken country.

Still, at least the Democrats like to invest in education, which might help give people the basic level of understanding of English required to make a post on NSG that is comprehensible.

There are many times where Obama has displayed is distaste for firearms with past statements claiming the revival of some semi-auto rifle ban that was brought forth some years ago along with numerous cases where he voted to have regulations tightened on the purchase and ownership of firearms.

A distaste for firearms or even an attempt to revive a semi-auto rifle ban is a still a far cry from a sinister plan to melt every gun in America into slag so we're helpless against the Communist hordes.

Which, if there are Communist hordes headed our way, given the state Russia is in lately, they are probably just headed here for the same reason the Mexicans are.

Okay. Bottom line... There are many times where Obama has displayed is distaste for firearms with past statements claiming the revival of some semi-auto rifle ban that was brought forth some years ago along with numerous cases where he voted to have regulations tightened on the purchase and ownership of firearms.

If you want to argue so strongly about how this arguement may be a lost cause... go find your counter-evidence.

I think you're a pedophile and a rapist. Prove me wrong.

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?To shoot the aliens.

Which, if there are Communist hordes headed our way,

There are Communist hordes? Where? Where? Tell me! I want to join them!

...

Oh. It's not 1950 anymore... I keep forgetting that. :(

Mostly because there is nothing you can do with one that can't be done with a firearm that's easier and cheaper to obtain.

Easier to obtain than an AK, ok.
Is there anything CHEAPER firearm?

Anyway, let's not get deeper in firearm technicalities, lest the most excitable ones have an orgasm all over the keyboard (yuuuuck).

I think you're a pedophile and a rapist. Prove me wrong.

Isn't that redundant? Could one be a pedophile and not be a rapist? I wouldn't think they'd bother with consent, or that the child would be able to offer it.

There are Communist hordes? Where? Where? Tell me! I want to join them!

You get nostalgic for the Cold War, just do what I do, and watch Red Dawn ;)

Isn't that redundant? Could one be a pedophile and not be a rapist? I wouldn't think they'd bother with consent, or that the child would be able to offer it.


You could be a pedophile that is only a voyeur.

Also, what the hell is the internet's fascination with pedophiles? Seriously, Hitler doesn't have shit on pedophiles for internet folk...

Also, what the hell is the internet's fascination with pedophiles? Seriously, Hitler doesn't have shit on pedophiles for internet folk...

Godwin's Child Law?

You could be a pedophile that is only a voyeur.



Or one who just sits around thinking dirty thoughts.

Z0mg thoughtcrime!

Also, what the hell is the internet's fascination with pedophiles? Seriously, Hitler doesn't have shit on pedophiles for internet folk...

I don't know, maybe because it's one of the few taboos left to society. And Hitler's not nearly as interesting as cats that look like Hitler (http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com)

Isn't that redundant? Could one be a pedophile and not be a rapist?

Ummm...yes. Learn what words mean before you talk about them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8
Youtube link if anyone cares for it.

And now... Here is an artical analyzing Obama's ideas on firearms

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions_pg2.html?cat=75

Ahh, I see now where the problem is. That article is about Barak Obama. Yeah, that guy's a jerk. Good thing he's not our president.

Ahh, I see now where the problem is. That article is about Barak Obama. Yeah, that guy's a jerk. Good thing he's not our president.Damn librhul media trying to fool the Real Americans into believing that the blackie won the election. It's not working, media!

what I find most amusing, is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment presupposes that it's necessary to stop an oppressive government, as if said oppressive government, having run roughshod over every other right, would be ok with you owning guns.

What amuses me is that Obama haters seem to be torn between claiming that he's not enough "change," or that he's the evil fifth column Islamic communist terrorist gonna take our freedoms away.

Godwin's Child Law?

R. Kelly's Law?

:eek:

:D

What can be the next step in this climax: it's to shoot at aliens?:tongue:
I already said, to protect you from tin cans.

Sure, you may not think that cans are a serious threat. You might even point out that they're not really made of tin, but one day you'll be sorry for laughing. It'll happen like this: You step outside your backdoor and see a can of green beans resting on the fence.
"That's funny," you think, "I don't remember resting that there."
Then you look a little bit to the right and see a can of whole potatoes and a Beanie Weenies turned towards each other conspiratorially. Your panic starts to mount as you step fully into the yard.
On the roof, there they are. Dozens of them. Baked beans, corn, spam, spinach and some so old and malevolent that their labels have become illegible. The silence in the air is deafening. The sun glints off jagged steel. The smell of fresh blood and old carbohydrates fills the air ...

Damn librhul media trying to fool the Real Americans into believing that the blackie won the election. It's not working, media!

Oh, the libruhl media still got a black guy elected president, but his name wasn't Barak. And he doesn't believe in socioeconomic governments. *nods*

I already said, to protect you from tin cans.

Sure, you may not think that cans are a serious threat. You might even point out that they're not really made of tin, but one day you'll be sorry for laughing. You'll step outside your backdoor and see a can of green beans resting on the fence.
"That's funny," you'll think, "I don't remember resting that there."
Then you'll look a little bit to the right and see a can of whole potatoes and a Beanie Weenies turned towards each other conspiratorially. Your panic starts to mount as you step fully into the yard.
On the roof, there they are. Dozens of them. Baked beans, corn, spam, spinach and some so old and malevolent that their labels have become illegible. The silence in the air is deafening. The sun glints off jagged steel. The smell of fresh blood and old carbohydrates fills the air ...

Tin can jihad??!? :eek:

What amuses me is that Obama haters seem to be torn between claiming that he's not enough "change," or that he's the evil fifth column Islamic communist terrorist gonna take our freedoms away.

What amazes me is that with virtually nothing changing between last Sunday and this Sunday, Obama and change is just about all I ever notice Americans talking about. Aren't you guys getting sick of having extremely sick of hearing ridiculously strong opinions on either side of a debate about nothing happening at all?

Oh yeah, regarding AK47's ... learn how to shoot a rifle like a real man and you won't need to spray 100's of rounds into the forest in order to hit a deer.

What amazes me is that with virtually nothing changing between last Sunday and this Sunday, Obama and change is just about all I ever notice Americans talking about. Aren't you guys getting sick of having extremely sick of hearing ridiculously strong opinions on either side of a debate about nothing happening at all?

What?

Oh yeah, regarding AK47's ... learn how to shoot a rifle like a real man and you won't need to spray 100's of rounds into the forest in order to hit a deer.

A real man doesn't use a rifle, a real man strides naked into the wilderness and slays large predators using the his penis as a bludgeon.

Good. Let him do it. America will be way better off without gun. Except then crazy rednecks might run around and stab things with knives instead. XD

R. Kelly's Law?

:eek:

:D
Quality.

What?


I see your hard of hearing.

No NOT EAR RING grandma HEARING!

I SAID: SICK OF HEARING ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL!!!


A real man doesn't use a rifle, a real man strides naked into the wilderness and slays large predators using the his penis as a bludgeon.

...agreed. :fluffle:

I see your hard of hearing.

No NOT EAR RING grandma HEARING!

I SAID: SICK OF HEARING ABOUT NOTHING AT ALL!!!



Well no you said, "sick of having extremely sick of hearing," which confused me. :p


...agreed. :fluffle:

*primal man-wolf grunt*

Well no you said, "sick of having extremely sick of hearing," which confused me. :p


Huh, your right.

I didn't notice.

You could be a pedophile that is only a voyeur.

Also, what the hell is the internet's fascination with pedophiles? Seriously, Hitler doesn't have shit on pedophiles for internet folk...

Projection. :tongue:

In Australia, we manage to do the whole democracy and freedom thing without an armoury in our basement

In Australia, we manage to do the whole democracy and freedom thing without an armoury in our basement

And your head of state resides where again?

And your head of state resides where again?

In Canberra, or wherever else Quentin Bryce is commanded to attend by our elected head of government.

Okay. Bottom line... There are many times where Obama has displayed is distaste for firearms with past statements claiming the revival of some semi-auto rifle ban that was brought forth some years ago along with numerous cases where he voted to have regulations tightened on the purchase and ownership of firearms.

If you want to argue so strongly about how this arguement may be a lost cause... go find your counter-evidence.
Actually, we don't have to find counter evidence because we don't dispute the fact that you just made up a bunch of nonsense out of nothing. Being pro gun control =/= destroying the Second Amendment or doing any of the other batshit stuff you claimed in your OP.

Ummm...yes. Learn what words mean before you talk about them.

You know, there's really no need to be snotty. Granted, as questions go, it's not exactly 'is truth beauty or beauty truth', but then, nothing else on here is either.

I already said, to protect you from tin cans.

Sure, you may not think that cans are a serious threat. You might even point out that they're not really made of tin, but one day you'll be sorry for laughing. It'll happen like this: You step outside your backdoor and see a can of green beans resting on the fence.

:D

Highly unlikely, though. I don't have a backdoor, nor a fence.

...


:eek: OMG TIN CANS WILL BUILD A BACKDOOR INTO MY APARTMENT!!! AYEEE!!! GIMME A GUN!!! YEE-AH!!!

Highly unlikely, though. I don't have a backdoor, nor a fence. OMG TIN CANS WILL BUILD A BACKDOOR INTO MY APARTMENT!!! AYEEE!!! GIMME A GUN!!! YEE-AH!!!

If you don't have a fence, how do you dispose of your stolen goods? Yeah, you gotta look out for those tin cans, but they're still nowhere near as dangerous as a ham sandwich, just ask Mama Cass.

If you don't have a fence, how do you dispose of your stolen goods? Yeah, you gotta look out for those tin cans, but they're still nowhere near as dangerous as a ham sandwich, just ask Mama Cass.

I don't have stolen goods, buster. It's just "rightful proletarian expropriation of items built by the workers and unjustly accumulated by the kapitali$t $wine!"
:D

As far as the attempt to illegalize guns of all shapes and size?

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

IF the second amendment is done away with, then the populace is subject to the overall control of the primary government.

Okay... I'll leave it at that since if you go on, then you start to dove into the subject of disenfranchisment... What I believe to be included in the worst case senario for this god forsaken country.
This ought to be archived for posterity.

This ought to be archived for posterity.

I don't know if posterity will keep archives about the sociology of paranoia in early XXI century.

I don't have stolen goods, buster. It's just "rightful proletarian expropriation of items built by the workers and unjustly accumulated by the kapitali$t $wine!"
:D

I'll be sure to tell the nice police officer that next time he asks me what I'm doing with a semi-truck full of cigarette cartons and guns, I mean, 'machine parts', yeah, that's the ticket...

This ought to be archived for posterity.

I think posterity is busy. We've given it a lot to do out in the world lately.

I'll be sure to tell the nice police officer that next time he asks me what I'm doing with a semi-truck full of cigarette cartons and guns, I mean, 'machine parts', yeah, that's the ticket...
Righty-ho!



I think posterity is busy. We've given it a lot to do out in the world lately.
That's a guess I find quite likely.

Actually, we don't have to find counter evidence because we don't dispute the fact that you just made up a bunch of nonsense out of nothing. Being pro gun control =/= destroying the Second Amendment or doing any of the other batshit stuff you claimed in your OP.

I wouldn't consider myself anti-gun and yet I still recognize that people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a loaded automatic where-ever they damn well please.

In any-case if you know how to aim properly there is no reason to use an automatic. A rifle when properly used is as deadly a weapon as anyone will ever need.

(it was funny to watch all the ani-Fed pro-state rights libertarians who defend "states rights" all the time suddenly against a "states rights" issue. Hypocrits.)

What's funny is that you think "states' rights" is a Libertarian issue.

It's not. Conservatives are concerned with "states' rights." Libertarians only recognize individual rights.

Not that the conservatives are being hypocritical here anyway, since D.C. is not a state. It is a federal district that, by the Constitution, is explicitly under the control of Congress. So no, no hypocrisy here at all.

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

To remind the government of its place when it starts getting uppity.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to teach me. Interestingly, there is no mention here of any capacity to rebel against an oppressive government.

Sure, there is.

Or did you miss the modifier "free" before the word "State"?

Because, you know, securing a free state means revolting against an oppressive state.

To remind the government of its place when it starts getting uppity.

blablabla first principles, yadda yadda yadda A=A, etc. etc. I want to have sex with Ayn Rand.

There, now you can just copy/paste that whenever you post, it'll save you time and us effort.

Sure, there is.

Or did you miss the modifier "free" before the word "State"?

Because, you know, securing a free state means revolting against an oppressive state.It's obviously not that cut-and-dried.

One could easily take it to mean that it is all in the State's interest, not the people, i.e., "necessary to the security of a free State", not 'necessary to the security of people living freely'.

In Australia, we manage to do the whole democracy and freedom thing without an armoury in our basement

Democracy and freedom are mutually exclusive. Democracy is popular sovereignty; freedom is individual sovereignty.

It's absurd to call a situation where others make decisions concerning you, when you're not hurting anyone else, "freedom."

Merely "having a say" in what happens to you is meaningless unless it's the only say.

It's obviously not that cut-and-dried.

One could easily take it to mean that it is all in the State's interest, not the people, i.e., "necessary to the security of a free State", not 'necessary to the security of people living freely'.

They're one and the same. What makes a state, a free state, is people living freely under it.

I think everyone's favorite Randian fanboy here inadvertantly raises a valid point. People have argued gun ownership is necessary to allow the people to rebel against an oppressive government.

OK, what is oppressive? To a hardcore "objectivist" (*snicker*) taxation is an illegitimate use of government, and attempts to levy them is oppressive. To NAMBLA members, laws preventing child sex is oppressive. To drug activists, illegal drugs is oppressive.

The argument that we should allow guns so that people can legitimately rebel against illegitimate governments sorta falls on its face, because it would allow anyone to take up armed conflict with the government over any perceived act of illegitimacy.

So it raises a question, where is armed rebellion justified, and where is it some kid with a copy of The Fountainhead whining about taxes?

blablabla first principles, yadda yadda yadda A=A, etc. etc. I want to have sex with Ayn Rand.
If you're unable/unwilling to debate Bluth's posts, then simply don't post.

They're one and the same. What makes a state, a free state, is people living freely under it.
I'd agree, but the Constitution, to my knowledge, seems to separate between the State and the People.

If you're unable/unwilling to debate Bluth's posts, then simply don't post.

You'll find I have, on more than one occassion, addressed it. When his arguments have simply devolved into pointless repetition, he deserves no better from me.

More to point, if you have an issue with my posts, and feel they violate the rules, feel free to report me. If, however, you find that my post does not violate any forum rules, but still don't like it, may I kindly advise you to suck it up, and deal with it?

I guess everyone is going to skip over the point that the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's an individual right, just like free speech.

Even mandating that you keep your pistol locked up is now unconstitutional, since it prevents the use of a weapon for self-defense.

Outright gun bans are also unconstitutional.

I think Obama has better things to do right now than waste political capital on fighting about guns.

Say, the economy... or Iranian and North Korean nukes...

You'll find I have, on more than one occassion, addressed it. When his arguments have simply devolved into pointless repetition, he deserves no better from me.
And when they do, then get stuck in.

But his posts above mention nothing of Rand.

More to point, if you have an issue with my posts, and feel they violate the rules, feel free to report me.
You're spamming a debate with unconnected posts/flamebait about Objectivism. It's as bad as if every time you posted, I started posting 'blablabla constitution, yadda yadda yadda rule of law, etc. etc. I want to have sex with Alan Dershowitz'.

Bad form, sir.

You're spamming a debate with unconnected posts/flamebait about Objectivism.

Not really. The poster has made similar argument before, clearly connected with his objectivism "philosophy". Attacking the underpinnings of the argument is quite a fine way of attacking the argument. It's called arguing against the foundation.

It's as bad as if every time you posted, I started posting 'blablabla constitution, yadda yadda yadda rule of law, etc. etc. I want to have sex with Alan Dershowitz'.

But, wouldn't the moustache sorta tickle?

To remind the government of its place when it starts getting uppity.

This is objectively false.

The citizens have rifles and pistols and insurgent militiamen. The government has tanks and bombers and professional military and police. Citizens get pwned.

Next!

(oh, btw, what about that famous "ultimate code of right and wrong" of yours? I'm still waiting. Fifth request.)

Not really. The poster has made similar argument before, clearly connected with his objectivism "philosophy". Attacking the underpinnings of the argument is quite a fine way of attacking the argument. It's called arguing against the foundation.
Oh, come now...

Sure, there is.

Or did you miss the modifier "free" before the word "State"?

Because, you know, securing a free state means revolting against an oppressive state.

It can also mean "securing that our country remains free from foreign domination, like in case Britain tries and retakes its former colonies".

(I could make request #6, but I'll be kind and wait at least another hour)

To remind the government of its place when it starts getting uppity.

For one glorious moment, I thought you were joking here.

Outright gun bans are also unconstitutional.


Right. On the other hand, gun control (like license to carry outside of your home, or mandatory registration of firearms) isn't unconstitutional.

They're one and the same. What makes a state, a free state, is people living freely under it.

So individuals can be free under state governance, but individual freedom is impossible under a federal government? Or are individuals only "free" if their states are not democratic, which, I'm pretty sure, all of the United States are?

Right. On the other hand, gun control (like license to carry outside of your home, or mandatory registration of firearms) isn't unconstitutional.

Actually, self-defense whether inside or outside is covered by the right.

You could put reasonable restrictions - such as whether or not you're a felon - on your right to own or carry - but past that, it looks like the "restrictions" that nearly all states now have - that the state has no recourse but to issue you a concealed weapons permit if you aren't a felon - is where the restrictions are.

So individuals can be free under state governance, but individual freedom is impossible under a federal government? Or are individuals only "free" if their states are not democratic, which, I'm pretty sure, all of the United States are?

I don't think you understand what the word "state" means here...

This is objectively false.

The citizens have rifles and pistols and insurgent militiamen. The government has tanks and bombers and professional military and police. Citizens get pwned.

Which is why all government restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons are absurd and illegitimate. Parity is essential.

(oh, btw, what about that famous "ultimate code of right and wrong" of yours? I'm still waiting. Fifth request.)
I've explained it several times. Either you've chosen to ignore it, in which case you're dishonest, or you simply couldn't understand. Neither of which are (a) my fault or (b) anything I can do anything about.

Which is why all government restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons are absurd and illegitimate. Parity is essential.
I get your point. Now explain how this can be implemented in the real world. Everyone gets a free nuclear deterrent in his hands?


I've explained it several times.

If you've explained it answering to one of my requests, please point me to that post.

Either you've chosen to ignore it, in which case you're dishonest, or you simply couldn't understand. Neither of which are (a) my fault or (b) anything I can do anything about.
Simply I don't remember you giving an answer to that request. Honestly.
By the way, you could simply have explained it not well enough. Which would be objectively your fault, and probabily something you couldn't do anything about.

I guess everyone is going to skip over the point that the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's an individual right, just like free speech.

Even mandating that you keep your pistol locked up is now unconstitutional, since it prevents the use of a weapon for self-defense.

Outright gun bans are also unconstitutional.

I think Obama has better things to do right now than waste political capital on fighting about guns.

Say, the economy... or Iranian and North Korean nukes...

Hey, your post wasn't snickety. Are you feeling well?

Hey, your post wasn't snickety. Are you feeling well?

I've posted this opinion several times. No need to be snickety.

Now if Pelosi were President, we could worry, because she gives a rat's ass what the Constitution says. But Obama's in office.

He's more worried about the economy. If he fucks that up, it will be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

I've posted this opinion several times. No need to be snickety.

Now if Pelosi were President, we could worry, because she gives a rat's ass what the Constitution says. But Obama's in office.

He's more worried about the economy. If he fucks that up, it will be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

Hasn't he already fucked it up with a waste of 800 billion in a stimulus plan that could easily be resolved with 300 billion?

Hasn't he already fucked it up with a waste of 800 billion in a stimulus plan that could easily be resolved with 300 billion?

have you figured out how to save us from socioeconomics yet?

What I have figured out is that whenever I post something, you are always RIGHT behind me with some smart ass comment. It is a little surprising to me that you take so much of an interest in me.

Actually, self-defense whether inside or outside is covered by the right.

You could put reasonable restrictions - such as whether or not you're a felon - on your right to own or carry - but past that, it looks like the "restrictions" that nearly all states now have - that the state has no recourse but to issue you a concealed weapons permit if you aren't a felon - is where the restrictions are.

I see.
Question: could restictions apply to medical issues also? Like, dunno, post-traumatic disorder, or being prescribed mind-altering drugs (painkillers for instance) etc?
Let's say, the state requires a permit to carry, and the permit is issued only if you pass an yearly medical control.
That could take the weapon off the hands of most psychos.

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)
In that case, I fully support taking away the citizens' right to have firearms. If that actually gives them power, real power, then I'm just fine with getting rid of it.

Up 'til now, of course, I was in support of gun ownership, even if some regulations are required, because it gives the illusion of power without conferring any power of itself. Like voting.

Do you seriously think that you and a whole room full of AK-47s are going to be able to stand up to an oppressive government if it decides to do away with you? An oppressive government that, need I remind you, has direct control of the most advanced military in the world, with UAVs, tanks, missile launchers and the like? Hell, you and a whole city full of gun nuts with whatever rifles they can get their hands on will do little more than provide a mild setback for the US Army. Sigh.

Aw, c'mon. Don't you want to see him construct an argument on the evils of a socioeconomic system? ;)

XD.

what I find most amusing, is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment presupposes that it's necessary to stop an oppressive government, as if said oppressive government, having run roughshod over every other right, would be ok with you owning guns.

The argument is that it wouldn't be ok with you owning guns, but if the current non-oppressive government allows you to, you can stand up to the oppressive government when it comes into place.

Which, as I've already suggested, is romantic but unrealistic and ultimately futile.

I already said, to protect you from tin cans.

Sure, you may not think that cans are a serious threat. You might even point out that they're not really made of tin, but one day you'll be sorry for laughing. It'll happen like this: You step outside your backdoor and see a can of green beans resting on the fence.
"That's funny," you think, "I don't remember resting that there."
Then you look a little bit to the right and see a can of whole potatoes and a Beanie Weenies turned towards each other conspiratorially. Your panic starts to mount as you step fully into the yard.
On the roof, there they are. Dozens of them. Baked beans, corn, spam, spinach and some so old and malevolent that their labels have become illegible. The silence in the air is deafening. The sun glints off jagged steel. The smell of fresh blood and old carbohydrates fills the air ...


A real man doesn't use a rifle, a real man strides naked into the wilderness and slays large predators using the his penis as a bludgeon.

These two posts are made of win.

Do you seriously think that you and a whole room full of AK-47s are going to be able to stand up to an oppressive government if it decides to do away with you? An oppressive government that, need I remind you, has direct control of the most advanced military in the world, with UAVs, tanks, missile launchers and the like?

This objection is addressed in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14542028&postcount=110).

Which is why all government restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons are absurd and illegitimate. Parity is essential.

By the way, your point about parity leads to different interpretations (two of them justifying restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons).

the State is allowed to own any kind of weapon, and so do citizens
the State is allowed to own only the same kinds of weapons that civilians are allowed to own
the State isn't allowed to own any weapon, and the same for civilians


By the way, I cannot fail to see that you still refuse to point me to the famous "code of right and wrong" you previously claimed having already explained to me.
Sixth request. Now your lack of explanation is positively rude, and I'm taking it as a hint that you actually claim things without having a clue about them.

I get your point. Now explain how this can be implemented in the real world. Everyone gets a free nuclear deterrent in his hands?
Well, it's up to him to come up with the means of acquiring it without violating the sacred natural rights of others.


If you've explained it answering to one of my requests, please point me to that post.
Either you honestly missed it, in which case you can search for it just as easily as I can (since you're the one who wants to know), or you're just trying to make me go out of my way to annoy me, in which case I'm not going to play your game.



By the way, you could simply have explained it not well enough.
I have no such failings.

This objection is addressed in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14542028&postcount=110).

Let's take that into account.

Now, let's assume that civilian restrictions on all weapons across the board were lifted. Things like tanks and fighter planes cost millions of dollars and require specialized training to use. (If they didn't, we wouldn't have a military.) If the oppressive government decides to wipe out the individuals with weapons, it is unlikely that any of them will have anything more advanced than, say, a mortar, just because anything larger is more expensive and more difficult to use. The results will be similar to the '09 Israel-Gaza conflict, in which the casualties were about ten to fifteen trained, well-equipped soldiers versus many hundreds of armed militia, despite the latter having had the time and money to build an extensive defense network and all being coordinated as part of a paramilitary organization. If you don't build a defense network like that and fail to coordinate with your fellow weapon owners, well, you'll still get blown up, and all the oppressive government is likely to lose is some face with the international community.

My point stands.

Well, it's up to him to come up with the means of acquiring it without violating the sacred natural rights of others.
You're funny. Really, I'm laughing my head off. Because there isn't enough uranium on the planet to give everyone his nuclear deterrent (that would be 14 kg of weapon-grade enriched uranium, just to have a Hiroshima yield, which is quite small).
You and your philosopher friend really don't have a clue about nukes.


Either you honestly missed it, in which case you can search for it just as easily as I can (since you're the one who wants to know), or you're just trying to make me go out of my way to annoy me, in which case I'm not going to play your game.
Will you at least give the title of that post, or the exact wording of your "Code of right and wrong whatever" so I don't have to review all of your posts?

I have no such failings.Such self-esteem is quite hilarous.

Bill Gates could easily afford more aircraft carriers than the US government currently owns...but even granting your point--so what?

Those of us who don't wish to be slaves can at least go out in a blaze of glory. It's much better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees. And by eliminating the restrictions, there's at least the possibility of winning, so it's not an altogether forlorn hope.

All of this is infinitely better than the alternative you advocate.

My point stands.

No, because he claims that his premise is the Universe, hence pwn.

Then you could reply that yours is the Multiverse and pwn him back.

It all would be quite childish, though.

What I have figured out is that whenever I post something, you are always RIGHT behind me with some smart ass comment. It is a little surprising to me that you take so much of an interest in me.
You know in grade school, there'd be a new kid who would show up all cocky and start showing off, but in the middle of what he was doing he pees his pants and then for the rest of the year that kid is known as "Peepants"?

Well, with your socioeconomic blunder, you peed your pants. Your not even special, there's the whole "Eminent soandso philosopher Ayn Rand" bit, the "As a historian" bit. Ride it out and try not to pee yourself again and they'll move on to someone else's blunder.

You're funny. Really, I'm laughing my head off. Because there isn't enough uranium on the planet to give everyone his nuclear deterrent (that would be 14 kg of weapon-grade enriched uranium, just to have a Hiroshima yield, which is quite small).
You and your philosopher friend really don't have a clue about nukes.
Who said anything about "everyone" having one? Whoever wants one, and is able to get one, can have one.

Will you at least give the title of that post,
I don't remember.

or the exact wording of your "Code of right and wrong whatever"
You mean post the whole thing right here, which is playing right into your hand and defeats the whole purpose?

Such self-esteem is quite hilarous.
That you find correctness "hilarious" speaks volumes about you.

Why on Earth does a private citizen need a fully functioning AK-47 in the house?

Why doesn't a private citizen need one?

Maybe someone just, you know, wants one?

Besides, AKs are common. Gangs already have them, and will still have them if they are banned. Seems like an issue of parity. Why should criminals be able to outgun regular people?

Anyways. I've heard several people mention that Obama wants to take away people's guns, but I can't remember him ever saying anything that would warrant such paranoia.

Bill Gates could easily afford more aircraft carriers than the US government currently owns...but even granting your point--so what?

Those of us who don't wish to be slaves can at least go out in a blaze of glory. It's much better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees. And by eliminating the restrictions, there's at least the possibility of winning, so it's not an altogether forlorn hope.

All of this is infinitely better than the alternative you advocate.

Fine, really.

Although I have to say, if you really don't like an oppressive government, you can move elsewhere to a place that's not under its jurisdiction. Rather than, you know, dying gloriously. (I have to say, I don't find much very glorious about death. If you die rebelling against a fascist government and your death doesn't change anything, you haven't died gloriously; you've died pointlessly. Your choice, though.)

No, because he claims that his premise is the Universe, hence pwn.

Then you could reply that yours is the Multiverse and pwn him back.

It all would be quite childish, though.
My premise is the Omniverse.

Of which I am also the Supreme Ruler. Bow down before me, ye mortals.

Bill Gates could easily afford more aircraft carriers than the US government currently owns...but even granting your point--so what?
No, because the US government wouldn't sell him carriers.


Those of us who don't wish to be slaves can at least go out in a blaze of glory. It's much better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

This is what I really don't understand. I'm a citizen of a democracy. I'm not the slave of my government. My government serves me, because I, as a citizen, am entitled to partake of the sovereignity by the Constitution. I as a citizen authorise the government to exist, and I'm able to recall it and substitute it with another one. I'm given procedures even to modify the Constitution.

I guess, given your hate for the government, that you aren't entitled to being an elector, or to other forms of sovereignity.

Why doesn't a private citizen need one?

Maybe someone just, you know, wants one?

Want =/= need.

I might want a Ferrari, but this doesn't make me need a Ferrari. (unless we take some devious dialectic routes, but I'm too sleepy now; tomorrow, maybe).

Why doesn't a private citizen need one?

Maybe someone just, you know, wants one?

Besides, AKs are common. Gangs already have them, and will still have them if they are banned. Seems like an issue of parity. Why should criminals be able to outgun regular people?

Anyways. I've heard several people mention that Obama wants to take away people's guns, but I can't remember him ever saying anything that would warrant such paranoia.

Methinks dealing with criminals is the realm of the police, not of regular people.

In fact, if guns were banned for ordinary citizens and only permitted for police and the military, it would become easier to track shipments of illegal weapons, and crack down on criminals and gangs using them. Just sayin'. Argument does not hold sufficient water to convince.

Although I have to say, if you really don't like an oppressive government, you can move elsewhere to a place that's not under its jurisdiction.
What if it won't let me leave, and I have to fight my way out?

What if there's nowhere else, nowhere better to go?

angsty anarchist melodrama is angsty.

And melodramatic.

No, because the US government wouldn't sell him carriers.
I really think you're missing the point here, which is that all restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons are illegitimate and should be lifted.

Given that, then, there would be nothing stopping Mr. Gates from purchasing 20 or so aircraft carriers--he wouldn't even have to buy them from the government but could contract directly with the shipyard.

This is what I really don't understand. I'm a citizen of a democracy.
In which other people--who are not you--have a say (more of a say than you yourself do, in fact) in decisions that affect you even if you haven't hurt anyone. That is, indeed oppression and slavery. Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is popular sovereignty; freedom is individual sovereignty.

Methinks dealing with criminals is the realm of the police, not of regular people.

Yes, because the criminal is definitely going to acquiesce when you say "Hey, let me call the cops real quick so they can come shoot you/take you down/whatever" while he's pointing his own weapon at you.

angsty anarchist melodrama is angsty.

And melodramatic.

Kinda hilarious, too.

Those of us who don't wish to be slaves can at least go out in a blaze of glory. It's much better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

You know, it's people who say shit like this that end up bombing federal buildings.

Methinks dealing with criminals is the realm of the police, not of regular people.

In fact, if guns were banned for ordinary citizens and only permitted for police and the military, it would become easier to track shipments of illegal weapons, and crack down on criminals and gangs using them. Just sayin'. Argument does not hold sufficient water to convince.

The police aren't everywhere all the time. Most of the time police arrive after the crime has happened. Its up to people to defend themselves.

Plus, we have the 2nd Amendment.

Kinda hilarious, too.

Yes, but at some point you sorta wanna grab em by the scruff of the neck and go "You. Are Not. Patrick Henry. You. Are Not. Thomas Paine. You aren't even Max Payne."

You know, it's people who say shit like this that end up bombing federal buildings.
And anyway, he's got it wrong again: It's much better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Joseph Heller made that clear long ago. He was also a better novelist that Ayn Rand. At least, he wrote one good book, which is one more than she can claim.

Yes, but at some point you sorta wanna grab em by the scruff of the neck and go "You. Are Not. Patrick Henry. You. Are Not. Thomas Paine. You aren't even Max Payne."
*falls about laughing* :D

Who said anything about "everyone" having one? Whoever wants one, and is able to get one, can have one.
I said that. For the sake of parity. Which has to be actual parity, and not just theoretical parity.


I don't remember.

Oh well.


You mean post the whole thing right here, which is playing right into your hand and defeats the whole purpose?

I don't see why you should be scared of explaining your positions, unless, as you say, your positions are so weak dialectically that they would be automatically defeated, thus forcing you, as an intellectually honest person, to radically and openly review them.

It's called maieutics and dialectics.

That you find correctness "hilarious" speaks volumes about you.If by "correctness" you mean "trying to escape out of an intellectually honest debate", well, I guess we have a problem of definitions here. Yes, this speaks volumes about me.

Bill Gates could easily afford more aircraft carriers than the US government currently owns...but even granting your point--so what?
Hmm... Cost of a Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, about $8 billion. Current carriers in the fleet, 11. Current net worth of Bill Gates (2008) $58 billion.

Not even close. Nor does it cover the crew, planes, armaments, and support ships needed.

And anyway, he's got it wrong again: It's much better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Except I wasn't referring to either of those two alternatives, and in the scenario presented by SCI the two I mentioned were the only ones that existed.

Living on your feet > dying on your feet > dying on your knees > living on your knees.

There's a hierarchy there, but not all of its members exist as options in every single hypothetical scenario.

I really think you're missing the point here, which is that all restrictions on civilian ownership of weapons are illegitimate and should be lifted.

Given that, then, there would be nothing stopping Mr. Gates from purchasing 20 or so aircraft carriers--he wouldn't even have to buy them from the government but could contract directly with the shipyard.

I see. Still this wouldn't allow actual parity. Just theoretical parity. The lack of actual parity leading to conflict, where the strong has the upper hand and proceeds to determine arbitrary impositions on other people. So we close the cycle and are back with someone ruling (quite oppressively, I might add) on someone else.


In which other people--who are not you--have a say (more of a say than you yourself do, in fact) in decisions that affect you even if you haven't hurt anyone. That is, indeed oppression and slavery. Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is popular sovereignty; freedom is individual sovereignty.
Why do you assume that other people have MORE of my say? One head, one vote.
This is not slavery because the laws made by the popular sovereignity have limits fixed by the Constitution and by the Convention of Human Rights. It may be far from perfect, but it's quite better than your idea of the "law of the jungle", so to speak.
Democracy is freedom, because humans cannot live as individuals. We can live only in societies. We're too weak to survive alone, but in communities we can defeat most adversities; social animals, that's what we are.


Sorry, but now I'm really sleepy: it's 0045 here and I must be out of bed within 6 hours. We'll continue tomorrow, if you like.

You know what I remember about ole Bluthy here? The one time a few days ago, when he proclaimed loudly and proudly on NSG "I'm the only legitimate radical here."

I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of. Sorta like being proud of the fact that you're the loudest kid on the short bus, no?

Hmm... Cost of a Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, about $8 billion. Current carriers in the fleet, 11. Current net worth of Bill Gates (2008) $58 billion.

Admittedly, I was using numbers from when I first began using that argument several years ago, a time in which the Nimitz-class was current (about $4-5 billion apiece) and Gates' NW was hovering around the 100-billion mark. I haven't bothered updating those numbers because, frankly, it doesn't change the essential point.

Leaving aside the fact that aircraft carriers are probably useless in a domestic insurrection anyway, the point remains that it's perfectly conceivable for a very few private individuals, in a concerted effort, to achieve parity in terms of equipment with the United States military.

Yes, but at some point you sorta wanna grab em by the scruff of the neck and go "You. Are Not. Patrick Henry. You. Are Not. Thomas Paine. You aren't even Max Payne."

Awesome.

Why do you assume that other people have MORE of my say? One head, one vote.
In the US, there are 300 million of them and one of me. There are 300 million of us and one of you. Etc., etc.

This is not slavery because the laws made by the popular sovereignity have limits fixed by the Constitution and by the Convention of Human Rights.
Which can contain whatever the jokers who wrote them wanted it to contain, and can be ignored if there are enough of them who want to ignore it that they're strong enough to get away with it.

It may be far from perfect, but it's quite better than your idea of the "law of the jungle", so to speak.
Please don't put words in my mouth. You're the one endorsing "We're going to do it because we can get away with it" (which is what popular government essentially is, regardless of what pretty language you may cloak it in), not I.

Democracy is freedom, because humans cannot live as individuals.
False dichotomy. I can still interact with others peacefully and effectively without having a government that usurps my individual sovereignty. Government can simply concern itself with dealing with those who choose to violate the individual sovereignty of others, in which case it is not violating the individual sovereignty of anyone else but is explicitly protecting it. You don't need democracy to do this. In fact, it's incompatible with democracy.

I've functioned perfectly well without the right to bear firearms personally.

I've functioned perfectly well without the right to bear firearms personally.

Thats just what your government bureaucrat overlords at London want you to think. In reality, you are a slave and the government has taken away your most fundamental right, and with it, all your rights.



I feel dirty typing that.

I've functioned perfectly well without the right to bear firearms personally.

Well, of course. Why would you want firearms designed for bears?

Now, a death ray, thats what every individual should be required by law to carry in the streets. In the interests of safety.

I think everyone's favorite Randian fanboy here inadvertantly raises a valid point. People have argued gun ownership is necessary to allow the people to rebel against an oppressive government.

OK, what is oppressive? To a hardcore "objectivist" (*snicker*) taxation is an illegitimate use of government, and attempts to levy them is oppressive. To NAMBLA members, laws preventing child sex is oppressive. To drug activists, illegal drugs is oppressive.

The argument that we should allow guns so that people can legitimately rebel against illegitimate governments sorta falls on its face, because it would allow anyone to take up armed conflict with the government over any perceived act of illegitimacy.

So it raises a question, where is armed rebellion justified, and where is it some kid with a copy of The Fountainhead whining about taxes?

Well I would think when the country is under martial law and the government decides to come around and collect weapons; that to me would be an oppressive government that would require rebellion. I think anyone could agree with me on that.

On another note, I don't understand these people that say "Well what's the use of having *insert weapon here*? That really isn't necessary." So my question is what does it matter to you? Do you think you'll really be harmed by this weapon?

And who says LEGAL gun owners with semi automatic weapons commit crimes more often than criminals with ILLEGAL weapons?? That's flawed logic. That's why guns are registered, so they can be tracked down in the event of a crime.

It's like people think that if you go out and buy a gun, you're going to commit a crime automatically. It's strange.

Citation needed.

You do know that thing by the NRA that said Obama was out to ban ALL guns was a complete lie right?

As far as the attempt to illegalize guns of all shapes and size?

Could this be the master link to turning this country into a communist/socioeconomic government?

Honestly, if you take the citizens right to have firearms... Your taking away the citizens raw source of power. The power to rise up and take arms against an oppressive government. (To learn more, simply read what is written in the Constitution)

IF the second amendment is done away with, then the populace is subject to the overall control of the primary government.

Okay... I'll leave it at that since if you go on, then you start to dove into the subject of disenfranchisment... What I believe to be included in the worst case senario for this god forsaken country.

Drat. Our secret plans have been revealed. Back to the drawing board!!

Well I would think when the country is under martial law and the government decides to come around and collect weapons; that to me would be an oppressive government that would require rebellion. I think anyone could agree with me on that.

On another note, I don't understand these people that say "Well what's the use of having *insert weapon here*? That really isn't necessary." So my question is what does it matter to you? Do you think you'll really be harmed by this weapon?

And who says LEGAL gun owners with semi automatic weapons commit crimes more often than criminals with ILLEGAL weapons?? That's flawed logic. That's why guns are registered, so they can be tracked down in the event of a crime.

It's like people think that if you go out and buy a gun, you're going to commit a crime automatically. It's strange.

Its about time someone else supported the right to carry firearms.

Saying that people will commit crimes just because they go out an purchase a semi-auto version of an assault rifle is just like saying that people who buy massive K-Bar Combat Knives are really getting them just to kill people... When just about every hunter has used one for a hunting knife, or work knife.

Its about time someone else supported the right to carry firearms.

Very few have come out against this right. Just your idiotic OP.

Saying that people will commit crimes just because they go out an purchase a semi-auto version of an assault rifle is just like saying that people who buy massive K-Bar Combat Knives are really getting them just to kill people... When just about every hunter has used one for a hunting knife, or work knife.

Who has said that?

Its about time someone else supported the right to carry firearms.

The Second Amendment right to carry firearms does not equate to a right to carry any firearm without regulation.

Just as there are limits to freedom of speech, there are limits to gun rights.

The Second Amendment right to carry firearms does not equate to a right to carry any firearm without regulation.

Just as there are limits to freedom of speech, there are limits to gun rights.

Okay... got me there... But its nothing a permit cant take care of. I have one that lets me carry my .45 cal. Revolver in public... And there are only two regulations. It can't be silenced and it must be concealed.

Just so over-dramatic people don't freak out because someone is packing heat on their person.

Very few have come out against this right. Just your idiotic OP.



Who has said that?

did you bother to read the qoute?

did you bother to read the qoute?

Which? The one where you insinuated that everyone whose posted so far is anti-gun or the one where you insinuated that people believe anyone who buys a semi-auto is using it to committ crimes?

Which? The one where you insinuated that everyone whose posted so far is anti-gun or the one where you insinuated that people believe anyone who buys a semi-auto is using it to committ crimes?

The one where I supported what One eyed weasle or whatever his god-forsaken name may be had to say.

Leaving aside the fact that aircraft carriers are probably useless in a domestic insurrection anyway,
Yeah, because the ability to bomb the hell out of your enemy and then make sure you can land and service your plane out of reach of said enemy and then MOVE to a new location overnight and repeat isn't in any way a military advantage. It's why none of our aircraft carriers have been deployed in Iraq... er, wait...

the point remains that it's perfectly conceivable for a very few private individuals, in a concerted effort, to achieve parity in terms of equipment with the United States military.
The US spends about one trillion per year on defense related items, from weapons, to troops, to bases, training, etc.

No, "a very few private individuals" are NOT going to be able to match that in any way shape or form.

Okay... got me there... But its nothing a permit cant take care of. I have one that lets me carry my .45 cal. Revolver in public... And there is only on regulation. It can't be silenced and it must be concealed.

Just so over-dramatic people don't freak out because someone is packing heat on their person.

Um. I thought one of your "sources" earlier was freaking out at the prospect that guns could be registered or licensed.

FWIW, as Hotwife noted, SCOTUS has affirmed the individual right to own and carry firearms in District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html), 554 U.S. ___ (2008), but he exaggerates the extent to which such right precludes regulation. The Court said, in relevant part (emphasis added):

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
....

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),] permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The Second Amendment right to carry firearms does not equate to a right to carry any firearm without regulation.
Yes, it does.

Not that it matters, since that's not the source of the sacred natural right for the individual to possess and bear any weapon of his choice anyway.

Just as there are limits to freedom of speech, there are limits to gun rights.

Not legitimately.

Yes, it does.

Not that it matters, since that's not the source of the sacred natural right for the individual to possess and bear any weapon of his choice anyway.

Not legitimately.

:D

Are all "sacred natural right[s]" absolute or just gun rights?

If all rights are absolute, how does one deal with a conflict between, for example, your right to free speech and my right not to be defamed?

:D

Are all "sacred natural right[s]" absolute or just gun rights?

If all rights are absolute, how does one deal with a conflict between, for example, your right to free speech and my right not to be defamed?

The latter is not actually a right.

The latter is not actually a right.

Non-responsive -- as well as foolish.

You know in grade school, there'd be a new kid who would show up all cocky and start showing off, but in the middle of what he was doing he pees his pants and then for the rest of the year that kid is known as "Peepants"?

Well, with your socioeconomic blunder, you peed your pants. Your not even special, there's the whole "Eminent soandso philosopher Ayn Rand" bit, the "As a historian" bit. Ride it out and try not to pee yourself again and they'll move on to someone else's blunder.

Who had "as a historian" bit? It rings a bell, but I can't place it.

And anyway, he's got it wrong again: It's much better to live on your feet than to die on your knees.

Joseph Heller made that clear long ago. He was also a better novelist that Ayn Rand. At least, he wrote one good book, which is one more than she can claim.

Didn't she write Bioshock? :P

Okay... got me there... But its nothing a permit cant take care of. I have one that lets me carry my .45 cal. Revolver in public... And there are only two regulations. It can't be silenced and it must be concealed.

Just so over-dramatic people don't freak out because someone is packing heat on their person.
YOU talking about "over-dramatic" people? After the blatant lie you based your hysterical OP on? *falls about laughing some more*

In the US, there are 300 million of them and one of me. There are 300 million of us and one of you. Etc., etc.
And every single one of these 50 millions (I'm using 50 millions because I live in Italy and we have about 50 millions electors) counts just like me when we vote and decide. So, it's 50 millions of us. Stop.


Which can contain whatever the jokers who wrote them wanted it to contain,
Nope, as the Constitution was written by representatives and confirmed by vote. So it could not contain "whatever the jokers etc".

and can be ignored if there are enough of them who want to ignore it that they're strong enough to get away with it.
And, of course, this would mean civil war. I don't see you advocating civil war.


Please don't put words in my mouth. You're the one endorsing "We're going to do it because we can get away with it" (which is what popular government essentially is, regardless of what pretty language you may cloak it in), not I.

Uh?
Sorry, but your ideas look quite a "law of the jungle" to me. Total freedom without any restriction to prevent the weaker ones to get exploited => law of the jungle or whatever you want to call it: anyway it's always the strong one exploiting/enslaving/killing the weak one.
Law exists to protect the weak ones from the abuses of the strong ones.


False dichotomy. I can still interact with others peacefully and effectively without having a government that usurps my individual sovereignty.
You can interact with others. By interacting with others, you form a society. The first time there's a dissent and you're on the "losing" side, you either: walk away to live alone (or with someone else), or accept the choice of the others. Either way, a government has been formed: because you recognised the sovereignity of people other than you in a matter that affected you (but not only you).

Government can simply concern itself with dealing with those who choose to violate the individual sovereignty of others, in which case it is not violating the individual sovereignty of anyone else but is explicitly protecting it. You don't need democracy to do this. In fact, it's incompatible with democracy.
That part of government is called the judiciary power: as all democracies have a judiciary branch, I think that you should prove its incompatibility with democratic rule.
Or maybe you're thinking of the police. Yes, often police corps do their best to show how much they despise democracy and prefer fascism instead, but this is another issue, I think.


By the way: I don't understand why you're mixing two different concepts: personal freedom and sovereignity. There is no such thing as "personal sovereignity", unless you are the Roi Soleil.

Yes, but at some point you sorta wanna grab em by the scruff of the neck and go "You. Are Not. Patrick Henry. You. Are Not. Thomas Paine. You aren't even Max Payne."

I'm going to have to agree with you here. As much I stand behind the right to bear arms, and the rights of the individual, 'the government governs best that governs least' and all that, I'd just as soon not be lumped in with the nuts. I'm like William F. Buckley,(who definitely should have run for president at some point) disassociating himself from the John Birch Society.

I'm also going to put that in my signature, if you don't mind.

Bill Gates could easily afford more aircraft carriers than the US government currently owns...but even granting your point--so what?
So we have to rely on the über-rich to protect our liberties?

Gee, great...

Not that it matters, since that's not the source of the sacred natural right for the individual to possess and bear any weapon of his choice anyway.
Derived from what, God?



I'm like William F. Buckley,(who definitely should have run for president at some point)...
I believe he popped his clogs back in 2008.

I believe he popped his clogs back in 2008.

I had the same reaction, and was about to suggest that he run against zombie regan, before noticing that the sneaky poster had said "should have run" not should run".

Damned tenses, got me all befuddled.

Damned tenses, got me all befuddled.
Ahh, you're quite right.

I, too, am tensely confuzzled.

Ahh, you're quite right.

I, too, am tensely confuzzled.

I haven't had my morning coffee yet. What's your excuse Irish? :p

I haven't had my morning coffee yet. What's your excuse Irish? :p
Irish coffee.

Irish coffee.

....touche.

I believe he popped his clogs back in 2008.

Yeah I know. I framed the National Review commemorative. It's hanging in the gun room.

Yes, yes, I know, mock away. ;)