On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 06:35 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It applies to any piece of legislation that dictates future governments actions.


So, no government can ever be founded on a defining document. What, then, defines a government?
We (New Zealand) don't have a constitution. We weren't even founded on one.
We have several legislation that combined could be considered our constitution. Bill of Rights for example. But these are all changable by governments.

You don't need a document to found a government, certainly not one that lays out how future governments should run the place.
If you really must insist on a constitution simply leave all that "thou shall have thr right to own guns" and other dictating shit off. Because when you get into that ball game of dictating how future governments can or cannot run the country then you get a country stuck in the period of which the constitution was written.

What would happen if the constitution had written on it "thou shall have the right to own slaves"?

My point is that times change. Legislation, of any kind, made now that is set in stone that future governments cannot change (illegal here I might add) is simply undemocratic. Much like your constitution, or most constitutions for that matter.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:00 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 06:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, no government can ever be founded on a defining document. What, then, defines a government?
We (New Zealand) don't have a constitution. We weren't even founded on one.
We have several legislation that combined could be considered our constitution. Bill of Rights for example. But these are all changable by governments.

You don't need a document to found a government, certainly not one that lays out how future governments should run the place.
If you really must insist on a constitution simply leave all that "thou shall have thr right to own guns" and other dictating shit off. Because when you get into that ball game of dictating how future governments can or cannot run the country then you get a country stuck in the period of which the constitution was written.

What would happen if the constitution had written on it "thou shall have the right to own slaves"?

My point is that times change. Legislation, of any kind, made now that is set in stone that future governments cannot change (illegal here I might add) is simply undemocratic. Much like your constitution, or most constitutions for that matter.


The U.S. Constitution is changeable, the rules for changing it (Amendment) are spelled out in it.
It has been Amended 27 times, and the 28th is almost there.
Your argument fails.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 07:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 06:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  We (New Zealand) don't have a constitution. We weren't even founded on one.
We have several legislation that combined could be considered our constitution. Bill of Rights for example. But these are all changable by governments.

You don't need a document to found a government, certainly not one that lays out how future governments should run the place.
If you really must insist on a constitution simply leave all that "thou shall have thr right to own guns" and other dictating shit off. Because when you get into that ball game of dictating how future governments can or cannot run the country then you get a country stuck in the period of which the constitution was written.

What would happen if the constitution had written on it "thou shall have the right to own slaves"?

My point is that times change. Legislation, of any kind, made now that is set in stone that future governments cannot change (illegal here I might add) is simply undemocratic. Much like your constitution, or most constitutions for that matter.


The U.S. Constitution is changeable, the rules for changing it (Amendment) are spelled out in it.
It has been Amended 27 times, and the 28th is almost there.
Your argument fails.
If by the 28th being related to guns then no my argument isn't a failure.
It hasn't been amended yet and you are arguing that it says in the constitution says this about guns, or that about guns or whatever.
My point still stands until they actually make the amendment.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 07:03 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 07:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  The U.S. Constitution is changeable, the rules for changing it (Amendment) are spelled out in it.
It has been Amended 27 times, and the 28th is almost there.
Your argument fails.
If by the 28th being related to guns then no my argument isn't a failure.
It hasn't been amended yet and you are arguing that it says in the constitution says this about guns, or that about guns or whatever.
My point still stands until they actually make the amendment.
You just changed the argument. Your argument was about founding documents.

NZ has founding legislation, the USA has a constitution. There is no substantive difference.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:13 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 07:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 07:03 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  If by the 28th being related to guns then no my argument isn't a failure.
It hasn't been amended yet and you are arguing that it says in the constitution says this about guns, or that about guns or whatever.
My point still stands until they actually make the amendment.
You just changed the argument. Your argument was about founding documents.

NZ has founding legislation, the USA has a constitution. There is no substantive difference.

Sure there is.
Legislation is easy to make changes too and keep up-to-date.
The fact that you know there have been exactly 27 changes to the constitution shows how big of a deal it is every time.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 12:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then what point where you trying to make with the taxes and gun laws?
I described in in great detail already. If you're still confused I don't know how to make it any more clear.

@ germanyt

The city passed an ordinance to prohibit ownership of ordnance.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 06:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 06:21 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  As you can withhold any legitimate argument and/or points toward your view(s).

Just to add: To say that the Bill of Rights, was, in general, to prevent oppression from government, is kind of obvious; but from my perspective, to say that as the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, in a specifically way, like I'm inferring that you seem to be doing now, is total absurdity. That's would be either from a Founding Father or a modern citizen.
Yes, don't let anything get in the way of your opinion.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove
that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington - First President of the United States

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson - Third President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"


Thanks, I guess; however, I was expecting a lot more entertaining quotes, given that, like I said, they are already irrelevant. The George Washington quote, I think even someone on here previously said that it was infamously phony. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but I can't really speak to the accuracy of that quote, or any of them really.

To ask: Are you still holding the view that the 2nd Amendment is, and was, for the previous mentioned purpose? Do you not, at all, see the absurdity behind that claim? Is it more that you think that's what the Founding Fathers thought as a main purpose, or something you see as a main purpose, personally? I'm curious, because to me, it doesn't really make much sense, at all.

Also, for clarity, you are saying that it was for people to bear arms in protection from tyranny and oppression from government, and not just that they placed it among a group of amendments, as a right, to prevent an act of an oppressive government, i.e., to disarm? Those are two different things, and the former is what I was assuming you are arguing, since that was what the original quote was implying.

It's one thing to say we, as people, need a right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from an oppressive, corrupt government, and it's completely different, to say that we need the right to bear arms, for general and societal, security and sovereignty purposes, and we ought to state that as a right, to prevent a government from infringing upon our abilities to do those things effectively, as states and/or people.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.

- Joe Rogan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
05-02-2013, 12:51 AM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 10:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
I draw the line with the second amendment the same way the line is drawn with the first. There is a point on the continuum between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. You have free speech, but there is that line you can cross where using free speech to endanger other citizens is not protected speech (perjury, yelling 'fire' in a movie theater, etc). The trouble is finding the balance with the second amendment, especially in a climate as partisan as this; and with all the money weapons manufacturers are using to throw their weight around through organizations like the NRA.


We need unbiased information and analysis, not statistics being yelled out from the hilltops of the gun control and gun manufacturing lobbies. It would also be helpful to get a more modern take on the second amendment through a Supreme Court decision. The second amendment was written at a time when military and hunting technology where equal, the rifle you used to put meat on the table you used to fight for independence (and actually, with Kentucky rifles, the hunting weapons were arguably better).


What would the founding fathers think of battle tanks, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, submarines, drones, and nuclear weapons? Is it really meant as a weapon ownership free-for-all, or is it intended strictly for the maintenance of local militias? Why does Europe and Japan have much less gun violence than the United States, and what lessons can we learn from them? How, if any, could they be applied? Would doing so be Constitutional?


This is a conversation we need to have, but standing there making Charlton Heston quotes about your 'cold dead fingers' while shoving said fingers into your ears isn't going to solve anything. Claiming we don't have a problem won't solve anything. Scapegoating the media won't solve anything...


:Edited for Grammar:

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-02-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(04-02-2013 07:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 12:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then what point where you trying to make with the taxes and gun laws?
I described in in great detail already. If you're still confused I don't know how to make it any more clear.

@ germanyt

The city passed an ordinance to prohibit ownership of ordnance.
Right, that poor people would be taxed too heavily and that the government would just muck it up. It isn't a straw man fallacy if I am just reasserting what you yourself have already said.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Do guns cause Rape? What do you think is the leading cause of rape? LostandInsecure 96 1,447 31-05-2014 03:26 PM
Last Post: Metazoa Zeke
  Guns. Yee haw! Drunkin Druid 64 1,030 26-05-2014 04:09 PM
Last Post: Anjele
  The problem with storing guns/ammo at a range Phaedrus 2 63 28-04-2014 06:25 PM
Last Post: Phaedrus
  Polite discussion on guns itsnotmeitsyou 10 199 24-04-2014 11:26 AM
Last Post: itsnotmeitsyou
  Kids and Guns Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 6 265 13-02-2014 10:01 AM
Last Post: Unknown
  Anarchists, Guns, and 3D Printing houseofcantor 43 2,350 16-11-2013 09:31 AM
Last Post: Chas
  Boys Expelled From School for Toy Guns at their Home Dark Light 18 800 26-09-2013 06:36 PM
Last Post: I Am
Forum Jump: