Quantcast

Question for the gun nuts - what would it take...

What would it take?

  • No more income tax of any sort

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • TRULY free health care

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • A shiny new pick-up truck

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Free college tuition for your kids

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Nothing. There is nothing more important than my gun

    Votes: 12 60.0%

  • Total voters
    20

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,409
456
chez moi
Yeah, it's about surrendering individual rights for handouts. Totally.

(By the way, I don't own guns...)
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
I'm simply against the government taking away ANY of my rights. Be it gun ownership, free speech, privacy, etc. So no, there is no pricetag.


Edit:
F*ck, I don't even own a handgun.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
90
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
I'm actually just trying to gauge the importance. Obviously I don't understand the attration to the gun thing. Makes no sense to me.

So I'm just curious if there was something that could displace gun ownership from the top of someone's priority list.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,409
456
chez moi
Well, maybe I'm the wrong person to ask, since gun ownership isn't a "top priority" for me, just one of the many natural rights protected by the Constitution that I'm not willing to sacrifice.

Seems to have nothing to do with an attachment to a gun or any other object for me...
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
90
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
39,894
6,438
Sleazattle
I'd give up my guns if I could legally punch people in the face for doing stupid things. Things like balancing their checkbook in the grocery line or going slow in the left lane.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?
So we set the precedent that our freedoms can simply be taken for some cheap material gain? That's exactly the type of government that a gun-owning public keeps from getting out of hand. :biggrin:
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,556
0
I'm homeless
Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?
Why not just put in the something else and leave the 2nd amendment alone?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
So in order of importance:

Gun
ammo
air
subscription to Guns & Ammo
water
Picket sign that reads, "Guns don't kill people, People do"
Photo of Charleton Heston
food
Have you actually read anyone's responses to your question?
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
You forgot a poll option:

Someone in my family kills/gets killed with one of my guns...
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,967
35
Something that the gov't could provide that would make you willing to give up your guns forever.
Immortality is not in the poll. I assume it's not available from the government?
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
If the people aren't armed and the government isn't afraid of the people we have some big big big problems on our hands
kinda beaten, but guns haven't made the government afraid of the people. When 2/3 of the American public say they don't see the fight in Iraq as worth it, and the Vice President says "So?", there is a major problem.

Take for example, France. They have strict gun laws, only a few hand guns, no hollow point bullets, CCW isn't allowed, and getting a gun license is hard. Their government is afraid of the people protesting over wages, the economy, anything that they feel the government isn't doing right. You have high schools doing protests when a public figure shows up at the school.


Gun freedoms and the power of the people in government isn't connected, as many European and Scandinavian countries are more representative of their people with far less gun "rights".

Take for example, this was considered a major scandal in Iceland:


Now, in the US, the media wouldn't even waste air time putting it on. The idea that the only way to keep freedoms is to have an armed populace is fairly ignorant, since having a politically active populace is so much more crucial to keeping freedoms.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
90
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Have you actually read anyone's responses to your question?
Yes. But what I'm trying to do is to break...or at least temporarily bend a paradigm. I know gun ownership is a right. And the thought of losing a right goes against everything americans are supposed to stand for.

But suppose for a second it becomes a pointless right? Or something that becomes obsolete. Why defend it just because it's currently "a right" but serves no real purpose, (hypothetically of course). Say the gov't decided that Americans no longer have the right to, in one fluid motion, throw themselves down a flight of stairs, smash their hand with a hammer and shave their junk with a cheese grater. Why would you care if that's illegal? But merely because the gov't says you can't, you would want to?

Now I'm getting offtopic a little.

What I'm trying to figure out is: Is there something that could be considered more valuable than the right to gun ownership? If all of a sudden, they could ammend the constitution such that all americans have the RIGHT to free university education, but for some reason it meant having to give up the 2nd ammend. That wouldn't be a worthwhile trade?


This is like the Peoples' Front of Judea. "I want to have babies"
 
Last edited:

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
Yes. But what I'm trying to do is to break...or at least temporarily bend a paradigm. I know gun ownership is a right. And the thought of losing a right goes against everything americans are supposed to stand for.

But suppose for a second it becomes a pointless right? Or something that becomes obsolete. Why defend it just because it's currently "a right" but serves no real purpose, (hypothetically of course).
In the world today, I cannot imagine a scenario in which it could become a pointless right. I actually pity the citizens of other advanced nations whose governments deny them access to simple tools of self preservation. The right, to "be an island" if you will. Not entirely dependent up government institutions like law enforcement to be your only means of safety. Being self sufficient. Being too dependent on the government for things like electricity, food, water, etc.. is already something that is a problem in my eyes. Why would I want to give some easily corrupted bureaucracy complete control of my being?
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,409
456
chez moi
dependent up government institutions like law enforcement to be your only means of safety.
Law enforcement isn't a personal means of safety for anyone. LE acts in the interests of public order, and safety in the abstract as an element thereof. LE isn't intended, nor can it be, a way to provide anyone individual protection. This is and always has been an individual responsibility with a commensurate right to do so...thus the right to bear arms if one so chooses.
 

FlyinPolack

Monkey
Jul 16, 2007
371
0
where is the option, "only a canadian could come up with a poll question like this?"
You Ain't ****ting...
I wouldn't give my guns up for any little "bonuses"...
When some A-hole country does get a bug up it's ass to attack us, it will be up to the gun toting citizens to protect ourselves. 90% of our army are out of the USA at any moment..

Which means that we will need guns. The peeps that do have guns will need ****loads of them, just so they can hand them out to all of their cubicle jockey friends, who don't like guns until they actually DO need them...
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
You Ain't ****ting...
I wouldn't give my guns up for any little "bonuses"...
When some A-hole country does get a bug up it's ass to attack us, it will be up to the gun toting citizens to protect ourselves. 90% of our army are out of the USA at any moment..

Which means that we will need guns. The peeps that do have guns will need ****loads of them, just so they can hand them out to all of their cubicle jockey friends, who don't like guns until they actually DO need them...
are you just trolling or do you really think that this is a legitimate argument, I want to know before I flame you
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
357
0
Virginia, USA
First off, I'm not a "gun nut". I own several guns, mostly for work purposes. If anything I'm a backpack nut and own more backpacks than guns.

Second, it isn't really an option because, according to the US Constitution, the right to free speach, gun ownership, equal protection under the law, etc, are not rights that are given to me by the government. They are rights I have naturally, and the Constitution simply says the government cannot take them away.

But, in answer to your query... No. I am unwilling to trade ANY of the rights enumerated to me in the Constitution for a monetary gain, which is basically all the options in your poll are. Would you give up your right to freedom of speach or your right to legal counsel in exchange for a shiny new hybrid?

The fact is, I enjoy my right to own firearms just as much as I enjoy the right to say "My president is a douche" or "No officer, I do not consent to a search".

Money doesn't make me happy, my freedoms do. This appears to be a fundamental difference between you and I.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Second, it isn't really an option because, according to the US Constitution, the right to free speach, gun ownership, equal protection under the law, etc, are not rights that are given to me by the government. They are rights I have naturally, and the Constitution simply says the government cannot take them away.
Well, if you take a look at Locke's work, which is where a lot of these ideas of natural rights come from, he says that government is essentially people giving up natural rights to the government in exchange for security, food, courts, etc. (he goes on to say that if the government isn't serving the needs of the people, then the government can be abolished by the people).

But, if we assume that these are natural rights that we were born with, but cannot be taken away, then how can a Supreme Court tell us what constitutes a clear and present danger for free speech? The argument is interesting to think about, but holds no bearing in actual politics as men decide what rights other men have.

Edit: I think the natural rights you are referring to are part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

here, found the quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
In the Constitution, it doesn't mention natural rights that come from the pure fact that you were born, but rather rights given and protected by the Constitution.
 
Last edited:

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,748
615
NC
What I'm trying to figure out is: Is there something that could be considered more valuable than the right to gun ownership? If all of a sudden, they could ammend the constitution such that all americans have the RIGHT to free university education, but for some reason it meant having to give up the 2nd ammend. That wouldn't be a worthwhile trade?
I think you're missing the point more than Montashu is.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,222
90
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Actually I'm not...as it's my point that everyone else is missing.....which is pretty much what I was expecting.

Like I've said before I'm was trying to gauge importance. And apparently, providing the entire country with university level education, is less important than having the the ability to "defend yourself"........and out of curiosity, what do we the think the odds are that you will actually end up in a situation that you will need to defend yourself with a gun?


Anyway, I think my question has been answered. Like the majority of the people outside your borders, (and a significant number within them), I am bewildered by my findings.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
39,894
6,438
Sleazattle
Actually I'm not...as it's my point that everyone else is missing.....which is pretty much what I was expecting.

Like I've said before I'm was trying to gauge importance. And apparently, providing the entire country with university level education, is less important than having the the ability to "defend yourself"........and out of curiosity, what do we the think the odds are that you will actually end up in a situation that you will need to defend yourself with a gun?


Anyway, I think my question has been answered. Like the majority of the people outside your borders, (and a significant number within them), I am bewildered by my findings.

If everyone had a degree who would we get to do all the jobs that do not require degrees?
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
357
0
Virginia, USA
Well, if you take a look at Locke's work, which is where a lot of these ideas of natural rights come from, he says that government is essentially people giving up natural rights to the government in exchange for security, food, courts, etc. (he goes on to say that if the government isn't serving the needs of the people, then the government can be abolished by the people).

But, if we assume that these are natural rights that we were born with, but cannot be taken away, then how can a Supreme Court tell us what constitutes a clear and present danger for free speech? The argument is interesting to think about, but holds no bearing in actual politics as men decide what rights other men have.

Edit: I think the natural rights you are referring to are part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most of the DoI is taken from Locke's Two Treatises of Government. It's been YEARS since I evaluated much that was said by Locke and I honestly didn't read that much of him in the first place... But, I thought Locke said that government existed for the protection of proprius, "that to which is one's own", meaning life, liberty, and property.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say the government is granting these rights to the people. Instead it uses phrases like "...shall make no law...", "the right of the people...shall not be violated", and "...shall not be infringed." This assumes that we already have these rights, and limits the power of government to take them away.

It does not say that these rights cannot be regulated, to an extent, by the government. The Supreme Court exists to decide when regulation extends into infringement. The Clear and Present Danger clause is akin to the Gun Control Act of 1986.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,409
456
chez moi
In the Constitution, it doesn't mention natural rights that come from the pure fact that you were born, but rather rights given and protected by the Constitution.
It doesn't mention them explicitly in the Constitution, but go read the Federalist papers. The idea of natural rights underpins every philosophical discussion of democracy.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Actually I'm not...as it's my point that everyone else is missing.....which is pretty much what I was expecting.

Like I've said before I'm was trying to gauge importance. And apparently, providing the entire country with university level education, is less important than having the the ability to "defend yourself"........and out of curiosity, what do we the think the odds are that you will actually end up in a situation that you will need to defend yourself with a gun?


Anyway, I think my question has been answered. Like the majority of the people outside your borders, (and a significant number within them), I am bewildered by my findings.



cool... now call it a day...



... and go hump a hamster.