Question for the gun nuts - what would it take...
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
Your question posits having guns as opposing some other benefit. This not being the case, it's your question that's flawed...however, seeing as it was pretty much designed to provoke the responses you got, I'm not shocked by your response, either.
And the odds of ever being in a violent encounter are low in the US for most people, especially if you're not an idiot. That doesn't mean the stakes aren't high if it happens, and why I've agreed with you time and time again that other measures than guns are appropriate for personal security. I just think a gun can be a rational part of your personal security as well.
i noes!
I'm bewildered by your desire for money in exchange for freedom and security, but hey... That's why you live up there and I live down here.
Because we can amend the Constitution, means that man can determine what "natural" rights people have. The Bill of Rights can be removed, they aren't untouchable according to the Constitution.
We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
No, because you can amend the Constitution, you can determine explicitly what natural rights the Federal government will not intrude upon.
The Constitution does not give anyone rights or determine what their rights are. It only enumerates which of the most imporant ones will be specifically safeguarded from intrusion.
And no right is unlimited, including the right to bear arms (this separates me from some of the real gun-nut tinfoil-hatters), so yeah, there are reasonable regulations...no yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc.
If you go into a court room, and say you have the natural right to kill another man, that won't fly because our society only recognizes the rights laid out in our Constitution and our laws.
Effectively, the Constitution lays out what rights you and I have, and limits what the government can do concerning those rights.
What would Canadians take in exchange for their rights to Mullets and Tim Horton's?
All of this hoo-ha is just pacifying the masses and the far right. I see in no way how owning a handgun equates to the citizenry having control/sway over the gov't. If you want to accomplish this, then the people should have the right to own heavy machine guns, missiles, tanks, fighter jets, etc. These sorta weapons can keep the gov't in check, handguns can't even keep your average mall security at bay.
-ska todd
-ska todd
Well I did live in the US for 6 years and my wife is American...so I'm not completely unaware of how things are.
I'm speaking in "hypotheticals". Handing out free tuition, (IMHO) is more than just a monetary bonus. It's making something completely accessible to your society. The more educated/informed your society is, theoretically, the better off it is.
So there's nothing out there that would be worth modifying the constitution to trade gun ownership for something that could make society in general, as a whole, better.
Maybe if more people had more access to higher education, MAYBE fewer people would be trying to break into your homes....thus reducing the threat requiring the need to potentially defend yourself?
(Is there no-one here who's able to take the argument one step further than "The constitution says so"?.......and I know there is....but I suspect they are letting me twist in the wind for sport)
Well you're asking someone who is ever-increasingly folically challenged and who drinks Starbuck's. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.
See, you are very much missing the point.
There is no reason to "trade" one for the other. Attempting to do so points to all kinds of bad precedents and motives by the government.
The point, that you are so desperately trying to avoid, is that your proposal is based on a ridiculous premise that has a lot of negative aspects in and of itself. To imply that we should "trade" a constitutional right for a social benefit speaks to a government trying to erode the rights of the people by saying, "HEY! LOOK OVER THERE!"
There is no reasonable explanation as to why one should be traded for the other, and trying to set it up as a theoretical situation is absurd. You have no "findings" - only a silly suggestion that got, as it deserves, a silly response.
This is just a side thread for the other gun debate going on in the other thread
This a major point of disconnect between Americans and other (for the sake of keeping it simple) English speaking countries. I can easily see where MMike is going with this as, like him, I haven't grown up thinking of guns as a natural part of my life and not having them/being around them is normal so I've never imagined that I'm less free for not having them. I will also need a hell of a lot of convincing that I am actually less free because the use/ownership of them in my country of citizenship and residence is more restricted than in the US.
opinions are like assholes...
everybody has one
everybody has one
MikeD beat me to it.
Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. Majority rule with the rights of the minority protected by law.
I don't think pretending that I'm too retarded to see through an absurd situation is "thinking outside the box."
HEY GUYS. IF YOU COULD GET ALL THE FREE PIE YOU WANT BUT HAD TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO WEAR FLIP FLOPS TO DO IT, WOULD YOU?
Education does not preclude crime. I don't even know where to begin to argue this point, it seems so simple. There will always be people who want things without having to work for them, regardless of how much they already have.
You never answered my earlier question. Would you trade freedom of speach for a new car or a doctoral degree?
I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune
i <3 the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun rights actually means what it says.
that's what I was thinking as well... do you *really* think that the government/military is "kept in check" by the fact that you own a .22? maybe a cool semi auto AK with two clips, JUNGLE STYLE!! that'll keep that M1 from comin' down your street alright.
edit: I also like the fact that the people here who are overjoyed about the SCOTUS decision *don't* live in DC. how this decision is actually going to help someone living in n8ville, LA, I have no idea...
We take it in tun to act as a sort of executive officer for the week........
because this ruling sets the right to own fire arms in stone for generations of Americans by coming to the decision that the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun rights actually means what it says.
There are a number of Iraqis who might disagree...that's what I was thinking as well... do you *really* think that the government/military is "kept in check" by the fact that you own a .22? maybe a cool semi auto AK with two clips, JUNGLE STYLE!! that'll keep that M1 from comin' down your street alright.
Guns exist as do wildcats, vacuum cleaners and rocks. People manage to figure out how to conduct violence and to enslave others (or not) with them or without them.
That said, we don't need any more taboos.
guns kill more people and have the capacity to kill more people than wildcats, vacuum cleaners, and rocks, so that isn't an actual argument. Guns are tools that are very good at their intended purpose, which is to kill.
What about a really f*cking big rock or a vacuum cleaner with more suck than Neight x George Bush?
"ordnance." It's plural is the same as it's singular, like "deer."
There is plenty of ordnance available to U.S. citizens for purchase.
There is plenty of ordnance available to U.S. citizens for purchase.
ummm george bush defends our freedoms from TERRISTS who want to take it, something multiplied by 0 is still 0.
Haha, see that Neighto, the new bloke just said you're nuthin'. You can't take that lying down ya big fairy.
I missed this one...
a) How many people with MBA's are out there knocking over liquor stores at gun point. Of course there's white collar crime. How much white collar violent crime is there?
b) No I would not trade the right to free speach(sic) for a car or a PhD. Because like you, I place a high value on that right. I place zero value on gun ownership because it never affects my day to day life in the least. Freedom of speech however does actually affect me. So in my case, it's really not a fair comparison.
a) How many people with MBA's are out there knocking over liquor stores at gun point. Of course there's white collar crime. How much white collar violent crime is there?
b) No I would not trade the right to free speach(sic) for a car or a PhD. Because like you, I place a high value on that right. I place zero value on gun ownership because it never affects my day to day life in the least. Freedom of speech however does actually affect me. So in my case, it's really not a fair comparison.
