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
11,729
1,793
chez moi
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.
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.
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
355
0
Virginia, USA
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.
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.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
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.
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.

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.
We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,729
1,793
chez moi
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.
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.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
No, 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.
 

ska todd

Turbo Monkey
Oct 10, 2001
1,776
0
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
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
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.
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)
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
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)


just answer the question Canuck ...

What would Canadians take in exchange for their rights to Mullets and Tim Horton's?
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,116
1,184
NC
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?
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.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
(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)
This is just a side thread for the other gun debate going on in the other thread :p
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
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.
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Think outside the box man!

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.
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
355
0
Virginia, USA
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.
MikeD beat me to it.



We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. Majority rule with the rights of the minority protected by law.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,116
1,184
NC
Think outside the box man!
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?
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
355
0
Virginia, USA
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)
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?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
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.
-ska todd
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. :rofl:

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...
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
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...

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.
 

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
355
0
Virginia, USA
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. :rofl:
There are a number of Iraqis who might disagree...
 
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.
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.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
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.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
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?
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
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.

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?