Obama: Dont stock up on guns - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 12-11-2008, 04:19 PM

no gun will make you anything but what you are anyway but now you have a gun. you are equally changed by your choice of cutlery, your choice of toilet paper, your choice of components for your sound system. if you think the commodities you accumulate define who you are and what you think, you shouldn't worry about freedom: you've already given it away.

Rekna · 12-11-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

clearly not. but again, he only hurt himself. Now, had he hit someone else, by all means charge him with a crime of negligence or more. I've no problem with that at all.

you should already know my feelings on the drug war. I feel for this guy and I hope that something can be done for him.

this is a typical response from someone not that familiar with guns and the people that know how to handle them. That can be remedied, should you choose to actually do so. MOST gun owners react better than that. You would know this if you got to know some of them.

I actually know quite a few gun owners that carry concealed weapons with them quite often. They are very responsible people. Though in this case you have a gun in a place whose sole purpose is to get people intoxicated. You cannot reasonably make a claim that people who are drunk will act with the foresight and restraint needed when carrying a lethal weapon.

This is a moot point anyway as I don't have a problem with hand guns (unless people are intoxicated) but I do have a problem with weapons in which the control of its deadliness is severely limited (submachine guns, explosives, etc). Personally I think that any accident involving guns should not be considered an accident (hunting excluded). The second someone picks up a gun they are assuming a responsibility for whatever happens because of it.

Derwood · 12-11-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Apparently nobody has read the laws that are already on the book.

The laws that 99% of gun owners follow without question.

Maybe they should take a class and get educated or something.

care to back that 99% stat up with a link?

Plan9 · 12-11-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no gun will make you anything but what you are anyway but now you have a gun. you are equally changed by your choice of cutlery, your choice of toilet paper, your choice of components for your sound system. if you think the commodities you accumulate define who you are and what you think, you shouldn't worry about freedom: you've already given it away.

I know this well. I eat generic corn flakes and my milk comes out of a box.

Yes. Oh, indeed. We are not the things we own. We are what we do. And eat.

And we are the things our society protects us against. Like fascism and smoking and gay marriage.

...

Don't read this blurb to the rest of America, though. They'll stomp your ass on Black Friday to get that to that big screen first.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 07 : 30 : 06-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

care to back that 99% stat up with a link?

I don't do stats. 99% would be, what, 3 standard deviations?

How would you feel about 68%?

Baraka_Guru · 12-11-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

crompsin, you realize that willravel is going to debunk your post with the slippery slope fallacy, right? because that would never happen here, or anywhere.

Well, you know what they say...if it looks like one....

You know, it goes both ways. If you take away all gun controls, then everyone will have guns. Guns will be free to everyone who wants one. Even prisoners in prison. Even eight-year-olds. They will be dispersed throughout the country in vending machines that only require you recite the 2nd Amendment. Because everyone has the absolute right to bear arms.

Same logic.

See? It falls apart.

filtherton · 12-11-2008, 06:29 PM

I think the second amendment is great because it serves as such a potent example of how useless the founders were with respect to making their intentions clear (or how difficult it is to write law that will apply well in two hundred years).

Second amendment? Meh. The second amendment is a lot like the bible, in that the way a person interprets the words says more about the person than the words. It is an interesting exercise in complexity: how convoluted do our interpretations have to get before we have to acknowledge that the second amendment is simply a poorly written piece of shit?

I particularly enjoy the spectacular ballet that occurs when someone places arbitrary limitations on ostensibly absolute rights (i.e. anything that can be carried is okay, except biological weapons and suitcase nukes) without acknowledging that they've just limited an absolute right. The second amendment grants absolute rights, except for these I have rather arbitrarily designated as being outside the scope of its rights-granting shroud of rights granting.

I also find the whole "anything you can carry in your hands is protected by the second" argument ridiculous. I mean come on, really? And the founders believed that such a minor right would go very far in preventing government tyranny?

I don't think people shouldn't have guns. I just think that either way, the second amendment is poorly written, and wouldn't pass muster in a 10th grade english class. If the majority of the people want guns, they should pass a fucking amendment to clarify the second amendment and shut the fuck up already.

Tully Mars · 12-11-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I particularly enjoy the spectacular ballet that occurs when someone places arbitrary limitations on ostensibly absolute rights (i.e. anything that can be carried is okay, except biological weapons and suitcase nukes) without acknowledging that they've just limited an absolute right. The second amendment grants absolute rights, except for these I have rather arbitrarily designated as being outside the scope of its rights-granting shroud of rights granting.

That's it in a nutshell. Either you believe the USC gives you the right to own and carry any weapon you choose or you believe the government can limit what weapons you carry and where you may carry them. Either it grants absolute rights or those rights may be limited.

It seems to me reasonable, logical people could reach a compromise. You know somewhere between nukes and a 2 inch boy scout knife.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think the second amendment is great because it serves as such a potent example of how useless the founders were with respect to making their intentions clear (or how difficult it is to write law that will apply well in two hundred years).

I don't think people shouldn't have guns. I just think that either way, the second amendment is poorly written, and wouldn't pass muster in a 10th grade english class. If the majority of the people want guns, they should pass a fucking amendment to clarify the second amendment and shut the fuck up already.

You'll have to forgive me for waxing philosophic but Im in the middle studying Shari'a Law for a final tomorrow. Im finding the use of intended language so as to allow for interpretation to be facinating. Please forgive the following bullshit:

Perhaps the founding fathers deliberately penned the amendment to be vague so as to allow its effect to be timeless; it can be interpretted and reinterpretted endlessly to best suit the needs of the society at any given time, while still emphasizing the importance of maintaining an armed public.

The founding fathers were smart enough to know that they could not predict the future and so left it up to us to adapt the basic idea of the amendment to our ever evolving nation without losing sight of the overall goal - to allow the people a means of personal protection and, ultimately, for revolution when all else has failed.

BTW, who the shit cares if you can pass 10th grade English or not? Im never moving to England.

Slims · 12-11-2008, 07:15 PM

Ok, I am shit hammered, so I will keep this post brief as I am in no position to post a wel thought out argument.

Ah fuck it, it's going to have to wait until tommorrow when I might be able to read the posts.

Anything I post now will be poorly reasoned, emotionally based, and will fail to consider what has already been written in this post.

Wait, seems like I'm not the only one who has been drinking...

Oh, and DKSuddeth, if you really believe what you have been posting, then how is it in your best interest to create a public record of your intentions? Doesn't seem like a very good plan to avoid the black Chinooks.

Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument.

The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such...

Walt · 12-11-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument.

The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such...

Did I miss appletini night?

Perhaps vague was a bad choice of words. Perhaps Im in political concession mode as its necessary to pass my finals. Goddamned hippie school...

Im aware that the founding fathers were experienced in the dealings of a tyrannical government and I have read the Federalist Papers. Im assuming this is some of the precedent youre referring to? But in deliberately leaving things unsaid, I would suggest that they were acknowledging that they could not predict the future.

In other words, they left room for interpretation as to what constitutes "well-armed". The founding fathers could not have forseen the advent of atomic weapons, SOFLAM's and GBU's, SA-7's, Mk-19's or the Death Star. Im merely suggesting that there is a limit to what kind of weaponry should be made available to the general public.

Automatic weapons, 50 cals, high cap mags, etc all seem reasonable to me.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 10 : 56 : 14-----
Oh, and if you ever call me out like that again, I will literally set you on fire. I've done it once, dont make me do it again.

roachboy · 12-11-2008, 08:04 PM

calm down, gentlemen.

Walt · 12-11-2008, 08:11 PM

Slims: See what you made me do?

filtherton · 12-11-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

You'll have to forgive me for waxing philosophic but Im in the middle studying Shari'a Law for a final tomorrow. Im finding the use of intended language so as to allow for interpretation to be facinating. Please forgive the following bullshit:

I understand, I'm right in the middle of writing a paper that is ostensibly about data anlysis re:biofuel viscosity, and is expected to be about data analysis re:biofuel viscosity, but actually needs to be about winter temperature distributions in Minnesota. It is ironic that my professor could be so damningly vague in how he explained this assignment; a large portion of the grade will be based on its clarity and coherence. Perhaps I'm just pissed off at vague people with power over me...

Quote:

Perhaps the founding fathers deliberately penned the amendment to be vague so as to allow its effect to be timeless; it can be interpretted and reinterpretted endlessly to best suit the needs of the society at any given time, while still emphasizing the importance of maintaining an armed public.

The founding fathers were smart enough to know that they could not predict the future and so left it up to us to adapt the basic idea of the amendment to our ever evolving nation without losing sight of the overall goal - to allow the people a means of personal protection and, ultimately, for revolution when all else has failed.

I won't disagree with this idea. Their questionable comma placement just screams "Go ahead, try and figure out what the fuck we're talking about." I think it is foolish to assume that it is even possible to interpret what the constitution should mean in the context of right now with any sort of objectivity.

For many folks the constitution is this mythical thing, you know, not just the supreme law of the land, but like, the god of laws. That's the wrong way to look at it. I understand that it seems nice that there be just one way to interpret it, but being the wishy-washy deliberative motherfucker that I am, I just can't imagine that being the case.

With the issue of gun control, I'm not guided so much by the constitution, because the second amendment is less than useless. I am more inclined to think that the framers were reasonable folks and that if we are attempting to follow in their footsteps we just ought to be reasonable. I realize that this is naive, but the magnitude of that naivete is dampened by my awareness of it.

In short, I don't think that there are any good solutions. I do think that the loudest elements on both sides are self serving and full of shit.

timalkin · 12-11-2008, 09:15 PM

Baraka_Guru · 12-12-2008, 04:32 AM

timalkin, when it comes to making sensible legislation, I fail to see why we should take your hypothetical situations into account, when they are merely blatant appeals to emotion. Should we also imagine what it would be like if said criminals went after puppies and unicorns?

Gun bans will not eliminate gun crime. To think they would is to be idealistic. Further, does one honestly need to squeeze of a few hundred rounds of a fully automatic weapon to decide whether they should be banned? This is about as unnecessary as a requirement to have worked with any other banned material. You talk about reason and logic. You should know that they can be employed without having a great time regarding the issue in question.

Try not to let this "bright light of truth" blind you. It does that sometimes.

Plan9 · 12-12-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I do think that the loudest elements on both sides are self serving and full of shit.

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

filtherton · 12-12-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

At this point, do we really need to have the discussion? It hasn't really borne much fruit in the past...

There are some folks who will never be happy with the happy medium because it means that they don't get to choose the arbitrary restrictions that are placed on their absolute rights. Other folks will never be happy with the happy medium because it means that everyone will have a gun.

Quote:

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

The ridiculousness took the form of pro-gun guys suggesting that the second amendment refers to any weapon that can be carried into battle.

Tully Mars · 12-12-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

After having read the federalist/anti-federalist papers, I pondered two conclusions about the Second Amendment.

One, that the 2nd Amendment was a concession by the federalists to give confidence to the anti-federalists that firearms in the hands of the people would never be restricted. That the 'well regulated militia' was a unifying force made up of the people to ensure freedom and security from an overbearing central government. Remember that these people had experienced firsthand oppression by the military arm of their king.

Two, that the federalists were adamant that the security of a free state/nation REQUIRED a standing army, or a 'well regulated militia', but that to guarantee that the people would never be subject to future oppression from this standing army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be infringed so that their power would be greater than the standing army, should it be necessary.

Since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, It has been accepted that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government and that the 14th Amendment applies those restrictions to the states as well ONLY WHEN the USSC incorporates that right under the 14th. This makes little sense considering that the entrance of a state in to the union is a two way contract with the union and the state, the state accepting the terms of the constitution and the union protecting the rights of the people in that new state. Prior to the slaughterhouse cases, I know of no such USSC case that even hinted that the bill of rights didn't apply to the states as well.

the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.

One must remember that the constitution is not an outline of the rights that belong to the people, but a legal document that enumerates specific powers that the federal government is given. The bill of rights was the concession to ensure that certain rights would NEVER be trod upon by the central government, something that the founders were all too familiar with. That is why it absolutey galls me to hear people say that rights are not absolute, that they all are allowed limitations and restrictions. This was a judicial theory that justice Holmes put forth in 1919 concerning a case about the espionage act and it's implications against free speech. Until then, it was considered that rights were absolute or they were not rights.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 02 : 59 : 53-----
are you saying that madison, hamilton, and others who were considered scholars were actually high school dropouts?

Those able bodied males were citizens though, not regular military. Does that negate a right of the people then?

I vehemently disagree that the founders wanted the courts to interpret laws based on the future. The founders realized that change was inevitable and put in a very exact method of amending the constitution if needs be changed.

great, is reasonable limits going to one day be single shot muskets again? bows and arrows?

when will people realize that if you put the direction of your lives and rights in the hands of government, they will become severely limited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

Really? I must be reading this wrong. How do you get to a "power would be greater than the standing army" without allowing citizens to own weapons equal to or greater then the fire power of the standing Army?

dksuddeth · 12-12-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Praise the lord! Neither point is viable.

The happy medium is what we're really arguing over.

(since no pro-gun guy here actually suggested the ridiculous notion of zero restrictions on "weapon" ownership)

crompsin say what?

roachboy · 12-12-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

the people is no more collective in the 2nd than it is in the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th.

um...this makes no sense. even at a grammatical level, it makes no sense. "the people" is plural. it is collective. it is necessarily collective. i suppose you can twist it around to function as a singular==but that's private language stuff, the sort of thing that you read about in transcripts of conversations amongst schizophrenics.

from the oed, the etymology of the term "the people"

Quote:

[< Anglo-Norman pople, people, peple, peuple, poeple, pouple, puple, pueple, peopel, popel nation, subjects, common people, crowd and Old French, Middle French pueple, pople, etc. (also pule, peule) inhabitants of a country (first half of the 12th cent. in Old French; earlier as poblo (842), poble (c1000)), subjects (first half of the 12th cent.), mankind (c1135), common people (13th cent.) < classical Latin populus a human community, nation, animals, the populace, the body of citizens exercising legislative power, (plural) nations, peoples, in post-classical Latin also Christians in general, laity, congregation (late 2nd or early 3rd cent. in Tertullian), army (5th cent.), parish (10th cent.), a reduplicated form of uncertain origin. Compare Old Occitan poble (a1149), pobol (c1150; Occitan pòble), Catalan poble (c1200), Spanish pueblo (1207), Portuguese povo (13th cent. as poboo, poblo, pobro), Italian popolo (13th cent.; also in 13th cent. as povolo).
In sense 6b after classical Latin popul{imac}, gent{emac}s peoples (see GENS n.).
Although in origin a singular noun, the word had from its earliest use an implied or actual plural sense. In the earliest texts it is found with singular concord. Plural concord occurs from the 15th cent., though singular modifiers continue to be used in some contexts, especially much (see MUCH adj. 2e). Actual plural usage is practically limited to sense 7, and even here many early modern English writers avoided using the plural form (see sense 6b).]

i suppose that if you can erase the 21st century and replace it with the 18th, you can also erase the linguistic conventions of the 18th and replace them with speculative conventions from the pre 15th century. why not, since at this level there is no distinction between "the original sense" and "playing fast and loose"---both converge of "i see what i want to see."

dksuddeth · 12-12-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

um...this makes no sense. even at a grammatical level, it makes no sense. "the people" is plural. it is collective. it is necessarily collective. i suppose you can twist it around to function as a singular==but that's private language stuff, the sort of thing that you read about in transcripts of conversations amongst schizophrenics.

from the oed, the etymology of the term "the people"

i suppose that if you can erase the 21st century and replace it with the 18th, you can also erase the linguistic conventions of the 18th and replace them with speculative conventions from the pre 15th century. why not, since at this level there is no distinction between "the original sense" and "playing fast and loose"---both converge of "i see what i want to see."

then maybe you should compile all of that in a neat amicus brief and explain to the USSC why they were wrong in US v. Lopez. They seem to be of the opinion that 'the people' referred to individuals.

roachboy · 12-12-2008, 08:29 AM

the reason i posted that had more to do with what i take to be a basic philosophical difference between the two of us, dk---you tend to negate the social: i see individuals as social effects. the arguments either way depend on the register of information you want to play with---if you're thinking about legal subjects ("the people" is a designation for a legal subjectivity, collective personhood defined around positive and negative attributes such as the rights that the constitution claims we "inherently" bear---even as the reason we "inherently" bear them in the context of this legal order is that the constitution says we inherently bear them) the problem of separating the individual from the social is self-evident.

unless you think the constitution is not itself a social act, that the institution(s) it puts into motion are not social, etc.

maybe you think that the framers of the constitution were god's emissaries and that the constitutional order should therefore be treated as sacrocanct, beyond human understanding, not amenable to interpretation--which would be a consistent position if you yourself were not endlessly advancing interpretations. but you do, and what's more these interpretations operate on eccentric grounds. you pretend they don't because you make references to the constitution as if it meant what you say it means---but if another person does not accept your frame for running interpretations, the claims just lay there on the floor like fish would.

dksuddeth · 12-12-2008, 08:36 AM

I'm not sure where you got your idea that the constitution is a social act, for it is not.

The US constitution is a legal document that enumerates certain and specific powers to the federal government. That is all.

roachboy · 12-12-2008, 08:51 AM

so how was it written? language is a social connecting medium. this is pretty self-evident. better not to think about it.
how was it approved if not in a social forum/context?
what is a legal system if it is not a specific set of forms within which social life unfolds, an expression of social relations of power as they obtained at the point of writing and approving the constitution?
what are the courts if they aren't social institutions?

democracy is a social arrangement. "liberties" are parameters that shape social relations.

i got the idea that the constitution is a social act because it is a social act.

ASU2003 · 12-13-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

Hee hee.

Do they make clips that go in that way? It looks backwards to me.

Or is it potoshopped?

Slims · 12-13-2008, 12:15 PM

It's definately backwards, but it is also photoshopped. Unless she has a double mag-holder thingy.

You can't put a magazine in backwards at all, it just isn't possible on an M4.

Though she is doing a bunch of other things wrong.

KirStang · 12-13-2008, 03:00 PM

Slims, there was a huge controversy about whether it was photoshopped or not. It is not. She did not know what she was doing, there was a Youtube Video where a person demonstrated how to put a magazine in backwards (it's ass retarded, but do-able).

YouTube - AR15 Backwards Magazine

The photo was taken as other officers were about to correct her.

Baraka_Guru · 12-13-2008, 03:26 PM

Also, the trunk on the car is ajar. You think maybe she was posing for the camera before putting her shit away?

Anyway, somebody tie this in to the OP already, or let's move on.

dc_dux · 12-13-2008, 03:35 PM

Now this made me laugh:

Quote:

An armed Santa Claus opposes President-elect Barack Obama over gun rights on an original Christmas card sent to members of the Senate and House of Representatives and others by right to self-defense advocate John M. Snyder..

Gun Rights Expert Shows Santa Opposing Obama on Firearm Rights Christmas Card

I thought Santa represented peace and good will...but what do I know....I celebrate Chanukah.

Cant wait til we see an armed easter bunny next spring.

Baraka_Guru · 12-13-2008, 03:57 PM

Shouldn't Jesus be behind Obama, reciting the wisdom of Matthew 5:38-42?

An Eye for an Eye
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

dc_dux · 12-13-2008, 03:58 PM

Shoudnt the Christian right who complain about the left trivializing Christmas be outraged by such blatant disrespect for the holiday by using it for political purposes.

Baraka_Guru · 12-13-2008, 04:00 PM

The Christian right chooses their battles, methinks.

Christmas is under attack by far worse enemies than the gun-rights advocates.

dc_dux · 12-13-2008, 04:07 PM

Perhaps they can justify it by suggesting that Santa is packing as a front line soldier to battle the left's War on Christmas.

Derwood · 12-21-2008, 09:02 AM

I wish there was an accurate statistic saying what % of gun owners who own a firearm for home/self protection have ever had to use it in that manner. Not that it would prove one side or the other as "right"....I'm just curious how often guns are actually used for the reasons they were purchased

Also, a breakdown of how many people have guns JUST for self protection vs. those who also shoot at ranges, hunt, collect, etc.

Tully Mars · 12-21-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

I wish there was an accurate statistic saying what % of gun owners who own a firearm for home/self protection have ever had to use it in that manner. Not that it would prove one side or the other as "right"....I'm just curious how often guns are actually used for the reasons they were purchased

Also, a breakdown of how many people have guns JUST for self protection vs. those who also shoot at ranges, hunt, collect, etc.

What relevance would that statistic have? Being an avid boater I've probably owned well over a 100 life jackets. Of those I've had to use -0-. Same thing with fire extinguishers, owned several only used one once at home.

If you purchase something like this for protection you do so hoping you never have to use it. Kind of like a "better to have and not need, then need and not have" type thing.

Derwood · 12-22-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

What relevance would that statistic have? Being an avid boater I've probably owned well over a 100 life jackets. Of those I've had to use -0-. Same thing with fire extinguishers, owned several only used one once at home.

If you purchase something like this for protection you do so hoping you never have to use it. Kind of like a "better to have and not need, then need and not have" type thing.

I'm not saying it would prove anything. I'm simply curious of what the numbers are. As I said, I'm not trying to use these numbers to support one or the other side of the argument.

Telluride · 01-07-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

The question is what to believe?

Here is what I believe:

Obama and many of his fans HOPE to confiscate my guns.

I'm stocking up on ammo because I intend to CHANGE their minds.

shakran · 01-07-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Here is what I believe:

Obama and many of his fans HOPE to confiscate my guns.

I'm stocking up on ammo because I intend to CHANGE their minds.

Spoken like a true Branch Davidian.

The argument of "guns to protect us from an oppressive government" has been rendered stupid and moot by those making it. The government is oppressive. Warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, no-fly lists, unwarranted search and seizures if you're within 2 hours of a border, and "free speech zones" weren't enough to make you rise up against this government, but if you think they're going to try to take away your (completely and utterly ineffective against the toys the goverment has) popguns away you're ready to go out shooting?

Give me a break.

Telluride · 01-07-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Spoken like a true Branch Davidian.

The argument of "guns to protect us from an oppressive government" has been rendered stupid and moot by those making it. The government is oppressive. Warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, no-fly lists, unwarranted search and seizures if you're within 2 hours of a border, and "free speech zones" weren't enough to make you rise up against this government, but if you think they're going to try to take away your (completely and utterly ineffective against the toys the goverment has) popguns away you're ready to go out shooting?

Give me a break.

No, give ME a break.

If politicians decided to confiscate guns, do you think they'd do it with stealth fighters and nuclear bombs? Probably not. It would be with people...and people aren't bullet-proof.

shakran · 01-07-2009, 10:29 AM

correct! so you shoot the cop, and then the cop's friends come by, and maybe you shoot one of those before the FBI, ATF, SWAT, and lots of other acronymns get involved with body armor, ballistic shields, stun and gas grenades, fully automatic weapons, and if you really pissed them off, a tank. Still think you'll win, hotstuff?

12-11-2008, 04:19 PM	#241 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	no gun will make you anything but what you are anyway but now you have a gun. you are equally changed by your choice of cutlery, your choice of toilet paper, your choice of components for your sound system. if you think the commodities you accumulate define who you are and what you think, you shouldn't worry about freedom: you've already given it away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-11-2008, 07:15 PM	#249 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, I am shit hammered, so I will keep this post brief as I am in no position to post a wel thought out argument. Ah fuck it, it's going to have to wait until tommorrow when I might be able to read the posts. Anything I post now will be poorly reasoned, emotionally based, and will fail to consider what has already been written in this post. Wait, seems like I'm not the only one who has been drinking... Oh, and DKSuddeth, if you really believe what you have been posting, then how is it in your best interest to create a public record of your intentions? Doesn't seem like a very good plan to avoid the black Chinooks. Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument. The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such... __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-11-2008 at 07:25 PM..

12-11-2008, 08:04 PM	#251 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	calm down, gentlemen. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-11-2008, 08:11 PM	#252 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	Slims: See what you made me do? __________________ Calmer than you are...

12-11-2008, 09:15 PM	#254 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:45 PM..

12-11-2008, 06:29 PM	#246 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think the second amendment is great because it serves as such a potent example of how useless the founders were with respect to making their intentions clear (or how difficult it is to write law that will apply well in two hundred years). Second amendment? Meh. The second amendment is a lot like the bible, in that the way a person interprets the words says more about the person than the words. It is an interesting exercise in complexity: how convoluted do our interpretations have to get before we have to acknowledge that the second amendment is simply a poorly written piece of shit? I particularly enjoy the spectacular ballet that occurs when someone places arbitrary limitations on ostensibly absolute rights (i.e. anything that can be carried is okay, except biological weapons and suitcase nukes) without acknowledging that they've just limited an absolute right. The second amendment grants absolute rights, except for these I have rather arbitrarily designated as being outside the scope of its rights-granting shroud of rights granting. I also find the whole "anything you can carry in your hands is protected by the second" argument ridiculous. I mean come on, really? And the founders believed that such a minor right would go very far in preventing government tyranny? I don't think people shouldn't have guns. I just think that either way, the second amendment is poorly written, and wouldn't pass muster in a 10th grade english class. If the majority of the people want guns, they should pass a fucking amendment to clarify the second amendment and shut the fuck up already.

12-12-2008, 04:32 AM	#255 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	timalkin, when it comes to making sensible legislation, I fail to see why we should take your hypothetical situations into account, when they are merely blatant appeals to emotion. Should we also imagine what it would be like if said criminals went after puppies and unicorns? Gun bans will not eliminate gun crime. To think they would is to be idealistic. Further, does one honestly need to squeeze of a few hundred rounds of a fully automatic weapon to decide whether they should be banned? This is about as unnecessary as a requirement to have worked with any other banned material. You talk about reason and logic. You should know that they can be employed without having a great time regarding the issue in question. Try not to let this "bright light of truth" blind you. It does that sometimes. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-12-2008, 08:29 AM	#262 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the reason i posted that had more to do with what i take to be a basic philosophical difference between the two of us, dk---you tend to negate the social: i see individuals as social effects. the arguments either way depend on the register of information you want to play with---if you're thinking about legal subjects ("the people" is a designation for a legal subjectivity, collective personhood defined around positive and negative attributes such as the rights that the constitution claims we "inherently" bear---even as the reason we "inherently" bear them in the context of this legal order is that the constitution says we inherently bear them) the problem of separating the individual from the social is self-evident. unless you think the constitution is not itself a social act, that the institution(s) it puts into motion are not social, etc. maybe you think that the framers of the constitution were god's emissaries and that the constitutional order should therefore be treated as sacrocanct, beyond human understanding, not amenable to interpretation--which would be a consistent position if you yourself were not endlessly advancing interpretations. but you do, and what's more these interpretations operate on eccentric grounds. you pretend they don't because you make references to the constitution as if it meant what you say it means---but if another person does not accept your frame for running interpretations, the claims just lay there on the floor like fish would. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-12-2008, 08:36 AM	#263 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I'm not sure where you got your idea that the constitution is a social act, for it is not. The US constitution is a legal document that enumerates certain and specific powers to the federal government. That is all. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-12-2008, 08:51 AM	#264 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so how was it written? language is a social connecting medium. this is pretty self-evident. better not to think about it. how was it approved if not in a social forum/context? what is a legal system if it is not a specific set of forms within which social life unfolds, an expression of social relations of power as they obtained at the point of writing and approving the constitution? what are the courts if they aren't social institutions? democracy is a social arrangement. "liberties" are parameters that shape social relations. i got the idea that the constitution is a social act because it is a social act. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-13-2008, 12:15 PM	#266 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It's definately backwards, but it is also photoshopped. Unless she has a double mag-holder thingy. You can't put a magazine in backwards at all, it just isn't possible on an M4. Though she is doing a bunch of other things wrong. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

12-13-2008, 03:26 PM	#268 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Also, the trunk on the car is ajar. You think maybe she was posing for the camera before putting her shit away? Anyway, somebody tie this in to the OP already, or let's move on. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-13-2008, 03:57 PM	#270 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Shouldn't Jesus be behind Obama, reciting the wisdom of Matthew 5:38-42? An Eye for an Eye "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 12-13-2008 at 03:59 PM..

12-13-2008, 03:58 PM	#271 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Shoudnt the Christian right who complain about the left trivializing Christmas be outraged by such blatant disrespect for the holiday by using it for political purposes. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-13-2008, 04:00 PM	#272 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The Christian right chooses their battles, methinks. Christmas is under attack by far worse enemies than the gun-rights advocates. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

12-13-2008, 04:07 PM	#273 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Perhaps they can justify it by suggesting that Santa is packing as a front line soldier to battle the left's War on Christmas. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-21-2008, 09:02 AM	#274 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I wish there was an accurate statistic saying what % of gun owners who own a firearm for home/self protection have ever had to use it in that manner. Not that it would prove one side or the other as "right"....I'm just curious how often guns are actually used for the reasons they were purchased Also, a breakdown of how many people have guns JUST for self protection vs. those who also shoot at ranges, hunt, collect, etc.

01-07-2009, 10:29 AM	#280 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	correct! so you shoot the cop, and then the cop's friends come by, and maybe you shoot one of those before the FBI, ATF, SWAT, and lots of other acronymns get involved with body armor, ballistic shields, stun and gas grenades, fully automatic weapons, and if you really pissed them off, a tank. Still think you'll win, hotstuff?