KirStang

Going through some of my Constitutional Law textbook and the Federalist papers, it seems as if the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a military check against the government, if necessary.

Lucky for us, there are multitudes of other checks on the government, including, as dc_dux has said, the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments, division of powers, 2 yr house elections, executive veto power etc.

I think it would be foolhardy to say that the 2nd amendment is "unecessary" (no one has really said that, yet.) I tend to think of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) as a measure of last resort against an oppressive government. Fortunately, the government hasn't made egregious oppressive moves, and even then as others have frequently stated, using unorganized military force to check the national government would be near impossible (but it would make a strong political statement, wouldn't it?).

Either way, the 2nd amendment is not for hunting.
========================

I wish ammunition prices would go down too. I can barely find any .45ACP, and Walmart is *completely* out of .45.

Derwood

I think it's pretty clear that the only "government oppression" that would actually make gun owners take up arms would be the taking away of guns.

The_Jazz

Congratulations on feeding the troll.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Derwood

and who would that be?

Kingruv

I don't mean to be a poop stirrer but it seems my jingling change I throw in sometimes does that so here it goes.
1. As to Obama wanting your guns in the shredder; I think in his idea of a more perfect world, there would not be "assault weapons" or any other type of weapon that could possibly take someone's life. Taking life is for the courts/state to decide.
So being busy with a lot of big box issues will leave him no time for anything other than rubber stamping whatever the socialized socialites on the Hill come up with at a time that will make him look good. There are enough anti-gun people on the Kennedy staff to handle this minor issue.
2. If you have trouble understanding the "whys" of the way gun control goes, you need to study the National Firearms Act ca. 1934
A lot of the thrust of the decisions of the Supreme Court over Miller vs United States dealt with a struggle over what weapons were considered to be a functional part of personal military arms as opposed to in modern parlance "squad or crew served" weapons.
The reason the definition of "well regulated militia" is attacked by gun control proponents is because if the meaning is changed to define militia as National Guard or State Guard, etc. then no personal attachment is left and the goverment is free to do as it pleases.
In the 30's the Roosevelt Administration's Justice Department formed the bill which became the NFA. They were keenly aware of the then current understanding of the 2nd Amendment and tried to steer clear of getting into court. However that is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court undertook to decide what constitutes weapons needed for the "Militia".
In point I will use Virginia as an example since it's Militia definition predates the Constituion, and still retains the primitive definition.
At the most basic level the consitution of the Commonwealth recognizes a regular militia and a irregular militia. (this is similar in Pennsylvania as I recall) these are distinct from the Military Forces of the Commonwealth but are subject under it in time of emergency. The regular militia is considered to be persons under arms within the jurisdiction of the adjutant general of Virginia and formed into companies for purpose of defense. The Irregular militia is comprised of all other citizens that are armed and within the same prescribed limits and jurisdiction but are basically a last line of defense. Sadly to say similar to the Home Guard in Britain and Germany during WWII. Of course we shipped rifles and handguns to England during the war for exactly that reason, they had been stripped of the right to possess arms for defense.
In like manner the "militia" was always understood to "comprise the body of the whole citizenry" "except a few public officials" according to George Mason. "Well regulated" meant to have arms reasonable to defend and repel.
3. In the Supreme Court findings one of the issues settled around handguns. Is a handgun a normal weapon needed for a well regulated militia? The finding was yes. Why? Because in discussion and research it was determined that provosts and NCO's had the need for handguns to enforce lawful orders, prevent desertion and restore lawful order if need be by summary execution on the field of battle. This had been shown time and again. Similar action related to the roll of shotguns in war and in companies both in use by guards and by military police function. Because of this limits on short barrel shotguns went forward because ones with 18 inch barrels and longer were the only ones "typically" deemed to have a regular purpose.
4. In basic, a weapon which could be used by one person went under the wire and larger weapons were allowed to be regulated.
As to "other weapons" in many places you won't find a restriction on flame-throwers in respect to firearms ( no pun intended)
This usually comes under other headings and local or state restrictions which cover them specifically.
5. One of the basic erosions that has fostered anti-liberty issues and militated against personal liberty as opposed to class or civil liberties is this; the rewriting of fundamental rules on WHO has the vote. This isn't a racial issue or religious issue or really even political issue, it is a power issue ( you may read this as a MONEY issue)
The vote I refer to is your Federal Senator, and he or she is indeed Federal. (This wasn't always so children)
Before the 17th amendment, the State goverments chose the Senators and were able to hold the Federal gov. in check to some degree. Because of Senate rules, it is the most entrenched body in Washington. There were no problems present then that the 17th amendment was supposedly meant to address that has actually been solved; there are a few it has brought up. (I have 2 possible solutions to this part of the problem but can't get enough helium to float lead, the only source of gas up here is hot air that erodes the ozone layer over the Beltway, it is unsafe and unsuitable for floating good ideas)
6. There are psychological implications to gun-control that serves the powers that be, better as a fight than as a win/lose battle.
7. The NRA isn't the only organization up here that generates millions of dollars pertaining to gun control issues.
8. Currently gun owners have more to worry about from their own statehouses than from the Whitehouse.

If I have offended anyone please let me know now. I am bending over to feed the troll, so I am presenting the perfect target for punts, kicks or darts.

Plan9

Firearms aren't weapons unless they're used to hurt people. My guns have never hurt anybody. They're not weapons.

Confusing? Try this: A ballpoint pen isn't a weapon until someone gouges it into another person's eyeball.

Better terminology would be item specific: rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc.

...

Other language issues: Assault is a human behavior, not an adjective as seen in "assault rifle."

/NRA-style politically correct pro-gun yuppie-feed

...

Turns out gun companies want a little gun control, too... as long as they can jack up prices and blame the government for it. Conflict breeds opportunity. Market would be okay with 1920s-esque gun freedoms... but I figure it's better now, at least financially, because guns are "on the verge of being banned as you read this!" If the maker of those Beta-C magazines didn't have the "high capacity mag ban is in the works" angle... they'd have a hard time selling their poopy products for the inflated several hundred dollars. Companies that sell ARs are having a great time right now. They can't get enough the paranoia. They're gonna sell you a M4 look-alike for a grand plus when it's worth maybe $750. Should a similar Clinton ban pass? They'll sell you one with a fake sliding stock and muzzle brake for the same grand. Ballistics and application-wise, the guns are the same damn thing... but the "pre-ban" one is cooler.

I feel that, for the most part, guns are a luxury commodity in the United States... a business designed to make money and no different than golf clubs, cigars, skimpy lingerie and pricey booze. They might be good quality (fancy pants 1911 guys) or craptacular (Llama or Phoenix Arms) but they're all out to sell you something because at the end of the day (if you live in the city) you can't eat guns... and they certainly can't put braces on your brat and push 'em through college (legally) in any of the 50 nifty United States. Whether it's a 13-month calendar featuring thong-clad bikini models posing awkwardly with Brand X assault rifles or the "Next Uber Epic Attack On Your 2nd Amendment Rights!" line, it's all about the Benjamins. To assume gun manufacturers are virtuous freedoms advocates is to assume General Motors cares about your long term investment in one of their vehicles. No, they just wanna sell you "The Pistol Favored by Special Operations Forces for OBLITERATING TERRORISTS" or whatever lunchbox gimmick of the year is on top of the pile.

Don't get me wrong... I love guns. They're a great, rewarding hobby and I'll continue to study, use, and buy them... I just don't have any illusions about them as magical badges. They're no different than kitchen appliances or car parts. They don't "make freedom" anymore than baseball bats or Molotov cocktails, they don't provide anything that doesn't already rest in the hands of a determined individual, and they don't really do a whole lot except propel metallic projectiles on command.

All this inflated "Rambotalk" (TM) about revolution and The Man and such... hogwash. People were having revolutions long before black powder was invented and they'll continue to do such when we're blasting each other with phased plasma rifles in 40 watt range. Guns might make us more equal in the method by which we kill each other (e.g. versus a sword or longbow), but they don't change IQs.

Weapons change... people stay the same.

...

If you really wanna revolt against The Man... stop paying your taxes.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

roachboy

i still do not accept the equation of gun ownership and political dissent.
what guarantees dissent--to the extent that anything does--are freedoms of speech, press and assembly. without a political project, a gun is just another thing--a dependent variable if you like (pace crompsin directly above)...

if you want to play the game of linking the 2nd amendment to the historical context in which the constitution was framed, that's fine. it seems to me that it is a residuum which speaks to the simple fact that had there not been guns around it would have been difficult to organize militias to carry out the war against the british. but this does not mean that the 2nd amendment is either a description of or theory about the revolution--without extensive ideological and political work carried out across the late 1760s and through the 1770s using pamphlets, broadsheets and other textual devices and through the development of social networks that connected the colonies together laterally (as opposed to connecting them together by way of britian, which is how they were organized economically) there'd have been no project that shaped the actions which began in 1776--and so guns would have remained just guns, used for whatever.

in other words, it is simply inaccurate to attribute the american revolution to the ownership of guns alone.

nor is it accurate to link the capacity for political dissent to gun ownership.
for example, it might be edifying for my colleagues on the right to consider the glorious history of the left in the united states and the extent to which the american state was wiling to go (the colorado coalfield wars are a good example) to crush it. a parallel kind of history can be found in the lovely history of my favorite group of moustachioed mercenaries, the pinkertons, and the situations in which they were used to eithehunt down and murder trade union activitist or to engage in battles to prevent unions from entering particular facilities (river rouge) or industries (good ole henry ford, my favorite american fascist, and this literally)....or you could look at the repeated uses of red scares to mobilize popular support for campaigns ideological and material to suppress the left.
people had guns throughout. i don't recall it making any difference at all.

but then again, maybe the problem is that the sustained war on the left would not register with my colleagues on the right as problematic because they would have and perhaps do support such actions.

this loops onto the question of what oppressive means.
if "an oppressive government" had an obejective meaning--if oppression was a feature of phenomena in the world and not an effect of statements about phenomena in the world--perhaps things would have gone otherwise with the history of the left. perhaps these heroes on individual liberties on the right would have been inclined to react to this, figuring that suppression of the right to dissent on the left would put their own abilities to dissent in peril.

or maybe they were just fine with that.

the point is that without political work, without arguments and information and relations staged between them, there is no political action. a gun is simply a tool that may or may not enable particular types of action to be undertaken *in the context of a political project*....

there are other problems, lots of them, but i'll leave it at this for the moment.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

This is nice spin, but here's the difference: a ballpoint pen's designed use is to create marks on paper. A gun's designed use is to project bullets at things at a high velocity. The fact that a pen can be used as a weapon is a secondary "trait" of the object, not it's intended use. A gun's intended use is to shoot things.

Plan9

...shoot things. Things, huh? Like paper targets. Or animals for dinner. Or maybe the psycho trying to attack my girlfriend?

...

Funny how owning guns doesn't give you a license to kill. Apparently it should because that seems to be a gun's primary use "trait" in your opinion. I'm sending all of mine back the manufacturer with a letter of complaint. I demand the legal right to use their product for its primary purpose.

(throws up into his own mouth, swallows)

Mmm. You sir? I like your logic.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

Sure. I didn't say kill, I said shoot things. The end result of shooting things COULD result in harm or death of a person. The end result of writing a shopping list with a pen is considerably less potentially fatal.

It agree, it doesn't, yet some people on your side seem to have no problem threatening to do so if anybody trespasses, poses some vague level of threat or tries to take their guns away.

Plan9

Hot dog! Sounds like a people problem.

Human responsibility: the root of all evil.

...

Fuck guns, let's regulate who can have kids.

Get to the root cause of the problem here.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

go back and find where i've ever posted that I think guns should be taken away from anyone. go ahead, I'll wait

Plan9

Cool. You go back and find where I posted that you suggested it.

...

Okay, nevermind. We'll both have Confucius beards by that point. Neither exists.

...

I want you to go on the TFP range trip with us. Start driving right now.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

you're certainly arguing with me as if that were my position

no thanks. I have zero interest in ever holding a gun much less shooting one

Plan9

Wow, you're about as open-minded as the "out to get me" types.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

shakran

I'm curious as to why the pro-gun side in here feels the need to justify their possession of firearms.

"We need it to shoot the cops if they try to take our guns."
"I need it to shoot the psycho that's attacking my girlfriend."
"I need it to put food on the table."

Who cares why you need it? It's irrelevant. The fact that you're justifying having the gun is weakening your claim that having a gun is one of the basic human rights defined in the constitution. If it's a basic human right, then I don't need to tell you why I have a gun. I just need to have it. You don't hear me running around saying "well I need to talk because . .. " in order to defend the 1st, do you?

This debate, as with most gun debates, comes down to whether or not having a weapon (keep and bear arms) is an inalienable human right acknowledged by the constitution. The consensus of the country and of the (heh heh. . activist? ) judges on the supreme court currently seem to hold that it is. If it is, indeed, an inalienable human right to have a weapon, then the government cannot and should not stop me from acquiring, possessing, and carrying a weapon, whether that weapon is a knife, a gun, or a missile. If you are proposing that, then I suggest you start shooting the cops to stop them from taking your knives away, because they're doing that every day.

Those of you who are pro-gun in this thread, and who disagree with the previous paragraph, are admitting that having a weapon is not an inalienable human right, is not constitutionally protected under the second, and that the government can, as it does now, regulate what kind of weapon you are allowed to have. (This explains why in some states you can have an AK-47 but you can't have a 3 inch knife, and it also explains why owning a set of nunchaku is a crime in many states).

If you admit that, then you are admitting that the cops do have the right to take your gun away, and are, those of you who are threatening to shoot anyone who tries, admitting that you are contemplating unjustified homicide.

Plan9

(wonders how DK got Shakran's login)

...

I'm the reasonable one here.
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 04 : 56 : 06-----
Can't get a 10 page thread without it from both sides, bro.

...

Can I get a super moderator to tell me the purpose of the TFP, again?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

Using force to protect and keep your rights is unjustifiable? Pray tell, how does one protect and keep their rights then?

__________________
"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."

shakran

I suggest the two of you read, carefully, my post again. . .

dksuddeth

ok, I reread it....again. The only question I had was for the part I quoted. As to the rest, I agree. I've stated my point and case many times, I'm pretty much done with that as it seems most people have made up their minds one way or the other.

Back to my question though, is using force justifiable in protecting and maintaining your rights? any of them?

__________________
"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."

shakran

Yes, I think it is. So why aren't you shooting? They confiscate knives, which last time I checked were weapons, also known as "arms," all the time. If the 2nd is an absolute right to keep and bear arms, then you should be fighting the oppressive government that is trying to deny us that right.

KirStang

Shakran,

If the government decreed that you could only speak after filling out 3 forms and being mute for 5 days, then...would you start justifying the right to speech?

shakran

KirStang. No. I don't have to justify it. Once I start justifying it, it's admitting that the government has the right to remove my right to speak unless I can give them a good enough reason not to. I have the right to life. I don't have to justify to the government why I should live, because it is a right. The /right,/ is why I should live. Similarly, I do not have to justify why I should be allowed to speak. I have the right to freedom of speech. the /right,/ is why I should be allowed to speak.

And, to bring it to the context of this thread, if you feel the need to justify having a gun then you are implicitly admitting that it is not a /right,/ but a /privilege that you feel is a necessity./ If having a gun is a /right,/ then you do not have to justify having one. It is your right to have one. That is all that needs to be said.

dc_dux

The government has imposed limitations on speech - hate speech, "fighting words", slander, obscenities over the air waves,.....
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 06 : 29 : 12-----
The NRA and some gun rights advocates (in this discussion) have used fear and propaganda to misrepresent Obama's position..that is a fact.

The framers of the Constitution did not put the 2nd amendment above all others....that is a fact.

Obama and the 111th Congress wont enact any gun control legislation...that is a near certainty as well.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

KirStang

To draw a parallel to Shakran's point, because there are limitations on the freedom of speech I should rebel against the government because 'they are taking my right away and are doing it every day.'

To wit, there are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech; there are also reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms. I think we've long submitted to the social contract theory which dictates that we curb our freedoms to the extent necessary to avoid intruding on other's freedoms.

Blegh, I can wax on about the logic of it all, but whatever. I'm happy so long as more legislation isn't passed out of fear rather than logic.

shakran

Actually it's smacked down laws which limit pure hate speech (i.e. hate speech that does not include a threat) - for example, look up Colin v. Smith, 1978, 7th circuit, in which the American Nazi Party prevailed in getting laws which prevented them from expressing their anti-semetic opinions struck down.

Both examples of using your rights to impose on mine, which basic human rights concepts were never meant to allow for.


And in my opinion, that's wrong. But then state governments also pass laws about not selling booze on Sundays for fear of pissing God off. . . Just because the government does it, doesn't mean they're right in doing it.


In this thread, I am saying that if keeping and bearing arms is in fact an unqualified right as many are saying (meaning you don't have to be in a "well regulated militia" in order to qualify for that right) then the government is violating our rights by passing ANY laws against weapon ownership with the exception of laws which prevent people from owning/using the weapons in such a way as to violate the rights of others. In other words, laws which say "You are not allowed to randomly stab people" are fine, but laws which say "you may not own a knife" are not.

dc_dux

Future attempts at gun control legislation will be guided by the Heller decision, particularly:
Limits on who can own....limits (conditions and qualifications) on the sale of weapons....limits on the type of weapons.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

KirStang

*Edit 1: *Nevermind.

*Edit 2*: Haha too late, Dux quoted me.

shakran

Even going by the Heller decision, knives are protected, and yet the government is confiscating them routinely and often. We should be defending our right, according to dksuddeth and others. I am curious as to why this isn't happening.

dc_dux

Many of the new Democrats in the Congress, particularly from the west and south, are not anti-gun.

And the Senate majority is not filibuster-proof.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

shakran

Add to that the fact that they have much more pressing issues on their plate, like rebuilding the economy and trying to repair the damage Bush has done. Obama literally needs to pull off a second FDR administration, and he doesn't have 3-and-change terms to do it in. This is not the kind of guy who gets distracted by less-important-things, as we saw in how he conducted himself in the campaign. Even if he secretly wants to steal every gun in the country, which he doesn't, he realizes he doesn't have time to even think about it.

Derwood

it's not about being open minded, it's about being uninterested. i simply have no interest, desire, or curiosity about firing a gun. i don't like guns, and want nothing to do with them.

Plan9

And thus know little about the items themselves and the vast variety of people who choose to own and use them.

Research helps. Not that I'd know (I care little for statistics, as you've discovered), but I'm sure it does.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

roachboy

the question of when it's justifiable to use weapons for political ends is pretty difficult ethically, but it's central to any revolutionary politics--if you consider that it is inevitable that you will end up moving outside of conventional processes. nothing about it is broached by questions of whether one does or does not have a formal right to own a gun. nothing about it is broached when you talk about your heroism in situations that are entirely in the subjunctive.

one way the old left dealt with it was the loop it through engels--the state will attempt to suppress any threat to it's political legitimacy and will use violence to do it--which in a sense evacuates the ethical problems by making what you, as putative revolutionary, would then do as reactive. so even as much of that strain of revolutionary theory is opposed to the capitalist order in general, and to the state as an expression of theclass structure, as an instrument of bourgeois power, it still relies on the state to set its project into motion.

there's also a long tradition of criticism of leninism in that the vanguard party is effectively a military structure--top down hierarchy for example---so that should a situation present itself that a revolutionary organization actually gets to power, chances are that it will impose on the next phase of things not what it says about organization, but it's own pattern of organization. this is at the base of many left critiques of the russian revolution and of leninist organization.

i've been more interested in variants of the general strike model (in the old school framework) which gave way to revolutionary action as a type of ideological conflict that is capable of undermining the legitimacy of the existing order by exploding the way it orders its surroundings ideologically--by structuring dominant worldviews, modes of thinking and doing.

the problem this runs into is a version of the repressive tolerance thesis: the dominant order deals with dissent by accepting its premises.

which leads to the question of whether there is or can be a revolutionary political movement.
i think there can be one, but that it's a long process to build it and requires steady work and the fashioning of continuity.

if any that holds, then the question of gun ownership is trivial.
it doesn't enable you to defend your rights because you tend, we tend, being nice adaptive creatures, to move with the dominant frame of reference, either by assent or by standing it on it's head, which repeats the same thing except upside down. so it's likely that you will either not recognize infringements on your prerogatives or rights because you agree to give them away, or everything is an infringement on your prerogatives or rights, in which case you're just a paranoid. either way you loose. and having a gun isn't going to help you.

you have to get outside the dominant ways of thinking. but the dominant ways of thinking are what enable you to get outside, so it's never complete--and they allow for communication of your positions, which means that you can't loose contact with it or you'll end up talking a private language--so you loose again. and having a gun will not help you sort this out. having a gun in this case really is like having a shower curtain of a tennis shoe.

it does different things, of course, but it's no different in kind.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Plan9

Pfft, knives were cool when you were 15 and your alternative was a Red Ryder pellet gun.

I can make a decent knife by hand in less than an hour with the tools in my sock drawer.

Try making a decent firearm. It's difficult.

...

Lemme see if I get you:

I have a "right" (intangible thing) according to an ancient asswipe document and tiddly-winks court system that couldn't be more confusing with the help of the conservative Peewee Herman known as Justice Antonin Scalia... so I don't have to tell anybody about my "right" (intangible thing).

Man, I shouldn't even have to talk about something that I am for and a lot of people are against and wish to completely deprive me of ever accessing.

Issues like sport enjoyment, hunting, and self defense aren't things worthy of discussion.

...

You're kidding.

I totally don't get your logic here. Do explain. This smells an awful lot like what teenagers hear when their parents try to offer them those eye-rolling "valuable life lessons" regarding tattoos, car racing and premarital sex.

"Don't do it. Why? Because I said so."

...

US Govt: "I'm here to take your guns."

DK: "But I have a right."

US Govt: "Says who?"

DK: "You did... once."

US Govt: "Too bad!"

DK: "I don't have to justify anything."

US Govt: "Good. What kind of cuffs do you like? Chain or hinge?"

/non-Crompsin post-apocalyptic pro-gun wet dream scenario w/ new added "Don't Justify" maneuver

...

Rights, like guns, aren't magical merit badges. Rights don't mean a damn thing unless you can justify them and back up that justification with some kind of tangible force... like the end results of law (gag) or DK's Chevy Silverado-mounted GE M134D minigun.

Ya know... if he had one. He should name it "The Justificationator."

...

I think our "rights" are "protected" by a "system" led by "men" with soft hands and $800 haircuts.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

shakran

So because Crompsin doesn't consider knives . .. Cool. . .we should ban them. . . Gotcha


...
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 07 : 52-----

The same ancient asswipe document you and your side uses to loudly proclaim that the government cannot take your guns. . . .

No.

I did explain. Read again. If you have a right to something, you do not have to justify having it. You're already entitled to it. I don't have to start my newscasts with an explanation of why I should be allowed to broadcast them, and a plea to government censors not to block their transmission because, having a right to free speech, the government isn't allowed to take it away from me, even if they don't like my reason for exercising it.

If indeed you have a right to bear arms, then you don't have to explain why you need to have a gun. You are entitled to the gun, even if I or the government think your reason is stupid or unpalatable.

Well the threats to shoot cops in this thread clearly show the tangible force (though it doesn't amount to much up against the government's tangible force. As far as justifying rights, clearly you do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. Perhaps that's half the problem.

Plan9

This reminds me that I need to drink more.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

I don't want to know about them, that's the point.

Plan9

Did you just pigeonhole me? Sweet. I'm "One of Them." Lemme guess... you're a star-bellied sneetch.

Check my posts. I don't threaten violence, I'm not a paranoid weenie-hat, etc. I'm Mr. Reasonablepants.

-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 25 : 11-----
Enlighten me. I don't really see anything in the US as a right. They're all privileges, pretty much. "Good judgment." "Reasonable and prudent person." Etc. Flavor of the week.
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 26 : 59-----
Entitled would be wrong. I have to be a certain age, residency, criminal status, etc. Sounds like a privilege to me.

You're suggesting: Let gun people babble and "your kind" can stop telling us we're "wrong?"

...

TFP is a forum, right?
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 31 : 17-----
I wish somebody would feed me but I'm not... I'm not radical enough.

Jazz... Jazz... I'm so hungry. God, can't you spare me some pearls of wisdom?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

filtherton

Does that make the NRA Sylvester McMonkey McBean?