Game, set, match.

[brady]

[img:2fa3pqd9]http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles/images/minority-report.jpg[/img:2fa3pqd9]

[v1cious]

[quote="Medios":146tyjl4][quote="Gimlet":146tyjl4]I'm no US-citizen, nor am i pro or anti USA.

however, I think most of the problems if american society is the misconstrued idea of "rights". Blame the smarty pants who decided to name that silly document the "bill of rights". ok before you start slagging me off, I'm not bashing anyone.

People need to differentiate between "rights" and "privileges". I think the only rights human beings have is the right to equality, and the right to survive. Owning a handgun isn't a right, it's a privilege. Being able to speak freely without fear of persecuation is a right. Being able to live without fear of oppression is a right. Beating the crap out of anyone who calls your mom isn't a right.

People may argue that most crimes are committed with illegal firearms anyway. I won'ta rgue with the fact. [b:146tyjl4]Why stop at firearms then? hell give us all a nuclear warhead so we can nuke the adjacent neighborhood full of junkies.[/b:146tyjl4]

I admire the panache with which most of you argue about domestic politics. I only wish half the people in my country had that much passion about the government. I guess that's the difference between our cultures. We sacrifice our own liberties/privileges for a comfortable life, as opposed to sacrificing rights of others so that you can boast to be a proud american.[/quote:146tyjl4]

So should the government make guns illegal? How about knives? How about self defense? Should Kung Fu be illegal? Someone could use it to hurt someone else...[/quote:146tyjl4]
Technological development will one day reach the point where it would be technically and economically feasible for significant portions of the private population to purchase or fund the creation of their own private nuclear weapons, provided that the right to do so is not restricted by government.

Given that the constitutional argument against gun control refers to an amendment that gives the people the unqualified right to "keep and bear arms", it seems as though anyone using that amendment as their argument must either accept that nuclear weapons should also be legal for unrestricted private use, or qualify their interpretation of that amendment with some guiding principle that distinguishes nuclear weapons from firearms.

I think it's pretty safe to conclude that the line should be drawn somewhere.

[Rynquald]

Bringing nuclear weapons into a discussion over the second amendment (and equivalent laws) is a clear strawman argument.

No one is saying that we should be able to buy any of the other weapons with no use outside of the battlefield either. There's landmines, cluster bombs, mortars, missiles armed with conventional warheads, anti-missile weapons, and more, have you ever heard an advocate for gun-owner's rights demand the public sale of any of those things?

[Gimlet]

if freedom is a fundamental right, etc etc, then there really isn't a need for a "bill of rights" is there?

since it pretty much "limits" your rights

[Tap]

Every man, no matter the nationality, should have the right to defend themselves. Think of all the killings that have occurred because someone didn't have a right to protect themselves. I live by a simple rule, don't F*ck with anyone - don't take no sh*t from anyone. Live and let live for all you kiddies out there.I would agree that their should be a limit of what type of gun one should be allowed to have according to the times at hand. I would not want my neighbor owning a machine gun BUT should the time come when he needed it.. I would be glad he had one to help protect me and vice-versa. I dunno...in these trying time and the way everything seems to be going to shit at an ever=increasing rate, I am both saddened and somewhat comforted that just perhaps...the good Lord is getting ready to make an appearance.


[quote:67rgz5kb]The ongoing problem of crime is merely a smokescreen to use as an excuse for ever tightening controls on our day to day lives.[/quote:67rgz5kb]

Somewhere around Nov. 14, the U.S. and several other countries are meeting to discuss the impending global financial crisis. Already, most are calling for a new 1 world global currency to help reset the problem.

[v1cious]

[quote="Rynquald":1hksowa0]Bringing nuclear weapons into a discussion over the second amendment (and equivalent laws) is a clear strawman argument.

No one is saying that we should be able to buy any of the other weapons with no use outside of the battlefield either. There's landmines, cluster bombs, mortars, missiles armed with conventional warheads, anti-missile weapons, and more, have you ever heard an advocate for gun-owner's rights demand the public sale of any of those things?[/quote:1hksowa0]
Did you read my post?

I'll quote it once again, just for you:
[quote:1hksowa0]anyone using that amendment as their argument must either accept that nuclear weapons should also be legal for unrestricted private use, or qualify their interpretation of that amendment with some guiding principle that distinguishes nuclear weapons from firearms.[/quote:1hksowa0]

So let's hear what the guiding principle of yours is.

[Weasel]

[Vixn]

[quote="Tap":2mexybrp]I live by a simple rule, don't F*ck with anyone - don't take no sh*t from anyone.[/quote:2mexybrp]

Why do I not believe you? Due to pthieving or for another reason?
If you want someone to listen you try to gain some respect first.
And don't F*ck my brain with your stupid rules.

Vixn

[13]

[quote:2wzk36k0] I will be glad when the election is over with so we can get back to ruining the country with deficit spending and more government.[/quote:2wzk36k0]

[size=200:2wzk36k0]3:16[/size:2wzk36k0]

[13]

While I agree that we should be able to keep and bear arms, I recognize the numbers that Canada and the UK put up every year. I agree with a little
socialism, a little communism, some democracy (occaisionally I think people
are too stupid to choose the right thing for themselves), some libertarianism
and some classic republican values. I am a liberal that is very conservative
in some ways. I hate that we use currency but I realize the need for it.

Where to turn? Who to trust? Who can you believe in?
I believe that the majority of network news is disinformation
and everyone is crooked but I believe in the soul of humanity
and the goodness of man. What do you think?

[jezer]

[quote="13":f8d70dpa]I agree with a little socialism, a little communism, some democracy (occaisionally I think people are too stupid to choose the right thing for themselves), some libertarianism and some classic republican values. I am a liberal that is very conservative in some ways. I hate that we use currency but I realize the need for it.

Where to turn? Who to trust? Who can you believe in? I believe that the majority of network news is disinformation and everyone is crooked but I believe in the soul of humanity and the goodness of man. What do you think?[/quote:f8d70dpa]

You got my vote!

[Tap]

I'm not a pthief. I just hang out with them. Or use too....


[img:3oa3dkxa]http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Valentines/Lips-01-june.gif[/img:3oa3dkxa]

[Rynquald]

[quote="v1cious":2zs30mv1][quote="Rynquald":2zs30mv1]Bringing nuclear weapons into a discussion over the second amendment (and equivalent laws) is a clear strawman argument.

No one is saying that we should be able to buy any of the other weapons with no use outside of the battlefield either. There's landmines, cluster bombs, mortars, missiles armed with conventional warheads, anti-missile weapons, and more, have you ever heard an advocate for gun-owner's rights demand the public sale of any of those things?[/quote:2zs30mv1]
Did you read my post?

I'll quote it once again, just for you:
[quote:2zs30mv1]anyone using that amendment as their argument must either accept that nuclear weapons should also be legal for unrestricted private use, or qualify their interpretation of that amendment with some guiding principle that distinguishes nuclear weapons from firearms.[/quote:2zs30mv1]

So let's hear what the guiding principle of yours is.[/quote:2zs30mv1]

You're right there, I misunderstood your meaning. I guess I've heard the similar-sounding argument that uses nuclear weapons as an shot against the right to keep weapons in general one too many times to take it objectively.

As for an actual answer to your question, I don't have a definitive one. The only thing I can think to say here is that this kind of question is why we need governments that we can trust to not try to slowly strip away our freedoms. If it is even possible for one to exist.

[*juggleblood*]

it is. just requires constant vigilance. I wish our system had more mechanisms by which the legislative branch could constrain the power of the executive.

Edit: what do you guys think will happen to the Republican party? I'm thinking it's going to fracture as the moderate fiscal conservatives pull away from the religious fundamentalists. This might pave the way for a real multi-party system, instead of the existing 2 party paradigm. It'll be so surreal to see a unified democratic government and a fractured multi-party right. Who woulda thunk it.

[Tap]

I'm reminded of the story of the woman who helped a snake across the river and later was bit and as she was dying asked,"Why did you bite me?" to which the snake replied," I'm a snake, what did you expect?"

Ultimately, I don't think that Obama winning will be the end of the world. I do however think anything that happens to him while in office will result in a powder keg that will set this country back 100 years. I also foresee alot more protesting going on that will ultimately be squelched by teh Fairness Doctrine to keep the bulk of the country unaware of what exactly is going on. With the press having it's head up Obama's ass, it will be easy to keep the facts away from the popluation with mis-propaganda.

Oh...if Obama somehow receives a head wound and manages to make a miraculous recovery that "WOW's the world.....then...ahh nvm