Question for the gun nuts - what would it take...

[MMike]

Is there anything that would entice you to give up your "piece"?

Something that the gov't could provide that would make you willing to give up your guns forever.

[Samirol]

what color pickup truck and how many jesus fish will it have on it?

[MikeD]

Yeah, it's about surrendering individual rights for handouts. Totally.

(By the way, I don't own guns...)

[BurlyShirley]

I'm simply against the government taking away ANY of my rights. Be it gun ownership, free speech, privacy, etc. So no, there is no pricetag.


Edit:
F*ck, I don't even own a handgun.

[MikeD]

oops, double post.

[MMike]

I'm actually just trying to gauge the importance. Obviously I don't understand the attration to the gun thing. Makes no sense to me.

So I'm just curious if there was something that could displace gun ownership from the top of someone's priority list.

[MikeD]

Well, maybe I'm the wrong person to ask, since gun ownership isn't a "top priority" for me, just one of the many natural rights protected by the Constitution that I'm not willing to sacrifice.

Seems to have nothing to do with an attachment to a gun or any other object for me...

[MMike]

Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?

[Westy]

I'd give up my guns if I could legally punch people in the face for doing stupid things. Things like balancing their checkbook in the grocery line or going slow in the left lane.

[TheMontashu]

If the people aren't armed and the government isn't afraid of the people we have some big big big problems on our hands

[BurlyShirley]

Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?

So we set the precedent that our freedoms can simply be taken for some cheap material gain? That's exactly the type of government that a gun-owning public keeps from getting out of hand. :biggrin:

[TheMontashu]

Maybe I should rephrase then

Would you be willing to amend the constitution so that the 2nd amm was deleted and then replaced with something else (non gun-related) that would improve your life somehow?
Why not just put in the something else and leave the 2nd amendment alone?

[MMike]

Why not just put in the something else and leave the 2nd amendment alone?

Gee what a shock. You're missing the point. Who would have seen that coming?

[skinny mike]

where is the option, "only a canadian could come up with a poll question like this?"

[narlus]

Gee what a shock. You're missing the point. Who would have seen that coming?

:rofl:

[MMike]

So in order of importance:

Gun
ammo
air
subscription to Guns & Ammo
water
Picket sign that reads, "Guns don't kill people, People do"
Photo of Charleton Heston
food

[BurlyShirley]

So in order of importance:

Gun
ammo
air
subscription to Guns & Ammo
water
Picket sign that reads, "Guns don't kill people, People do"
Photo of Charleton Heston
food

Have you actually read anyone's responses to your question?

[sanjuro]

You forgot a poll option:

Someone in my family kills/gets killed with one of my guns...

[JohnE]

What did Jefferson say about the government that can give you everything you want also being able to take it away??

[H8R]

Something that the gov't could provide that would make you willing to give up your guns forever.

Immortality is not in the poll. I assume it's not available from the government?

[valve bouncer]

Gee what a shock. You're missing the point. Who would have seen that coming?
He has a "concussion".

[BMXman]

If the people aren't armed and the government isn't afraid of the people we have some big big big problems on our hands

what country are you in? Because the US government certainly isn't afraid of it's people...D

[Defenestrated]

The US government ****s all over the people all the time. No amount of guns will change this mindset.

[Samirol]

If the people aren't armed and the government isn't afraid of the people we have some big big big problems on our hands

kinda beaten, but guns haven't made the government afraid of the people. When 2/3 of the American public say they don't see the fight in Iraq as worth it, and the Vice President says "So?", there is a major problem.

Take for example, France. They have strict gun laws, only a few hand guns, no hollow point bullets, CCW isn't allowed, and getting a gun license is hard. Their government is afraid of the people protesting over wages, the economy, anything that they feel the government isn't doing right. You have high schools doing protests when a public figure shows up at the school.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xHllaP-dB_c

Gun freedoms and the power of the people in government isn't connected, as many European and Scandinavian countries are more representative of their people with far less gun "rights".

Take for example, this was considered a major scandal in Iceland:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_f0GVK6wzfQ

Now, in the US, the media wouldn't even waste air time putting it on. The idea that the only way to keep freedoms is to have an armed populace is fairly ignorant, since having a politically active populace is so much more crucial to keeping freedoms.

[MMike]

Have you actually read anyone's responses to your question?

Yes. But what I'm trying to do is to break...or at least temporarily bend a paradigm. I know gun ownership is a right. And the thought of losing a right goes against everything americans are supposed to stand for.

But suppose for a second it becomes a pointless right? Or something that becomes obsolete. Why defend it just because it's currently "a right" but serves no real purpose, (hypothetically of course). Say the gov't decided that Americans no longer have the right to, in one fluid motion, throw themselves down a flight of stairs, smash their hand with a hammer and shave their junk with a cheese grater. Why would you care if that's illegal? But merely because the gov't says you can't, you would want to?

Now I'm getting offtopic a little.

What I'm trying to figure out is: Is there something that could be considered more valuable than the right to gun ownership? If all of a sudden, they could ammend the constitution such that all americans have the RIGHT to free university education, but for some reason it meant having to give up the 2nd ammend. That wouldn't be a worthwhile trade?


This is like the Peoples' Front of Judea. "I want to have babies"
9nl3t6EcbvQ

[MikeD]

Except that it's not...

[BurlyShirley]

Yes. But what I'm trying to do is to break...or at least temporarily bend a paradigm. I know gun ownership is a right. And the thought of losing a right goes against everything americans are supposed to stand for.

But suppose for a second it becomes a pointless right? Or something that becomes obsolete. Why defend it just because it's currently "a right" but serves no real purpose, (hypothetically of course).

In the world today, I cannot imagine a scenario in which it could become a pointless right. I actually pity the citizens of other advanced nations whose governments deny them access to simple tools of self preservation. The right, to "be an island" if you will. Not entirely dependent up government institutions like law enforcement to be your only means of safety. Being self sufficient. Being too dependent on the government for things like electricity, food, water, etc.. is already something that is a problem in my eyes. Why would I want to give some easily corrupted bureaucracy complete control of my being?

[MikeD]

dependent up government institutions like law enforcement to be your only means of safety.

Law enforcement isn't a personal means of safety for anyone. LE acts in the interests of public order, and safety in the abstract as an element thereof. LE isn't intended, nor can it be, a way to provide anyone individual protection. This is and always has been an individual responsibility with a commensurate right to do so...thus the right to bear arms if one so chooses.

[FlyinPolack]

where is the option, "only a canadian could come up with a poll question like this?"

You Ain't ****ting...
I wouldn't give my guns up for any little "bonuses"...
When some A-hole country does get a bug up it's ass to attack us, it will be up to the gun toting citizens to protect ourselves. 90% of our army are out of the USA at any moment..

Which means that we will need guns. The peeps that do have guns will need ****loads of them, just so they can hand them out to all of their cubicle jockey friends, who don't like guns until they actually DO need them...

[Samirol]

You Ain't ****ting...
I wouldn't give my guns up for any little "bonuses"...
When some A-hole country does get a bug up it's ass to attack us, it will be up to the gun toting citizens to protect ourselves. 90% of our army are out of the USA at any moment..

Which means that we will need guns. The peeps that do have guns will need ****loads of them, just so they can hand them out to all of their cubicle jockey friends, who don't like guns until they actually DO need them...

are you just trolling or do you really think that this is a legitimate argument, I want to know before I flame you

[Lowlight7]

First off, I'm not a "gun nut". I own several guns, mostly for work purposes. If anything I'm a backpack nut and own more backpacks than guns.

Second, it isn't really an option because, according to the US Constitution, the right to free speach, gun ownership, equal protection under the law, etc, are not rights that are given to me by the government. They are rights I have naturally, and the Constitution simply says the government cannot take them away.

But, in answer to your query... No. I am unwilling to trade ANY of the rights enumerated to me in the Constitution for a monetary gain, which is basically all the options in your poll are. Would you give up your right to freedom of speach or your right to legal counsel in exchange for a shiny new hybrid?

The fact is, I enjoy my right to own firearms just as much as I enjoy the right to say "My president is a douche" or "No officer, I do not consent to a search".

Money doesn't make me happy, my freedoms do. This appears to be a fundamental difference between you and I.

[Samirol]

Second, it isn't really an option because, according to the US Constitution, the right to free speach, gun ownership, equal protection under the law, etc, are not rights that are given to me by the government. They are rights I have naturally, and the Constitution simply says the government cannot take them away.

Well, if you take a look at Locke's work, which is where a lot of these ideas of natural rights come from, he says that government is essentially people giving up natural rights to the government in exchange for security, food, courts, etc. (he goes on to say that if the government isn't serving the needs of the people, then the government can be abolished by the people).

But, if we assume that these are natural rights that we were born with, but cannot be taken away, then how can a Supreme Court tell us what constitutes a clear and present danger for free speech? The argument is interesting to think about, but holds no bearing in actual politics as men decide what rights other men have.

Edit: I think the natural rights you are referring to are part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

here, found the quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

In the Constitution, it doesn't mention natural rights that come from the pure fact that you were born, but rather rights given and protected by the Constitution.

[binary visions]

What I'm trying to figure out is: Is there something that could be considered more valuable than the right to gun ownership? If all of a sudden, they could ammend the constitution such that all americans have the RIGHT to free university education, but for some reason it meant having to give up the 2nd ammend. That wouldn't be a worthwhile trade?

I think you're missing the point more than Montashu is.

[MMike]

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.

[Westy]

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.


If everyone had a degree who would we get to do all the jobs that do not require degrees?

[Lowlight7]

Well, if you take a look at Locke's work, which is where a lot of these ideas of natural rights come from, he says that government is essentially people giving up natural rights to the government in exchange for security, food, courts, etc. (he goes on to say that if the government isn't serving the needs of the people, then the government can be abolished by the people).

But, if we assume that these are natural rights that we were born with, but cannot be taken away, then how can a Supreme Court tell us what constitutes a clear and present danger for free speech? The argument is interesting to think about, but holds no bearing in actual politics as men decide what rights other men have.

Edit: I think the natural rights you are referring to are part of the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

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.

[MikeD]

In the Constitution, it doesn't mention natural rights that come from the pure fact that you were born, but rather rights given and protected by 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.

[MMike]

If everyone had a degree who would we get to do all the jobs that do not require degrees?

Duh....MEXICANS!

[MMike]

cool... now call it a day...



... and go hump a hamster.

Oooh. Good one

[MikeD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Westy]

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

[ska todd]

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]

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)

[MMike]

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

Well you're asking someone who is ever-increasingly folically challenged and who drinks Starbuck's. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.

[binary visions]

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]

(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]

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]

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.

[MMike]

You really are a deep thinker

opinions are like assholes...











everybody has one

[Lowlight7]

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]

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]

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?

[ohio]

We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune

[dante]

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...

[MMike]

I thought we were an anarcho-syndicalist commune

We take it in tun to act as a sort of executive officer for the week........

[MMike]

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.

Continued dumb-assery for generations to come......

[Lowlight7]

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...

[dante]

There are a number of Iraqis who might disagree...

from my post in the other thread:

last I checked fully automatic AK-47s, RPGs, morters, and massive ordinances made from discarded artillery shells were still illegal...

[johnbryanpeters]

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]

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]

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?

[Lowlight7]

"ordnance." It's plural is the same as it's singular, like "deer."

There is plenty of ordnance available to U.S. citizens for purchase.

[Samirol]

What about a really f*cking big rock or a vacuum cleaner with more suck than Neight x George Bush?

ummm george bush defends our freedoms from TERRISTS who want to take it, something multiplied by 0 is still 0.

[MMike]

What about a really f*cking big rock or a vacuum cleaner with more suck than Neight x George Bush?

http://leaningstraightup.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/megamaid.jpg

[valve bouncer]

ummm george bush defends our freedoms from TERRISTS who want to take it, something multiplied by 0 is still 0.
Haha, see that Neighto, the new bloke just said you're nuthin'. You can't take that lying down ya big fairy.

[MMike]

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?

[MMike]

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?

So what if it's absurd? I know it is. It can't happen. Of course it can't.

I'm just asking "what if?"

Why is that bad?

This is like when John Lennon got in all that hot water from the christians for saying "Imagine there's no heaven".

"But there IS a heaven!! How dare you suggest otherwise!!"
"Ok fine fine.You believe there is a heaven. But for a moment suppose there wasn't"
"NO because there IS a heaven!!"
"Ok sure but just say...."
"NO!!! There's a heaven!!!"
"Nevermind"

Yep. I'm John Lennon.

[Lowlight7]

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?[quote]

You think gangbangers took up a life of crime because they did OK in high school but couldn't afford to go to college? Meanwhile, plenty of high school graduates (and dropouts) manage to make an honest living?

Being a violent criminal is a choice.

[quote]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.

Well, my last dealing with the law on any level was about 5 years ago, so one could argue that I have no need for my 5th and 6th amendment rights. I don't even speed, so they don't really affect my day to day life.

But I'm not going to trade them for anything.

[MMike]

No you people are undeserving of my "A" material

[jimmydean]

I'd give up my guns if I could legally punch people in the face for doing stupid things. Things like balancing their checkbook in the grocery line or going slow in the left lane.

I would give up all Westy's guns, buy some of my own to give up, and toss in a $100 for those rights!

[MMike]

[QUOTE=MMike;2980270]

Well, my last dealing with the law on any level was about 5 years ago, so one could argue that I have no need for my 5th and 6th amendment rights. I don't even speed, so they don't really affect my day to day life.

But I'm not going to trade them for anything.

I would disagree.....those other rights are keeping the cops from pulling you over and tossing you in a van and you're never heard from again....Guantanamo notwithstanding of course.

The fact that you are allowed to have a gun (or not) is not affecting how the gov't deals with you.

For me, the Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has nothing to do with whether you're allowed to own a gun.

[kidwoo]

Dude............the robots are coming.



And their claws are made of metal.

[MMike]

Dude............the robots are coming.





And their claws are made of metal.

And they are strong

[valve bouncer]

So what if it's absurd? I know it is. It can't happen. Of course it can't.

I'm just asking "what if?"

Why is that bad?

This is like when John Lennon got in all that hot water from the christians for saying "Imagine there's no heaven".

"But there IS a heaven!! How dare you suggest otherwise!!"
"Ok fine fine.You believe there is a heaven. But for a moment suppose there wasn't"
"NO because there IS a heaven!!"
"Ok sure but just say...."
"NO!!! There's a heaven!!!"
"Nevermind"

Yep. I'm John Lennon.
You are not John Lennon you bastard. John Lennon is dead man, he's dead. You heartless f*cker.

[MMike]

You are not John Lennon you bastard. John Lennon is dead man, he's dead. You heartless f*cker.

I guess he's in heaven...

[kidwoo]

As a man, I'm guaranteed rights by the creator which include access to, and possession of can openers. This right, wholly sovereign, is in no way dependent upon, nor excluded by other such rights. To suggest such is to impede upon mah freedum, and undermines that which we hold dearly as our system of law and gubbahmint.

Can opner gonna save mah ass. It's what the orginal cambells would have wanted.

[binary visions]

So what if it's absurd? I know it is. It can't happen. Of course it can't.

I'm just asking "what if?"

Why is that bad?

I think it's a perfectly cromulent idea.

P.S. There's a difference between asking "what if?" and proposing completely preposterous scenarios that have no basis in the real world.

[kidwoo]

I think it's a perfectly cromulent idea.

P.S. There's a difference between asking "what if?" and proposing completely preposterous scenarios that have no basis in the real world.

Psshh

I totally just traded my soul for some sweet geetar licks and some mustard.


You want the web address?

[MMike]

Psshh

I totally just traded my soul for some sweet geetar licks and some mustard.


You want the web address?

What kind of mustard?

[Lowlight7]

I think it's a perfectly cromulent idea.


Don't embiggen his ego.

[MikeD]

What kind of mustard?

Hellishly delicious whole-grain. Is there any other kind?

[binary visions]

Hellishly delicious whole-grain. Is there any other kind?

As a Satinist, I would have thought you afraid of mustard.

It stains.

[valve bouncer]

I guess he's in heaven...
"Imagine there's no knob-extenders
I don't think that they can"
Woooo hooo woooh They may say I'm a poofter

[narlus]

n8ville, LA

you spelled it wrong (http://www.actionext.com/names_d/drive-by_truckers_lyrics/buttholeville.html)

[narlus]

That said, we don't need any more taboos.
your favorite movie? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111252/)

[MMike]

Don't embiggen his ego.

Wait...that's not how you spell embiggen

[MikeD]

Damn, actually, I'd do it for a pony, now that I think about it.

[kidwoo]

Damn, actually, I'd do it for a pony, now that I think about it.

I know.


The magic of sheep, although great........does in fact fade. Sometimes we just need bigger fences to help the livestock over.

[MikeD]

I know.


The magic of sheep, although great........does in fact fade. Sometimes we just need bigger fences to help the livestock over.

Don't bring up sheep. Mine cheated on me with the lead singer of NOFX.

(And, I still suspect, had a one-night three way with VB, Partsy, and DaveW.)

[MMike]

(And, I still suspect, had a one-night three way with VB, Partsy, and DaveW.)


That's more than three.......

[MikeD]

That's more than three.......

Not the way they do it.

(Must spread rep...you deserve it just for the thread, which has brought us embiggenment, cromulence, and robot insurance...a three-way of Ridemonkey classics.)

[dante]

"ordnance." It's plural is the same as it's singular, like "deer."

There is plenty of ordnance available to U.S. citizens for purchase.

thank you very much for the spelling lesson.


however, you still haven't addressed the fact that US citizens can not purchase the ordnance that has been used so effectively against us, ie artillery shells for IEDs, fully automatic weapons, mortars, RPGs, etc. *maybe* there are some snipers in Iraq with hunting rifles, but the majority of the fighting has been done with far better/more destructive weapons than the ordinary US citizen can get their hands on here (legally).

[MikeD]

thank you very much for the spelling lesson.


however, you still haven't addressed the fact that US citizens can not purchase the ordnance that has been used so effectively against us, ie artillery shells for IEDs, fully automatic weapons, mortars, RPGs, etc. *maybe* there are some snipers in Iraq with hunting rifles, but the majority of the fighting has been done with far better/more destructive weapons than the ordinary US citizen can get their hands on here (legally).

Iraqis aren't buying theirs at wal-mart, either, or getting any sort of license.

This stuff makes itself available in a war zone. There's plenty of it here, too. If I was starting an insurgency, I'd get plenty of civilian explosives before the .gov even started leaving dud arty shells around.

Semi auto AK47s are just as or more effective than fully auto variants, and they're legally available. And, once bets are off, they can be modified by formerly law-abiding citizens.

Plus, we can own machine guns if we wanna pay the fee...that said, of course, the gov knows who has them, which makes it easy to come and get them.

There's also the fact that if the federal government becomes oppressive, state armories exist which have military weaponry. Local federal stockpiles (guarded by the likes of Wackenhut for the most part) aren't too hard to get at, especially if servicemembers of conscience hold themselves to their oath to the Constitution and decide to uphold it rather than fight for an oppressor.

You need to watch Red Dawn again to get some guerilla warfare in your blood. You make Patrick Swayze sad. (LL7, don't turn this into another "Wargames" back and forth...)

The fact is that there's not likely to be any combat between the American people and the government. Ever. I'd put the chance in some number that has lots of exponents and negatives and stuff and exists as only a quantum theoretical idea. I think we have a pretty good system to address problems before they rise to that level.

But if you spend some time in places in the world where people are truly oppressed by the government, you can see what the right to bear arms actually means. When government goon squads are terrorizing people and ethnic groups, co-opting the political process, and cementing themselves in power with violence, you see what something as "live free or die" might actually have mean in extremis, and what a remarkable thing it is that our society is actually founded in a concept of individual liberties, not wrung piece-by-piece from a now-vestigal central authority.

And along with the "overthrow the government" thing, there's a recognized right to self-defense in bearing arms...as we're an individualist society, not a collectivist one, our own defense is our own concern. The cops aren't there to protect you as a person--that's your job. (and collectivist societies simply don't respect the right of an individual to keep himself safe at the expense of an abstract public order...it's not like they have a cop assigned to every person to keep him safe.)

[ohio]

The fact is that there's not likely to be any combat between the American people and the government. Ever. I'd put the chance in some number that has lots of exponents and negatives and stuff and exists as only a quantum theoretical idea. I think we have a pretty good system to address problems before they rise to that level.

But if you spend some time in places in the world where people are truly oppressed by the government, you can see what the right to bear arms actually means.

And I credit it (along with the rest of the BOR) with getting the US government to where it is now, from formerly one of those "places in the world." Who knows what kind of tyranny could have been formed, even by well-meaning colonists, were those rights not in place? Unfortunately it's a legacy we now have no choice but to maintain even if it's value has passed. However, claiming we're still protecting ourselves from tyranny or foreign invasion is tin-foil hat-ism at its most cromulent.

[MikeD]

However, claiming we're still protecting ourselves from tyranny or foreign invasion is tin-foil hat-ism at it's most cromulent.

Ahhh, well, when the war with China goes down, I hope the Chinese generals think what Admiral Yamamoto thought. Foreign invasion isn't actually all that far-fetched of an idea.

Plus, although you or I can't foresee tyranny here doesn't mean it'll be the same in 200 years or a thousand (if we last beyond the next 100, which seems suspect...) We can't strip away this right from posterity based on what we can see on our own horizon. I was regretting saying "ever" with such finality in my previous post. Just because we can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.

[Westy]

Any foreign invader would quickly be wooed over to our side without violence. Who can resist muffin tops, McDonald's, Hooters and strip malls as far as the eye can see? It would become more of an immigration problem at that point.

[MikeD]

As a Satinist, I would have thought you afraid of mustard.

It stains.

Mustard is afraid of me. I eat it. And I'm an expert at removing organic stains from satin.

[MikeD]

Any foreign invader would quickly be wooed over to our side without violence. Who can resist muffin tops, McDonald's and strip malls as far as the eye can see. It would become more of an immigration problem at that point.

Tattoo-adorned muffintops, no less.

Ed: It's tragic what's happening to the countryside around c-ville, Fredricksburg, and Manassas, isn't it?! Not that it's my land or my place to say, but still, sad.

[Westy]

Tattoo-adorned muffintops, no less.

It is the icing on the cake. However, I prefer to add the glaze myself.

[Westy]

Tattoo-adorned muffintops, no less.

Ed: It's tragic what's happening to the countryside around c-ville, Fredricksburg, and Manassas, isn't it?! Not that it's my land or my place to say, but still, sad.

I pass exactly 5 slash and burn construction sites on my short drive to work. Many have sat empty for years, construction started on pure speculation. All are making way for strip malls and Walmarts. Fredericksburg and Manassas are already lost, this area is not far behind. It makes me sad, growth is inevitable but it has been handled horribly. The area is losing all character,turning into treeless vista of corporate logos pasted on cookie cutter buildings.

I am hoping the recent real estate issues will slow things down.

[valve bouncer]

via intraweb mail:
You forget one: Vb's anus has a capacity of 47 cubic inches. If each octopus tentacle takes up 2.35 cubic inches, how many can he fit up his ring piece before he reaches capacity? Warning trick question!

[MikeD]

You forget one: Vb's anus has a capacity of 47 cubic inches. If each octopus tentacle takes up 2.35 cubic inches, how many can he fit up his ring piece before he reaches capacity? Warning trick question!

I know the trick--Partsy keeps sucking 'em back out, and Grizza is standing by drawing a picture of the whole thing. So I'd say it takes a few gleeful hours.

[MMike]

Um....you guys aren't taking my thread seriously anymore....

[Secret Squirrel]

Um....you guys aren't taking my thread seriously anymore....

Should we revert to measuring anal capacity in Courics? Would that make you feel better?

[DirtMcGirk]

I believe the term "From my cold dead hands" applies here.

[valve bouncer]

I know the trick--Partsy keeps sucking 'em back out, and Grizza is standing by drawing a picture of the whole thing. So I'd say it takes a few gleeful hours.
Braaaaarp- incorrect. The VB only inserts squid tentacles into his poop chute. F*cken amateur.:disgust::pirate2:

[ire]

I watched an interview with a top Japanese general (maybe an Admiral) and he was talking about WWII and Pearl Harbor; he said Japan never considered an invasion of the west coast....when asked why he said: "Every American owns a gun"....that statement is enough of a reason for me to fight for the right the own a weapon. It's improbable that we will have a revolution here anytime soon, but the right for every citizen to own a firearm IMO will help keep the government in check.

[Defenestrated]

I just wish people would defend the FIRST Amendment with such tenacity...

O well, thank god for the ACLU then...

[stevew]

Ed: It's tragic what's happening to the countryside around c-ville, Fredricksburg, and Manassas, isn't it?! Not that it's my land or my place to say, but still, sad.
Manassas was the asshole of Virginia in the 80's-90's when I lived there.

How it could have gotten any worse?

[MikeD]

I just wish people would defend the FIRST Amendment with such tenacity...


What states/cities have passed laws in violation of the first amendment?

Whose first amendment rights are being denied in this country, wholesale or even individually?

Manassas was the asshole of Virginia in the 80's-90's when I lived there.

How it could have gotten any worse?

Ask Lowlight7...

[Samirol]

What states/cities have passed laws in violation of the first amendment?

Whose first amendment rights are being denied in this country, wholesale or even individually?


http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204766&page=3

there's a few cases there, I'll try to remember the name of another one in California where the government was allowed to take Native American lands that had a church

[MikeD]

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204766&page=3

there's a few cases there, I'll try to remember the name of another one in California where the government was allowed to take Native American lands that had a church

6-7 cases from the last century vs. a total ban. Yeah, you can find examples (often arguable), but nothing like a wholesale and indefinite ban on newspapers, which is more the equivalent of a city banning handguns. ("Why do you need newspapers? You can have TV and radio news...just like you can only have a rifle or a shotgun with a lock on it. Why do you need pistols?")

O'Brien, by the way, wasn't convicted because he burned his draft card as speech, but because he 1) burned it in violation of a law against mutilating them--(the illegality of which would, IMHO, be a valid free-speech impingement alone, as the action is nearly totally symbolic) and 2) failed to possess the required card after burning it, which was in fact against the law--he knew it and chose to take his action. Importantly, though, the decision actually AFFIRMS free speech rights.

Ed: By the way, there are a lot of people who DO defend and affirm free speech in this country, Defen--ACLU much? I would also be quite a bit more offended by a wide-ranging free speech ban than any 2A infringements currently going on in this country. Free speech lets us argue peacefully about the other rights.

[MikeD]

I watched an interview with a top Japanese general (maybe an Admiral) and he was talking about WWII and Pearl Harbor; he said Japan never considered an invasion of the west coast....when asked why he said: "Every American owns a gun"....that statement is enough of a reason for me to fight for the right the own a weapon. It's improbable that we will have a revolution here anytime soon, but the right for every citizen to own a firearm IMO will help keep the government in check.

Someone was quoting Admiral Yamamoto.

"You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[Samirol]

O'Brien, by the way, wasn't convicted because he burned his draft card as speech, but because he 1) burned it in violation of a law against mutilating them--(the illegality of which would, IMHO, be a valid free-speech impingement alone, as the action is nearly totally symbolic) and 2) failed to possess the required card after burning it, which was in fact against the law--he knew it and chose to take his action. Importantly, though, the decision actually AFFIRMS free speech rights.

He was challenging number 2 as a violation to the first amendment, and I agree with him, which is why I included it in there.

[MikeD]

He was challenging number 2 as a violation to the first amendment, and I agree with him, which is why I included it in there.

Legally, thought, it's clearly not. And again, the decision is a win for free speech rights, affirming that specific content-based protest cannot be infringed upon.

I think you should be able to burn as many flags as you want.

[MikeD]

Um....you guys aren't taking my thread seriously anymore....

This thread, from the beginning, was the equivalent of one of those guys-sitting-around-the-campfire questions, like, "OK, so, well, if you had no other choice--would you choose to go down on Roseanne Barr, or let Madonna plug you with her favorite strap-on?"

(The answer, by the way, is likewise obvious...)

Ed: That was mid-90s "Ray of Light" video Madonna, by the way.

[Westy]

Ed: That was mid-90s "Ray of Light" video Madonna, by the way.

Would that really change your answer??

[MikeD]

Would that really change your answer??

Well, the possibilities connected with multiple items of jelly-jewelry and/or watches are a *little* disconcerting.

[Defenestrated]

you do realize the fact that the FBI is guilty of seriously abusing Patriot Act powers has been established right?

You do realize that the Bush administration tried to push an expanded Patriot Act ver 2 through congress right?

You do realize how close we came to having an amendment to the constitution which criminalized flag desecration right?

[MikeD]

you do realize the fact that the FBI is guilty of seriously abusing Patriot Act powers has been established right?

You do realize that the Bush administration tried to push an expanded Patriot Act ver 2 through congress right?

You do realize how close we came to having an amendment to the constitution which criminalized flag desecration right?

What do #1 and #2 have to do with free speech? Likewise, name any wholesale deprivations of rights resulting from the Patriot act. Disparate questionable incidents are far different than a state or local government simply outlawing, by statute, an activity specifically protected by the founding document of the country. (The ACLU even dropped its anti-Patriot act lawsuit citing "improvements to the law.")

#3 didn't happen. If it had, that would be serious. But it didn't. (And it's not hard to imagine it passing in a country where the majority of people oppose flag burning...and even if it had passed, it'd only have become a critical issue if it was upheld in subsequent SCOTUS review.)

[Samirol]

What do #1 and #2 have to do with free speech? Likewise, name any wholesale deprivations of rights resulting from the Patriot act. Disparate questionable incidents are far different than a state or local government simply outlawing, by statute, an activity specifically protected by the founding document of the country. (The ACLU even dropped its anti-Patriot act lawsuit citing "improvements to the law.")

#3 didn't happen. If it had, that would be serious. But it didn't. (And it's not hard to imagine it passing in a country where the majority of people oppose flag burning...and even if it had passed, it'd only have become a critical issue if it was upheld in subsequent SCOTUS review.)

are you kidding, do you know what the patriot act is? They can arrest anyone without charges if they think they are threatening the US. That means protesters, journalists, and activists could be at risk. We don't know if someone is taken, because they will be shipped off to a Siberian torture camp.

even right now, the government has the right to go through any personal records

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/

[Defenestrated]

well in true government form they pledged to only make use of the exceptionally intrusive (and characteristically unconstitutional) provisions when dealing with terrorism but have failed to show such noble restraint. The act is setup in a way that if they can finagle a "terrorist" brand for you they can sensor/arrest away.

[ohio]

Well, the possibilities connected with multiple items of jelly-jewelry and/or watches are a *little* disconcerting.

You know she was pregnant in that video?

[MikeD]

Ohio, don't preach.