Guns

[Zenith]

And thus your possibly Freudian slip summarises what I think the real motivation is for many gun owners.
Though damn...

The letters F and G are neighbors on a keyboard. Apparently typos and Freudian slips are now identical. Unfortunately for you, a typo is much less of demerit to an argument than a glaring refusal to qualify claims.

I made a worse boo-boo. I hate that.

I gave Keef a simple explanation. I wasn't ragging on your word choice. Perhaps if you didn't choose to make swipes at other posters every time you make a comment in this thread, you wouldn't have misconstrued my words as some sort of criticism.

Point still missed in favour of spouting generic rants. You'll probably continue to think that you've heard it all before if you only allow for two types of people, and read accordingly.

I prefer generic rants to nothing of any use at all. Your preference though. It's not my job to justify your argument, it's yours. Do it or this argument will stay down there with all the other useless posts in this thread.

I'll give you a 9.5 on failing to respond to any of my post. Good show.

 

[Keef]

It was more to do with government resistance than right to life. Basically that in reality a government would not merely apply force in response to a civilian backlash, but even moreso that the effectiveness of a civilian revolt would only in reality encourage a more devious governmental approach. In my opinion.

The right to defend one's life is a simple equation, but I think that the possible methods involved are complex, and have many reflections and refractions. I'm not a closed book though, and it's entirely possible that in x amount of time I'll have much the same view as you. I do think that a lot of the disconnect comes from being born into environments with completely different start points.

Society at large thinks a lot of issues are really complex. I don't think life is very complex. There's not much gray to be seen, all you have to do is think logically. Most people can't be bothered with that. They give up part way through and are left with a whole lot of messy, unsorted gray areas.

Out of interest though: I have the right to not have you grab my arse, but I don't think that rigging it with a device that will stop your heart if you do should be legal. Do you? I can see it now: "The Zapper doesn't kill people, arses kill people". But I suppose that comes down to a question of reasonable force rather than The Zapper itself. If the only use for The Zapper is for death by groping, should it be legal? And does that change if someone finds a caveat in the form of an alternative use (even if it's a flagrantly far fetched one)?

A case like that would have to be judged in court I suppose. You could be wearing it as a self defense measure. If a person attacked you and the device worked it could possibly be seen as self defense. But with if your girlfriend touched you and it killed her? Manslaughter?

In practice, most instances of self defense have been last-resort measures. Walking around with an active electric suit on probably would not be seen as self defense and would be seen more like you walking around flailing a loaded gun - it could kill anybody at any time, even by accident. But if it were turned off - if your fun were holstered - it would be fine I suppose. You're obviously not intending to harm anybody. Saying that you didn't actually intend to hurt anybody would be pretty hard to defend if your electric suit was live the entire time.

I guess you can summarize that by saying self defense measures are passive in nature. You don't use them unless there is no other choice. A device that is activated without express input by the user (a gun can't go off without safeties disengaged and the trigger pulled by the user) is not passive and therefore isn't being used in defense.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Zenith I think that there's plenty who can see the injection of playfulness in my approach. Typo talk was no more than that, but I do hate it when I make an error.

The US in Afghanistan is weaponry vs sneakiness. I would see it as a reversal of roles as to what I would envision in a civilian vs government situation, if guns are what the civilians are to rely on. My opinion.

Now, let me think..... effective application of a non-weapons approach? Therefore..... guns are good!!? Oh, oh! No.... a pictorial depiction of what the government chose to do after the resistance? Oh, no that's not there. My lack of liberty is just too crippling, you might have to spell it out for me.

Seriously though, some of us are on the same page and have the motivation of protecting life and way of life, regardless of whether or not we see guns as having a pivotal role in that. Others seem to be just be gun lovers or haters. I don't have much time for the gun hater, or the red-faced screaming gun lover.

 

[Keef]

@ZenithNow, let me think..... effective application of a non-weapons approach? Therefore..... guns are good!!? Oh, oh! No.... a pictorial depiction of what the government chose to do after the resistance? Oh, no that's not there. My lack of liberty is just too crippling, you might have to spell it out for me.

I'll start with a better picture.

Then I'll tell you that death toll estimates for the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 vary widely due to Chinese government corruption at the time. Anywhere between about 200 to thousands of unarmed civilians were killed by the military under martial law. That is what the government chose to do after the resistance. Why? Because they didn't like protests, basically.

Governments don't like it when people start questioning their authority. That's the worst domestic threat a government can face. The only method by which a government derives its authority is through force - forcing people to abide by rules under penalty of law - and when that force is challenging funny things start to happen. Either the government cuts their losses and backs down, or they use their force to trample the opposition. In this case and in numerous others, they simply used their force because the opposition couldn't effectively do anything about it.

When the British colonials got a little rowdy back in the day, the army tried to shut them up. But the colonials had guns and that little protest turned out a lot different than Tiananmen Square.

 

[RC45]

Yes however some users consider that owning a gun is an inalienable right

No, not just 'some users' but rather the very people that fought tyranny and freed themselves from being under the jackboot of the British Empire and founded a nation:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

**snip**

Article [ I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

**snip**

See how they, amongst other things, specifcally enumerated the LIMITATIONS imposed upon government when it comes to restricting the rights of free men.

See in order to maintain ones religious freedom, protect ones property and defends ones life you need the right to keep and bear the arms needed for that task.

Our family is free. Now do we keep guns because we are free or are we free because we keep guns?

Keeping and bearing arms is the true mark of free men.

 

[LeMansAid]

Right on cue.

red-faced screaming gun lover.

Perfect.

Edit: just red-faced and screaming then I guess.

 

[RC45]

Right on cue.

Perfect.

I do not and have never loved guns.

I own them. I use them. I am proficient at using them.

They are tools. I am an expert and proficient user of the tools at hand. The same way I know how to use the tools of my trade - I do not love them, I simply know how to use them well.

Tools for hunting, tools for target shooting and tools for self and national defense.

I am free. I keep and bear arms. These are the tools of freedom.

New Years Day 2014

 

[Zenith]

Right on cue.

Perfect.

Edit: just red-faced and screaming then I guess.

So do you actually have anything discussion worthy or do you just want to bait stereotypes?

You've spent the majority of your time in this thread calling everybody paranoid rednecks. If you want to debate the lowest common denominator, I suggest YouTube comments. If you're ready to step up to big boy discussion, there's a host of unanswered arguments starting a few pages back with Foolkiller that you haven't addressed.

 

[Imari]

Keeping and bearing arms is the true mark of free men.

The ability to do so may be, but it doesn't mean you have to actually do it. I'm no more free for keeping a gun than my neighbour is for not keeping one.

 

[RC45]

The ability to do so may be, but it doesn't mean you have to actually do it. I'm no more free for keeping a gun than my neighbour is for not keeping one.

Rights not exercised are rights forfeited.

 

[Imari]

Rights not exercised are rights forfeited.

Not true. They're simply rights not exercised. By not owning a gun I do not forfeit my right to own a gun in the future, should I wish.

And is it necessary that to be considered a free man that you exercise ALL rights available to you to the fullest extent? Or is this something specific to arms, that one must own and bear it to be considered free?

I'm pretty sure a child soldier in a 3rd world conscript army doesn't feel particularly free simply because he bears a weapon. Being free is the mark of a free man, not some hunk of metal that you're lugging around.

 

[RC45]

Not true. They're simply rights not exercised. By not owning a gun I do not forfeit my right to own a gun in the future, should I wish.

And is it necessary that to be considered a free man that you exercise ALL rights available to you to the fullest extent? Or is this something specific to arms, that one must own and bear it to be considered free?

I'm pretty sure a child soldier in a 3rd world conscript army doesn't feel particularly free simply because he bears a weapon. Being free is the mark of a free man, not some hunk of metal that you're lugging around.

Being a subject and not a free man, you simply do not comprehend the subject matter at hand. This is quite clear now.

 

[Exorcet]

Being a subject and not a free man, you simply do not comprehend the subject matter at hand. This is quite clear now.

It would help if you pointed out the part of his post that fails logically. I didn't see it.

 

[Danoff]

Rights not exercised are rights forfeited.

Yea that's definitely wrong.

So I need to do drugs to have the right to do drugs? I need to watch every kind of porn in order to have the right to watch said porn? I need to say every combination of words that I can say in order to have the right to say those things? I need to defend my life to have the right to defend my life? I need to marry a gay man to have the right to marry a gay man? Rights would be meaningless if they worked as you described. Rights are there for you when you need them, inalienable.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the philosophical underpinnings of rights that suggest you must exercise them to have them. The only ways to lose rights are to either refuse to acknowledge the rights of others, or to lose your mental capacity to do so.

I think what you're trying to describe is vigilance against government oppression. And you're right that our government needs a reminder that we care about our rights - a reminder not to infringe them. Because if they don't think we care, they will trample our rights at the first convenience. But you're wrong to claim that everyone needs to exercise all of their rights to accomplish this. A minority of people, with the support of the majority, can accomplish this.

 

[RC45]

It would help if you pointed out the part of his post that fails logically. I didn't see it.

Rights not excercised are rights lost.

If you can't comprehend that then that is your problem.

Yea that's definitely wrong.
So I need to do drugs to have the right to do drugs? I need to watch every kind of porn in order to have the right to watch said porn? I need to say every combination of words that I can say in order to have the right to say those things? I need to defend my life to have the right to defend my life? I need to marry a gay man to have the right to marry a gay man? Rights would be meaningless if they worked as you described. Rights are there for you when you need them, inalienable.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the philosophical underpinnings of rights that suggest you must exercise them to have them. The only ways to lose rights are to either refuse to acknowledge the rights of others, or to lose your mental capacity to do so.
I think what you're trying to describe is vigilance against government oppression. And you're right that our government needs a reminder that we care about our rights - a reminder not to infringe them. Because if they don't think we care, they will trample our rights at the first convenience. But you're wrong to claim that everyone needs to exercise all of their rights to accomplish this. A minority of people, with the support of the majority, can accomplish this.

Yea - that's not wrong.
Please do not try tell me what I am describing. I choose not to view rights the way you view them - you seem to be ok with having a surrogate excercise them for you - and that you will get round to excercising them one day.
THAT is how societies arrive at forfeiture of rights.

Just seems like a rather old world view, that weaponry is the answer. What China desperately needs is education. I've seen first hand the turnaround in Chinese people who have experienced a free country and looked back at their brain-washed selves and countrymen in amazement at what they fell and fall for. To me, there's massive power in that, a power which is possibly even undermined by weaponry being in the picture.

You are very wrong in your conclusion. China may appear free, but this only because the rpofits benefit the ruling party at this time - when the money dries up the Chinese government will restort to violent oppression to keep folks it line - and the Chinese general population is unarmed (by design) so that can offer no resistance when that day arrives.
There is no power in freedom if it is not combined with an armed poulace and a bill of rights - nothing.

 

[LeMansAid]

Governments don't like it when people start questioning their authority. That's the worst domestic threat a government can face. The only method by which a government derives its authority is through force - forcing people to abide by rules under penalty of law - and when that force is challenging funny things start to happen. Either the government cuts their losses and backs down, or they use their force to trample the opposition. In this case and in numerous others, they simply used their force because the opposition couldn't effectively do anything about it.

When the British colonials got a little rowdy back in the day, the army tried to shut them up. But the colonials had guns and that little protest turned out a lot different than Tiananmen Square.

Just seems like a rather old world view, that weaponry is the answer. What China desperately needs is education. I've seen first hand the turnaround in Chinese people who have experienced a free country and looked back at their brain-washed selves and countrymen in amazement at what they fell and fall for. To me, there's massive power in that, a power which is possibly even undermined by weaponry being in the picture.

@ Zenith How about you give it a rest? My intention is to provoke thought, and present a unique perspective. Maybe I fail miserably, but that's my intention none the less. I shouldn't feel obliged in any way to answer questions derived from false assumptions about content I've contributed.

 

[Danoff]

Rights not excercised are rights lost.

This misunderstands human rights. The point, and the practice. I explained clearly earlier.

Yea - that's not wrong.
Please do not try tell me what I am describing.

Don't give you the benefit of the doubt? Ok, you're just totally wrong then.

I choose not to view rights the way you view them - you seem to be ok with having a surrogate excercise them for you - and that you will get round to excercising them one day.
THAT is how societies arrive as forfeiture of rights.

That sounds an awful lot like what I was describing you as saying, but you say don't tell you what you're describing... in which case no, you're wrong. Give me a single example of any society forfeiting any rights as a direct result of not practicing them. There are no examples.

 

[RC45]

*tripe & drivel*
Give me a single example of any society forfeiting any rights as a direct result of not practicing them. There are no examples.

Name the societies that have retained the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms that did so by explicitly NOT excercising the right to keep and bear arms.

Please - list them.

 

[Exorcet]

Rights not excercised are rights lost.

That's simply not true. I don't own a gun, but I still have my right to own one.

If it isn't true, provide some reasons why. These reasons should also make sense.

Name the societies that have retained the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms that did so by explicitly NOT excercising the right to keep and bear arms.

Please - list them.

I have a feeling that this will lead to the point Danoff already made that you brushed off. If anything it seems as though you are the one having difficulty comprehending. You're not reading and you're spouting lines without understanding rights or liberty.

 

[Zenith]

@ Zenith How about you give it a rest? My intention is to provoke thought, and present a unique perspective. Maybe I fail miserably, but that's my intention none the less.

If that's true, then why do you spend so much time telling everybody that they're screaming red faced gun nuts and alluding to Freudian motivations? You say one thing but do another.

I shouldn't feel obliged in any way to answer questions derived from false assumptions about content I've contributed.

You made your content, great. I asked you to qualify it and you continue to ignore my requests. That second part is the most important part of your point. If you believe I have made false assumptions, point them out. If you're not willing to defend your point, then don't. I will not be mourning the loss of an unqualified claim. Even the backward content RC45 is posting receives a fair attempt to be justified.

 

[Danoff]

Name the societies that have retained the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms

Ooooh, see, I didn't claim that it wasn't possible to have your rights infringed. Or that any society has existed without infringing rights. So I don't need to respond to that.

that did so by explicitly NOT excercising the right to keep and bear arms.

I also did not claim that not exercising your rights was a way to retain them. So I don't need to respond to this either.

Now go ahead and respond to mine, or withdraw your statement.

Perhaps you'll read more carefully if I give you some background on me. I've lived in Texas, I own lots of guns, and I'm a big fan of liberty, rights, and the US constitution.

 

[LeMansAid]

You are very wrong in your conclusion. China may appear free, but this only because the rpofits benefit the ruling party at this time - when the money dries up the Chinese government will restort to violent oppression to keep folks it line - and the Chinese general population is unarmed (by design) so that can offer no resistance when that day arrives.
There is no power in freedom if it is not combined with an armed poulace and a bill of rights - nothing.

China, free? No, anything but. I was talking about Chinese people I know that have left their country either temporarily or permanently. They were shocked when they finally got some perspective on how much they were controlled and brain-washed. I never had any such revelations when visiting the US incidentally.

 

[RC45]

China, free? No, anything but. I was talking about Chinese people I know that have left their country either temporarily or permanently. They were shocked when they finally got some perspective on how much they were controlled and brain-washed. I never had any such revelations when visiting the US incidentally.

And not by co-incidence Chinise immigrants in the USA are fire arms owners enmasse.

 

[Zenith]

And not by co-incidence Chinise immigrants in the USA are fire arms owners enmasse.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

 

[RC45]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Yes - simply speak to your local gun dealer for a demographic break down of gun buyers.

Korean immigrants
Chinese immigrants
British immigrants
Australian immigrants
Mexican immigrants

All near the top of their list.

Pasty white appologetic middle aged liberal men not so much.

Ooooh, see, I didn't claim that it wasn't possible to have your rights infringed. Or that any society has existed without infringing rights. So I don't need to respond to that.

I asked you to name the societies that maintained their right to bear arms by explicitly not excercising that right.
You did not answer.

I also did not claim that not exercising your rights was a way to retain them. So I don't need to respond to this either.

Then why take the trouble to try demonstrate I do not understand the fundamental theory behind inalienable rights?
Is your position not one of "non-excercised rights are not forfeit"? Your view is rights do not need to be excercised to be inalienable.

Very nice theory, but seldom works out in practice.

Now go ahead and respond to mine, or withdraw your statement.

Or what - you will intently stare at me?

Perhaps you'll read more carefully if I give you some background on me. I've lived in Texas, I own lots of guns, and I'm a big fan of liberty, rights, and the US constitution.

And this somehow makes your position more valid?
What is next - you going to claim you are not a racist because you have black friends?
I really do not care who you are, where you lived or how many guns you claim to own - all your theoretical philosphical ponitificating about 'rights retained' does not amount to anything if you have not excercised said rights except on the day that you need to excercise that right.

This is especially true of a supposed civil societies ruled by law where rights are first eroded by way of legislation rather than direct oppression.
Where you born in the USA or did you move hell and high water to get here?
Your answer will tell all.

 

[Zenith]

Yes - simply speak to your local gun dealer for a demographic break down of gun buyers.

Korean immigrants
Chinese immigrants
British immigrants
Australian immigrants
Mexican immigrants

All near the top of their list.

Pasty white appologetic middle aged liberal men not so much.

That's not very good evidence. Especially considering the reputation gun store salesmen have for being a 'Murica-this, Obawmuh-that fantasy land inhabiting Neanderthals.

 

[Danoff]

I asked you to name the societies that maintained their right to bear arms by explicitly not excercising that right.
You did not answer.

I did not claim that humans (not societies) maintain rights by not exercising them, so why would I answer? That question has nothing to do with anything I've written.

Then why take the trouble to try demonstrate I do not understand the fundamental theory behind inalienable rights?
Is your position not one of "non-excercised rights are not forfeit"? Your view is rights do not need to be excercised to be inalienable.

Correct. It's not a "view", it is fact. Also, inalienable kinda does mean... not alienable does it not?

Very nice theory, but seldom works out in practice.

You keep suggesting to me that my interpretation of what you said, which you rejected out of hand, is exactly what you were trying to say. And yet you so violently rejected that interpretation as wrong. I want you to tell me something. How many days after I sell my guns do I have until the 2nd amendment no longer applies to me?

Or what - you will intently stare at me?

Or don't make any sense.

And this somehow makes your position more valid?

Nope! It was supposed to help get you to stop reading 4 words into each sentence and just... see I lost you again didn't I? You're not even reading this far.

I really do not care who you are, where you lived or how many guns you claim to own - all your theoretical philosphical ponitificating about 'rights retained' does not amount to anything if you have not excercised said rights except on the day that you need to excercise that right.

Again, over and over again you keep suggesting that I was exactly correct in what I thought you were getting at. But no, you don't want me to interpret you that way so I will not.

This is especially true of a supposed civil societies ruled by law where rights are first eroded by way of legislation rather than direct oppression.

Let's say legislation passed tomorrow that made some freedom you currently enjoy (and practice) illegal. They come and lock you away for it. Have you lost your rights? No. Your rights have been infringed, but you still retain them. This is how you know you have been wronged. So when someone doesn't practice their right to own guns, and then one day when they want one and it is illegal and they are locked away, have they lost their rights? No. Their rights have been infringed, and it is how they know they have been wronged.

See, you don't lose your rights by not exercising them. If your government tramples your rights, your government is wrong, and your rights have been infringed. Your rights cannot be infringed if you don't have any. I'll accept your apology when you're ready.

Where you born in the USA or did you move hell and high water to get here?
Your answer will tell all.

An American who does not understand America. I wish you were more rare.

 

[Imari]

Being a subject and not a free man, you simply do not comprehend the subject matter at hand. This is quite clear now.

Great. How about you explain it then? You know, without resorting to ad hominems.

 

[Tornado]

Danoff, you're such a sniveling liberal.

Then why take the trouble to try demonstrate I do not understand the fundamental theory behind inalienable rights?

Because for them to be inalienable they kinda need to apply regardless of whether or not you choose to take advantage of them. It's rather inherent to the concept itself, in fact. For someone who was speaking from the clouds regarding how rights are not granted, to suddenly say that they aren't there unless you exercise them is pretty big turnaround.

 

[RC45]

I did not claim that humans (not societies) maintain rights by not exercising them, so why would I answer? That question has nothing to do with anything I've written.

You implied that by way of the question posed.
Again - name the society that mainatined the right to bear arms by explicitly choosing to not excercise said right?

How many days after I sell my guns do I have until the 2nd amendment no longer applies to me?

I never claimed that scenario applicable - ever. Again - the right not excercised is the right forfeited.

The act of selling a weapon is not the act of failing to excercise the right to keep and bear arms - it is simply the act of selling property.

For someone that makes claim to be a theoretical philosopher some advanced concepts seem to escape you rather easily.

Nope! It was supposed to help get you to stop reading 4 words into each sentence and just... see I lost you again didn't I? You're not even reading this far.

I read everything you post. If you are going for faux intellectual with an air of superiority - you nailed it.

Let's say legislation passed tomorrow that made some freedom you currently enjoy (and practice) illegal. They come and lock you away for it. Have you lost your rights? No. Your rights have been infringed, but you still retain them. This is how you know you have been wronged. So when someone doesn't practice their right to own guns, and then one day when they want one and it is illegal and they are locked away, have they lost their rights? No. Their rights have been infringed, and it is how they know they have been wronged.

And the mass act of non-excercise thereof is how they willing forfeit that right.

As abstract as the philosphical concept of inalienable rights is, so is the abstract concept that those same people endowed with the inalienable right actually forfeit their own right through the act of inaction.

Pretty heavy stuff I know - it is ok if you don't get it at first.

See, you don't lose your rights by not exercising them. If your government tramples your rights, your government is wrong, and your rights have been infringed. Your rights cannot be infringed if you don't have any. I'll accept your apology when you're ready.

This is where we philosphically divert - while the right is not lost by being taken away, it has been forfeit by the wanton act of voluntarly failing to excercise the right.

I will accept your admission that the world is madeup of apposing views when you are ready.

An American who does not understand America. I wish you were more rare.

So, where you born in the USA or did you move hell and high water to get here?
Your answer will tell all.