Its not about oil!! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/30/2003 10:00:10 PM · #51

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Hmmm...on a practical level, what would happen if a civilian militia were to rise up against the feds? I can think of Branch Dividians...is it really possible to argue that civilian firepower is now capable of keeping the federal government in check? I'd argue that this is an excuse to bear arms, despite its constitutional basis, as various other civil liberties have since been curtailed; liberties which actually have impact on everyday life - smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc. On a practical level these reasons for bearing arms seem obsolete. Isn't it strange that the gun rights are defended in part because they have historical ties to the birth of the nation, and yet people are willing to accept curtailment of civil liberties (read, freedom) such as being subjected to searches etc. for the sake of threats from terrorism. This seems contradictory.

James.

not everyone that get searched at an airport is a citizen, and some of them would like to fly planes into buildings. owning a gun may not be a part of everyday life for you, but it is really simplistic of you to claim that no one has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun in the US. plus you don't have any kind idea as to how to deal with criminals who get guns do you? maybe police should just pray criminals don't shoot them and try to explore all the diplomatic options before trying taking out a gun. comparing the actions of a cult guided by a leader who brainwashed them into thinking he was a descendant of Jesus and then taking the paranoia to insane heights is riddiculous.

I wasn't arguing that the ownership of guns is a bad thing...I'm a civil libertarian. I was merely pointing out that, on a practical level, bearing guns for the sake of checks and balances between civilians and governments in the US is a most outdated notion. There are other reasons for owning guns, and reasons to defend that right. Do you think, though, that if guns didn't exist until tomorrow, and some guy invented them, that they'd be treated with the same level of acceptance that they are now? I really don't think so. It's the same with alcohol...other drugs, many illicit, are indeed that way because they're relatively new, and introduced in a time of increased respect for public safety, rather than public freedom. Alcohol has a cultural history, just as firearms do.

James.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/30/2003 10:04:11 PM · #52

MILITIA IS the people, this is why the Anti-gun people are just stupid :)

Sorry, here's the definition in USC (read the section about the militia NOT part of the national guard) This definition has been in the law a LONG time. The militia is basically men between ages 17 and 45 and the law makes it VERY clear that he or she does not have to be part of the national guard to be a militia.

The right goes to everyone.
CITE-

10 USC Sec. 311 01/22/02

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied

males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard

and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the

Naval Militia.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[...

Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.
Why do you think this one is meant for a state militia/National Guard?
Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?

"The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government,"

Sir, I know this is EXACTLY what the framers were thinking. It is a matter of record.

The actual text reads:
Amendment 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.

See that part about how a militia is necessary (IF it's well-regulated), and that's why people shall have the right to (buy) their own arms (so the government doesn't have to)? See how the part about a Militia comes first, as the reason for the existence of the right?
I don't see anything resembling "Since in the future it may become necessary for citizens to shoot their elected representatives..."
THAT's where I got my idea of what they meant...

Message edited by author 2003-03-30 22:06:30.

03/30/2003 10:10:19 PM · #53

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Hmmm...on a practical level, what would happen if a civilian militia were to rise up against the feds? I can think of Branch Dividians...is it really possible to argue that civilian firepower is now capable of keeping the federal government in check? I'd argue that this is an excuse to bear arms, despite its constitutional basis, as various other civil liberties have since been curtailed; liberties which actually have impact on everyday life - smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc. On a practical level these reasons for bearing arms seem obsolete. Isn't it strange that the gun rights are defended in part because they have historical ties to the birth of the nation, and yet people are willing to accept curtailment of civil liberties (read, freedom) such as being subjected to searches etc. for the sake of threats from terrorism. This seems contradictory.

James.

not everyone that get searched at an airport is a citizen, and some of them would like to fly planes into buildings. owning a gun may not be a part of everyday life for you, but it is really simplistic of you to claim that no one has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun in the US. plus you don't have any kind idea as to how to deal with criminals who get guns do you? maybe police should just pray criminals don't shoot them and try to explore all the diplomatic options before trying taking out a gun. comparing the actions of a cult guided by a leader who brainwashed them into thinking he was a descendant of Jesus and then taking the paranoia to insane heights is riddiculous.

I wasn't arguing that the ownership of guns is a bad thing...I'm a civil libertarian. I was merely pointing out that, on a practical level, bearing guns for the sake of checks and balances between civilians and governments in the US is a most outdated notion. There are other reasons for owning guns, and reasons to defend that right. Do you think, though, that if guns didn't exist until tomorrow, and some guy invented them, that they'd be treated with the same level of acceptance that they are now? I really don't think so. It's the same with alcohol...other drugs, many illicit, are indeed that way because they're relatively new, and introduced in a time of increased respect for public safety, rather than public freedom. Alcohol has a cultural history, just as firearms do.

James.

you are obviously right about guns not existing until tomorrow. that's not the world we live in right now though, so what's the point of bringing stuff like that up.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/30/2003 10:14:12 PM · #54

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by David Ey:
[quote=GeneralE][...

Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.

Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?

Nope.
Didn't say I'd relinquish the one you cherish so highly, either. Just that I thought it was reasonable to consider guns along with other deadly items to be subject to some reasonable degree of registration and regulation, like cars, knives, chemicals, explosives, etc. You can have all the guns you please, but if I'm shot with one of yours, I want you held responsible.

And as you say, all the other rights are WRITTEN as personal rights. Don't you then think it odd to not take especial note of the unique language used to WRITE the 2nd, and interpret that as meaning a somewhat different intent on the part of the framers? I mean, isn't it easier to have had the entire amendement read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if that's what they really meant?
I realize that's the part you like to quote, and I find it meaningful that gun-rights advocates consistently elide the very beginning of the amendment.

Once again, as WRITTEN:

Amendment 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. (emphasis added for the syntactically impaired)

03/30/2003 10:14:43 PM · #55

Originally posted by achiral:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Hmmm...on a practical level, what would happen if a civilian militia were to rise up against the feds? I can think of Branch Dividians...is it really possible to argue that civilian firepower is now capable of keeping the federal government in check? I'd argue that this is an excuse to bear arms, despite its constitutional basis, as various other civil liberties have since been curtailed; liberties which actually have impact on everyday life - smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc. On a practical level these reasons for bearing arms seem obsolete. Isn't it strange that the gun rights are defended in part because they have historical ties to the birth of the nation, and yet people are willing to accept curtailment of civil liberties (read, freedom) such as being subjected to searches etc. for the sake of threats from terrorism. This seems contradictory.

James.

not everyone that get searched at an airport is a citizen, and some of them would like to fly planes into buildings. owning a gun may not be a part of everyday life for you, but it is really simplistic of you to claim that no one has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun in the US. plus you don't have any kind idea as to how to deal with criminals who get guns do you? maybe police should just pray criminals don't shoot them and try to explore all the diplomatic options before trying taking out a gun. comparing the actions of a cult guided by a leader who brainwashed them into thinking he was a descendant of Jesus and then taking the paranoia to insane heights is riddiculous.

I wasn't arguing that the ownership of guns is a bad thing...I'm a civil libertarian. I was merely pointing out that, on a practical level, bearing guns for the sake of checks and balances between civilians and governments in the US is a most outdated notion. There are other reasons for owning guns, and reasons to defend that right. Do you think, though, that if guns didn't exist until tomorrow, and some guy invented them, that they'd be treated with the same level of acceptance that they are now? I really don't think so. It's the same with alcohol...other drugs, many illicit, are indeed that way because they're relatively new, and introduced in a time of increased respect for public safety, rather than public freedom. Alcohol has a cultural history, just as firearms do.

James.

you are obviously right about guns not existing until tomorrow. that's not the world we live in right now though, so what's the point of bringing stuff like that up.

Well, it points out that there's a double standard. If guns wouldn't be allowed if they were invented tomorrow, what are those reasons? Why are we not allowing them anymore? Doesn't that suggest that we're not as free as we used to be? We're willing to accept the fact that we don't have the right to do heroin or cocaine, and yet can go drink at a bar no problem. The slow, steady decline in personal freedoms for the sake of safety is WRONG, and yet it happens so slowly that you don't notice it.

James.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/30/2003 10:26:06 PM · #56

Originally posted by paganini:

MILITIA IS the people, this is why the Anti-gun people are just stupid :)

I don't think the smiley face is enough in this case. Please don't call me or anyone else here stupid inless you are prepared to domonstrate for all that we cannot talk (root= stupere, to stupify or render speechless) -- we are obviously capable of using language.

Your citations are impressive, do refer to the National Guard, and imply that members of the militia who are not members of the NG must in fact be "registered" with their local government, much as a softball league is required to do.

You cannot simply stand on a corner and declare "I'm a militaman" and aquire the authority to initiate legal or military action.

I think that's where that "well-regulated" part you keep omitting and I keep citing comes into play. The question is not so much does a citizen have the right to bear arms (they do), but are they allowed to amass unlimited weapons in quantity and capability so as to present a danger to the majority without our knowledge, and ability to defend outselves from them (that right they don't have by me).

03/30/2003 10:29:16 PM · #57

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by paganini:
MILITIA IS the people, this is why the Anti-gun people are just stupid :)

I don't think the smiley face is enough in this case. Please don't call me or anyone else here stupid inless you are prepared to domonstrate for all that we cannot talk (root= stupere, to stupify or render speechless) -- we are obviously capable of using language.

Your citations are impressive, do refer to the National Guard, and imply that members of the militia who are not members of the NG must in fact be "registered" with their local government, much as a softball league is required to do.

You cannot simply stand on a corner and declare "I'm a militaman" and aquire the authority to initiate legal or military action.

I think that's where that "well-regulated" part you keep omitting and I keep citing comes into play. The question is not so much does a citizen have the right to bear arms (they do), but are they allowed to amass unlimited weapons in quantity and capability so as to present a danger to the majority without our knowledge, and ability to defend outselves from them (that right they don't have by me).

we are truly in the presence of intellectual elitism

either that or the really bored

Message edited by author 2003-03-30 22:30:01.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/30/2003 10:55:52 PM · #58

I suppose the non-elitist response is to say "takes one to know one."

Really, you can't counter my argument so you criticize my vocabulary and writing style? I don't mind being PROVEN wrong, but I do mind being insulted -- wouldn't you?

Message edited by author 2003-03-30 22:57:02.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/30/2003 10:59:42 PM · #59

Originally posted by GeneralE:

ooo a war of words, this is getting exciting

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/30/2003 11:58:02 PM · #60

Originally posted by GeneralE:

03/31/2003 12:11:55 AM · #61

Originally posted by paganini:

You must not have read the thing I posted. It said militia can be both ORGANIZED and UNORGANIZED. It does NOT require the registration of anyone. It said clearly that any MEN between ages of 17 and 45 ARE part of a militia, and that WOMEN who are of NATIONAL GUARDSMEN can be part of the militia. It's an old law, but it's there on the books.

Typical liberal who can't read a simple English sentence who would argue that only national guards can have arms.

The SUPPORTING clause is the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" the MAIN clause is "The right of the People to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed." That's simple English, but no, we must all just look to our government and support ourselves with a huge welfare state.

You know, you sound more intelligent when you argue about the war, but you're definitely dumb when you're arguing against gun rights. All you have to do is look at where the gun laws are the most strict -- California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. the bastion of liberalism and you can see the correlation they have with HIGH crime rates. Very simply, gun laws only protect the criminals and hurts law abiding citizens the right to own a gun without restriction.

If you would actually READ some of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thoms Payne, etc. writings, they are ardent supporters of unrestricted gun rights. The term is UNRESTRICTED and is on framers' mind. All of the rights int eh Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. Why would they put a "collective" right in there?? Because it isn't, it's an individual right.

Go back to your liberal hole, we should draft people like you and send it to the Iraqi front :) I wish they'd put Michael Moore at the Iraqi front manning a 50 caliber machine gun and watch as the IRaqi troops hide behind civilians and shooting at him, let's see how long it'd take for him to mow down everyone in front of him, instead of blabbering his crap against the men and women who is risking their lives for us.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by paganini:
MILITIA IS the people, this is why the Anti-gun people are just stupid :)

I don't think the smiley face is enough in this case. Please don't call me or anyone else here stupid inless you are prepared to domonstrate for all that we cannot talk (root= stupere, to stupify or render speechless) -- we are obviously capable of using language.

Your citations are impressive, do refer to the National Guard, and imply that members of the militia who are not members of the NG must in fact be "registered" with their local government, much as a softball league is required to do.

You cannot simply stand on a corner and declare "I'm a militaman" and aquire the authority to initiate legal or military action.

I think that's where that "well-regulated" part you keep omitting and I keep citing comes into play. The question is not so much does a citizen have the right to bear arms (they do), but are they allowed to amass unlimited weapons in quantity and capability so as to present a danger to the majority without our knowledge, and ability to defend outselves from them (that right they don't have by me).

yikes. i totally agree with you minus the personal attacks, although i sympathize with your frustration, we share the same ones

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

03/31/2003 12:12:49 AM · #62

Originally posted by hokie:

I
The return of the USA to a 1980's mentality that says the world is still a dangerous place containing governments and societies that not only reject western political thought but actively seek to do it harm has a lot of Anti-war, "Down with imperialism" chanting folks all hot and bothered.

Many folks fail to remember the sacrifices of generations past that helped defeat the spread of nazism, facism and communism required more than a few demonstrations in the streets and 17 ignored U.N. resolutions. :-/

Hokie, it's great to see you posting. But how effective were these policies? "Blowback" is the CIA's own term for describing what happens when these policies have terrible consequences, like the WTC attacks. Helping the wrong people lands you in trouble when they turn on you. This very war is an example of that... the CIA helped the Ba'ath party into power and now look what's happening.

I believe that the best thing the western world can do is allow various regions and countries in the world to have autonomy and self-determination, within a strict framework of rules that are determined through the UN and ARE policed, but not unilaterally. This isn't the system that existed prior to this war. I believe that when people are allowed to have the government they want (not necessarily western style democracy) and those governments are allowed to make the best decisions for their people (within strict international rules) the world will be a peaceful place. War will be necessary to protect countries from attack or to enforce the rules, but they must be multilateral.

This is my vision, and it's slowly developing as I watch the political fallout of this. A world where the US undermines one country's government while encouraging another one, all based on America's interests, is not one I would like to live in. I saw an interview on TV the other night with one of the members of PNAC. He was justifying the idea that the world right now is like America was during the days of the wild west, and the US army has to get out there and impose order on it. The interviewer (an Australian) asked "how are all us Indians out here supposed to feel about this?". He answered with a puzzled look and said he hoped Australians wouldn't feel like Indians in this analogy. But what else should we feel like? America's alliances will change depending on what serves US interests the best, and one day we could become the enemy. It's not in OUR interest to take that risk.

Message edited by author 2003-03-31 00:15:24.

03/31/2003 12:40:18 AM · #63

Originally posted by GeneralE:

General, you might want to look at it in the way that the right of an individual to own a weapon to defend his/her individual rights is a clear argument for the preservation of civil liberties currently being degraded by the Homeland Security types.

The right to bear arms is indeed designed to protect the individual. This is an antequated notion, to be sure, but more because of prevailing socio-political trends than anythign that exists as an absolute right according to the constitution. Take, for example, your experience with the fascist cops invading your place of work. Well, the ideal of a right to bear arms and the maintenance of personal freedoms would suggest that you could have told them to take a look down the business end of your Smith and Wesson until they had due cause to inspect the surroundings according to a legal precedent. Try it in real life, however, and you'd most likely be sent home in a bodybag.

Still, the reality vs. the ideal of a civil militia where everyone has a gun and therefore everyone treats them with respect and nobody tramples on anyone else only serves to show that American society has indeed accepted the state as the protector of rights and freedoms. This, in turn, has allowed such things as not being allowed to photograph bridges for the sake of the common good. Well, hello fascism. There's no difference. The sad thing is that the correct usage of the right to bear arms is now obsolete, and instead serve mostly to produce outrageously high gunshot-death statistics.

The current administration has gone so far as to actively hunt out terrorists overseas in the name of the common good, when it'd be most American to wait until someone attacked you, personally, on your own land, and beat the hell out of them with the butt of your Winchester.

How's that for an argument that you can't be a conservative and also argue gun rights effectively.

03/31/2003 12:46:17 AM · #64

well since you only just want to degrade every conversation into liberal or conservative, you win buddy, but it's an issue of eroding of liberties that applies to all people in america. nice try though

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/31/2003 12:47:15 AM · #65

Originally posted by paganini:

Typical liberal who can't read a simple English sentence who would argue that only national guards can have arms.

Which part of this earlier posting makes you think I think you shouldn't have a right to own a gun?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The question is not so much does a citizen have the right to bear arms (they do), but are they allowed to amass unlimited weapons in quantity and capability so as to present a danger to the majority without our knowledge, and ability to defend outselves from them (that right they don't have by me).

Please don't call me a liberal -- it is not an accurate label.

While you're out there advocating less government intrusion into our personal and privacy rights, perhaps you should check into this summary of recent Supreme Court arguments over your State's overwhelming desire to monitor your bedroom.
The Latest From The Supremes

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/31/2003 12:51:57 AM · #66

"Let me make one thing perfectly clear..."*
--Richard M. Nixon

I am not opposed to the Second Amendment.

Would that you all defended the others so vociferously.

*"...your President is not a crook."