First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[lilpixieofterror]

For one thing, completely irrelevant, for another how would you know whether I'm legally a member or not? Because as is the usual case with you, you are wrong once again.

[Sparko]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Different times Sparko, different circumstances. We no longer need a well regulated civilian militia, and arms no longer consist basically of muskets. And the right to bear arms is not a natural right, it was like any other right that hadn't been outlawed, in other words it was simply a right because there was no law enacted against it.

Again, there is an important caveat that you tend not to mention. "A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the state." That issue no longer exists for one thing. And the other point is that there is no such thing as a natural right to bear arms, it was a right simply because it had not been made illegal, or regulated by law. If you go by your standard, then absolutely everything is a natural right.

How do you know if we won't need a militia in the future, JimL?

And again, that is just give as a reason why we can't infringe on the right. It doesn't grant the right. It just says the right exists.

I sure am glad people like you aren't in charge of the government, JimL, you would have given up all of your rights in a heartbeat and then whined about being subjugated. People like you are the reason why there was a soviet Russia and still is a communist China and commnunist Cuba and why Venezuela and North Korea are being run by totalitarian dictators.

[Bill the Cat]

He's not an able-minded one, so...

[rogue06]

How do you know if we won't need a militia in the future, JimL?

And again, that is just give as a reason why we can't infringe on the right. It doesn't grant the right. It just says the right exists.

I sure am glad people like you aren't in charge of the government, JimL, you would have given up all of your rights in a heartbeat and then whined about being subjugated. People like you are the reason why there was a soviet Russia and still is a communist China and commnunist Cuba and why Venezuela and North Korea are being run by totalitarian dictators.

Similarly it isn't likely that U.S. troops will be quartered in civilian homes but that does not somehow invalidate the 3rd Amendment.

[Terraceth]

I sure am glad people like you aren't in charge of the government, JimL, you would have given up all of your rights in a heartbeat and then whined about being subjugated. People like you are the reason why there was a soviet Russia and still is a communist China and commnunist Cuba and why Venezuela and North Korea are being run by totalitarian dictators.

Venezuela, maybe. But in what way is "people like [JimL]" the reason for the existence of the other states? The governments of Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea weren't exactly put into place by desire of their people, they seized power and then did their things; there was no deliberate "giving up" of rights by the people. Especially confusing is the claim of there "still" being a communist China; are you actually claiming that it's the Chinese people's fault they're ruled over by a dictatorship because they've all agreed to give up their rights? What exactly should they have done? Are you advocating they try for an overthrow of the government which would (1) almost certainly get them killed, and (2) make the government crack down harder on freedoms? This statement of yours does not make any sense to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

He's not an able-minded one, so...

If being dumb was a bar against military service, the military would be a lot smaller.

[One Bad Pig]

If being dumb was a bar against military service, the military would be a lot smaller.

There actually IS a bar; it's possible to flunk the ASVAB.

[lilpixieofterror]

There actually IS a bar; it's possible to flunk the ASVAB.

Yeah, but I suspect such people might need a tape playing to remind themselves to breath. After all, someone needs to be a marine.

[JimL]

How do you know if we won't need a militia in the future, JimL?

And again, that is just give as a reason why we can't infringe on the right. It doesn't grant the right. It just says the right exists.

That's just silly. You have a right to do anything, so long as there is no law against it. That doesn't make everything you can do a natural right, or mean that because it isn't outlawed it can never be outlawed in the future.

I sure am glad people like you aren't in charge of the government, JimL, you would have given up all of your rights in a heartbeat and then whined about being subjugated. People like you are the reason why there was a soviet Russia and still is a communist China and commnunist Cuba and why Venezuela and North Korea are being run by totalitarian dictators.

We are in charge of the government Sparko, this is a democracy, and if we decide there is a need for strictor gun laws then we can vote on them and enact them. If the Constitution need be amended in order to do so then we can do that as well, but it is my opinion that no such amendment is needed since, as Scalia himself put it, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

[Sparko]

Venezuela, maybe. But in what way is "people like [JimL]" the reason for the existence of the other states? The governments of Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea weren't exactly put into place by desire of their people, they seized power and then did their things; there was no deliberate "giving up" of rights by the people. Especially confusing is the claim of there "still" being a communist China; are you actually claiming that it's the Chinese people's fault they're ruled over by a dictatorship because they've all agreed to give up their rights? What exactly should they have done? Are you advocating they try for an overthrow of the government which would (1) almost certainly get them killed, and (2) make the government crack down harder on freedoms? This statement of yours does not make any sense to me.

It is always the people's 'fault' if they continue to live in subjugation instead of rebelling against their oppressors. Yes I am advocating they overthrow their oppressive, communist governments.

[Sparko]

That's just silly. You have a right to do anything, so long as there is no law against it. That doesn't make everything you can do a natural right, or mean that because it isn't outlawed it can never be outlawed in the future.

We are in charge of the government Sparko, this is a democracy, and if we decide there is a need for strictor gun laws then we can vote on them and enact them. If the Constitution need be amended in order to do so then we can do that as well, but it is my opinion that no such amendment is needed since, as Scalia himself put it, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

So in your opinion we should never have rebelled against Britain and there are no such thing as rights unless a government gives them to you.

Like I said, I am very grateful people like you are not in charge. You would have made a great Nazi.


For you socialist morons, here is someone who actually escaped from such a government:

[oxmixmudd]

It is always the people's 'fault' if they continue to live in subjugation instead of rebelling against their oppressors. Yes I am advocating they overthrow their oppressive, communist governments.

That is a rather harsh judgement Sparko. How do you suppose that works somewhere like Russia, or China, North Korea? Three very different yet in many ways similar situations. How does one organize such a thing under today's ever more pervasive and all encompassing surveillance technologies? How does one rebel against the sorts of armies like those in Russia and China and North Korea where they essentially ARE the government? I'm not saying it can't happen, but for those trapped who don't like it, there are many with a good deal of power that DO like it. How can those who would push out a communist regime mass the numbers and equipment they would need before they are massacred like in Tiananmen square?


Jim

[Sparko]

That is a rather harsh judgement Sparko. How do you suppose that works somewhere like Russia, or China, North Korea? Three very different yet in many ways similar situations. How does one organize such a thing under today's ever more pervasive and all encompassing surveillance technologies? How does one rebel against the sorts of armies like those in Russia and China and North Korea where they essentially ARE the government? I'm not saying it can't happen, but for those trapped who don't like it, there are many with a good deal of power that DO like it. How can those who would push out a communist regime mass the numbers and equipment they would need before they are massacred like in Tiananmen square?


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

That is a nice speech, but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

You said "It is always the people's 'fault' if they continue to live in subjugation instead of rebelling against their oppressors."

I pointed out the difficulties posed by the current technologies and environments which simply did not exist in the time of the American Revolution, or Cuba, or Russia, or China. And I am asking how those people, now, realizing the previous revolutions that promised freedom from oppression but lied and in fact solidified repression, can be held responsible in such an absolute way for not 'rebelling' when in our day and time the outcome is more likely to be a slaughter like in tiananmen square rather than an actual government overthrow/replacement like happened previously.

There is a second question that hasn't been asked, but can't be ignored. It really does matter a very great deal the integrity and core world view of those leading/doing the rebellion. America and other western democracies tend to have at their core the sorts of values that derive from a Judeo Christian world-view and that - as can be seen historically - tends to produce a very different sort of outcome from a freedom perspective that those that stem from an anti religious/communist source. I don't think that can be minimized. A revolution that has at its core a flawed philosophical base will not result in greater freedom for its people. And that is not to say atheist vs religion, because the recent Islamic Revolutions have produced governments even more oppressive than the communist ones. All philosophical bases are not the same or even close. It is the unique combination of Judeo-Christian individual and societal morality coupled with and perhaps even moderated by many of the enlightenment concepts of the 16 and 1700's that have given us what we have.


Jim

[JimL]

So in your opinion we should never have rebelled against Britain and there are no such thing as rights unless a government gives them to you.

Nope, never even insinuated such a thing. I seriously think you people are of a mind that you see only what you want to see. What I said is that we are a democracy, and that we the people are the government, and if we choose to restrict certain (what we call) rights, then it is our (right) as self governing people to do that.

Like I said, I am very grateful people like you are not in charge. You would have made a great Nazi.

Then you should stop electing undemocratic, Nazi like, representation into Congress and into the White House.