Thankfully the Rand Paul has kick out Man for his behaviorFollow

Cute, but meaningless.



Edited, Oct 28th 2010 12:50am by trickybeck

As worded, no.

Hell yes. It would make for much easier targeting. Barring that, could we get them to wear little patches pinned to their shirts, or armbands with a crescent on them?


Because they had a pretty good idea, and then founded a country based on it. There is nothing new under the sun Frenchie. The problems we face today are no different from the problems faced 1000 years ago, just amplified and exposed.

And this is where I disagree with you. I believe that a government should fear its citizenry. A government of, for and by the people should have a healthy fear that their actions will have consequences, up to and including. Unlikely though it may be on a macro scale, over-reaching occurs on a daily basis on a micro scale and those incidents add up.


I disagree fundamentally with the example you use, and am hard pressed to think of another that could apply. I think what the old slave-owning white guys were able to do in 4500 words was pretty damn impressive and, for the most part, stands up to the test of time pretty well (come on, the 3/5ths of a man thing really couldn't have lasted, they's a uppity people. Colorful, but uppity).

Can I get a FSM license plate?

Can you expand on this? I don't think I am reading it correctly because it's confusing me.

It would if people could buy SAMs, as a starting point.

Isn't that kinda self creating though? So because we've passed gun control legislation which has over time reduced the relative effectiveness of arms which a private citizen can own in this regard we should just finish the job and get rid of them all by arguing that the "right" is no longer relevant?

That's kinda the tail end of a "Slippery Slope!" right there, isn't it?

Same response as above. And you liberals wonder why we conservatives always look for the slippery slope result? I'll give you a hint: It's because it almost always seems to come true.



Like what? Rioting in the streets? Going on strike? And for such tyrannical actions as refusing to provide retirement benefits until age 62 instead of age 60? So in 250 years we've gone from fighting for liberty and fraternity to fighting for the scraps from the government's table. Somehow, I'm thinking the European model of liberty has gotten a bit off track.



I'll give the patented Conservative answer:

Then pass an amendment and change the Constitution!.


If you feel that a part of the constitution isn't applicable anymore, or that a right isn't relevant, then you should actually change the damn law. We have a process for that. What you should not do is embark upon a campaign of gradually changing the interpretation of the law by manipulation of our judicial system. If you want the law to be X, then pass a law to make it X. Don't just insist that what meant A 200 years ago now means X.

The reason you don't do that is that it means that all laws aren't really real anymore. They all just become subject to interpretation at any given time based often on the political conveniences of that time. It removes any sort of certainty and security those laws grant to us. That's why we conservatives have a problem with this. It's why we rail against "activist judges". If you honestly believe that the 2nd amendment isn't relevant in our society anymore then change the law itself.


That they don't use this method speaks volumes to the degree to which most people don't agree with their views. But instead of attempting to change those people's minds so they can change the law, they do an end run around them instead. And in the process they weaken the very foundation of law upon which our country rests. The amendment process exists for a reason. It's there specifically to ensure that a change to the constitution can only occur as a result of overwhelming agreement by a wide portion of the citizens (and their representatives). Working diligently to side step that process isn't a good course of action at all. If you can't change the law then clearly your opinion of its relevance isn't accurate. Thus, your course of action is *wrong*. Period.

I rather agree that the citizenry should inspire fear in its government, but I don't think guns are really the go-to option to achieve this end anymore. I'm not arguing against guns by any means, I am a gun owner myself.

Real fear should be inspired by a well informed and active voter base. Freedom of information and individuals willing to wield that freedom is a much scarier thing to the establishment than isolated or small groups of people with guns.

Edited, Oct 28th 2010 6:53pm by WDN

"Especially not small arms" does sorta prove my point though. The mere fact that you felt you had to specify this shows that the type of weapons matters. So the degree to which those weapons are made unavailable to the public does matter, doesn't it?




Why? What specifically has changed? It's not like the average citizen in 1770 had access to cannons and warships either. I suspect you're not really comparing apples to apples here.




I'll ask again: What specifically has changed. See. I simply don't agree with this. Doubly so when you seem to be having such a hard time elaborating on what has changed and how that makes a large number of small-arms equipped citizens any less capable of overthrowing a government today than they were back in the 1770s. I'll give you a hint: It's not just about the weapons they have in their homes. That's just a starting point. Just as the small arms held by citizens back then simply enabled them to do things like capture armories and barracks, which in turn gave them access to larger arms, which in turn lead to being able to field something more like a real fighting force.

And that's ignoring the other innate advantages a civilian force has against a government one. And that's assuming that the military itself stays completely loyal to said tyrannical government. Our soldiers are citizens as well. Nothing has changed. Most of the men who fought in the US war for independence fought for the British just a decade earlier. It's not that shocking of a thing and I'd argue that in todays social environment you'd be more likely to see soldiers join a resistance if it came to such a thing.


Not speculating on whether this would happen at all. I simply don't agree with the assessment that it's somehow meaningless in todays world. I'm not sure why you'd think so at all.



You'll need to do better than just restate that assertion over and over though. Can you?

This is in direct response to your statement earlier. You specified it not me, I was just trying to actually address what you were saying. I actually added it when I saw you had posted while I was typing.


I would say the gap between the what the average citizen would be able to do and what the military could field is far far bigger both in terms of skill and capacity of armaments.

Yeah, I get the method, but I don't find it realistic given the huge gap that currently exists for citizens to actually achieve this. The weapons they could get they wouldn't know how to use. If you got entire groups of soldiers converting then things would be different, and this would be more realistic, but then that makes citizens owning guns completely irrelevant. You're basically depending on the military for any sort of rebellion, as a militia just is so much less effective now. Back in the day a well organized militia wasn't that much different then the army, it would be now.

Putting this aside though, I don't think our world today or government oppression comes in the same form as it would have back then. I don't think direct conflict would erupt, and find it incredibly unlikely that it would be the best option.

Not necessarily completely meaningless, just very ineffective.
Given that I made one post about it, and then tried to clarify what I meant when you misunderstood it, I'm not sure exactly what I've been repeating over and over.


Edited, Oct 28th 2010 7:35pm by Xsarus

Don't you understand? The Founding Fathers never intended for the citizenry to have the awesome power of a bronze 3-pound cannon -- that's just silly! -- but they would totally and unquestionably defend your right to own a .50cal automatic rifle. Because, when causing mayhem, I know my first choice would be to hook a c.1778 cannon to the back of my car and drive off to the local mall.

A more sane way of thinking is that perhaps we need to look at and interpret the intended scope of the Second Amendment but that's like spitting in James Madison's eye and knee-jerk proclamations that we're being all activist and stuff is really the way to go. I can't imagine how proud they'd be.