[ort888]

Isn't the USA telling countries like Iran and Korea that they can't have a nuclear weapons program hypocritical? Shouldn't other countries have the same right to bear arms that our citizens have, only on a country-sized scale? To protect themselves from big bullies like our forefathers wanted?

Does the intent of the second amendment apply on that scale? Is it the intent that is important or the literal word as it applies to individuals?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm really sorry if I'm coming off as Mr. Obtuse today, but the Amendment doesn't mention the states, because it's not prohibiting the states from doing anything.

No, it's not prohibiting the states to do anything, but it's not prohibiting federal legislature to regulate, too. My point was that it's not a right reserved for the states.

I'll follow the links later, I need to get home

[olePigeon]

I support gun control if it's reasonable. The problem is that it doesn't stop criminals, they're going to get guns anyway.

By reasonable, I support the ban on assault rifles for general civilian use. There's no practical reason to own an assault rifle or 14.5 mm rifle (except for sport, which would require an additional license.) However, I see no reason why people can't own and hold a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. Carrying a pistol around (even concealed) I think is reasonable, but for a rifle or shotgun in urban areas should be kept in the car or designated areas.

The 2nd Amendment is there for people to protect themselves; believe it or not, protect themselves from the government. If you read the 2nd Amendment within the context of related speeches of the time, it is very plain what the 2nd Amendment means. People have the right to bear arms. It is not referring to the militia.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There's no practical reason to own an assault rifle

Defence against pirates whilst cruising the gulf in yer yacht.

I'm being serious. Pirate activity is increasing down there, and it's a fair way to the nearest police station.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Isn't the USA telling countries like Iran and Korea that they can't have a nuclear weapons program hypocritical?

Yes. However, we have reasonable concern in regards to countries like Iran and Korea; I'd be worried they'd point those missiles at Japan or Israel and actually use them without provocation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, the individual states can suppress free speech then? I didn't know that.

If I understand things properly, this was legally the case until 1947.

Also, if I understand things properly, the whole idea of any Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applying to the states (unless explicitly mentioned) flows from "due process" in the 14th Amendment, so previous to the Civil War, there wasn't even a Constitutional basis for this being a problem.

This surprised both the **** and the **** out of me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There's no practical reason to own an assault rifle

How's about to...

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

protect themselves from the government.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it's not prohibiting the states to do anything, but it's not prohibiting federal legislature to regulate, too. My point was that it's not a right reserved for the states.

Let me regurgitate what I think you are saying, and you can correct me if necessary...

"The RTBA shall not be infringed, though the legislature can regulate."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The level of technology available when the framers wrote the Constitution isn't really a valid argument. Most every technology we use for everything in the modern world didn't exist at the time.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is merely that Congress can't pass any law that completely outlaws citizens owning arms. It's silent on exactly what type (which is a good thing- someday we may be talking about laser guns) therefore, as subego said, is something reserved for the states to decide.

So I have no problem with laws passed by states saying which types of firearms people can own, and reasonable requirements placed on their use.

Common sense ( I know,often missing from politics and certainly from political hacks) dictates that there is no legitimate or practical reason for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapons system. Clearly, anything anywhere near that level becomes a threat to national security, and isn't even considered a personal 'arm', but a WMD.

It's reasonable and practical that a citizen can own shotguns, pistols, hunting rifles, etc. it's not reasonable or practical for a citizen to point a cannon out of their window.

I have no problem with a ban on actual assault weapons (not weapons that are wrongly classified as such) or allowing only people with a certain type of training and license to own a certain level of military grade weapon beyond all practical use for a common citizen.

But the fed simply shouldn't be able to say "all firearms are banned."

Excellent post summarizing the main points of the gun debate.

I too believe the Amendment was intended to prevent the Federal government from outlawing possession of any or all firearms. At the same time, I don't think the Amendment prevents the Federal or State governments from putting requirements or restrictions on gun ownership. But any requirements for, or restrictions on, possession of firearms should pass a "reasonable" test and that is where, I think, most of the controversy lies around gun ownership/use (i.e.: What constitutes a "reasonable" requirement for, or restriction on, possession of firearms).

Personally, I've always been a fan of treating firearms as the potential life-taking devices that they are. Meaning, if you want to own something that is designed to take a life--whether it be an animal in the woods or a person in the city--the person who wants to own the firearm should meet some basic requirements and have some basic training in the use of the firearm they seek to purchase. I am thinking of a course on proper gun handling, safety and storage of guns, local gun-usage laws (i.e.: when is hunting season and what types of firearms are permitted in hunting season, etc.), and the procedures for selling or giving away of firearms.

Now, none of this seems too "unreasonable" to me but I am sure it will seem that way to somebody. And that gets us back to what I think is the main point of contention in the firearm ownership debate. What is a "reasonable" requirement for, or restriction on, ownership of a firearm. MacNN, your thoughts?

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

the person who wants to own the firearm should meet some basic requirements and have some basic training in the use of the firearm they seek to purchase.

The main issue I see here is when does this begin to take the piss out of the part that is meant as the final protection against the government?

I'd say if they have your name and address, it's at least half gone.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

How's about to...

Well, not in that manner. Instead of using guns we usually vote in/out city, county, and state officials. You don't need assault rifles to do that. What we need are for people to get more involved in local elections and not just presidential ones. If you think voting is bad on a federal level, it's next to non-existent at the local level.

As I said, no practical reason to own an assault rifle except or sport. As CRASH also mentioned, there shouldn't be anything wrong with pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let me regurgitate what I think you are saying, and you can correct me if necessary...

"The RTBA shall not be infringed, though the legislature can regulate."

If legislature includes federal legislature, then yes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Well, not in that manner. Instead of using guns we usually vote in/out city, county, and state officials.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

I'm imagining somewhat extreme circumstances here. I think one can safely assume the least of the prerequisites to be the suspension of voting.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The level of technology available when the framers wrote the Constitution isn't really a valid argument.

Nope, no more than asking whether the First Amendment applies to the Internet or whether "unreasonable search and seizure" applies to your car.

The right of self-defense is pretty much absolute. If we have to err, let's err on the side of firepower: legalize backpack nukes NOW.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As I said, no practical reason to own an assault rifle except [f]or sport.

That's why most people DON'T own assault rifles. Those are fully automatic, or "selective-fire". But there are plenty of folks who enjoy shooting things that LOOK LIKE assault rifles, and it seems that a good number of people on the Left side of the issue think that things that LOOK LIKE assault rifles should be banned.

That doesn't help me agree to reasonable restrictions, since most of those folks could never be described as reasonable when it comes to this. It also doesn't help when someone asks me to disarm without disarming themselves (or their bodyguards).

Nope, I have the right to the same protections as you as long as I treat it as a resposibility. It's been pretty much demonstrated (over several millenia of recorded history) that keeping and bearing arms works better than not doing so, both on a personal and a societal level. On average, folks are safer and crime is lower. Don't believe me? Look at crime incidents between someplace such as Mass. or Ill. versus TX over time. We shoot people down here, and somehow the word got out.

But, for those who still can't truck with the "gun culture" as it's called, try a simple experiment on your own. Don't ban guns, just hand out some little signs that people can put in their very own yards that tells others that "There are no guns in this house." Declare your place of work a "gun-free zone" and post some big signs to that effect. That will certainly make things safer in the long run.

If you know someone who chooses to own a gun responsibly, please thank them when you get a chance. It is a big risk, and a lot of expense, but it makes crooks think before they break into houses in the middle of the night. It makes them pause as they're getting ready to carjack someone, and even just a little pause of apprehension is a good one.

If you'd like to drive without the benefit of that apprehension, just put a sticker from a rental car company on your car. That's how it worked in Florida a few years ago -- carjackers were hitting European tourists in record numbers because they KNEW those cars weren't driven by folks who'd just applied for and received Florida's concealed handgun license. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

Heck, if my guns can save ONE CHILD then they're worth the risk and expense, aren't they?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Nope, no more than asking whether the First Amendment applies to the Internet or whether "unreasonable search and seizure" applies to your car.

Actually, rightly or wrongly the courts have ruled that cars are not subject to 4th amendment protection.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, rightly or wrongly the courts have ruled that cars are not subject to 4th amendment protection.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, to put it lightly.

But the general idea behind it is basically right-- you're screwed if you think you can hide anything in your car. I would have to count toes to list all the ways police can legally search your car.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Heck, if my guns can save ONE CHILD then they're worth the risk and expense, aren't they?

From a utilitarian standpoint, not necessarily.

If guns cause more deaths and other gun violence than they prevent, then the policy that would benefit the greatest number of people is to ban gun possession. The question answered from this viewpoint is basically impossible to actually determine, sadly. We just don't have the statistics, and I'm not confident we can ever get them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

If legislature includes federal legislature, then yes.

Well, it's a coherent interpretation, but when taken in the context of the other nine Amendments, that construction strikes me as even odder than the one where the militia part is ultimately irrelevant.

[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

But there are plenty of folks who enjoy shooting things that LOOK LIKE assault rifles, and it seems that a good number of people on the Left side of the issue think that things that LOOK LIKE assault rifles should be banned.

Not that I agree with the ban, but it's pretty trivial to convert a semi-auto into a full-auto.

If people want to be genuinely concerned about a type of weapon, I'd vote for the submachine gun. Very few citizens have the need for that amount of concealable firepower.

[smacintush]

I think that the problem with the 2nd amendment issue is the same as the problem we have with other constitutional issues. It's the people that have this idiotic idea that the genius of the constitution is that it is designed to be vague enough to be re-interpreted as times change. No, the genius of the constitution is that it is designed to be amended. The amendment process is something we don't seem to care about anymore. Of course why should we? The "living document" theory totally bypasses the intentions of the designers of the constitution.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that it's intention, among others, is to allow the people to protect themselves from the government. But they don't mention where to draw the line. Personally, I don't think that they themselves would have drawn any lines, but those WERE different times. Not only has the level of technology changed drastically, the variety of weapons has grown exponentially. If we are to care about keeping to the intent of the drafters of the bill of rights then it seems obvious to ME how we should draw the line: At the point that laws are such that the people are no longer able to keep themselves secure personally AND from government tyranny, they are in violation of the 2nd amendment. We passed that point a long time ago.

But not only because of restrictions on personal weapon ownership. It is also because of our complacency. This point addresses the silly idea that we would have no chance of resisting the federal government anyway. Really? You mean like the Afghani people had no chance against the USSR? That may seem like a little bit of an oversimplification but my point is that there are a few hundred million of us. If we actually cared about out rights to protect ourselves from tyranny it would be the government that would not stand a chance because they would HAVE to do exactly what they won't; use the full might of the DoD. They would HAVE to come into our cities as a full invading force and how well would that go over in this modern world where every country is into every other countries business? Whatever, all that is hypothetical anyway, I don't think that we are in danger of that happening anymore than you do but there is a real danger in complacency. To relinquish our rights because "they aren't necessary anymore" is a very dangerous gamble in my opinion.

This brings me to another point. The notion that citizens are unable to defeat our military is because our military is a bloated behemoth. This is not a defending force designed to merely protect America. It is a conquering force designed to secure and maintain our worldwide superiority. Were this to be the kind of army that our founders had intended for the federal government then there wouldn't be this question of whether we could win. Somewhere along the line we got this idea that America MUST be the biggest, smartest, toughest SOB's in the world at whatever cost. This lack of humility costs us more and more of our rights, our freedom and our money in the form of higher taxes.

Of course, none of this really matters if you are NOT interested in keeping with the intentions of those who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment. You are doing just what I said at the start; Twisting and shaping the words and intentions in order to not just fit with how you see modern society, but with how YOU feel that modern society SHOULD be.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, it's a coherent interpretation, but when taken in the context of the other nine Amendments, that construction strikes me as even odder than the one where the militia part is ultimately irrelevant.

I don't know.
My guess is that the Founding Fathers wanted to emphasize the aspect of a `people's army' -- which is `unnecessary' in good times. But in times of distress (say, an invasion by Mexico), people can quickly organize into a paramilitary force. That's just my guesstimate, though.

I also think that the intention was the defense against an outside force (read: the British) and not really the idea to defeat a dictatorship from the inside.

Note that most of the interpretations here do not even reflect my own opinion on the issue. I think, in its current form, the Second Amendment is obsolete. Some people fear that without the Second Amendment, `the government' will take their guns away. There are plenty of countries with high gun ownership rate that do not have any constitutional amendment ensuring gun ownership. Tradition is more important than that.

The reason why I think it is obsolete is the following: the intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect America from an invasion by an outside force or a hostile take-over of their own government. At least that's how I interpret the mention of militia. (Otherwise, no such mention would have been necessary.) This is more of a theoretical possibility, and it's even less likely that the US armed forces won't be able to defeat the mighty Mexican army. If you want to maximize the efficiency of a paramilitary force (militia), you should allow military weapons as well. In any case, the US is not Afghanistan or some other third-world country.

Instead, these days, the emphasis is put on personal protection and the sale of certain military hardware is restricted or forbidden. The motivation of these restrictions wasn't necessarily to hinder the armament of `militia,' but to take care of no-nonsense regulations: you don't want some arbitrary bozo play with high-explosives in his apartment in the middle of the city.

So the original intention has been changed by all sides, including some of the gun lobby which rallies the point of personal protection. I agree that this should be done by means of a constitutional amendment which adapts the current provision to today's times.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Common sense ( I know,often missing from politics and certainly from political hacks) dictates that there is no legitimate or practical reason for a private citizen to own a nuclear weapons system. Clearly, anything anywhere near that level becomes a threat to national security, and isn't even considered a personal 'arm', but a WMD.

But, isn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment *to* be a threat to national security? If the point of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the people with a means to defend themselves against and, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government, are hand-guns and rifles going to do the trick?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think that the problem with the 2nd amendment issue is the same as the problem we have with other constitutional issues. It's the people that have this idiotic idea that the genius of the constitution is that it is designed to be vague enough to be re-interpreted as times change. No, the genius of the constitution is that it is designed to be amended. The amendment process is something we don't seem to care about anymore. Of course why should we? The "living document" theory totally bypasses the intentions of the designers of the constitution.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that it's intention, among others, is to allow the people to protect themselves from the government. But they don't mention where to draw the line. Personally, I don't think that they themselves would have drawn any lines, but those WERE different times. Not only has the level of technology changed drastically, the variety of weapons has grown exponentially. If we are to care about keeping to the intent of the drafters of the bill of rights then it seems obvious to ME how we should draw the line: At the point that laws are such that the people are no longer able to keep themselves secure personally AND from government tyranny, they are in violation of the 2nd amendment. We passed that point a long time ago.

But not only because of restrictions on personal weapon ownership. It is also because of our complacency. This point addresses the silly idea that we would have no chance of resisting the federal government anyway. Really? You mean like the Afghani people had no chance against the USSR? That may seem like a little bit of an oversimplification but my point is that there are a few hundred million of us. If we actually cared about out rights to protect ourselves from tyranny it would be the government that would not stand a chance because they would HAVE to do exactly what they won't; use the full might of the DoD. They would HAVE to come into our cities as a full invading force and how well would that go over in this modern world where every country is into every other countries business? Whatever, all that is hypothetical anyway, I don't think that we are in danger of that happening anymore than you do but there is a real danger in complacency. To relinquish our rights because "they aren't necessary anymore" is a very dangerous gamble in my opinion.

This brings me to another point. The notion that citizens are unable to defeat our military is because our military is a bloated behemoth. This is not a defending force designed to merely protect America. It is a conquering force designed to secure and maintain our worldwide superiority. Were this to be the kind of army that our founders had intended for the federal government then there wouldn't be this question of whether we could win. Somewhere along the line we got this idea that America MUST be the biggest, smartest, toughest SOB's in the world at whatever cost. This lack of humility costs us more and more of our rights, our freedom and our money in the form of higher taxes.

Of course, none of this really matters if you are NOT interested in keeping with the intentions of those who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment. You are doing just what I said at the start; Twisting and shaping the words and intentions in order to not just fit with how you see modern society, but with how YOU feel that modern society SHOULD be.

I approve of this post.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sure there is, but it would require a large percentage of the people, perhaps even a majority. The military isn't going to butcher huge numbers of the population.

The military of an oppressive government *might* butcher huge numbers of the population. That's how oppressive governments work.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by finboy 

*snip*

Not sure if you're arguing with me or agreeing. But just in case, I pointed out in my previous post that I supported people owning assault rifles and large caliber weapons only for sport. It'd require a special license that includes additional safety courses and stuff.

It also means you can't walk around with it or keep it in your car or pickup unless it's to or from the shooting range or special event.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But, isn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment *to* be a threat to national security? If the point of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the people with a means to defend themselves against and, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government, are hand-guns and rifles going to do the trick?

Probably not, but I wouldn't trust civilians with strike missiles and mustard gas.

If it ever came to it, I think the civilians would win. Sheer numbers. Even with "only" rifles and pistols.

[Monique]

They surely meant rifles and the reason behind it was that the ordinary people were not allowed to keep a rifle in Europe to hunt for their food; so the founders wanted to protect the right to hunt for deers or any other animals except men.

Today, the pro-guns people mean a semi-automatic or automatic weapons to kill their neighbours and pretend it is to defend themselves against and elusive burglar.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Monique 

They surely meant rifles and the reason behind it was that the ordinary people were not allowed to keep a rifle in Europe to hunt for their food; so the founders wanted to protect the right to hunt for deers or any other animals except men.

Today, the pro-guns people mean a semi-automatic or automatic weapons to kill their neighbours and pretend it is to defend themselves against and elusive burglar.

The 2nd amendment as passed by the constitutional convention

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.

As circulated to the states

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.

Where does it mention hunting?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But, isn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment *to* be a threat to national security? If the point of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the people with a means to defend themselves against and, if necessary, overthrow an oppressive government, are hand-guns and rifles going to do the trick?

Yes, because I think all this 'defeating the military' stuff is a moot point. All anyone would have to do is kick the asses of 200 senators, 400-some representatives, a couple heads of state, and a few thousand entrenched bureaucrats that wouldn't switch sides. The military would be cheering it on.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

They surely meant rifles and the reason behind it was that the ordinary people were not allowed to keep a rifle in Europe to hunt for their food

Not true.

Heck, to this day ordinary people in France can go hunting with their rifles.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If it ever came to it, I think the civilians would win. Sheer numbers. Even with "only" rifles and pistols.

I don't know about that. A few strategic nukes could shave down those numbers, and the will of those left, pretty quickly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes, because I think all this 'defeating the military' stuff is a moot point. All anyone would have to do is kick the asses of 200 senators, 400-some representatives, a couple heads of state, and a few thousand entrenched bureaucrats that wouldn't switch sides. The military would be cheering it on.

*Today's* military might cheer it on. The military of an oppressive government would be a different story.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If it ever came to it, I think the civilians would win. Sheer numbers.

I await the overthrow of the despotic Chinese government with baited breath. Sheer numbers and all that.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I await the overthrow of the despotic Chinese government with baited breath. Sheer numbers and all that.

You'd have to have a majority that wanted to overthrow the government. The Chinese government hasn't done anything horrible enough in the minds of the majority to justify a revolution.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't know.
My guess is that the Founding Fathers wanted to emphasize the aspect of a `people's army' -- which is `unnecessary' in good times. But in times of distress (say, an invasion by Mexico), people can quickly organize into a paramilitary force. That's just my guesstimate, though.

I also think that the intention was the defense against an outside force (read: the British) and not really the idea to defeat a dictatorship from the inside.

...

The reason why I think it is obsolete is the following: the intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect America from an invasion by an outside force or a hostile take-over of their own government.

No, all wrong. The founding fathers were essentially rebels of the British empire. They were rebelling against their own unjust government, and they were first and foremost worried about their new replacement government repeating the problems they saw in the British government (which was basically not serving the interests of its subjects, the colonists). They devised various checks against government power to ensure this didn't happen, such as branches of government opposing each other, and also the second amendment which ensures that the people can oppose the government as well, should the need arise, as it did during the American revolution. The American revolution was the impetus for the second amendment: the people rising up against the government, not people joining the government against an outside invader, as you guessed.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, all wrong. The founding fathers were essentially rebels of the British empire. They were rebelling against their own unjust government, and they were first and foremost worried about their new replacement government repeating the problems they saw in the British government (which was basically not serving the interests of its subjects, the colonists). They devised various checks against government power to ensure this didn't happen, such as branches of government opposing each other, and also the second amendment which ensures that the people can oppose the government as well, should the need arise, as it did during the American revolution. The American revolution was the impetus for the second amendment: the people rising up against the government, not people joining the government against an outside invader, as you guessed.

Pretty much sums it up.

[mduell]

Regarding the "weapons that weren't available at the time" argument: Neither was the internet nor high speed digital printing presses, yet the first still (very reasonably, IMO) applies to those.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You'd have to have a majority that wanted to overthrow the government. The Chinese government hasn't done anything horrible enough in the minds of the majority to justify a revolution.

How do you know this?

Isn't it plausible to imagine the lack of revolution might have something to do with the ruthless suppression of said?


Edit: luckily, Stalin didn't do anything too horrible, otherwise the majority would have justified a revolution against him in the former U.S.S.R.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know this?

Isn't it plausible to imagine the lack of revolution might have something to do with the ruthless suppression of said?

Excellent point. But, if sheer numbers is enough to make guns vs. nukes irrelevant, sheer numbers should be enough to make hands vs. tanks irrelevant as well.

The problem with the sheer numbers argument is that a massive number of civilians must be willing to sacrifice their lives.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Excellent point. But, if sheer numbers is enough to make guns vs. nukes irrelevant

I wouldn't argue sheer numbers is what makes nukes irrelevant, it's something more akin to diminishing returns.

Even with the sheer numbers argument, that still doesn't divorce things from practical matters. If it takes sheer number X with guns to stage a revolution, it's going to take sheer number 2X+ (I'd guess more like 6X to 10X) to stage the same revolution without guns.

The government that's being overthrown is equally evil in both cases, one situation just makes it take a whole lot longer, and lets a whole lot more evil happen before it's over.

Of course, what really happens is that the countries where the citizenry arm themselves never get to the point where they have a government that's truly oppressing them. They remain democracies... or else.

In the meantime, some people will be irresponsible with their guns, just like some people will drink and then drive, or some people will irresponsibly raise their children, or terrorists will use our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects as a means to murder us.

This is the price of freedom.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

In the meantime, some people will be irresponsible with their guns, just like some people will drink and then drive, or some people will irresponsibly raise their children, or terrorists will use our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects as a means to murder us.

This is the price of freedom.

Nicely put.

[smacintush]

Seconded.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by subego 

Of course, what really happens is that the countries where the citizenry arm themselves never get to the point where they have a government that's truly oppressing them. They remain democracies... or else.

There must be tyranny in the UK!

Everybody better start stocking up!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

There must be tyranny in the UK!

Yes, there is actually. An unelected Prime Minister who nobody wants coming out with laws which nobody wants. That's a tyranny, ain't it?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, there is actually. An unelected Prime Minister who nobody wants coming out with laws which nobody wants. That's a tyranny, ain't it?

So now the entire parliamentary system is tyrannical?

I was just referring to the handgun ban, but way to make a point even more loony.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

There must be tyranny in the UK!

Everybody better start stocking up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

So now the entire parliamentary system is tyrannical?

Ummm, yep. Pretty much.

I don't think I've met a single person who doesn't want to feed every last one of the fskers though a meat grinder.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Nicely put.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Seconded.

Thank you.