Its go time. SCOTUS to hear Heller gun ban case

[3chordcharlie]

If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be. I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

You act like that applies to only people who support the second amendment. So then I assume your statement does not apply to you? You think you are doing anything more than we are to secure ourselves from government?

What would you have us do, shoot people?

Stop acting like we (here at P&N) don?t oppose the Patriot Act. We do. Or at the very least I do. Doesn't change anything.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

You act like that applies to only people who support the second amendment. So then I assume your statement does not apply to you? You think you are doing anything more than we are to secure ourselves from government?

What would you have us do, shoot people?

Stop acting like we (here at P&N) don?t oppose the Patriot Act. We do. Or at the very least I do. Doesn't change anything.

Then you voted against the president who pushed through the Patriot Act both times, right?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When you argue logically, SpecOp, you present a great case. You've helped inform me a bit and perhaps swayed me a bit.

It's very simple, blame the finger not the trigger.

You can throw a rock and kill someone, hell you can throw the gun and kill someone.

Did the rock or the gun do the killing?

This might be the most intelligent thing you have ever posted here; and I agree 100%.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be. I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

Violent revolution is the last resort, fool. We're not at the point of needing to use it yet. But should the need arise, would you rather the revolution have guns or not?

If anything, the current administration should have taught gun grabbers the errors of their ways. Obviously congress is unable to remove a corrupt president, if he suddenly decides he wants to remain president who's going to stop him? A bunch of hippies with angry words? Let's say another "terrorist attack" happened just before election time and Bush canceled the whole thing and declared martial law. What exactly is your free speech worth then? Are you going to talk him to death?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then you voted against the president who pushed through the Patriot Act both times, right?

I was not opposed to it in 2004.

I would vote against him a third time, and I refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-government. Which pretty much rules out all socialist candidates. You however, love them hook line and sinker.

So then we come to the obvious fact that 1 issue is not everything. It does not define who to vote for, especially when both candidates are pro-government and the choice becomes who is LEAST likely to expand it.

Since when have you EVER voted for someone who will reduce government? Ideologically, you are opposed to that very idea are you not? You might give me crap about Bush, but his treason is by siding with you and other pro-government supporters.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then you voted against the president who pushed through the Patriot Act both times, right?

I was not opposed to it in 2004.

I would vote against him a third time, and I refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-government. Which pretty much rules out all socialist candidates. You however, love them hook line and sinker.

So then we come to the obvious fact that 1 issue is not everything. It does not define who to vote for, especially when both candidates are pro-government and the choice becomes who is LEAST likely to expand it.

Since when have you EVER voted for someone who will reduce government? Ideologically, you are opposed to that very idea are you not? You might give me crap about Bush, but his treason is by siding with you and other pro-government supporters.

Your approach requires the viewpoint that ALL government is equally bad, and that the best candidate is the one who supports the fewest instances of government intervention, regardless of the impact of the interference they DO support. That seems remarkably naive to me, and requires a black and white worldview that I don't think works very well in real life. For my part, I don't consider "socialism" on par with removing roadblocks to abuse of police power.

"Pro-government" vs "anti-government" is a silly stance, it oversimplifies what is actually a pretty complicated issue. "Good government" vs "bad government" seems like a much better debate topic to me.

 

[BoberFett]

Government is violence. That's a fact. If you don't do as government says, violence will be visited upon you by said government. It's a necessary evil, but make no mistake it is evil because it's made up of people and quite often people who have a great propensity for evil.

So yes, all government is bad but in some instances we live with it because it's better than no government. That's why I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Despite what fools like Craig believe, libertarians are not anarchists who want everything done privately. Those are anarchists. Libertarians are minarchists: people that want only as much government as is required to prevent evil greater than said government can create. Unfortunately in the US we're now to the point where the government is the biggest evil in this country and the answer is obviously less government, not more.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be. I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

Violent revolution is the last resort, fool. We're not at the point of needing to use it yet. But should the need arise, would you rather the revolution have guns or not?

If anything, the current administration should have taught gun grabbers the errors of their ways. Obviously congress is unable to remove a corrupt president, if he suddenly decides he wants to remain president who's going to stop him? A bunch of hippies with angry words? Let's say another "terrorist attack" happened just before election time and Bush canceled the whole thing and declared martial law. What exactly is your free speech worth then? Are you going to talk him to death?

Well then, continue to sit on your hands.

A good number of the gun nuts can be seen in other threads supporting the status quo on the basis of tax cuts, or terrorist bogeymen.

I didn't say you should go shoot your congressman, but all I hear is 'lemme keep my gun, you better lemme keep my gun, if you try to take my gun I'll shoot you with my gun!'.

If you have a protected right to firearms, it certainly isn't because they're beautiful, or historical, or because they are an end unto themselves. It's pretty unimpressive to hear all this whining and grandstanding, and know that no one in the gun crowd is actually standing up for the power their gun rights are supposed to represent.

If the government declared martial law, I swear half the gun crowd would get all excited, demand to keep their guns, and upon being told 'yes', say 'all right' and go peacefully home before curfew.

 

[BoberFett]

There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Government is violence. That's a fact. If you don't do as government says, violence will be visited upon you by said government. It's a necessary evil, but make no mistake it is evil because it's made up of people and quite often people who have a great propensity for evil.

So yes, all government is bad but in some instances we live with it because it's better than no government. That's why I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Despite what fools like Craig believe, libertarians are not anarchists who want everything done privately. Those are anarchists. Libertarians are minarchists: people that want only as much government as is required to prevent evil greater than said government can create. Unfortunately in the US we're now to the point where the government is the biggest evil in this country and the answer is obviously less government, not more.

My problem with libertarian ideas is that you, without exception, seem to believe that "government" is some big, bad third party stomping all over your God given right to do whatever the hell you want. But government is just people. Government isn't violence any more than individuals are. After all, if you try and break into my house, chance are pretty good I'm going to visit some violence on you. Does that make me evil? No, it means that there are certain things I would prefer you not do, and if you do those things, it will go badly for you. That's what ALL rules are, your "government is violence" rant IS an anarchist line, because ALL rules are "violence" by your logic...otherwise what would be the point?

But the really funny part is that "libertarianism" isn't some new idea, it's just one more bullshit political philosophy, just like the rest of us have. You are essentially saying "I support some government authority, but not TOO much". Well no shit, what do you think the rest of us are thinking? "Well I think the government only needs to do this much, but I really like the idea of them going way overboard and taking away all my rights?" Don't be silly, you're thinking the exact same thing most people are thinking, only you and the rest of the "libertarian" folks are the only ones egotistical enough to think it's some sort of wonderful new philosophy.

Everyone is a "minarchist", the only difference is that we disagree on the "best" amount of government. Don't get such a big head about your new-age, coffee house version of it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Look who's talking, your only argument is being a jackass...

And smartass all you want, he's right. Guns alone don't protect civil liberties, a gun is just a tool. The problem is that, in many cases, the person HOLDING the gun is also a pretty big tool. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the revolution has guns or not if there IS no revolution. A revolution without guns can succeed, in fact history records a lot of instances of that happening. But a well armed population isn't real helpful if they're all at the shooting range.

And unfortunately, 3chordcharlie has some pretty accurate observations...gun rights and civil liberties in general don't go together as often as they probably should. This isn't to say that there aren't gun folks who like the rest of the bill of rights, or that there aren't folks for whom the hypocrisy goes the other way. But the oft-repeated noise about how guns equal freedom is bullshit, and you know it.

 

[nageov3t]

look at the make-up of the supreme court.

how can anyone wonder how this is going to turn out?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then you voted against the president who pushed through the Patriot Act both times, right?

I was not opposed to it in 2004.

I would vote against him a third time, and I refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-government. Which pretty much rules out all socialist candidates. You however, love them hook line and sinker.

So then we come to the obvious fact that 1 issue is not everything. It does not define who to vote for, especially when both candidates are pro-government and the choice becomes who is LEAST likely to expand it.

Since when have you EVER voted for someone who will reduce government? Ideologically, you are opposed to that very idea are you not? You might give me crap about Bush, but his treason is by siding with you and other pro-government supporters.

Your approach requires the viewpoint that ALL government is equally bad, and that the best candidate is the one who supports the fewest instances of government intervention, regardless of the impact of the interference they DO support. That seems remarkably naive to me, and requires a black and white worldview that I don't think works very well in real life. For my part, I don't consider "socialism" on par with removing roadblocks to abuse of police power.

"Pro-government" vs "anti-government" is a silly stance, it oversimplifies what is actually a pretty complicated issue. "Good government" vs "bad government" seems like a much better debate topic to me.

I would take it a step less than a typical libertarian view. I merely want the federal powers decentralized above all else. If we have 50 free states to rule their people as they please, we will encourage innovation and competition. It would be like capitalism, the best model of government would achieve success that the others can then freely decide to copy or not.

You speak of good government and bad government. That merely depends on who is leading it ? and so long as you build a powerful seat for a future dictator ? one will come to power. So the first protection you must have is to never build that seat of power in the first place.

We see plenty of examples among Republicans and Democrats where it is shown that the people are to be property of the state. Both sides want to FORCE and IMPOSE their will on the entire nation ? against the will of the nation. You have gun control and socialism, Republicans have religious values. Both sides use the authority of the federal government to dictate. Both are wrong in doing this ? for every step you make empowers the government and weakens the people. We?re quickly becoming a people for the government instead of a government for the people.

You use terms to paint a pretty picture of taking from the rich to give to the poor, yet it was never your authority to do that in the first place. If you want to look where Karl Marx?s idealism leads you should look no further than communist Russia, China, and Cuba. If you want to watch your ideals as they transform from socialism into communism, watch Hugo Chavez live as he does it in our lifetimes. That is the road you seek to lead us down, whether you admit it or not.

None of them ever admitted it either, but there is only one natural course of action after you build a dictator a seat of power. To deny the outcome is to deny history, and to be yet another cog in a machine that is the problem you bemoan when you mention Patriot Acts. When I mention gun control.

The different is that only one of us is ideologically opposed to it. You are instead in favor of it, under the delusion that this time will be any different from all the others.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: smack Down
The problem is we need some limits on guns. Do you really want the second to apply as written? Giving criminals, insane, and kids the right to keep and bar arms?

Criminals will have the guns anyways. Obviously you'ved missed the point.

I feel the same way about anything being outlawed. When you outlaw murder, only criminals will get to murder, for example.

Because obviously, it's *impossible* for gun laws to have *any* beneficial effect by reducing the supply of guns available easily and cheaply for criminals.

Heck, look at how ineffective the ban on leaded gasoline is - now only criminals can buy leaded gas. Or cars without seat belts, now only criminals can drive them.

It's time for the gun nuts to put the kool aid down and take a look at the facts on how *handguns* are abused and used in the nation and ask rational questions.

I'm not going to insist on the conclusion they should reach, but simply that they stop refusing to look at the facts to blindly scream the sky is falling if any gun is limited.

You're right, Craig... only the elite should be allowed to legally murder... just like gun control makes it so only the elite are allowed to legally own guns.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
...
I would take it a step less than a typical libertarian view. I merely want the federal powers decentralized above all else. If we have 50 free states to rule their people as they please, we will encourage innovation and competition. It would be like capitalism, the best model of government would achieve success that the others can then freely decide to copy or not.

You speak of good government and bad government. That merely depends on who is leading it ? and so long as you build a powerful seat for a future dictator ? one will come to power. So the first protection you must have is to never build that seat of power in the first place.

We see plenty of examples among Republicans and Democrats where it is shown that the people are to be property of the state. Both sides want to FORCE and IMPOSE their will on the entire nation ? against the will of the nation. You have gun control and socialism, Republicans have religious values. Both sides use the authority of the federal government to dictate. Both are wrong in doing this ? for every step you make empowers the government and weakens the people. We?re quickly becoming a people for the government instead of a government for the people.

You use terms to paint a pretty picture of taking from the rich to give to the poor, yet it was never your authority to do that in the first place. If you want to look where Karl Marx?s idealism leads you should look no further than communist Russia, China, and Cuba. If you want to watch your ideals as they transform from socialism into communism, watch Hugo Chavez live as he does it in our lifetimes. That is the road you seek to lead us down, whether you admit it or not.

None of them ever admitted it either, but there is only one natural course of action after you build a dictator a seat of power. To deny the outcome is to deny history, and to be yet another cog in a machine that is the problem you bemoan when you mention Patriot Acts. When I mention gun control.

The different is that only one of us is ideologically opposed to it. You are instead in favor of it, under the delusion that this time will be any different from all the others.

The slippery slope argument assumes either that we are incapable of drawing a line between "OK" and "not-OK" or that we are incapable of enforcing that line on the government. The problem with the Soviet Union, China and Cuba wasn't that they had some "socialist" ideas and then slid down the slippery slope into communism, their problem is that they started out as dictatorships and simply adopted the mantle of "communism" to confuse the peasants. Russia, China and Cuba were never democratic, and even now that China is moving towards capitalism, they are just as authoritarian as ever.

As long as we maintain control over the government, I don't consider it a problem to draw lines that say Social Security is OK but the PATRIOT ACT and overly restrictive gun control are not. There is no "natural course" where every issue is intertwined, it's just a bunch of issues that we can decide as we go. The only ones to watch out for are the ones that DIRECTLY take away our ability to influence future issues.

Again, the problem is that you're looking for a bumper sticker philosophy to describe a complicated issue. I'm not a "socialist" any more than you're an "anarchist", and my views aren't going to inevitably lead to a new Soviet Union any more than your views are going to turn us into some lawless African country. Mostly because we might disagree about the appropriate amount of government intervention, but we can work together and find a compromise and then make sure the government doesn't go too far. That's the very definition of democracy, and I'd say that overall it works pretty good. And quite honestly, I think your overly broad statements about black and white ideology are just a lazy-ass way to debate without having to come up with a real argument. You don't like social security? Fine, but come up with a better argument than "OMG, it's going to turn us into the PRC!".

 

[BoberFett]

incapable of enforcing that line on the government.

I'd say that's been pretty well proven over the last 7 years. Glad to see you're finally willing to acknowledge the slippery slope as fact.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

incapable of enforcing that line on the government.

I'd say that's been pretty well proven over the last 7 years. Glad to see you're finally willing to acknowledge the slippery slope as fact.

Give me a break. I don't like many of the things the government has done over the past 7 years, but those things have been done at the express request of the voters who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map. It would be a lot easier, wouldn't it, if The Government was just doing things all by itself. But it's not, from the war in Iraq to the PATRIOT ACT to deficit spending, if the voters got their shit together and decided they didn't like it any more, it would be over like *that*. The problem is that people AREN'T really against those things, so we don't see any change.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

More angry words. Yet they still haven't taken the guns out of my hands, just like they wouldn't take the guns out of the hands of an oppressive government.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett

incapable of enforcing that line on the government.

I'd say that's been pretty well proven over the last 7 years. Glad to see you're finally willing to acknowledge the slippery slope as fact.

Give me a break. I don't like many of the things the government has done over the past 7 years, but those things have been done at the express request of the voters who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map. It would be a lot easier, wouldn't it, if The Government was just doing things all by itself. But it's not, from the war in Iraq to the PATRIOT ACT to deficit spending, if the voters got their shit together and decided they didn't like it any more, it would be over like *that*. The problem is that people AREN'T really against those things, so we don't see any change.

Really? I thought the Democrats were put into power to undo the wrongs of the Bush administration yet they've done nothing of value. So much for doing what the voters want. Don't worry, you'll have a chance to vote for another crop of useless and/or corrupt Democrats next fall Rainsford. Then when nothing changes and we end up with Hillary bombing Iran you can continue to bleat your silly line about how guns will never be needed, it's all about the vote.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoberFett

incapable of enforcing that line on the government.

I'd say that's been pretty well proven over the last 7 years. Glad to see you're finally willing to acknowledge the slippery slope as fact.

Give me a break. I don't like many of the things the government has done over the past 7 years, but those things have been done at the express request of the voters who couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map. It would be a lot easier, wouldn't it, if The Government was just doing things all by itself. But it's not, from the war in Iraq to the PATRIOT ACT to deficit spending, if the voters got their shit together and decided they didn't like it any more, it would be over like *that*. The problem is that people AREN'T really against those things, so we don't see any change.

Really? I thought the Democrats were put into power to undo the wrongs of the Bush administration yet they've done nothing of value. So much for doing what the voters want. Don't worry, you'll have a chance to vote for another crop of useless and/or corrupt Democrats next fall Rainsford. Then when nothing changes and we end up with Hillary bombing Iran you can continue to bleat your silly line about how guns will never be needed, it's all about the vote.

You are so worried about getting your clever little lines out there that you aren't listening to a damn thing anyone is saying.

Of course you thought that's what the Democrats were put in power to do, because it would be easier if they promised to do something and then failed, wouldn't it? But while SOME Democratic supporters wanted those things, the problem is that "they don't support the troops" and "they are coddling the terrorists" are still great campaign lines, because a lot of Democratic supporters are just stupid enough for that bullshit to work. When the people get it in their mind that they want something, a democratic system of government is going to give it to them. But while you have a hard on for bashing the Democrats, what you're missing is that the REASON they can't "undo the wrongs of the Bush administration" is that it would open them up to losing in 2008, and they know it. And the problem isn't the Democrats, or even the Republicans, the problem is that the voters are too fucking stupid to see past the campaign bullshit and figure things out for themselves. Because at the end of the day, the Democrats WEREN'T elected to undo the last 6 years.

And what's that "guns will never be needed" bullshit? Haven't you been paying attention? My problem isn't with guns, my problem is with a lot of gun people. Many of them have this attitude that as long as we have guns, we don't need to worry about what else the government is doing. And I'm saying that guns might be helpful, but not if the people WITH the guns are a bunch of tools.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

You're confused. Gun rights should be maintained because they are integral to democracy and self-rule of the people. Such things do not exist in a vacuum, but SOLELY due to an inability of any single group to consolidate absolute power to itself, thereby requiring compromise among diverse groups in order for efficient governance of society to occur.
As the gun control position is not that they want to completely outlaw guns, nor to magically cause guns to cease to exist, but merely to remove them from the common masses while still allowing certain elite groups to maintain lawful use and possession, which would tip the balance of power beyond the necessity for democratic compromise, it is thereby clear that the gun control position is inherently anti-democratic.

BTW, your constant repetition of this phrase "gun nuts" illustrates your confusion in this regard. The gun control position is active, not passive. You are actively trying to take a right away from the people, as surely as GW Bush and his gang are trying to take certain rights away from the people.
Which only illustrates another confusion of yours. So long as the people retain their basic rights, they have no need to take their country back, as they've never lost it. Granted, things don't always go as desired, but that is simply the nature of democracy. The people as a whole don't always agree. That one might find oneself in the minority does not mean that the people as a whole have lost their country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
The problem is we need some limits on guns. Do you really want the second to apply as written? Giving criminals, insane, and kids the right to keep and bar arms?

Holy straw man, Batman!

In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The question is not if some limits need to placed on guns. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with reasonable control of gun possession by criminals, legally insane, kids, etc. Just like I don't know of anyone in favor of drug legalization who thinks that people should be allowed to do drugs and drive or that drugs should be made legally available to children.
It's the same straw man. As you are unable (or unwilling) to address the actual issue, you retort with some emotional nonsense that's not even relevant to the discussion, in order to pretend (probably even to yourself) that you represent some kind of benign and democratic position.
When you don't. The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?
And bad news, pal, you're arguing in favor of the latter.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

More angry words. Yet they still haven't taken the guns out of my hands, just like they wouldn't take the guns out of the hands of an oppressive government.

You, and Vic have completely mised the point. I'm surprised by Vic at least.

If you can call your words an 'argument', it seems to have something to do with taking your gun away. In fact, this has little to do with what I'm talking about.

When you get the slightest clue that there might be something more to guns than the right to hole yourself up with a mountain of ammo, waiting for the day that lawlessness prevails and you need to kill everything, maybe you'll have something worth saying.

You already have an oppressive government, and you aren't doing anything about it.