SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Given the vehemence of the arguments here on both sides, can I offer a hypothetical question...

There has been a lot of talk about the need for guns to defend oneself/family/freedom from a government gone wrong or bad, with the implication being that the U.S. may at some point in the future (if not already according to some people) be ruled by such a government.

In such a scenario those in favour of gun ownership see themselves as potential defenders of freedom.

Here's the hypothetical bit: supposing that after several more shooting incidents of the kind seen recently a big majority of the US population and both main parties switched to advocating stronger gun control. Supposing that a democratically elected government expressing the will of the majority of the people enacted to enforce these measures.

What do you do? Do you reluctantly admit to the democratic will of the people? In such circumstances you can hardly see yourselves as still upholding freedom and democracy?

(I suppose what I'm getting at is that in Europe there seems to be more of a distrust and fear of loose amalgams of people or organisations that may be armed to the teeth and possess certain political views than there is of democratically elected governments. The general mindset here is that we need good governments to protect the population from whatever rag-bag set of extremists with a grievance that may come along...and that consequently it is wise to limit the availability of guns so that such extremists can not challenge democratically controlled police and armed forces)

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tk471138

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

If the right to bear arms is God-given, or a basic human right, is there a limit in your opinion to what type of weaponry an individual citizen should be able to own?

(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread)
Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere).

If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom?

Because, after all, nukes dont kill people, people do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer my own question - I'd say the reasonable place to draw the line would be fully automatic military style rifles

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is?

I don't know about these other guys because I can't speak for them but I'll raise my hand. I want them. I want'em all available. I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it.

If I lived in a 3rd world country trust me...I'd have an S-300 and some Russian tanks. Why? Because they're willing to sell them and I want to buy them.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

I don't know about these other guys because I can't speak for them but I'll raise my hand. I want them. I want'em all available. I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it.

First question. Why would you want an anti-tank missile or a SAM in the USA?

"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it."
All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't.

Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't.

There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free.

Same with the guns (or heavier weaponry) issue. Just because someone WANTS it doesn't mean that it's sensible or desirable from a wider perspective for them to have it.

What about the nukes?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

First question. Why would you want an anti-tank missile or a SAM in the USA?

"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it."
All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't.

Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't.

There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free.

You can do all of the above - just make sure you don't get caught.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by kendo65

First question. Why would you want an anti-tank missile or a SAM in the USA?

"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it."
All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't.

Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't.

There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free.

Same with the guns (or heavier weaponry) issue. Just because someone WANTS it doesn't mean that it's sensible or desirable from a wider perspective for them to have it.

What about the nukes?

what you describe isnt freedom...just another misconception perpetuated by the media....


see in a free society unless you infringe or encroach on the rights of others you aught to be left alone....

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by tk471138

what you describe isnt freedom...just another misconception perpetuated by the media....


see in a free society unless you infringe or encroach on the rights of others you aught to be left alone....

Yes your right, that’s how society works, we are not 'free' in any way shape or form. We are granted freedoms as long as we toe the line and meet our obligations to our society. Even in your definition you are not 'free', you've put in clauses, who gives you the right to infringe on other peoples freedom?

A lot of the debate in this thread talks about the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. Good on them. With that right is a huge amount of responsibility to see that those guns are not used for purpose that is not intended by their constitution.

How much responsibility? Responsibility to their faimilies that the guns are stored in appropriate mannor. Their children’s lives are at stake if the guns are stored inappropriately and the kids get access to them (gun safety education is really important). Responsibility to their Neighbors. Their neighbor’s lives are at stake if they go arseing about and firing their guns in an inappropriate manner.

Responsibility to the Law. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys from the USA, but I’d assume if you go walking down the street waving your assault rifle around firing indiscriminately you could expect a bullet in the head from your friendly law enforcement officer?

The freedom your talking about belongs on hippy communes and if it was wide spread it would quickly degenerate into anarchy. Simple as that. (Note that the 'Freedom' in Hippy communities was actually invented by old male hippies to get into young female hippies pants, but that is a completely different issue!)

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Yes your right, that’s how society works, we are not 'free' in any way shape or form. We are granted freedoms as long as we toe the line and meet our obligations to our society. Even in your definition you are not 'free', you've put in clauses, who gives you the right to infringe on other peoples freedom?

A lot of the debate in this thread talks about the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. Good on them. With that right is a huge amount of responsibility to see that those guns are not used for purpose that is not intended by their constitution.

How much responsibility? Responsibility to their faimilies that the guns are stored in appropriate mannor. Their children’s lives are at stake if the guns are stored inappropriately and the kids get access to them (gun safety education is really important). Responsibility to their Neighbors. Their neighbor’s lives are at stake if they go arseing about and firing their guns in an inappropriate manner.

Responsibility to the Law. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys from the USA, but I’d assume if you go walking down the street waving your assault rifle around firing indiscriminately you could expect a bullet in the head from your friendly law enforcement officer?

The freedom your talking about belongs on hippy communes and if it was wide spread it would quickly degenerate into anarchy. Simple as that. (Note that the 'Freedom' in Hippy communities was actually invented by old male hippies to get into young female hippies pants, but that is a completely different issue!)

just cuz you cant infringe on the rights of others dosent mean you are not free...in fact you cant have it any other way....this should be self evident...apparently not for you


and honestly you talk about hippies like a moronic red neck, akin to some south park parody...no one cares about hippies this isnt what this conversation is about....and most hippies are socialists...but of course someone like you HAS to bring up hippies to POPO the idea of real freedom, even though it has nothing to do with it....

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tk471138

what you describe isnt freedom...just another misconception perpetuated by the media....

see in a free society unless you infringe or encroach on the rights of others you aught to be left alone....

I don't see how me not being allowed to drive when drunk or take whatever drugs I want doesn't count as infringements on my freedom? Even taking Swiss' point about just not getting caught...

The drunk driving example potentially impinges on other's well-being, but taking drugs in the privacy of my own home bought with my own money? What right does anyone have to say i can't?

(please note I'm not necessarily advocating doing either of these things - obviously just used as an example )

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I don't see how me not being allowed to drive when drunk or take whatever drugs I want doesn't count as infringements on my freedom? Even taking Swiss' point about just not getting caught...

The drunk driving example potentially impinges on other's well-being, but taking drugs in the privacy of my own home bought with my own money? What right does anyone have to say i can't?

(please note I'm not necessarily advocating doing either of these things - obviously just used as an example )

their are already laws against reckless driving....so why do we need laws for drunk driving too???

how about dont drive recklessly drunk or not....

see they use drunk driving laws to set up check points which are otherwise supposed to be illegal...but they keep making laws that they tell us is to keep us safe and is for our own good...but its just to grab more power and do what would be illegal things under color of law....

heck ive driven while i was extremely fatigued and it was ALOT more scary than drunk driving...at least drunk driving your eyes arent closing up on you....but i guess thats ok, even thought its just as dangerous...


also no one is supposed to have ANY say on what you consume or put in your your body....but in your system of govt (slavery) we cant...cuz they see us as animals....can animals choose what they consume and put into their body... no someone else does for them....and it seems the same is happening to us..
a guy name Alfred Adask actually fought the govt on the language used were it stated that man was in fact an animal (the text of the law read, "man or other animals" which essentially states that man is an animal) http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...her-animals-1/

" the power of our case is our recognition that the federal and Texas laws regarding food and drugs presume man to be an “animal”. This presumption is anathema to fundamental principles of the “Declaration of Independence” and of the Jewish, Christian and (probably) Muslim faiths. This “man or other animals” presumption is blasphemous, absolutely contrary to any concept of religious freedom and a violation of the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against the “establishment of religion”."

"The government deems the people to be animals. In doing so, government lays the foundation for treating us as slaves, “human resources” and even exposing the sovereign people of The United States of America to genocide.

Really.

The issue is of explosive power because when President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in A.D. 1971, he based that war on a definition of drugs that presumes man to be an animal. Nixon’s War on Drugs laid the foundation for the modern police state wherein the majority of police activity is based on pursuing people using or distributing drugs. That police state gave rise to the American “prison-industrial complex” that is the biggest prison complex in the world, and jails a higher percentage of Americans than any other legal system in the world. In our “Brave New” prison-industrial complex at least 70% of the prisoners are there for drug-related crimes."

also


lol saw your comment....the NDAA IS tyranny....no matter how you cut it....to say otherwise is denial...