The REAL reason we have the right to bear arms

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at <a href="http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/Literacytests.htm" target="_blank">this.</a>

Oh, Jabba.

You should know by now that there only *some* constitutionally protected rights that are acceptable.

We can't just let people have all that freedom that's guaranteed them in the Constitution, ya know?

<a href="http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t=000508" target="_blank">http://chud.com/board/ubbhtml/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t=000508</a>

Just because someone may not like the story doesn't make it any less valid.

I love it! Presented with a cold, hard reason why the 2nd amendment even exists, and the irrational fear-mongering and loaded rhetoric goes into overdrive.

Those pesky framers.

Wasn't that from a Halloween Simpsons episode?

Yeah, it was. It was their parody of "The Monkey's Paw"

All I know is, if I see an alien or a zombie in my backyard, I'm blowing his head off.

Let's ask a question pertaining to the issue:

- Since we now have Jihad Jonny A as our AG, doesn't the prospect of a "tyrannical government" seem more imminent than it may have under previous admins? (yes, I also am a detractor of this argument, in that the US gov't has tanks and nukes, but I think it's still a legit question)

And let's ask a question pertaining to the man:

Devin, I have always been under assumption that you are an "old-school" liberal (as I would term it), meaning that the Bill of Rights in particular, and the Constitution and other Amendments by association, are in a sense, sacrosanct - EXCEPT for the 2nd amendment. The question I then beg of you is: IF our founding fathers worded things so loosely as to address issues on speech, religion, etc so that their concepts in the Constitution and Amendments I and III-X still remain relevant, why doesn't this hold for the 2nd Amendment as well?

So basically, as long as you like an amendment, you think it should stay - but if you don't like it - it needs to go away.

That covers it, I guess.

1. Child porn and the like should not be covered by the first amendment. Political adversting should.

2. If the court is to properly interpert the constintution, they should not be appointed by presidents who want them on the court to further their agenda or the agenda of their party.

3. Pollock is right.

You didnt even bother reading his post. Devin makes a very valid, well thought out post that is lacking in antagnostic bullshit. I honestly dont know the truth. Im not sure what the Framers had in mind, and that is the reason we have a Supreme Court.

"2. If the court is to properly interpert the constintution, they should not be appointed by presidents who want them on the court to further their agenda or the agenda of their party."

What? They have to be appointed somehow, and this seems the most efficient way. What would you recommend?

"3. Pollock is right."

He's right that it is possible that the people who wrote the constitution 200 years ago might have been able to envision a world where Atomic Bombs, assualt rifles and even the revolver existed? Why didnt they specify which kinds of "arms" can be used by the populace? Its because they could not tell, and just because they may have believed that people should be able to arm themselves with the weapons of the time, does not mean they thought every schmuk should be able to carry an M-16.

Nice to see Devin thinking and not bashing refreshing.

Why is Devin making sense in this thread?

I must be high.

I wonder...is this in and of itself a bad thing?

I didn't say anyone did. I simply asked if this, taken alone, is a bad thing.

Because he's intelligent.

Actually, our society would be completely unbelievable to the Framers. Yet I'm not sure how many people marvel in awe at the simplicity and sophistication of The Constitution. To have a document so envelop our everyday lives, and one which is so clear yet still open to interpretation is a feat not again to be repeated in our lifetimes.

Not to mention how much that document shook the pillars of power around the world. Someone give Kronos a cookie!

Then why doesn't he make sense in the other threads...

Oh he makes a lot of sense...just completely opposite sense from ours.

Good point. Be honest, when there isnt all this petty crap being shitted out...a lot of interesting points are made on this board. Its the reason I've come back to it day after day for a long time now.

I like where Kronos is going with this.

The Constitution - for its time - was an amazing document giving AMerica the foundation it needed to grow. And with Amendments, we're THEORETICALLY able to allow the documents to grow with society and Human evolution.

The problem is that the elected officials who are supposed to serve the Constitution got smart and ambitious enough at one point to make the Constitution serve them.

Example? The Electoral College. In theory, it's another example of checks and balances that ensures democracy and fairness in Presidential elections no matter how the country changes.

But our politicians massed their forces and distilled everything into TWO parties. Supposedly opposing, but actually conveniently scratching each others' backs. The Democrats compromise just enough to get legislation they must have passed. Same for the Republicans. And the "must have" legislation conveniently is that which serves the "base" of each party, i.e. the lobbys that fund their campaigns.

With the two-party system, the electoral college doesn't work because no one outside of it will get electoral votes, and therefore will never become President. Therefore, a process (becoming President) supposedly open to all Americans is now only open to the ones that "join" the "clubs" that run America, and even then you have to serve your clubmates before they'll even offer you up for Americans to vote on you.

Ingenuity that allows people to circumvent - legally - the intent of the Framers. Humans are something else.

Getting back to the gun thing...I'm not suggesting that the Framers would ONLY want people to own guns to fight in armies. Hunting was a notable sport at the time, and it's feasible that other recreational uses would arise for firearms that don't involve shooting people.

BUT what happened again was human ingenuity. We saw that there was a sort of weaponry that could never be banned according to the constitution, would only get deadlier as time progressed, and to make it even sweeter - would allow crime to become easier than ever.

Law enforcement co-opted the gun right along with criminals, and a new industry was born to serve both of them. Business was boosted, and before you knew it, guns had woven themselves into the fabric of everday life. Now the chicken-or-the-egg argument about what came first - assault from criminals with guns or defense against criminals with guns - doesn't matter. What we have is an arms race that never resolves itself. Unlike the Soviet Union, neither criminals, nor law, nor civilians will go bankrupt so that they cannot buy guns, so it never ends.

And thus...we have a neverending stalemate...each convinced that using more and more advanced weaponry is the only they can keep the other factions from wiping them out altogether.

People keep guns in their home because they think they won't survive without them against armed criminals.

Criminals arm themselves because they won't survive as criminals without at least equivalent firepower to match armed citizens.

Law enforcement just tries to keep up with both sides.

Mutually assured destruction. Certainly not what the framers intended, but it's too late now. We've warped the Constitution's power to serve immediate, temporary needs, and our greed has let it go on for far too long.

In those days, mind you, The People of England were not allowed to keep arms for two reasons:
A) Threatened the Monarchy
B) Hunting the King's Game was punishable by death.

Both legitimate reasons -in my opinion- to own arms on an individual basis...taken at face value.

IF the US had been set up without the Second Amendment, and we were now debating whether or not this should be the case, I wouldn't be so pro-gun. However, there are more guns than people in the US right now, and if the government were to outlaw them (i.e. repeal the Second Amendment), the only people it would hurt is those who obey the law. There's too many other guns out there for them to be taken from the hands of criminals.

Regardless of why the framers did want guns, things have changed to where we need guns (within reason) for protection from the unsavory elements of society. Too often I hear about how the Japanese have no guns, and they have no crime. That may be the case, but their situation is far different than ours.

This country wouldn't have come about without the Second Amendment. The People asserted what they knew unmistakably were their God-given Rights. They had lived long enough away from The King's direct rule and discovered their liberties. It was when The King reasserted his distant authority that The People said "no".

Saying NO was the First Amendment.
Enforcing NO was the Second Amendment.

I think you are right, the Second Amendment was necessary to keep the nation free, all the way up to our ascendence as a world superpower. However, my point was more that we can't go back now, it wouldn't be practical.

For better or worse, the US is and will be tied to the Second Amendment for the rest of its history.

Again, no. This country's history ends with the abolition of the Second Amendment.

As it would with the abolition of the First Amendment.

And the former is more likely.

Nice one. Think we'd all have to agree that this is accurate.

It's nuts because owning a gun and being black are two utterly different situations. Owning a gun is a choice, being black isn't. Nobody has ever been refused the right to vote, to ride on a bus or been lynched from a tree for wanting to own a gun.

Asking potential gun owners to take a written test is hardly infringing their liberties. Asking black people to take a written test in order to prove they're eligible to vote is downright insulting.

The quote illustrates how some extremists (and the same goes for many other debates and political stances) will seize on any ammunition they can in order to drum up support.

But comparing the "plight" of gun owners to the way african-americans were treated is, as Devin says, nuts.

You honestly think that gun owners in America face the same persecution and hatred that black people did (and often still do)?

Who has said they hate gun owners? Nobody.

If people argue against gun ownership or, more likely, for gun registration - that doesn't mean they don't like people who own guns. Scott Roche owns guns, and has argued for the Second Amendment many times. I don't agree with him on that topic, but I still like him.

Tell you what, you show me, ooh, five documented examples of people who favour gun ownership being treated with the same disrespect as black people under segregation.

Digression: I have no idea why you keep bringing this up re: the electoral college. How is it a disservice that a member of a third party will have a hard time getting elected when that third party can't get even two governors or two senators elected? Why does every third party feel that to be successful they need to have a memeber of said party elected to the position of "leader of the free world?" Why don't these people build a party with smaller elected posts? Because people are not in tune with them. Despite the inherent corruption of both major parties, their idealogies do fit, for the most part, the bulk of Americans.

Here in San Francisco we have a "Green" as the head of our Board of Supervisors (don't ask). This gives the Greens more political clout here. Maybe they can use that clout to get more people elected, into smaller offices, building momentum until they get a governor or a senator elected. Then build that into two senators, four governors etc. That's how you win a presidency as a third party. Ross Perot didn't build the reform party after his intitial splash; he let it become marginalized (save for the Ventura surprise). If Perot had kept working, maybe he wouldn't have lost so many votes in '96 and we would have a true third party. But that would mean actual work... convincing people to vote differently.

</strong>

That's 100 percent wrong, and I can prove it right now. How?

The bulk of Americans do not VOTE.

The point is that parties shouldn't dictate anything. You vote for people, not the clubs they belong to.

Why must you belong to or work for a party before you can work for the American people? That's just wrong.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how an anti-gun person does many of the things that racists are notorious for, such as murder, beatings, and dehumanization of their enemies.

Not voting is a vote for the status quo. If non-voters felt like things had to change, they would work to make that change. Disgust and apathy are irrelevant if the voter refuses to cast any vote. The bulk of Americans who do vote cast their ballots for one of the two parties that they feel idealogically comfortable with.

IMHO people vote in this pecking order...

1) Person is not a wretch
2) Person believes in my ideals
3) Person belongs to my party of choice

No, it's not. No person is an island. We all need other people to help us achieve large goals such as election to public office. No one is forced to join either party, just as no one is forced to vote for either party. If someone wants to become a politician, but doesn't want any staff or support from other groups, what are the likely chances that they will get elected. Maybe 4th Grade president is in their reach but that's about it.

My point: No one is stopping any third party from becoming a force in American politics except the voting public who refuses to elect them.

Can we buy Rampager a thesaurus?

Where have you done this? Seriously, explain it to me as if I were a child. Show me the special bathrooms for gun owners, the seats on the bus that they have to use, the legislation that prevents them from voting.

But you've already "proven" that gun owners are "hated" because of Rosie O'Donnell, right?

Arguing with you is like trying to nail vomit to the wall.

Please cite those examples here and then liken them to not sharing the same restaurants, drinking fountains, or facilities as a person of a different race.

Has an anti-gun person ask that a pool be drained because a gun owner dipped their toe in it?

Since the authorities are the adversaries in your fantasy scenario, show me some stats of the number of gun owners they harass versus the number of minorities they beat and kill.

How many gun owners have had plungers shoved up their rectum? How many have been dragged to death? How many have been shot 41 times for owning a gun?

Last but not least, you can CHOOSE not to buy a gun. I have no say in my racial makeup.

For you to equate anti-gun sentiment and racism is utter folly. And it's insulting to people like myself who have been on the butt end of racism.

Entry: despise
Function: verb
Definition: look down on
Synonyms: abhor, abominate, allergic to, chill, contemn, deride, detest, disdain, disregard, eschew, execrate, flout, hate, loathe, misprize, neglect, put down, reject, renounce, repudiate, revile, run down, scorn, shun, slight, slight, snub, spurn, trash, undervalue, wipe out
Antonyms: admire, respect, like, appreciate, cherish, love
Concept: hate

So much for your logic.

Just did that, several posts above. How about you explain the radical difference between hating something and despising it.

And then come up with some concrete examples of how any of this relates to gun ownership.

Or just argue in circles.

</strong>

If a non-vote is a vote for the status quo, than why did Clinton leave office? Apparently, he - as a non-vote - was far more popular in every US state than either candidate running in the last presidential election.

As for your 3 items up there, #1 is a no-brainer. #2 is not as oft-cited a reason to vote as "lesser of two evils." #3 is true for members of a given party, but the ratio of people who are registered Republicans VERSUS the number of people who voted Republican in the last election shows these people are in the extreme minority.

I absolutely disagree.

For one, you need political alliances and endorsements to win campaigns. As an independent, they're hard to come by since other politicans who can sway favor your way belong to the Big Two.

Second, you need money to run campaigns. Unless you're already independently wealthy, as a lot of 3rd party guys on the national scene are, raising that money is a problem because the biggest campaign contributors are already locked up by which party in the Big 2 serves their interests.

Third, you have the added disadvantage of not being incumbent on the presidential or congressional level.

Then, you can't get equal time at the most prominent debates.

Also, you can't win the Presidency because only so many states are "swing states," meaning the vast majority of states are predisposed to vote for one party as opposed to an individual already. Even if you locked up the swing states, you wouldn't have enough electoral votes to be President.

Two fraternities run the country, and they hold almost all of the keys (offices) to the gates between them. They serve their respective interests (the teachers' lobby, The NRA, Big Oil, Unions, the religious conservatives) before they serve America. It's apparent in their legislation anytime they get position and power in office. The lackluster and uninspired results of our last election showed that people were voting against candidates far more than they were voting for them.

It is wrong. A betrayal to the ideals of America.

How is anti-gun sentiment an example of hate? You take two extremist examples like Rosie O'Donnel and use that as a basis for hate for an entire national movement?

You have to provide sweeping evidence, not a couple of anecdotes. We're not talking about a person. You're condemning an entire movement and ideology.

Micah, you're obviously lacking. Join us on Bizarro World, where all this makes perfect sense...