The REAL reason we have the right to bear arms - Page 2

Actually that's the reason why the Government can't infringe on that right. The right was not given us in the Second Amendment. Thats what Mikah taught me.

And yes there have been some mighty stupid posts here and none of them by the "anti-gun" folks.

Oh, I get it now...there's no reason to "hate" guns and the gun culture, so you can only have an irrational disdain for it, therefore making anti-gun people embracers of "hate."

Yeaaah. Okay. Gooootcha.

I am truly, truly sorry I even opened the door to this retarded "debate".

</strong>

Yes. That it's not worth their time, just as they don't spend their time publically talking about Charlton Heston doing gun rallies at Columbine. Equal indifference to buffoons, whether they be named Heston or O'Donnell.

How is the pro-gun movement any less self-important than the anti-gun movement?

More importnatly, how can use a thimble of vocal extremists to condemn a movement?

Using your line of thinking, all white people are diehard racists because I know of a couple that can name who are unabashedly so, but get almost no condemnation from supposedly "moderate/non-racist" whites.

Hey, leave me outta this.

For those of you playing the home game, this is what the debate is about:

Topic: The REAL reason we have the right to bear arms
So that people could get together in militias and protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

That's it.

That'll be why, out of 30 posts to date, 28 of them have been bizarre rants on that very subject?

</strong>

Perhaps it's because she speaks for Rosie O'Donnell not an entire movement.

</strong>

Most powerful lobby in America? NRA. I believe the words you're looking for are "I'm wrong."

Well, the extremists of pro-gunners tend to shoot a lot of people and animals, so I think they win the brass ring.

Besides, your logic is still creaky. There are anti-gun people that are simply against guns in their household, have no problem with the NRA, and have no problem with other people owning all they like. These people would be the equivalent of the "whites who run anti-racist organizations."

Your limited blanket generalizing doesn't allow for this, tho, which just shows how off-base and utterly ridiculous it is. Anyway...you've already shown your blatant bias and lack of entertaining ideas contrary to your own. No purpose in debating you further.

Anti-gun 'extremists' don't kill gun owners. Racial 'extremists' kill, torture, etc. people they hate. See the difference.

There also wasn't a 'Gun-rights' movement in which people risked (and often gave) their lives in the name of what they believe in. There was such a thing for race here in America.

Someone who owns a gun is not going to be descriminated against when applying for a job.

People like myself, who push for tighter gun-control law, often have friends and family who disagree. We don't want them all to go to jail. A klan member does not have black, jewish, catholic, etc. friends. They do want them all to go to the grave.

Noone bothers to rein in Rosie O'Donnell because nobody cares what Rosie O'Donnell has to say. She can rant all she wants, but she is not the head of any orginization that I know of. Therefore, every time she speaks, she is speaking for herself. Chuck Heston promoting automatic weapons at the sight of a recent mass-murder is doing so in the name of a national orginization that is the main force behind fighting against gun control.

Though this may also draw controversy, a better comparison would be to abortion rights, as in both you can't invalidate the beliefs of both sides solely because of the extremists.

Semantic games are pointless. It's extremely easy to get on the ballot, extremely hard to get people to vote for you.

We're talking about two things, and you're mixing them up to serve your argument. One is getting elected as a memeber of a third party, and one is getting elected POTUS as a member of a third party.

How does a party get political power? They take positions that people embrace because they are their own!!! If people vote for a candidate, then they have support. I'm still confused as to why "you" think that the presidential election should be a starting point, when it really should be an ending point in the growth of a new political party. Hard as this is to believe, the two-party system is not ingrained in our country. You build a party through small, baby steps... not the huge giant leaps you seem to think this country owes a third party i.e your comments on debates or money.

I also note that you think parties should not serve the interests that voted and supported them. Intriguing.

If a third party wants to elect a President, they need to start at the grass-roots level and build. In other words, they need to work for it. Is that anaethema to your philosophy?

[quote]Burke:
This would be the idea that one hopes the president is brighter than most of his constituants. Sometimes one has to do the 'right' thing as opposed to the 'popular' thing. We vote a president on what his ideas are & hope he makes the right decisions.

Yes I realize clinton did make the popular decision all the time. All presidents have done so.

</strong>

Semantics games? I'm just using your logic and your words. Apparently, you didn't really mean them. The "extremely hard to get people to vote for you" is the whole problem.

</strong>

I'm talking about getting elected in a capacity wherein you write legislation on anational scale - the most important elected offices there are: Congress and POTUS. Either way, non-party candidates are almost always screwed on these fronts.

</strong>

Now you're becoming circular. The two-party system is ingrained simply because they monopolize the political spectrum. They get the media coverage. They get the contributions. They get the debate coverage. And they hold almost every major national elected office. If that's not ingrained, what is?!?!

The Presidential election doesn't need to be a starting point. A party can build from the ground up, but everything I said still applies to smaller elections as well. There is only so much fundraising money to be had and Democrats and Republicans have a good many of these donors locked up already from previous elections. It's hard to get the fundraising money away from these donors when they know there money will go to an official who has the backing of a party and stands a better chance of getting elected than a 3rd party person. That's just realism. So it sustains itself, and keeps independents locked out.

</strong>

Incorrect. They should not serve the lobbies that support them. They should support ALL of their constituents INCLUDING those in the lobby groups that got them elected. That is what I am asserting.

It's not a philosophy. It's reality. You act as if no other parties have taken hold in the national or regional scene in a significant way because only Republicans and Democrats "work hard."

Sure. They work hard, all right, to consolidate their power and stay ingrained as the only two parties. Even when significant 3rd party candidates arise, they try and sabotage those votes by saying that 3rd party votes are a wasted vote and you should instead "vote for me, because I hate the guy that your guy hates, too. Don't spoil my vote."

There are plenty of politicans outside of the 2-party system working their ass off, but they'll forever remain microbes, comparatively speaking, because the Republicans and Democrats keep a lock on the finite supply of offices, campaign contributions, and media coverage that exist for any given election. Having a head start, consolidated power base, and the influence to "put competitors out of business" by getting them excluded from debates among other things makes ALL the difference in the world.

Fine. You're pessimistic, I'm optimistic.

If "the common man" really desired change, s/he would make it happen, not sit around whining about how unfair everything was. Do you think that large donors just arbitrarily give money to whomever? Those people work hard to fundraise, and reap the benifits because of it.

If money's the answer, then get out and take meeting with people who have cash. If a lack of votes are the problem, then get out to the local Safeway and present a case or a system that people can support.

Look at it this way... the Sierra Club is a large special interest that can fund any candidate that they want. They probably, as a whole, have more in common with Green party candidates than other candidates. Yet, I'm sure the bulk of their money goes to the Democrats because instead of working to build up a smaller party they short-sightedly support the other corporate party. By doing this the Sierra Club fails, going for the weaker immediate return rather than working toward a larger, long-term goal.

So, in this instance, the third-party has failed to tap a prime resource. But the opportunity has no been denied to them, and is still available for the next election. and on and on...

I don't think whining about how unfair life is can make life any better. Whining about the lack of a third-party when they can't or won't attract more of the things (money, positions) they need to make a go of it is pointless.

</strong>

They don't work any harder to fund raise. But they get the funds easier simply because they hold all the cards.

"I belong to a party. I have the influence. Give your money to the 3rd party guy or lady if you want. Just wasted dough. They won't get elected. We have the incumbent. We have the polls showing we're this far ahead. It's a no-brainer."

As a contributer offering hundreds of thousands to a campaign, where would you put YOUR money?:

A) With the guy you really want that stands no chance of getting elected?
B) The guy you can stand the most out of the Democrats and Republicans who may or may not address your issues, but at least stands a chance of getting the opportunity in the first place.

Most major contributers choose B. The more money they give the guy/party in scenario B, the better results they get. The cycle continues unbroken.

</strong>

Money isn't the only answer. Take all the meetings you want. A good part of the campaign cash in this country is already locked up in one party or the other. Unless you're already a multimillionaire, don't hold your breath for being able to compete on this level.

Lack of votes are a problem when media typically only covers the Democrat and Republican candidates. We had 3 major Presidential Candidates in the last election, all equally willing to give interviews and go acorss America to campaign. But Nader didn't get a portion of a portion of a portion of the coverage that Gore and Bush got. Happens on a regional level as well.

</strong>

No. It's not available for reasons I explained above. They choose B almost every time. Short-sighted? Sure. But it's what contributors do when that much money is at stake. Just like people vote for the lesser of two evils. Voters do it. Contributors do it. It's a cycle of apathy that can't be broken as long as the Democratic and Republican parties have the stranglehold they do.

Ask people who they voted for in CA: Simon or Davis? You usually get a grimace and an explanation of why their person was the lesser of two evils. Find one Californian in this forum excited about voting for either. Were their other choices? Sure. Were their other choices who could possibly win? No. Wasted vote, and that's for those who got past their apathy to trudge out to the polls to make this unfortunate choice.

Ok...dismiss this legitimate discussion as whining. Meanwhile, just ignore why they CANNOT make a go of it with two mmamoth, war chest of funds-laden, entrenched parties oppose them at every turn. You want to live in that dreamworld, go ahead. That sort of complacency and acceptance is exactly what the founders of this country dedicated their lives to stopping.

</strong>

Small minded thinking somehow the fault of the system. OK. I know why they choose B. I'm saying each and every election they could choose A, to benefit the greater good (from their point of view), yet they choose not to. It's their fault, not the system!!! Instead of saying it's the system, control the system!

Shoot, I do the same thing when I vote. The problem lies with me, not the system!

</strong>

Again, short-sighted thinking somehow the fault of the system. That's a crock.

We didn't have three major candidates, and yet one didn't have to look far for information on Nader or any smaller candidate. Did it ever occur to you that the people who wanted Nader voted for him? So he got 2%. Considering his party can't elect a congressmen, shouldn't we consider him getting a percentile point or two an overwhelming victory.
How will they build on this support? Answer: they won't. That is why they fail

</strong>

Cycles of apathy can and are broken. One only has to look at the founding of this country to see that. There are over 300 million people in this country. Start with ONE and move forward. I do believe political power can be acheived through small steps (and I don't believe protests are very effective). If third parties worked the system better, if their message was more appealing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm not dismissing the argument. I'm just amused that you seem to want this mythical third party to appear in a puff of smoke, without doing the dirty set-up work first.

We'll see what happens when FOX has their Presidential Candidate reality show next season.

Edited for UBB

</strong>

They are doing it because the system is broken. They could go with their conscience all they like, but those candidates will never get elected. That much is certain. You really expect the complete monopoly that the Democrats and Republicans have on Congress and the Presidency to simply go unchallenged when a viable enough third party candidate comes along?

Of course not. They have smeared and will smear this person with every tactic imaginable. You see how they treat black sheep in their own respective party like McCain. Think of what they'd do to a libertarian or Green candidate. Whoever the favorable governor or mayor is would throw all of their weight behind the other candidate.

And even when they hate both Democrat and Republican choices in California, people STILL vote for them. Why&gt; Because those are the only two candidates that could possibly win.

</strong>

What is there to build on? He got 2 percent of the vote and ZERO percent of the electoral vote. That just shows SOME of the flaws in the system right there.

He gets increased turnout, but when it comes to the votes that count - electoral votes - every Green might as well have stayed at home.

So then we're faced with just a two-party system for perpetuity as they can't build a national presence which means they have no support for a regional presence, which in turn guarantees they can't have a national presence.

Broken system.

[quote] Cycles of apathy can and are broken. One only has to look at the founding of this country to see that.[/QUOTE}</strong>

Armed revolution did the job. Maybe that's what it'll take to scarp the poisonous and blatantly unfair electoral college.

</strong>

This is a funny passage. You believe it can start with one person, but if a group of people make their voice known, it's "not very effective."

You can start with one. You can start with thousands. Do you get any electoral votes, tho? No.

FAILURE.

</strong>

Utter bullshit. The two leading parties can BARELY get 50 percent of AMericans to even bother showing up, and they're split down the middle on which is the worst of two evils.

System failure.

I don't want a third party. I don't want ANY parties. I want candidates to win on their own merits. I want Americans to vote for candidates instead of voting AGAINST their competitors. I want a national voting system that reflects all choices so that we can rank candidates and their TRUE presence - however big or little - can be shown instead of a BS "no electoral vote" mark in the history books.

It's funny you say that the "dirty set-up work" needs to be done. And that's just what our major parties have done. Dirty work. They have you utterly mesmerized, thinking there's nothing odd about the fact that out of all of the candidates in all of the states and all of the political ideologies in America, only TWO ideologies are repesented in the legislative branch of our government. EVERY single Congressional position is locked up by them. Jeffords went indie AFTER he was elected. If it takes that extreme a measure to get just one independent into Congress, how sad is our system?

Fine, according to you. You can have it. Stay complacent and love that "idealized" status quo. I prefer reality myself...

Shush now.

Wasted keystrokes, Dan. Best not to feed this troll further.

No one is saying the knives don't hurt people, but they have other, utilitarian uses. They are not made with the sole intent to harm, kill and/or maim.

Besides, I doubt a stray knife could come flying through my apartment wall and strike one of my children or myself by accident. A bullet could.

So exactly why would you even want to own a gun? To shoot it at things other than humans or animals? What is the point of that? Explain to me, please.

Unless you are a hunter that shoots animals to feed yourself and/or your family, I don't understand.

I digress. Devin started this thread with a valid point. I apologize, Devin.

If it is all about self-protection, then how about one gun. You are legally able to own one gun that you can use to shoot & kill people who walk on your property. If your arguement is really about protection, than one gun is all you need.

There's that word need again.

I never like that solution. You should be allowed to have guns or not. Look at hunters: maybe they need a rifle and a shotgun for different kinds of game. And then a pistol for self-protection. Or maybe two pistols just because they like to target shoot with two different types of guns.

Nope, I don't buy it. You don't need a gun for protection. Sorry.

P.S. I'm not a hater.

kittyinjammies: I've needed a gun for protection. I was sure glad I had it too. It's more accurate to say most likely you don't need a gun for protection.

That's fine. But I don't like people who bullshit by pretending the reason they want a gun is soley for protection. It's just something they can hide behind.

So for you it isn't about protection at all. You just want a gun.

I already stated that I think that hunters using guns for game is a valid reason to own one.

I just don't buy the idea of a gun being bought for protection, sitting on a shelf, hidden somewhere, a timebomb waiting to go off. There are other ways to protect yourself. Security systems, staying out of harms way...

There is no perfect solution, but I would not own something that is specifically designed to HURT someone.

pirahna, I'm glad that you were able to protect yourself. It's just not the solution for me.

I think Rampager deserves kudos for not backing down just because he's wrong.

Keep at 'em, Rampager!

&lt;sniff&gt;

But maybe that's their real reasoning though? I have friends who have guns only for protection. And some friends like to collect them just because they like them. I don't think Rampager is necessarily lying.

Rampager, are you lying?

Bullshit.

I'm all good with your decision, although the "timebomb waiting to go off" is pretty overstated. A timebomb is on a ticker and full of explosives, and if it's counting down, it will go off.

A gun, if it's sitting on a shelf and untouched, will not.

Not because it's always being wrestled away from criminals...there are a lot of suicides that tend to be lumped in with "accidents." Putting a gun tio your head and pulling the trigger is no accident.

Not like this a great defense for guns or anything, just sayin'!

Unless a child finds it. I believe my maternal instincts are coloring my opinion. I will step out of the debate now.

Parental instincts also include education.

I have friends who have guns for protection, & I have friends who have guns for hunting as well. My point being is that if lives are going to be saved by eliminating some of these weapons, I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that my friends won't be able to shoot rabbits anymore.

The government controls a lot of things. They control whether or not you can drive, what kind of car you can drive (no more leaded fuel & safety standards must be met), if you can leave the country, if you can buy porn (must be 18), if you can cut down trees on your own property, if you can smoke weed, the health standards of foods, etc.

But guns should be left alone?

If your child is old enough to educate.

Nobody has said weapons shouldn't be regulated...it's the taking away that's extra-constitutional.

kittyinjammies might as well stay. It's just another opinion, and a child does change things. If you have a gun and a child, you have to step up to the plate and make sure it's locked and put away somewhere, or in a safe. Or, maybe not have one at all.

Because really, the chances of NEEDING a gun are slim. For me, in some of the places I lived briefly, it sat right next to my bed. Where I am now, msot likely no problems. I don't even have a gun anymore. Although still, there was a time where it might have been handy, but eventually I didn't need it. Would have felt a lot better with it, but I didn't need it at the end of the day. Still, I would have no problem collecting a gun or two.

They're never too young...

For one thing, never under any circumstances allow any firearms near a child before they comprehend "no".

Part of education is being smarter than the student.

And there are millions of smart parents/gun owners for every stupid one.

I understand your point, Kronos, and I respect the great father that you are, but would no sooner let my four year old/and or one year old near a gun than I would push them in front of an out of control car.

Education is the right answer, but I don't think my children, AT THE AGE THEY ARE NOW, are able to understand the consequences of what happens when you point a gun at another person.

That's why a good locked cabinet is always in order.