this discussion came over supersoakers not being allowed but licensed to carry
can outside the convention thats cause it is legal for licensed to carry to carry in public places
cause they are responsible and highly trained
the supersoakers are considered dangerous to the cops like bottles sticks etc
somebody might fill them with something caustic if the protesters get out of hand it's called crowd control thanks occupy so what is everybody still talking about
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your reply but since when has a right become an allowance? A privilege can be taken away, an unalienable right cannot.
I'm not allowed to own a firearm any more than the next guy is allowed to attend the church of his choice. We are not being allowed, we do not need the permission of some King, or Czar. These are our rights, not allowances.
and here imo lies the problem... you all see the right to bear arms as simply that... a right. but i see the responsibility of gun ownership as a privilege. and one that should be taken so very seriously. now im not saying those of you here, who are armed dont... but im also saying it should be difficult as hell to acquire a weapon... if that is your choice. you may not need the permission of some 'czar' but youve been given it nontheless... cause when you think about it that is what a right is... the allowance of doing something... just like due to the first ammendment you are 'allowed' to say whatever the fuck you want regardless of whether it is hurtful or bigotted or whatever.. but there are consequences when one is given such responsibilities. telling those who dont wish to take advantage of this wonderous 'right'.. that they are pussies and enablers of crime.. and that they have no empathy for the victims of crime is utterly without imagination, not to mention ludricrous.
I love this post cate.
I agree 100%...we have the right bear all the arms we want but it is a privilege to keep them through having rigorous licensing...the consequences without such licensing training are far too great.
Peace[/quote]
Same here, Catefrances. Well said!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
and here imo lies the problem... you all see the right to bear arms as simply that... a right. but i see the responsibility of gun ownership as a privilege. and one that should be taken so very seriously. now im not saying those of you here, who are armed dont... but im also saying it should be difficult as hell to acquire a weapon... if that is your choice. you may not need the permission of some 'czar' but youve been given it nontheless... cause when you think about it that is what a right is... the allowance of doing something... just like due to the first ammendment you are 'allowed' to say whatever the fuck you want regardless of whether it is hurtful or bigotted or whatever.. but there are consequences when one is given such responsibilities. telling those who dont wish to take advantage of this wonderous 'right'.. that they are pussies and enablers of crime.. and that they have no empathy for the victims of crime is utterly without imagination, not to mention ludricrous.
Do you know why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written? Do you know what the intent was of the authors?
and here imo lies the problem... you all see the right to bear arms as simply that... a right. but i see the responsibility of gun ownership as a privilege. and one that should be taken so very seriously. now im not saying those of you here, who are armed dont... but im also saying it should be difficult as hell to acquire a weapon... if that is your choice. you may not need the permission of some 'czar' but youve been given it nontheless... cause when you think about it that is what a right is... the allowance of doing something... just like due to the first ammendment you are 'allowed' to say whatever the fuck you want regardless of whether it is hurtful or bigotted or whatever.. but there are consequences when one is given such responsibilities. telling those who dont wish to take advantage of this wonderous 'right'.. that they are pussies and enablers of crime.. and that they have no empathy for the victims of crime is utterly without imagination, not to mention ludricrous.
Do you know why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written? Do you know what the intent was of the authors?
do you?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Yes. It's to protect the people from a tyrannical general (federal) government. It isn't there to provide privileges. Rights are not privileges.
Yes. It's to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It isn't there to provide privileges. Rights are not privileges.
and this is where we differ. and just staying on the topic of the 2nd amendment, i do see the right to bear arms as a privilege. i see it as a massive responsibility never to be taken lightly. and once again, for claritys sake, i am not saying the people here who are armed do take that responsibility lightly. i also do not see that simply allowing all citizens to keep and bear arms because it is their right, as maintaining a well regulated militia.. in fact i do not see it as maintaining a militia at all. i see the context within which these rights were drafted and i see that perhaps that original right is no longer applicable in todays society.. especially in a country whose military might is as great as that of the united states of america. but i can certainly see how it was applicable during say, the civil war when that came around.
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.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Did you not read my reply? Our general (federal) government is exactly why this was written. The founding fathers did not want a repeat of England.
The Constitution applies more today than it ever has. Obama signed NDAA, probably the single most Rights eliminating legislation we've ever seen, and our military is going to protect us?!?! He can, under NDAA, use the military AGAINST US!
Did you not read my reply? Our general (federal) government is exactly why this was written. The founding fathers did not want a repeat of England.
The Constitution applies more today than it ever has. Obama signed NDAA, probably the single most Rights eliminating legislation we've ever seen, and our military is going to protect us?!?! He can, under NDAA, use the military AGAINST US!
I'm going to go bang my head off the wall.
dont be banging your head up against a wall. i totally understand where youre coming from. and i totally understand the original drafting of the constitution and the bill of rights. what i was addressing was specific to the 2nd amendment. i absolutely understand why the right to bear arms was felt to be necessary in the 1700s. these days im not so sure its still applicable, thats all.
and no i dont expect the US military, which as we all know is a tool of the state(as all armies are), would protect the citizens from that state. but i can imagine a case where some of those in the military would desert rather than turn force upon the US people... and that may well be where a well regulated militia would come in handy. but thats not what you have in the US.. all you have are millions of citizens who are simply armed. but of course theres the other side that says.. well where do you expect that we, the citizens, acquire our weapons from, should it ever become necessary to defend ourselves against a domestic threat, if it is not our right to be armed in the first place.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i do see the right to bear arms as a privilege. i see it as a massive responsibility never to be taken lightly. and once again, for claritys sake, i am not saying the people here who are armed do take that responsibility lightly.
But cate, this first part contradicts itself; is it a right or a privilege in your eyes? I can't see it being both.
And of course responsibility is a factor, a huge one, just as with any other right of ours - free speech or assembly, for example.
i do see the right to bear arms as a privilege. i see it as a massive responsibility never to be taken lightly. and once again, for claritys sake, i am not saying the people here who are armed do take that responsibility lightly.
But cate, this first part contradicts itself; is it a right or a privilege in your eyes? I can't see it being both.
And of course responsibility is a factor, a huge one, just as with any other right of ours - free speech or assembly, for example.
my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.
i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Exactly. Should the general government be able to tell you where to worship? No. And no more than they can disarm the populace. Just because you dont like guns doesn't mean we should gut 2A, because I promise one thing, it wouldn't stop there.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
this discussion came over supersoakers not being allowed but licensed to carry
can outside the convention thats cause it is legal for licensed to carry to carry in public places
cause they are responsible and highly trained
the supersoakers are considered dangerous to the cops like bottles sticks etc
somebody might fill them with something caustic if the protesters get out of hand it's called crowd control thanks occupy so what is everybody still talking about
why is it the first amendment is being trampled? the protestors are going to have to be moved to a "free speech zone" way away from the convention
yeah messed up to conveniently move protestors where no one can see or hear them this for occupy what that got us now could see that coming
but yeah real guns are here to stay get over it you might need them to protect your first amendment hell all of them someday unless you submit
to having your rights taken away i'm not gonna i'm ok with dying for what i believe in thats how i was raised
Your bias is showing....Again, hard to decipher exactly wtf you're saying, but I believe you're blaming free speech zones and excessive crowd control measures on the occupy movement? Did history begin last year in your world? Free speech zones have been around for decades, proliferated since the 04 DNC and RNC.
unsung - your government IS tyrannical. When will you begin your march? Ron Paul/Alex Jones fans in particular love the word tyranny; listing example after example of how you're being oppressed by the government, and using the examples as reasons to fight gun control legislation (and lets be clear - pro-gun people here keep inferring that the anti-gun people want guns banned - I don't think anyone has said that)...yet for all the outrage, nothing is ever enough to justify your armed rebellion. Are you guys stockpiling for the day that martial law is declared, or.....?
Seriously tho...while it all sounds good in theory, I agree with cate that the concept of an armed militia rebelling or defending against 'tyranny' is outdated at best; more likely a pipe dream that will never materialize. Sounds like a lot of grandstanding to hear people talk about it as justification for their collection of handguns and assault rifles.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.
i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.
It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!
Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.
Exactly. Should the general government be able to tell you where to worship? No. And no more than they can disarm the populace. Just because you dont like guns doesn't mean we should gut 2A, because I promise one thing, it wouldn't stop there.
not once have i ever said i dont like guns. what im weary of is a populace 'armed to the teeth'.
perhaps a referendum could be introduced when a real change to the bill of rights is desired. tho im not sure your government is set up that way. that way every eligible voter in the country could have their say about whether or not it is still applicable or if it needs to be amended. afterall isnt that what democracy is all about? or are you happy just to have the privilege of voting and call that democracy?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.
i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.
It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!
Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.
Maybe we need to re-write some of the wording in the Constitution and update some of these amendments. It's a different world we live in today. I agree with the notion that having a gun should be a privilege, not a right and that gun ownership should be very difficult to obtain. It's just to easy for irresponsible people to own something that dangerous.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?
Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.
That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )
my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.
i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.
It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!
Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.
i think you missed my point. and i did say driving is a privilege so we agree on that. however that doesnt mean i cant see the 'right to bear arms' as a privilege also. if you can not see your rights as privileges then i suggest you go live in a country for a while, where rights such as yours so often 'taken for granted' purely cause theyre your rights and enshrined within the constitution, do not exist. so yes you do live in a privileged society. and yes the existence of the bill of rights is a privilege. and its a good one. i wasnt meaning it to be derogatory in anyway or to downplay your bill of rights.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Your bias is showing....Again, hard to decipher exactly wtf you're saying,
yeah I know about the conventions in 04 what I meant was the cages are growing since occupy
and about to get bigger and better everyone's bias is showing including those who
aren't even citizens with rights given to them by the United Sates of America's Constitution
Bill of Rights.
And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?
Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.
That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )
i dont see having children as a right per se. i see it simply as biology. every animate thing on earth reproduces. we are able so we do. it isnt something you can really 'allow' you know what im saying? i do not believe it is something that should be infringed upon cause that just leads to some sort of huxleyian brave new world and who the fuck wants that? it simply is what it is and not really a good comparison imo.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?
Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.
That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )
i dont see having children as a right per se. i see it simply as biology. every animate thing on earth reproduces. we are able so we do. it isnt something you can really 'allow' you know what im saying? i do not believe it is something that should be infringed upon cause that just leads to some sort of huxleyian brave new world and who the fuck wants that? it simply is what it is and not really a good comparison imo.
I was talking more toward the responsibility angle, ie, hopefully using wisdom and forethought, and not just the "because I can" mentality, but fair enough. I gotcha.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
i believe that one of the reasons was to protect from the british soldiers. remember we had the right to not quarter them in our homes?
The Third Amendment has that language. Our Founding Fathers were trying to create a society of the people, not another version of a British royal monarchy. They wrote these documents to prevent FUTURE general governments from becoming the same, that's why we have checks and balances, that's why a President is not supposed to attack another nation without Congress declaring war, etc.
I'm afraid that with the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, CISPA, Obamacare, the redundancy of state and federal agencies, the general government creeping into marriage, the overburdensome regulations on business, the bailing out of banks, the drone strikes on US citizens, the massive buildup of FEMA, the bailing out of private companies, the wrecklessness of the federal reserve, the out of control spending, out of control welfare, out of control inflation and devaluation of the dollar that now is the most important point in the last 100 years to have the RIGHT to defend ourselves.
The Third Amendment has that language. Our Founding Fathers were trying to create a society of the people, not another version of a British royal monarchy. They wrote these documents to prevent FUTURE general governments from becoming the same, that's why we have checks and balances, that's why a President is not supposed to attack another nation without Congress declaring war, etc.
I'm afraid that with the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, CISPA, Obamacare, the redundancy of state and federal agencies, the general government creeping into marriage, the overburdensome regulations on business, the bailing out of banks, the drone strikes on US citizens, the massive buildup of FEMA, the bailing out of private companies, the wrecklessness of the federal reserve, the out of control spending, out of control welfare, out of control inflation and devaluation of the dollar that now is the most important point in the last 100 years to have the RIGHT to defend ourselves.
the need of the american people to defend themselves against their own government, honestly, in this day and age, sounds like a work of hollywood fiction.
so what is the reason that someone needs to pack heat walking down the street? is the government coming to get you when you are walking to the grocery store?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Too many violations of the Posting Guidelines in this thread. See #2
Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here.
Also... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
Comments
can outside the convention thats cause it is legal for licensed to carry to carry in public places
cause they are responsible and highly trained
the supersoakers are considered dangerous to the cops like bottles sticks etc
somebody might fill them with something caustic if the protesters get out of hand it's called crowd control thanks occupy so what is everybody still talking about
I agree 100%...we have the right bear all the arms we want but it is a privilege to keep them through having rigorous licensing...the consequences without such licensing training are far too great.
Peace[/quote]
Same here, Catefrances. Well said!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Do you know why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written? Do you know what the intent was of the authors?
do you?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and this is where we differ. and just staying on the topic of the 2nd amendment, i do see the right to bear arms as a privilege. i see it as a massive responsibility never to be taken lightly. and once again, for claritys sake, i am not saying the people here who are armed do take that responsibility lightly. i also do not see that simply allowing all citizens to keep and bear arms because it is their right, as maintaining a well regulated militia.. in fact i do not see it as maintaining a militia at all. i see the context within which these rights were drafted and i see that perhaps that original right is no longer applicable in todays society.. especially in a country whose military might is as great as that of the united states of america. but i can certainly see how it was applicable during say, the civil war when that came around.
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.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The Constitution applies more today than it ever has. Obama signed NDAA, probably the single most Rights eliminating legislation we've ever seen, and our military is going to protect us?!?! He can, under NDAA, use the military AGAINST US!
I'm going to go bang my head off the wall.
dont be banging your head up against a wall. i totally understand where youre coming from. and i totally understand the original drafting of the constitution and the bill of rights. what i was addressing was specific to the 2nd amendment. i absolutely understand why the right to bear arms was felt to be necessary in the 1700s. these days im not so sure its still applicable, thats all.
and no i dont expect the US military, which as we all know is a tool of the state(as all armies are), would protect the citizens from that state. but i can imagine a case where some of those in the military would desert rather than turn force upon the US people... and that may well be where a well regulated militia would come in handy. but thats not what you have in the US.. all you have are millions of citizens who are simply armed. but of course theres the other side that says.. well where do you expect that we, the citizens, acquire our weapons from, should it ever become necessary to defend ourselves against a domestic threat, if it is not our right to be armed in the first place.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And of course responsibility is a factor, a huge one, just as with any other right of ours - free speech or assembly, for example.
my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.
i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Your bias is showing....Again, hard to decipher exactly wtf you're saying, but I believe you're blaming free speech zones and excessive crowd control measures on the occupy movement? Did history begin last year in your world? Free speech zones have been around for decades, proliferated since the 04 DNC and RNC.
unsung - your government IS tyrannical. When will you begin your march? Ron Paul/Alex Jones fans in particular love the word tyranny; listing example after example of how you're being oppressed by the government, and using the examples as reasons to fight gun control legislation (and lets be clear - pro-gun people here keep inferring that the anti-gun people want guns banned - I don't think anyone has said that)...yet for all the outrage, nothing is ever enough to justify your armed rebellion. Are you guys stockpiling for the day that martial law is declared, or.....?
Seriously tho...while it all sounds good in theory, I agree with cate that the concept of an armed militia rebelling or defending against 'tyranny' is outdated at best; more likely a pipe dream that will never materialize. Sounds like a lot of grandstanding to hear people talk about it as justification for their collection of handguns and assault rifles.
It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!
Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.
not once have i ever said i dont like guns. what im weary of is a populace 'armed to the teeth'.
perhaps a referendum could be introduced when a real change to the bill of rights is desired. tho im not sure your government is set up that way. that way every eligible voter in the country could have their say about whether or not it is still applicable or if it needs to be amended. afterall isnt that what democracy is all about? or are you happy just to have the privilege of voting and call that democracy?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Maybe we need to re-write some of the wording in the Constitution and update some of these amendments. It's a different world we live in today. I agree with the notion that having a gun should be a privilege, not a right and that gun ownership should be very difficult to obtain. It's just to easy for irresponsible people to own something that dangerous.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?
Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.
That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here
i think you missed my point. and i did say driving is a privilege so we agree on that. however that doesnt mean i cant see the 'right to bear arms' as a privilege also. if you can not see your rights as privileges then i suggest you go live in a country for a while, where rights such as yours so often 'taken for granted' purely cause theyre your rights and enshrined within the constitution, do not exist. so yes you do live in a privileged society. and yes the existence of the bill of rights is a privilege. and its a good one. i wasnt meaning it to be derogatory in anyway or to downplay your bill of rights.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and about to get bigger and better everyone's bias is showing including those who
aren't even citizens with rights given to them by the United Sates of America's Constitution
Bill of Rights.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i dont see having children as a right per se. i see it simply as biology. every animate thing on earth reproduces. we are able so we do. it isnt something you can really 'allow' you know what im saying? i do not believe it is something that should be infringed upon cause that just leads to some sort of huxleyian brave new world and who the fuck wants that? it simply is what it is and not really a good comparison imo.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The Third Amendment has that language. Our Founding Fathers were trying to create a society of the people, not another version of a British royal monarchy. They wrote these documents to prevent FUTURE general governments from becoming the same, that's why we have checks and balances, that's why a President is not supposed to attack another nation without Congress declaring war, etc.
I'm afraid that with the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, CISPA, Obamacare, the redundancy of state and federal agencies, the general government creeping into marriage, the overburdensome regulations on business, the bailing out of banks, the drone strikes on US citizens, the massive buildup of FEMA, the bailing out of private companies, the wrecklessness of the federal reserve, the out of control spending, out of control welfare, out of control inflation and devaluation of the dollar that now is the most important point in the last 100 years to have the RIGHT to defend ourselves.
the need of the american people to defend themselves against their own government, honestly, in this day and age, sounds like a work of hollywood fiction.
so what is the reason that someone needs to pack heat walking down the street? is the government coming to get you when you are walking to the grocery store?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=91525
Also...
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.