Guns and stuff... [modified]

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

yes

[soap brain]

Yeah, right.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[soap brain]

I don't want your sarcasm.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[Stan Shannon]

I would only argue that any such restrictions should be at the state and local level, as the 2nd amendment clearly restricts the federal governments authority on the issue. The anti-federalists, I believe, would have argued that the state of Indiana, for example, should have the authority to maintain a militia self equipped with tanks if it felt sufficient justification for that need without the federal government having any say in it. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[Stan Shannon]

Ah, come on, thats some top drawer sarcasm...

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[cp9876]

I'd have to agree with Ravel. In nature you have no rights, there is simply a natural order, if you cross paths with a lion you are probably lunch - period. Rights are something that are defined and conferred by a society. So they are often conferred by documents like a Bill of Rights, or a constitution. They are not natural, they are only sponsored by the society that grants them. Go outside the society (or country) and you may lose them. They can be changed, even the 2nd ammendment could be revoked by changing the constitution. Not only are rights granted by society, but society then spends an inordinate amount of time defining and redefining them - for example in recent times defining the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of illegal immigrants, the rights of enemy combatants etc. None of these are fundamental or natural but are developed based on our humanity, justice, desire for security, current laws etc. (not necessarily in that order).

Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

[soap brain]

If nature gives you the right to live, then why does it off so many people so often for no reason?! If nature gives you the right to defend yourself, then why are there so many toxins that paralyze you, so you can be eaten without defending yourself?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[soap brain]

YES! Thank you so much for saying that! :rose::rose::rose::rose:

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[Stan Shannon]

Would your definition include a natural right to self defense? Does not nature afford me an inherent right to defend my own being against harm? Am I not naturally imbued with ownership of and responsibility for myself?

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[Stan Shannon]

see above...

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[soap brain]

No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans. Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[Dexterus]

There actually is no right per se, there's a definition of Freedom they believed in when they made it, that is Anarchy, anyone can do anything they like. On top of that Freedom they have Constitution to provide a filter as to what parts of that Freedom can't be taken away and on top of that the Legal System to remove/restrict parts of the Freedom and add unnatural State obligations/rights (State doesn't exist in nature, it's artificially grafted). So according to their definition of Freedom you could do anything, according to others that same Constitution has a different meaning. This is why most countries have a body that is supposed to clarify constitutional arguments between different branches, essentially between different people's view of what the base freedom implies and in theory they are a good thing, practice on the other hand ... This is why you will never ever manage to get a Constitution to be universally understandable in the same way and why this whole thing is pointless. As long as the view of the majority of the people on Freedom flows in a certain direction that's how the state will keep it if they wanna stay in power (and can't fool the populace).

modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:35 AM

[soap brain]

Uh...thanks, I think.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

[Stan Shannon]

My only point of disagreement would be the continued use of what is essentially a set of Marxist political defintions. The left has framed this entire debate as some kind of a contest between Socialism and fascism. It isn't. The debate is between Marx and Jefferson and always has been. There is nothing 'fascist' about corporations. That is a Marxist construct. A corporation is only 'fascist' if it allows itself to be used as a component of a national agenda of some kind. If it is simply acting in a way that increaese profits, it is behaving precisely as it should be. Free market capitalism is not the enemy of anyone aside from Maxist (who are threated by individual choice implicite in free markets), but the friend of all lovers of freedom.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[cp9876]

I also looked this up. I think the concept of

digital man wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

is irrelevant today. I can't imagine that a motley collection of civilians with a random selection of handheld weapons could contribute significantly to the security of the US against an enemy that had overcome the armed forces. You would be far better spending the money that civilians spend on arms on the national guard. What came out yesterday was the idea that gun ownership would protect you from a government that went mad. The Government cannot get out of control without the support of the armed forces, and I can't see that you would make a difference with a few guns when the armoured vehicles come down the street firing 25mm depleted uranium rounds at anything that resists. Your only hope is to turn the army, and if history is anything to go by unarmed people power may be just as effective (Philipines, Moscow). Anyway, the bottom line is that it is not my country and I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to live. I'm lucky enough to live in a very safe part of Australia, and I like the fact that there are very few guns here. There are very safe parts of America too, but I think it is sad that no matter where you go you can never get away from the guns (not even the Amish community was safe).

Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

[R Giskard Reventlov]

A little pedantic but you are correct.

bin the spin home

[Ro0ke]

Many of these toxins you're talking about are actually the defense mechanisms of plants or animals. Nature doesn't give you the right to live, each person has the sole responsibility of surviving. As civilizations were established, laws came into effect to help enforce this.

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

No, it wouldn't. Nature gives you a natural want for self-preservation etc. You defend yourself because you want to live. You're naturally imbued with everyone else caring about themselves first and foremost. Rights simply do not exist unless defined by humans.

Oh, a student of nietzsche. then. Not nature but will.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Tell me, how would you define a 'right' outside of humanity?

I would argue that I don't need to. Humanity is a part of nature, the human mind is a part of humanity, and the concept of rights is part of the human mind. The universe is the sum of its parts, which includes the concept of rights.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

[Matthew Faithfull]

No, I'm not using the Marxist definition of Faschism but the definition of Mussolini who first put it into practice. 'The merger of the corporation and the state'. This has been forgotten by those who only remember Hitler's National-Socialism. The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes. International capitalism has taken on many of these characteristics by escaping from the authority or control of any single state, giving the excuse for international socialists to demand world government to control world corporations. Of course the very people planning for world government are funded by the world corporations who will nominate its members, fund its policy think tanks and implement its bought and payed for edicts. This is the modern face of international faschism, supported by socialists, packaged as inevitable globalisation. It is I agree the absolute antithesis of Jeffersonian nation self determination, equality under the law and free trade.

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

[Stan Shannon]

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

The 'fascist' corporation is one which seeks to own and control the state, to take on the nature and powers of a state (e.g. Federal Reserve), to be above the law, beyond restraint by legal or political processes.

That isn't true. Mussolini's 'corporatism' was the very opposite of that. It was the state controlling the coporations to achieve the objectives of the state - all the resources of the state being combined to achieve the will of the state. I'm not suggesting that there is not a problem with corporations trying to corrupt government for their own purposes, but that is not fascism.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization