Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Guns and stuff... [modified]

Guns and stuff... [modified]

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comsecurity
82 Posts 20 Posters 2 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S soap brain

    I don't want your sarcasm.

    Richard of York gave battle in vain.

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Stan Shannon
    wrote on last edited by
    #33

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

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

    S 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • S soap brain

      I'm not saying that people shouldn't live. I'm merely saying that just because you think that nature gives you the right to live, doesn't mean it won't kill you horridly and for no reason. Nature isn't about rights. That's a human thing.

      Richard of York gave battle in vain.

      C Offline
      C Offline
      cp9876
      wrote on last edited by
      #34

      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."

      S 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Stan Shannon

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

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

        S Offline
        S Offline
        soap brain
        wrote on last edited by
        #35

        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.

        S R 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • C 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."

          S Offline
          S Offline
          soap brain
          wrote on last edited by
          #36

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

          Richard of York gave battle in vain.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S soap brain

            I think I've defined it as being rather different to everyone else.

            Richard of York gave battle in vain.

            S Offline
            S Offline
            Stan Shannon
            wrote on last edited by
            #37

            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

            S 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S 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.

              S Offline
              S Offline
              Stan Shannon
              wrote on last edited by
              #38

              see above...

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

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • S 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

                S Offline
                S Offline
                soap brain
                wrote on last edited by
                #39

                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.

                S 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                  digital man wrote:

                  I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you that right

                  That's like saying if there were a constitutional amendment prohbiting abortion that it would "give the right to life" to the unborn. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us a right, it restricts the Federal gov't and the states from infringing or diminishing or removing that right. The right exists in and of itself.

                  D Offline
                  D Offline
                  Dexterus
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #40

                  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

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • M Matthew Faithfull

                    Good question! Keep that up and you'll end up like me with any luck :laugh:

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

                    S Offline
                    S Offline
                    soap brain
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #41

                    Uh...thanks, I think.

                    Richard of York gave battle in vain.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M Matthew Faithfull

                      I'm all for intellectual honesty. Yes, this has happened under 'European' as opposed to 'conservative' influences but that does not in itself say much about left or right wing. It is worth noting that while those campaigning for, promoting and proposing the intellectual ideas underlying these destructive changes have largely been 'left' leaning academics, those benfiting in terms of power and profit have been 'right wing' crypto faschist globalists. This is why its so important to understand the deliberatly created nexus of cooperation between the two groups. Take the Council on Foreign Relations for example, set up and funded by Wall Street Bankers to pay 'left-wing' acedemics to promote anti-american foreign policy, and yet Dick Cheney is 'proud to be a member' in private but careful not to mention it when campaigning in his own state. Something non obvious that can't easily be pigeonholed as left-wing or right-wing is going on. The best explanation that anyone has come up with is that these people are signed up to a bigger agenda that they never publicly talk about, which both wings think will get them what they want but they know the public will never support. In Europe we know this to be true for a fact because of the details of the EU that have come out over the years, both ultra-left international socialists and ultra-right corporate faschists have been led to believe that it will result in their eventual domination and effective but covert control of the entire continent. Both sides have almost certainly been lied to, along with certain religious groups like the upper eschelons of the Catholic church, to get their cooperation. The question then becomes, by whom and to what end?

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

                      S Offline
                      S Offline
                      Stan Shannon
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #42

                      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

                      M V 2 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • R R Giskard Reventlov

                        I was quite impressed by the robust defence of the right to bear arms by John Simmons and others in a debate here yesterday. It got me to go back and re-read the constitution and amendments. It is still a great document and its sentiments are entirely fresh and laudable. I may not agree with the actual possession of weapons but I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you upholds that right… “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.” And, therefore, I have to admit that I am wrong in this one: whilst I don’t get the personal need for weapons I can see that you need have no other justification for doing so other than that which your constitution provides.

                        bin the spin home

                        modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

                        C Offline
                        C Offline
                        cp9876
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #43

                        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."

                        realJSOPR A S 3 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • realJSOPR realJSOP

                          digital man wrote:

                          but I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you that right…

                          It doesn't *give* you the right. It says that the right shall not be infringed. This means it is a natural right, and that the government cannot revoke it. (I know, it's a somewhat subtle difference, but that's exactly what keeps the bad guys from taking it away.)

                          "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                          -----
                          "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                          R Offline
                          R Offline
                          R Giskard Reventlov
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #44

                          A little pedantic but you are correct.

                          bin the spin home

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S 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.

                            R Offline
                            R Offline
                            Ro0ke
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #45

                            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.

                            S 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S 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.

                              S Offline
                              S Offline
                              Stan Shannon
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #46

                              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

                              realJSOPR S 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • S 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

                                M Offline
                                M Offline
                                Matthew Faithfull
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #47

                                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.

                                S 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M 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.

                                  S Offline
                                  S Offline
                                  Stan Shannon
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #48

                                  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

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • S 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

                                    realJSOPR Offline
                                    realJSOPR Offline
                                    realJSOP
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #49

                                    You do know that you're trying to have a discussion with a fence post...

                                    "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                                    -----
                                    "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                                    S S 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • R R Giskard Reventlov

                                      I was quite impressed by the robust defence of the right to bear arms by John Simmons and others in a debate here yesterday. It got me to go back and re-read the constitution and amendments. It is still a great document and its sentiments are entirely fresh and laudable. I may not agree with the actual possession of weapons but I can see how the 2nd amendment gives you upholds that right… “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.” And, therefore, I have to admit that I am wrong in this one: whilst I don’t get the personal need for weapons I can see that you need have no other justification for doing so other than that which your constitution provides.

                                      bin the spin home

                                      modified on Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:34 AM

                                      I Offline
                                      I Offline
                                      Ilion
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #50

                                      digital man wrote:

                                      It got me to go back and re-read the constitution and amendments. It is still a great document and its sentiments are entirely fresh and laudable.

                                      Notice, also, how *short* (how "high-level," rather than "nitty-gritty detailed") it is, amendments and all.

                                      digital man wrote:

                                      And, therefore, I have to admit that I am wrong in this one: whilst I don’t get the personal need for weapons I can see that you need have no other justification for doing so other than that which your constitution provides.

                                      :cool: :rose:

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • T TheGreatAndPowerfulOz

                                        i didn't say that there should be no restrictions. I'm all for licensing, etc. Licensing doesn't remove or infringe the right. For instance, I don't think individuals should necessarily be able to own a tank, at least not without paying lots of money for a license and going through training, background checks, etc.

                                        realJSOPR Offline
                                        realJSOPR Offline
                                        realJSOP
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #51

                                        It's easy to buy a tank, and there are many private tank owners. It's (almost?) impossible to (legally) buy ammo for it though. In that context, a tank is merely a motor vehicle. You can also legally own a cannon. I'm sure there's paperwork that goes along with those two examples, but you can own them nonetheless.

                                        "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                                        -----
                                        "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001

                                        S 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Stan Shannon

                                          Matthew Faithfull wrote:

                                          Americans have not lived in a free state, as would have been understood by the framers of their constitution, for a long time. Their federal government having almost entirely taken over the authority of the States has sold the right to print its own currency, to a private club (Federal Reserve), and the right set its own external trade policy, to another private club (WTO).

                                          I find that a difficult comment to argue with. Just as long as it is understood that most of that has come about as a consequence of the 'progressive' evolution of our government and its legal system to conform to a more European political world view, and is not the result of 'conservative' or 'right-wing' influences. Lets at least be intellectually honest about the philosophical history of all this.

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

                                          I Offline
                                          I Offline
                                          Ilion
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #52

                                          Stan Shannon wrote:

                                          Lets at least be intellectually honest about the philosophical history of all this.

                                          From a conspiracy-monger (and with socialistic leanings, at that)?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups