The founding fathers were actually criminals since they were fighting the then government. Today, anyone who desires to bring down the government as they did would be shot as a traitor.
You have to be a US citizen is the first condition. You have to have not abrogated your rights by criminal activity which judgment was made in the first place honoring your right to due process. Incorrect. The KKK has no rights whatsoever. Individuals have the right to bear arms. Just as individuals have responsibility for their actions. There is still a KKK, no one ever prosecuted the KKK. There are individuals in jail for their actions however. Agreed. There is a positive correlation between gun ownership rates and lowered crime rates. (see the Mauser/Kates document referred to earlier) More guns make us safer. Whereas gun free zones attract predators. VT, Columbine, post offices, etc. Also historically no government has ever turned on it's own people without first confiscating their arms. We'd just as soon never see that first step happen. Try that and see what happens. You cannot just say they were a threat as a excuse for shooting someone. If you are on their property however their burden of proof is lower.. why were you on their property? It just means that if they had a law like that in Va someone could have shot the little fcuker before he killed 32 people, without being charged with a crime themselves. 'Reasonably' is not infinitely subjective. That's what the courts are there to decide. No court would decide he was acting reasonably. Had he lived he would have been convicted, and locked, either as criminally insane or merely criminal. Yep, which you would already know if you were the sort of person to like facts to back up what you talk about. It's the Fifth amendment. "No person shall .. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Society may find need to deprive you of these things, but they have to follow the rules. Until such time, you are afforded said liberties. Yes. There were 10 put in the original document. Most legislation since then has been to mitigate that protection. What power? The power to be more careful than they need try to limit their chance to be sued? Non sequitur much? It's called nullification. Having ratified the constitution states were unhappy to find they could not opt out. Of the constitution or the union. Hence the civil war. (right cause, bad precedent) The monolithic power that your ignorance and envy causes you to hate so much was never meant to be. States always assumed they were in the union at their option.. until some tried to express that option. I'm a proponent of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Lol why is Hillary still alive then?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe in India they would be shot. Here people can be as uninformed as you, and speak out loudly and unashamed of their ignorance and nothing happens.
So criminals in the US have no rights? Sounds like double standards. Why should the cops be allowed to protect themselves from pregnant women and retarded children but the KKK not given the same right against blacks? So having a gun makes you immune to government intervention? Darn, you live in a rose garden.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ho hum http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-07-coach-shot_x.htm Or if they had gun control, he would not have been able to walk into a store and buy guns. Besides he had no medical record, he was eligible to buy a gun. One of the good guys. Self defense et al. Seems like the interpretation would hold for anyone defending themselves against the government. The law? But isn't the reason you have guns so you can fight the law if need be? Like when you want to fight the government? You're one insanely confused bugger, aren't you? Sad
Who said that? Is that what you think? The KKK has no rights. Nothing in the Constitution affords rights to any particular subset of people. Any individual is 'allowed' to protect themselves from anyone. In fact protecting the individual from groups is what the Bill of Rights is for. Why is this so challenging for you? Who said that? Is that what you think? So in India they define killing 32 people as self defense?? And why does violent crime increase wherever they implement gun control? Assuming the courts are not compromised as well and some agency of the government misbehaves then certainly defending yourself against could be held to be reasonable by the courts. And it has happened. Separating the powers between executive, judiciary, and legislative is the US model of impeding the development of a rapacious govt. Which model has been widely imitated around the world. No the reason we have guns is so it will be unlikely we have to. The reason we have guns is because it is our responsibility to protect ourselves and no one else's. The police have NO legal responsibility to protect us, only to enforce the law. Many rulings have held this. If the police choose not to protect you, because it is too risky, too bad. You cannot complain or sue. Actually due to the fifth amendment law enforcement is more bound to protect suspects than victims, since they are in the process of potentially having their rights abridged. That probably is way too subtle for you to comprehend tho.. LOLPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seriously, you are clearly new to this debate and are not well armed for itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Until you can explain why it is wise to suffer increased murder and violent crime in order to have gun control, you would be well behooved to find another topic where people may be more impressed with you uninformed hand-wavingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Uh huh. Of course they had to be unarmed or you wouldn't have much luck with that.. and as well you would not have tried it.
why are you such a fucking idiot sam? another fine example of your intellectual dishonesty and your fucked up debating tactics.
pregnant women can be tough customers my wife at the moment can sure throw a punch, maybe the police should be allowed to gun them down. in all seriousness now though sam i see what your point is and what your trying to say, but it just wont hold up in debate. the kkk are not at threat from black people, they just dont like them. it kinda got a bit skewed didnt it, what are we saying a threat is? an actual threat of safety at the moment of defence? or a threat as in, "hey that guy is bigger than me i feel a threat". peace.
Okay, Sam makes a very bad Socrates. I am generally a lefty, but I am adamently oppossed to more gun control. The whole point of guns is protection. Banning weapons doesn't make us safer. Criminals get them anyways. Having guns makes us safer because attacking someone is much riskier. Would you try to steal a womans purse if she had a gun in her pocket? Guns are all about empowerment. That is what america was about. The empowerment of the people. The right to bear arms was intended to help us fight enemies and to overthrow our government is it somehow became oppressive despite the checks and balances. It isn't in the constitution, but rather the declaration of independence, which is a similar minded document. As such, it is the right of the people to have arms. Not just arms. It is the right of the people to have weapons with which they can overthrow the government. I'm scared of big brother, and I want the right to defend myself the best I can. Mental people and kids don't need this right though. I do agree there. But I think that able men should have the right to automatic weapons, anti airplane, anti tank weapons, explosives. Anything except weapons of mass destruction. Its too late now. Our government is perfectly capable of oppressing us now, and some would argue that they already do a bit. THe only check on our government now is our crappy voting system.
yeah tyler rocket launchers all round! there wont be any reprocutions, solid idea Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! put me down for 5 mortar units, 3 rpg launchers, some 50 cal mounted machine gun turrets for my car, and why not throw in some mustard gas canistars, peace.
Heh, I thought second thoughts about that as soon as I wrote that. I'm not so sure about that actually. But, assuming that all the mentally unstable people are barred from this right, it wouldn't be a problem until there is legitamate cause to use it. Mabye a limit on explosives is better. I don't know about that. Actually. That is a bad idea. But there has to be a way to check our government. I mean, I can see how giving civilians these weapons would be bad, seeing as how our government behaves with these weapons. Still, our government is disproportionally powerful to its own people. Somehow the balance needs to be restored.
i dont actualy know where i stand on gun control myself. i dont agree 100% or disagree, sometimes its wise not to know, and to just say "it depends" peace.
Well, if modern weapons weren't so powerful, I'd be absolutly certain about it. The awesome power though is arleady being misused by nations though. Now that we have the power to destroy the world as we know it, we need peace and order. But peace and order means giving power to the government and that leads to dictator states and orwellian shit. The middle ground is no good. We need a third way. Neither anarchism nor authoritarianism. Not in between. God I am confusing myself.
No, they don't. In a society without guns there is no need for criminals to carry guns as much as there is in a society filled with guns.
This is a false sense of security. The government can screw with people in ways where guns have no role to play at all. btw, what do you think would actually happen if a state were to revolt against the authorities? My guess? One well placed nuclear bomb would soon take care of that.
The way I see it, they are all Americans and have the right to defend themselves. Besides, the original constitution did not recognise the blacks as humans.
yes, correct. original constitution? whats that? the constitution made no distinction between blacks and whites. it was the people that did it. as a matter of fact one of our founding fathers, thomas jefferson, owned slaves.
I'm a little confused by your statement, spurious. Where does this 'society without guns' exist? If by law, no citizen is allowed to own a gun, doesn't that mean only lawbreakers (criminals), by definition, can carry guns? Are persons serving in the military or police force members of this society, and are any of them allowed to carry guns? Oh, of course, you don't need an armed military or police force in this hypothetical 'society without guns'. It sounds quite idealic.
