Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mankyanchor
Trad climber
denver co
|
|
the argument that the 2nd does not apply to anything but muzzel loaders because our founding fathers could not have imagined fully automatic wepons, is like saying that the right to free speech does not apply to anything not printed on a type set printing press because, at the time t.v, the internet,and modern news papers did not exist
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
every u.s. citizen shuold be given a gun, and bullets subsidized by thre gov't. homicide should be punishable w/ a small fine, and any non-citizen is fair game.
all y'all gun lovin' folk better be quick on the draw, cuz i've seen every clint eastwood film.
twice.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I guess Healy didn't hear about the Korean community during the RK riots in LA. The rioters, after trashing their own community, decided to head for the Korean section of the area. They were met by a bunch of K Americans with automatic weapons who made it clear what would happen unless they turned back, which they did. The cops showed up, took one look and decided the KA had things well under control so the police went elsewhere.
Americans are well armed; and, I'm sure that for every fat couch potato, there are a couple of guys quite capable of using firearms capably.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
Save lives?
SAVE LIVES????????
What... do we have a shortage of humans on this planet all of a sudden??????????
"A gun is a gun. You are just as dead if you get shot with a .22 rimfire as you are if you catch a 7.62 out of an AK."
I think not...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Minerals, I was being sarcastic. I want FREEDOM! I'll take my chances with terrorists, traffic accidents, AND fat. I have been a climber most of my life, after all. People are going to keep dying, and I might well be one of them at any point. Until then, I want to be free.
|
|
Maţţ
Big Wall climber
Kiev
|
|
The uninformed Healyje said:
"...the idea of the average individual, neighborhood, suburb, town, or state defending itself against the "government" is ridiculous and anachronistic in the extreme. It was a plausible concept when governments had pistols, rifles, and light canons - now it is laughable beyond words. In our obese, entertainment-based society it is simply a romanticized and vestigial myth we cling to tighter than our guns. What a joke."
Want an example of determined resistance by poorly armed people against a vastly superior foe? Iraq. Today. Right now.
I find your statement especially ironic because:
1. You are constantly boo-hooing about the war, yet you fail to see the power of a determined insurgency regarding the 2nd Amendment.
2. You are woefully uninformed regarding the great capability of guerilla warfare despite its repeated occurance in recent history.
3. The majority is ususally lazy/fat/uninterested/etc; this is nothing new. Contrary to popular belief, a great deal of the colonists did not want to rebel against Britain and they were great hindrances to the Revolution.
Luckily, the American revolutionaries didn't listen to people like Healyje back in the day.
|
|
sketchy
Trad climber
Vagrant
|
|
Is this a different Matt?
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
Time for a new amendment. A long overdue upgrade. Times have changed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Nuclear Weapons, shall not be infringed.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2006 - 03:16am PT
|
I've never bought the supposed slippery slope argument ending at the obviously ridiculous notion that private individuals should have nukes (or weapons of mass destruction in general).
The point of the right to have and bear arms is that people can protect themselves against tyrannical government and to provide for their own immediate self defense. Privately held nukes (a term I will now use to encapsulate all WMDs) serve neither purpose.
You as an individual can't protect your individual home, your individual family, or your personal goods with a nuke. So a nuke for individual self defense is obviously senseless.
The "government" is largely an abstraction. You don't take out "the government" by, say, nuking Washington DC. The ratio of "collateral damage" to "government" is simply ludicrous. That sort of deployment would be "the people" taking out "the people" much more than "the people" taking out "the government."
Perhaps if the situation ever arose in which it was plausible that "the government" might nuke people on its own soil to put down a budding revolution, then it would make sense to talk about how nukes might be used to counter that threat. But in any such scenario, it is hard to see how INDIVIDUALS would have a use for nukes; in such a scenario, large and organized population groups (think civil war scenarios) would be targeted, and such ORGANIZATIONS might then have a legitimate need for nukes.
The founders wanted to ensure that "the people" had the power of revolution and self defense, and I haven't heard the argument yet demonstrating that such power is in any measure reduced by keeping nukes out of individual hands. If the need for that level of power ever arises, I am confident the "the people" will find ways of getting nukes, and, by that point in the conflict, laws against "the people" having nukes are not going to be a factor under consideration! Meanwhile, unlike with guns or even small(ish) bombs, I await hearing what legitimate purpose an individual has for a nuke. What counts as "legitimate" is a matter of scale, so let's get right to the matter of scale.
The term "arms" does not imply that each and every private citizen has the right to a button he/she can push to blow up the entire world, so slippery slope arguments that head in that direction are already in violation of the spirit of the second amendment.
If someone now argues that the matter of scale is vague, so that I am unable to draw a principled line between the "legitimate" damage an individual can cause with a pistol and the "illegitmate" damage an individual can cause with a nuke, I will respond this way. The fact that the issue of scale is vague does not imply that the end points are not well defined. Sorites paradoxes (if you don't know, look it up) are interesting BECAUSE the end points are well defined. The fact that a term or idea is vague does not imply that ALL of its applications are vague. Thus, I can consistently state that a nuke is an illegitimate end point for individuals, while being unclear about exactly where the line of "legitimate scale" should be drawn back from that end point.
If we err, we should err in the direction of individual rights and freedoms (and the individual's right to protect them). But I haven't yet heard the argument that establishes an individual's right to bear nukes. This slippery slope is fallacious.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2006 - 03:47am PT
|
"If our freedoms can go right out the window on the justification of "saving lives" and "providing security," then let's get TO it and do it RIGHT! Of course I know that we will have to give up ALL of our "freedoms" (falsely so called anyway, because "you can't be free if you don't have security"), and government will have to monitor EVERY aspect of our lives, but that's a small price to pay for security (which is true freedom, after all). Always remember: if it can save even one life.... "
Very well said MadBolter.
That entire post was spot on.
and EpicEd...I couldn't agree more with your interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment.
You guys have it right.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
When the Framers wrote the 2nd Amendment, the long guns of their time were the ultimate personal "assault weapons".
Let us know!