The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

Crossbow said:
Umm, ...

I think that you are overstating things a bit.

The FCC does not regulate speech on the Internet, and their powers of regulating speech on broadcast media is quite limited.
Click to expand...

I read Wildcat's statement as "The Government doesn't regulate speech on the internet or broadcast media".

Nowhere in that statement did it specify limitations. It simply said it didn't happen, which is clearly a false statement. Clearly.

/derail
 
arthwollipot said:
i think you're missing the point. Why is it a right in America, while everywhere else in the developed world it is a privilege? What's so special about America that makes gun ownership a right?

I made this tread partially to encourage people to think about this question, which you're not doing. You're justifying the status quo. How about you consider why the status is quo in the first place?
Click to expand...
America isn't "special." This isn't about American exceptionalism. The historical reasons why we have this particular right have been given. It's part of our history and culture. I might just as well ask why the rest of the developed world denies this right to their citizens.
 
arthwollipot said:
i think you're missing the point. Why is it a right in America, while everywhere else in the developed world it is a privilege? What's so special about America that makes gun ownership a right?

I made this tread partially to encourage people to think about this question, which you're not doing. You're justifying the status quo. How about you consider why the status is quo in the first place?
Click to expand...

In case you have not seen it, please refer to the below posting where I tried to address your questions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9517534#post9517534

Thanks.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
America isn't "special." This isn't about American exceptionalism. The historical reasons why we have this particular right have been given. It's part of our history and culture. I might just as well ask why the rest of the developed world denies this right to their citizens.
Click to expand...
Considering the gun deaths in this country I doubt the rest of the world will ever consider it a good thing for it's citizens to have the right to kill each other with such reckless abandon. I'm guessing they shake their heads in disbelief that we're so ignorant.
 
DavidJames said:
Considering the gun deaths in this country I doubt the rest of the world will ever consider it a good thing for it's citizens to have the right to kill each other with such reckless abandon. I'm guessing they shake their heads in disbelief that we're so ignorant.
Click to expand...

The right to self defense is in effect pretty much everywhere.
 
DavidJames said:
Considering the gun deaths in this country I doubt the rest of the world will ever consider it a good thing for it's citizens to have the right to kill each other with such reckless abandon. I'm guessing they shake their heads in disbelief that we're so ignorant.
Click to expand...
Which ammendment is that?
 
GlennB said:
Yes, 'access to arms' makes sense in this respect, as I mentioned. Carrying a gun about your person or in the glove compartment, though, is totally unconnected with any notion of forming a militia yet the 2A is quoted to justify such behaviour. The 'right to bear arms' part of it is cherry-picked as WildCat did above, carefully omitting the preceding phrases.
Click to expand...

I love how some people completely ignore that part of the amendment, as though it was completely unconnected. It's like saying that in this sentence:

"Making money being important to a business, one should listen to their clientele."

...that listening to your clients isn't in any way suggested to be in order to keep your business alive.
 
Sabretooth said:
Disagree. The drafters of the Constitution had just overthrown a government that oppressed the Colonies. The new America did not want a government that ran the people, but vice-versa. By allowing citizens to maintain arms, the government never can obtain true power over the people.
Click to expand...

Well THAT's what makes it anachronistic. Citizens today have no hope of overthrowing a modern state with small arms.
 
Belz... said:
Well THAT's what makes it anachronistic. Citizens today have no hope of overthrowing a modern state with small arms.
Click to expand...

You may be right...but are you suggesting we surrender in advance?

Also, if it were that simple, why are American troops still in Iraq?
 
Belz... said:
I love how some people completely ignore that part of the amendment, as though it was completely unconnected. It's like saying that in this sentence:

"Making money being important to a business, one should listen to their clientele."

...that listening to your clients isn't in any way suggested to be in order to keep your business alive.
Click to expand...
Do you think it means you should listen to your clientele ONLY when it involves making money?
 
Sabretooth said:
You may be right...but are you suggesting we surrender in advance?

Also, if it were that simple, why are American troops still in Iraq?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how that relates to my post. I'm simply saying that the best way to influence politics is through the _first_ amendment, and voting.

As for the war in Iraq, you'll have to explain that one to me.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
Do you think it means you should listen to your clientele ONLY when it involves making money?
Click to expand...

It means that the advice was specific to running the business; otherwise there's no reason to put the first part there. Otherwise it would be written "In part in order to make money and run a business," or somesuch.
 
3point14 said:
Owning a vial of anthrax doesn't hurt anyone. Should people be allowed it?
Click to expand...

Think of this like child pornography. Right clicking and saving a kiddie porn pic didn't hurt the kid.

But the harm occurs prior to right clicking. The person should've reported it and saving the picture makes you an accomplice.

So not reporting where you got the anthrax and being an accomplice to terrorism is the crime.


Walking into a gun store and buying a gun doesn't make you an accomplice to any kind of crime. Why should you have to report a cashier not hurting anyone?

Sitting idly buy and even participating in and perpetuating terrorism and child pornography is wrong.
 
DavidJames said:
It's a ramification of the second, but nice (and pathetic) attempt to ignore my point.
Click to expand...
There is no "ramification" to the second ammendment that gives us the right to kill each other with reckless abandon.

GZ's attorney: "Your honor, my client has the right to kill other people with reckless abandon as a ramification of the second ammendment of the constitution."

Judge: "Oh, well then the charge is dropped and he is free to go."
 
arthwollipot said:
i think you're missing the point. Why is it a right in America, while everywhere else in the developed world it is a privilege? What's so special about America that makes gun ownership a right?

I made this tread partially to encourage people to think about this question, which you're not doing. You're justifying the status quo. How about you consider why the status is quo in the first place?
Click to expand...

I understand that YOU want to frame the conversation and do not want to agree that a default position should account for why anyone should be restricted from gaining access to a tool that facilitates the protection of those things we value, but too bad . . .

You are accusing me of not thinking, I believe it is you who have a preconceived notion and are jumping to the conclusion you want.

If you start at ground zero you need to treat weapons like any other dangerous technology, and the first question should be "why restrict it?" Those reasons should then guide your policy.

If you cannot forge a logical argument why one class of person should be restricted as default despite any personal characteristics, then that is not a logical means to the end goals typically stated by gun control proponents, if you have a novel argument it has yet to be put forth.

It really is this simple, drop your cultural baggage and ask this from a purely philosophical perspective.

What is your logical argument for the government, police and military to be trusted with arms, but not the common citizen? (unless this is not your argument . . . .methinks it is based on your comparison to other countries . . . .)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom