The Law of Unintended Consequences

[jhereg 0]

You guys are getting out of hand... if i was your government and you started doing that i'd totally send the army on your butts.

 

But then again if i was your government i wouldn't want to take away your guns. BUT whoever would kill other human beings just to be able to keep his guns should be thrown into a deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs. If you're serious about that you're downright crazy and a danger to society.

 

Someone needs to point out that sending the army out to get our guns would wrong in so many ways.

 

1) In the US the military is forbidden to do internal law enforcement.

2) We have a right to "Keep & Bear Arms" so coming after someone because they don't want to give them up would be unconstitutional.

3) You would have to be a real idiot to specifically target people who are law abiding citizens who's only offense is to say "If you attack me I will respond." That's called a self fullfilling prophecy.

4) We have the arms so someone can't arbitrarily throw us in a "deep dark hole with spiders and poison frogs." We have specific steps are government is (legally) required to go through before we get thrown in a hole, and I think spiders and poison frogs fall under the category of cruel & inhumane punishment! (Which is also banned.)

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Free men own guns. Slaves don't."? We own guns because we are free. We wouldn't fight over the guns. We would fight because once the means of self defense is gone, your choices generally suck when you discover you need them. I don't want to find myself in the last part of the quote below by Winston Churchill

-----------

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Winston Churchill

-----------

[patriot 7,197]

It may be good to remember not to feed the........................ you get the idea.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

Okay, *I* said that there were no "god-given" or "natural" rights listed in the US Constitution. Period. There are rights that men gave to other men, rights won by hard-fought battles and spilled blood, but there are no rights in the document that the Framers would call "god-given".

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Oh, and wrong.

 

Did they even teach you the Fereralist papers in school? The very suggestion that rights originate from man or can be given by other men is evidence enough that civics classes around the nation are failing in their duty. Sad.

 

Oh a side note, just because our ancestors had to fight tooth and nail to secure our rights, doesn't mean that we didn't have them all along. It means that we weren't allowed to exercise them. There is a very significant difference.

[bigj480 203]

That's all nice, but i still believe threatening with murder is not the way out. As i said, you should try and let people know YOUR point of view, instead of proving the anti-gun party's claims. If that fails... have fun killing people. But at least try to settle it peacefully before you do that.

 

No one is arguing for the use of force as the first option, but the last. We are doing what we can to protect our rights but if a time comes that it is not enough, other means may be necessary. How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do? Also, no one has said that killing people is fun.

[Agias 0]

We are doing what we can to protect our rights but if a time comes that it is not enough, other means may be necessary.

From what i noticed all you do is complain to eachother when more anti-gun propaganda comes out. You guys aren't really in a hurry to try and reinforce pro-gun propaganda towards the general uninformed public.

[Koliadko 207]

It may be good to remember not to feed the........................ you get the idea.

 

 

That's why I stopped although I'm not real sure he's 'one of those'. I think maybe just a liberal foreigner with no understanding of Americans willingness to fight for our rights.

[joelrod47 373]

..........I don't think he comprehends the nature of our rights, and how they were framed to prevent seizure of our guns.

The 2nd is the groundwork of preventing tyranny, especially from our own government.........

 

 

......"shall not be infringed"........

Edited June 2, 2008 by Jeaux E

[Kwicko 8]

Okay, *I* said that there were no "god-given" or "natural" rights listed in the US Constitution. Period. There are rights that men gave to other men, rights won by hard-fought battles and spilled blood, but there are no rights in the document that the Framers would call "god-given".

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. Oh, and wrong.

 

Did they even teach you the Fereralist papers in school? The very suggestion that rights originate from man or can be given by other men is evidence enough that civics classes around the nation are failing in their duty. Sad.

 

Oh a side note, just because our ancestors had to fight tooth and nail to secure our rights, doesn't mean that we didn't have them all along. It means that we weren't allowed to exercise them. There is a very significant difference.

 

Now we're getting somewhere! Good point. And you're right on all counts. I wish I *had* learned more of the Federalist Papers and the whole timeframe that led to the Revolutionary War, but it wasn't focused on much, even in my college history classes, which tended to focus more on the Civil War and Reconstruction.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

For the record, I'm not anti-gun at all. I love my guns, and I hope I never have to use them for anything more than just having fun target shooting. I'm just trying to clear up a few points on the legalities involved.

 

Now, I know we all cherish the 2nd Amendment - and hopefully all the others as well - but what are we going to do if the sad day ever comes when the 2nd is overturned? It IS possible, albeit unlikely; it takes a Constitutional Amendment to repeal another Constitutional Amendment, and it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. I doubt that's likely, but 5 years ago I'd have said warrantless searches and warrantless wiretaps would never stand up against the 4th Amendment... Times change, unfortunately.

 

So, if for some reason the 2nd was overruled or overturned... then what? Do you keep your guns and fight, or turn them in and be law-abiding? I suspect I'd be keeping mine, because the fight would surely be coming in such a case.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

From what i noticed all you do is complain to eachother when more anti-gun propaganda comes out. You guys aren't really in a hurry to try and reinforce pro-gun propaganda towards the general uninformed public.

From what you've noticed?

 

Son, not to put too blunt a point on the matter... but you don't know jack shit about me or what I do merely by observing the ocassional post of mine on a single internet forum. Not a gods damned thing at all.

[ClickClickD'oh 1]

I doubt that's likely, but 5 years ago I'd have said warrantless searches and warrantless wiretaps would never stand up against the 4th Amendment... Times change, unfortunately.

Again, a case of school educations failing us. Warrantless wire taps aren't a creation of this POTUS, the POTUS before him, or even the POTUS before that. Check into the RICO laws and anti-organized crime proceedings. This stuff is half a century old.

[bigj480 203]

We are doing what we can to protect our rights but if a time comes that it is not enough, other means may be necessary.

From what i noticed all you do is complain to eachother when more anti-gun propaganda comes out. You guys aren't really in a hurry to try and reinforce pro-gun propaganda towards the general uninformed public.

 

When we see an anti-gun article, we write the editor. When we see anti-gun legislation proposed, we write our representatives. We try to elect pro-gun candidates (-McCain)We belong to pro-gun groups that employ pro-gun lobbyists. How, exactly, are we supposed to get the media to present our side of the story? By and large, the media has their own agenda. Sadly, it sells. People, it seems, are pessimists. They want to hear about problems, whether they exist or not. These people do not verify what they see on the tube, they take it as gospel. They have no choice much of the time, who can verify everything that the media reports? This is the reason I feel that the public is largely anti-gun. Us, being gun and shooting enthusiasts, have taken the time to look into the issue because it threatens our hobby and our rights. We hold this right dear, many do not because it would not affect their everyday life and they have been indoctrinated by the media to believe that only criminals and cops would have guns. I know that you post this only to help us in our cause, so how about some recommendations? The only improvements I think we can make is to get more people to participate in the thing we are already doing.

 

I still would like an answer to these questions:

 

"How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do?"

Edited June 2, 2008 by bigj480

[Agias 0]

From what i noticed all you do is complain to eachother when more anti-gun propaganda comes out. You guys aren't really in a hurry to try and reinforce pro-gun propaganda towards the general uninformed public.

From what you've noticed?

 

Son, not to put too blunt a point on the matter... but you don't know jack shit about me or what I do merely by observing the ocassional post of mine on a single internet forum. Not a gods damned thing at all.

Firstly, i'm not your son. Secondly, i meant [you] as in you, the american gun "nuts", not you personally.

 

We are doing what we can to protect our rights but if a time comes that it is not enough, other means may be necessary.

From what i noticed all you do is complain to eachother when more anti-gun propaganda comes out. You guys aren't really in a hurry to try and reinforce pro-gun propaganda towards the general uninformed public.

 

When we see an anti-gun article, we write the editor. When we see anti-gun legislation proposed, we write our representatives. We try to elect pro-gun candidates (-McCain)We belong to pro-gun groups that employ pro-gun lobbyists. How, exactly, are we supposed to get the media to present our side of the story? By and large, the media has their own agenda. Sadly, it sells. People, it seems, are pessimists. They want to hear about problems, whether they exist or not. These people do not verify what they see on the tube, they take it as gospel. They have no choice much of the time, who can verify everything that the media reports? This is the reason I feel that the public is largely anti-gun. Us, being gun and shooting enthusiasts, have taken the time to look into the issue because it threatens our hobby and our rights. We hold this right dear, many do not because it would not affect their everyday life and they have been indoctrinated by the media to believe that only criminals and cops would have guns. I know that you post this only to help us in our cause, so how about some recommendations? The only improvements I think we can make is to get more people to participate in the thing we are already doing.

 

I still would like an answer to these questions:

 

"How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do?"

If you ask the media, they'll most likely listen. They're likely to publish what you say, even if only to make a scandal out of it. But even if that would end up being the case you'd still get to a few more ears. What you said you do to hinder the anti-gun progress is definitely a step forward, but one that i already know of - and in my opinion not too effective.

 

Just silently, namelessly fighting politists and writing to editiors just so they ignore your messages isn't too much. You need to have the people on your side. I believe media hype and public presence is a potential weapon you could turn on your side. Of course, this is just my personal, subjective opinion, just like everything else i've said so far in this topic.

It may be good to remember not to feed the........................ you get the idea.

 

 

That's why I stopped although I'm not real sure he's 'one of those'. I think maybe just a liberal foreigner with no understanding of Americans willingness to fight for our rights.

No i'm not one of them - i just think the original poster went a bit too far, and shouldn't resort to violence so quickly. Especially since that's the government's excuse to do what he's trying to fight against

Believe me, we had our fair share of fighting for our freedom aswell. But as long as long as my existential rights are not in danger i, personally, am not willing to harm other, mostly innocent humans. And i am against others doing it - as you can tell.

 

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them. You can bet he wouldnt like doing that job. But unless he wants to lose his job, he'll most likely do it. As they say, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[knutz 0]

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them. You can bet he wouldnt like doing that job. But unless he wants to lose his job, he'll most likely do it. As they say, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

HUH?.... So I guess all those NAZI soldiers just loved their job. I mean if they didn't we had no right killing them did we?

 

I'm sorry that makes no logical sense. It doesn't matter if he likes it or disagrees with it. He has a choice in the matter He can do the right thing and refuse the order and possibly lose his job or he can enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

I mean what kind of person chooses a job over what is right and wrong anyway? If he chooses the job over what is right and constitutional then he has chosen the wrong side just like hitler's soldiers did.

 

And from reading your post I don't quite think you understand how the media works over here too much.

 

jeff

[Agias 0]

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them. You can bet he wouldnt like doing that job. But unless he wants to lose his job, he'll most likely do it. As they say, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

HUH?.... So I guess all those NAZI soldiers just loved their job. I mean if they didn't we had no right killing them did we?

 

I'm sorry that makes no logical sense. It doesn't matter if he likes it or disagrees with it. He has a choice in the matter He can do the right thing and refuse the order and possibly lose his job or he can enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

I mean what kind of person chooses a job over what is right and wrong anyway? If he chooses the job over what is right and constitutional then he has chosen the wrong side just like hitler's soldiers did.

Nazis? Apples to oranges mate. I hope you're just kidding. And you don't have to be sorry - it does make sense. Maybe not for you.

 

If the guy is anti-gun or neutral, he'll certainly NOT think what he's doing is wrong. Is there anyone in this world who'd quit his job just to please a total stranger? But if he's ordered to go to some psycho patriot's house to pry his guns from his cold dead fingers, i'm sure he wouldn't do it because he wants to. That's what i mean by wouldn't like to.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[bigj480 203]

If you ask the media, they'll most likely listen. They're likely to publish what you say, even if only to make a scandal out of it. But even if that would end up being the case you'd still get to a few more ears. What you said you do to hinder the anti-gun progress is definitely a step forward, but one that i already know of - and in my opinion not too effective.

 

I agree, but I don't think that it is possible. You have to remember that our west coast is fairly liberal and they tow the party line. I hate labeling them as "liberal" but that is what they call themselves. Anyway, as much as it is repeated, Hollywood is far too liberal. It's fine that they have their opinion, but the harm is done when they don't allow anyone to say anything contrary to that opinion. I have never seen a pro-gun film and I don't think that a major studio would allow one to be made on their watch.

 

Just silently, namelessly fighting politists and writing to editiors just so they ignore your messages isn't too much. You need to have the people on your side. I believe media hype and public presence is a potential weapon you could turn on your side. Of course, this is just my personal, subjective opinion, just like everything else i've said so far in this topic.

 

I agree, but I don't think that it is possible. You have to remember that our west coast is fairly liberal and they tow the party line. I hate labeling them as "liberal" but that is what they call themselves. Anyway, as much as it is repeated, Hollywood is far too liberal. It's fine that they have their opinion, but the harm is done when they don't allow anyone to say anything contrary to that opinion. I have never seen a pro-gun film and I don't think that a major studio would allow one to be made on their watch.

 

What guns do you believe the average citizens should be "allowed" to own? ("assault rifles", full auto etc.) What is a "gun nut"? I only ask because you used that term.

[bigj480 203]

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them. You can bet he wouldnt like doing that job. But unless he wants to lose his job, he'll most likely do it. As they say, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

HUH?.... So I guess all those NAZI soldiers just loved their job. I mean if they didn't we had no right killing them did we?

 

I'm sorry that makes no logical sense. It doesn't matter if he likes it or disagrees with it. He has a choice in the matter He can do the right thing and refuse the order and possibly lose his job or he can enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

I mean what kind of person chooses a job over what is right and wrong anyway? If he chooses the job over what is right and constitutional then he has chosen the wrong side just like hitler's soldiers did.

Nazis? Apples to oranges mate. I hope you're just kidding. And you don't have to be sorry - it does make sense. Maybe not for you.

 

If the guy is anti-gun or neutral, he'll certainly NOT think what he's doing is wrong. Is there anyone in this world who'd quit his job just to please a total stranger? But if he's ordered to go to some psycho patriot's house to pry his guns from his cold dead fingers, i'm sure he wouldn't do it because he wants to. That's what i mean by wouldn't like to.

 

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to ask again. How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do?

[Agias 0]

What guns do you believe the average citizens should be "allowed" to own? ("assault rifles", full auto etc.) What is a "gun nut"? I only ask because you used that term.

Personally, i think anything that is not FA or a DD(reasonably DD, not DD by BATF definition - they seem to go too strict on this) should be allowed. My reson for saying that is: they are not of any particular use for a civilian. Any semi-auto or a single shot in any size can be useful for sporting, self defense, hunting, etc. But i can't think of any good(and legal) reason for a civilian to have a FA firearm, other then the "just because" factor. So if i was a government, i wouldn't risk it "just because". And i think the license system - if done reasonably - is beneficial.

 

I used the term gun nut wrapped in a quote, i obviously didn't mean anything by it. I just use it as a short for gun enthusiest.

[knutz 0]

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them. You can bet he wouldnt like doing that job. But unless he wants to lose his job, he'll most likely do it. As they say, don't hate the player. Hate the game.

 

HUH?.... So I guess all those NAZI soldiers just loved their job. I mean if they didn't we had no right killing them did we?

 

I'm sorry that makes no logical sense. It doesn't matter if he likes it or disagrees with it. He has a choice in the matter He can do the right thing and refuse the order and possibly lose his job or he can enforce an unconstitutional law.

 

I mean what kind of person chooses a job over what is right and wrong anyway? If he chooses the job over what is right and constitutional then he has chosen the wrong side just like hitler's soldiers did.

 

And from reading your post I don't quite think you understand how the media works over here too much.

 

jeff

Nazis? Apples to oranges mate. I hope you're just kidding. You don't have to be sorry - it does make sense. Maybe not for you.

 

If the guy is anti-gun or neutral, he'll certainly NOT think what he's doing is wrong. Is there anyone in this world who'd quit his job just to please a total stranger?

 

 

Again you just don't understand... What part of unconstitutional don't you understand? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If he chooses to disobey it simply because he doesn't really care about that particular amendment he has chosen the wrong side. The same as if I chose to silence a bunch of queers cause I don't agree with their message. It's unconstitutional. Period end of story.

 

And if a man doesn't think what he is doing is wrong and continues to do whatever it is he is doing what's to stop him from doing further wrongs??????

 

Right and wrong isn't up for individual interpretation. It's wrong to steal...it's worng to innocently kill someone....it's worng to rape....it's wrong to deny someone their rights enumerated in the constitution etc etc etc...... It doesn't matter if the particular person thinks it is wrong or not. It's still wrong.

 

Back to what you call apples and oranges... I'm sure there were plenty of hitlers soldiers who didn't agree with him but did as they were told anyways. I fail to see the difference.

 

After all... All that is needed for evil to win is for good men to do nothing... or something like that. So that means if everybody just did like they were told because they might lose their job or because they had no personal stake in the matter.... well let's just say this would be a very sad world to live in.

[Agias 0]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to ask again. How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do?

I already answered that a few posts above this. Here:

 

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them..

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[Agias 0]

Back to what you call apples and oranges... I'm sure there were plenty of hitlers soldiers who didn't agree with him but did as they were told anyways. I fail to see the difference.

Germans were mislead by propaganda and pressure from all around to join the army. And when they were already in and then realized what uncle Hitler was up to was bad, i can imagine it was no easy task to just quit.

 

And if a man doesn't think what he is doing is wrong and continues to do whatever it is he is doing what's to stop him from doing further wrongs??????

If the majority thinks its right, and the government thinks its right, its not wrong for them and him, only for you. And in that case, sadly, you're the one who's wrong - no matter how unfair that is.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[knutz 0]

Back to what you call apples and oranges... I'm sure there were plenty of hitlers soldiers who didn't agree with him but did as they were told anyways. I fail to see the difference.

Germans were mislead by propaganda and pressure from all around to join the army. And when they were already in and then realized what uncle Hitler was up to was bad, i can imagine it was no easy task to just quit.

 

This is where you don't quite under stand the use of the media in our market. people here have told over and over how dangerous guns are. On every news outlet in just about government function etc etc etc.....

 

So they are won over by the propaganda as you call it just like hitler.

 

Yeah the gun loving and conservative side is starting to make inroads into the media by using the internet and radio and even somewhat on FOX news... Will it work? Only time will tell. But i doubt it right now.

 

jeff

[Agias 0]

Will it work? Only time will tell. But i doubt it right now.

I really hope it will, both because of the gun enthusiest community and the rest of the world. Everyone would be better off if the two parties could settle this peacefully.

 

Bottom line, i sympathize with the american gun community, but i don't agree with some of their methods. That's all. You're not trying to avoid violence as much as you, in my opinion, should.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

Wow did this one ever take off....

 

oh boy....I've got some reading to do since where I left this whole thing early on Pg 1

[knutz 0]

And if a man doesn't think what he is doing is wrong and continues to do whatever it is he is doing what's to stop him from doing further wrongs??????

If the majority thinks its right, and the government thinks its right, its not wrong for them and him, only for you. And in that case, sadly, you're the one who's wrong - no matter how unfair that is.

 

Whoa.... I can see now that this is a debate neither of us is going to win cause of what you just posted.

 

I mean if right means all I have to is get a majority to agree with me by your own words.... Then this is something we will never agree with.

 

There is right and wrong, period. Simply having enough people to force your will on someone doesn't make "you" right. It just makes you the likely winner.

 

That's why we have the constitution and representative democracy instead of a true democracy in this country. To keep the majority form forcing the minority to do their bidding. Cause just because you have the numbers doen't mean you are right.

 

History proves that right time and time again.

 

jeff

[Koliadko 207]

There are about as many guns in this country as people. No way the majority would think it's right. Some just tend to bury their heads in the sand and expect the rest to take care of business. I unfortunately know quite a few people who don't vote. Sad but true. As far as I'm concerned, you don't vote, you lose your bitching rights. The only way they can legally take our guns is to change the Constitution and that will never happen. But what if Shillery or the empty suit should win? They could sure try to take them away just the same. Then, and only then, would we resort to violence. Until then, we will do everything in our power to see that it doesn't come to that. One thing you don't understand. American's have spilled alot of blood defending our rights and we're more than willing to continue to do so should the need arise. Never underestimate an American. It'd be the last mistake you ever make.

[Agias 0]

There is right and wrong, period. Simply having enough people to force your will on someone doesn't make "you" right. It just makes you the likely winner.

Sadly, being likely winner usually means being right. What's right for some, is wrong for others, so there is no real way to define right and wrong.

 

But if we follow that logic... then i could not say rape is wrong, while it is. For rapists, it isn't wrong. For the rest of the world it is. So that makes it wrong - see my point? Anti-rapists are in majority and therefore rape is generally accepted as wrong.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[knutz 0]

There is right and wrong, period. Simply having enough people to force your will on someone doesn't make "you" right. It just makes you the likely winner.

Sadly, being likely winner usually means being right. What's right for some, is wrong for others, so there is no real way to define right and wrong.

 

But if we follow that logic... then i could not say rape is wrong, while it is. For rapists, it isn't wrong. For the rest of the world it is. So that makes it wrong - see my point? Anti-rapists are in majority and therefore rape is generally accepted as wrong.

 

See I was going to bow out because of our differing philosophies and different social setting comparing the US to Europe but c'mon man.....

 

Even if rapist were a majority it still doesn't make it right. because that act takes something from someone and damages and hurts someone else. It's worng it doesn't matter who is in the majority.

 

Might doesn't make right like the popular saying. It just makes you hte probable victor. Being a victor and being right are two different things.

 

jeff

[Agias 0]

There is right and wrong, period. Simply having enough people to force your will on someone doesn't make "you" right. It just makes you the likely winner.

Sadly, being likely winner usually means being right. What's right for some, is wrong for others, so there is no real way to define right and wrong.

 

But if we follow that logic... then i could not say rape is wrong, while it is. For rapists, it isn't wrong. For the rest of the world it is. So that makes it wrong - see my point? Anti-rapists are in majority and therefore rape is generally accepted as wrong.

 

See I was going to bow out because of our differing philosophies and different social setting comparing the US to Europe but c'mon man.....

 

Even if rapist were a majority it still doesn't make it right. because that act takes something from someone and damages and hurts someone else. It's worng it doesn't matter who is in the majority.

 

Might doesn't make right like the popular saying. It just makes you hte probable victor. Being a victor and being right are two different things.

 

jeff

See it's definitely wrong for you and me, because we're not them. But if 90% of the population were rapist, how would you go about trying to prove them they're wrong? You can't. If there isn't a majority that can tell what is wrong and what isn't, there is no way to tell which group is right. There isn't a good and bad list that would descend from heaven to decide for us.

 

EDIT: Alright, we could go on with this for days, but i think i've had enough for today, i need some sleep. We've put together a decent little argument though.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Agias

[knutz 0]

There is right and wrong, period. Simply having enough people to force your will on someone doesn't make "you" right. It just makes you the likely winner.

Sadly, being likely winner usually means being right. What's right for some, is wrong for others, so there is no real way to define right and wrong.

 

But if we follow that logic... then i could not say rape is wrong, while it is. For rapists, it isn't wrong. For the rest of the world it is. So that makes it wrong - see my point? Anti-rapists are in majority and therefore rape is generally accepted as wrong.

 

See I was going to bow out because of our differing philosophies and different social setting comparing the US to Europe but c'mon man.....

 

Even if rapist were a majority it still doesn't make it right. because that act takes something from someone and damages and hurts someone else. It's worng it doesn't matter who is in the majority.

 

Might doesn't make right like the popular saying. It just makes you hte probable victor. Being a victor and being right are two different things.

 

jeff

See it's definitely wrong for you and me, because we're not them. But if 90% of the population were rapist, how would you go about trying to prove them they're wrong? You can't. If there isn't a majority that can tell what is wrong and what isn't, there is no way to tell which group is right. There isn't a good and bad list that would descend from heaven to decide for us.

 

I can't???

 

Just point to the emotionally and physically battered person who was raped. If seeing someone who was raped and their more than likely scarred mental and physical state isn't enough to convince them then they are beyond saving anyway.

 

It does not take a majority to determine right and wrong. One simple question can answer wether something is right or wrong most of the time.

 

Would I like that to happen or be done to me? If the answer is no I'd say it is more than likely wrong.

[bigj480 203]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to ask again. How is one defending himself, his family and his rights murder? Are there any rights that you would not willingly give up? If those rights were being taken by force, what would you do?

I already answered that a few posts above this. Here:

 

To answer the question in your last paragraph, i think killing someone who is ordered to go and take your guns is indeed murder, and is not directly defending your right to bear arms. You'd have to get the government for that - they are the ones who want your guns, not the poor guy they send out to collect them..

 

That's fine, I happen to disagree. I do think that the Nazi comparison is extreme, but at what point do you blame the soldier/officer? Surely there is a line which one should not cross as a soldier/officer. How does one "get the government" after they have started to take your guns? Protest? Remember, by this point they have already put their agenda above your rights. What is to stop them from infringing on the rest of them? That "poor guy" would certainly know what he is doing when the government starts systematically confiscating lawfully owned guns. If it was just my house, I may let them because I have reason to believe that I will get a chance to defend myself in a court of law. If they are disregarding everyones right, I have no reason to believe that I will be afforded the same opportunity.

 

Personally, i think anything that is not FA or a DD(reasonably DD, not DD by BATF definition - they seem to go too strict on this) should be allowed. My reson for saying that is: they are not of any particular use for a civilian. Any semi-auto or a single shot in any size can be useful for sporting, self defense, hunting, etc. But i can't think of any good(and legal) reason for a civilian to have a FA firearm, other then the "just because" factor. So if i was a government, i wouldn't risk it "just because". And i think the license system - if done reasonably - is beneficial.

 

I see. I happen to own an SMG and I will tell you why I disagree. I don't believe that one should have to justify what they are doing if it is lawful. I don't question the need for newspapers,tv or the internet. I don't question the need for religious statues and paintings. I don't question the need for protests. Why? Because these people are well within their rights. Who am I to infringe on that right? Who are they harming? The same could be said for FA guns. I am harming no one. I have never committed any crime worse than speeding. I have jumped through all of the hoops that the government has placed in my way to get the gun. Only ONE crime has ever been committed in the US with a legally owned machine gun. It was committed by a cop using a gun owned by his department. He killed one person. Most crimes are committed with cheap illegal handguns. Why not ban those? If someone is doing harm, arrest them. If not, leave them alone. I don't believe in victimless crimes.