But America is different.
WE are our government.
We rule ourselves.

Elections are how we decide our fate.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Turn on us? How do you mean? As long as they are in control of course they aren't going to turn on us. It's when you have an uprising and the government has to utilize military force against it's own citizens to supress it that it turns on us. Don't think it can happen? Maybe you need to look at history.... Does the USSR ring a bell, just for one example? How many times have you read or heard in a broadcast about some foreign country utilizing the military to put down riots in it's own lands? Any government can turn on it's people if it is threatened on a large enough scale. If you don't think it can then you are nuts because history proves you wrong.

Your NUTS are showing.

Do we not live in the greatest country in the world?. It's not because we all have guns. It is because our founding fathers created a government that keeps it's self in check. You know the Three branches. The ability to impeach. etc.

2013

[This message has been edited by bonzo (edited 01-14-2013).]

quote Originally posted by bonzo: Your NUTS are showing. Do we not live in the greatest country in the world?. It's not because we all have guns. It is because our founding fathers created a government that keeps it's self in check. You know the Three branches. The ability to impeach. etc. 2013

Really? " in Order to form a more perfect Union" not to form a perfect, a more perfect. They knew it wasn't perfect. Nothing is perfect. They did the best they could to create a government that would hopefully last. To this point it has lasted. However, do you think the USSR went into it thinking they were createing a government that was destined to fail? No they thought they were creating a more perfect union. Any government can fail. Why did the US declare independence from Great Britian? We were part of that government and when it became to oppressive, the people cast it off. The founding fathers did what they could to keep this government from becoming to oppressive, but that does not mean it can not happen. When and if it does happen, the people will rise and cast it off, just as has happened in the past many times over. It's not nuts, it's reality.

And yes, I think I know. Do you know what philosopher was very insturmental in how our founding fathers formed this government? Have you read any of the works that philosopher wrote that were used? Do you know what that philosopher said over and over in those works? I'll give you a hint... read the first two sections of the DOI.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: So you have not been advocating putting "reasonable" restrictions on the 2nd. You did not write that the 2nd is moot because you think you can't beat the fed military machine? Others see this is a clear demonstration of why we should have access to ALL weapons the government has. Others have also stated that is not how the battle would play out. Thing of it is, freedom is not free and is often very dangerous. Get over it or go hide.

I wrote nothing of the sort. Read. I have stated in several places what my overall position is but I will spell it out again so you can quote it directly as needed. "You" below isn't you personally but those that seem to miss my point.

1. I don't support anything other than a limitation of extreme-arms for people. I set the limit at around a Howitzer but have no problem with fully automatic weapons or pretend assault style rifles designed to allow someone to get into a fire-fight with a deer. You can't have an atomic or antimatter weapon. I will vote against you getting either. People created these weapons and will just create others if we take one type away. There is no end. We have to figure out why they decide to do a spree killing.

2. I believe gun owners have as much responsibility to help by toning down the rhetoric and unnecessary enthusiasm about guns. One thing I think we can do is to turn gun ownership from false bravado to quiet power. Coming from a gun background I am well aware of what I call the "pit bull/mountain lion owner" effect. We get this sense we are in control of extreme power and revel in knowing the damage we could do but since we are awesome people, we restrain that power. But boy if I have to ....

3. Gun owners can throttle back the "revolt against the government" hyperbolic hysteria. It's stupid. You're not going to throw out or take over the government - you're going to die and odds are you will have talked some other people into dying with you (more than likely for you.)

4. Parents need to think carefully about their children's state of mind and if THEY feel it's appropriate, prudent and justified, do everything they can to restrict their children's access to guns. The child may still get one but at least they tried. If they are on the line about this decision they should seek others advice. If they are even having these thoughts about their child THEY NEED TO DISCUSS IT WITH SOMEONE AND RESTRICT THE CHILD. Get the guns out of the house. Tell their friends to not let them near their guns. Just do something.

5. Unless a stolen gun was buried under 200 ft of concrete and the thief had to use a bunker buster to get it, the owner has a hand in the crime. Lock them up, bolt them down, accept responsibility if it's taken from you. If they could get it, it wasn't secure enough. Period.

6. Spree killing (which is the first issue we want to address ) is so rare that their isn't very much in common to draw any statistical conclusions about the cause. I do think the "boy, I will teach you for messing with me" syndrome coupled with the "You think Harris and Klebold were bad, watch this" one-upmanship might be driving what appears (a legal term) to be an upswing in spree killings. But then some people are just crazy. Always will be. I have to assume Thag Simmons had this same thought at one time too but now it can be done without having to actually face your victim. That's a true chicken.

7. Other than the silly bolstering "I GOT A GUN!!!" (see #2) most people are totally harmless and safe with a gun. They are. They are careful, very careful. I've never been shot once by the gun owners I am around. I have yet to shoot anyone or want to.

8. Lastly, I believe there is NO solution. Getting rid of guns won't do it. Getting rid of "assault rifles" won't do it. There is no gun that can be banned that will do it. We need to accept that this will happen and suffer through the terror and horror because some humans like to do horrible things for different reasons. We created the weapons - we have to live with the results. Be prepared to explain that your your family.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by TK: I wrote nothing of the sort. Read. I have stated in several places what my overall position is but I will spell it out again so you can quote it directly as needed: 1. I don't support anything other than a limitation of extreme-arms restrictions for people. I set the limit at around a Howitzer but have no problem with fully automatic weapons or pretend assault style rifles designed to allow someone to get into a fire-fight with a deer. You can't have an atomic or antimatter weapon. I will vote against you getting either. People created these weapons and will just create others if we take one type away. There is no end. We have to figure out why they decide to do a spree killing. 2. I believe gun owners have as much responsibility to help by toning down the rhetoric and unnecessary enthusiasm about guns. One thing I think we can do is to turn gun ownership from false bravado to quite power. Coming from a gun background I am well aware of what I call the "pit bull/mountain lion owner" effect. We get this sense we are in control of extreme power and revel in knowing the damage we could do but since we are awesome people, we restrain that power. But boy if I have to .... 3. Gun owners can throttle back the "revolt against the government" hyperbolic hysteria. It's stupid. You're not going to throw out or take over the government - you're going to die and odds are you will have talked some other people into dying with you. 4. Parents need to think carefully about their children's state of mind and if THEY feel it's appropriate, prudent and justified, do everything they can to restrict their children's access to guns. The child may still get one but at least they tried. If they are on the line about this decision they should seek others advice. If they are even having these thoughts about their child THEY NEED TO DISCUSS IT WITH SOMEONE AND RESTRICT THE CHILD. Get the guns out of the house. Tell their friends to not let them near their guns. Just do something. 5. Unless a stolen gun was buried under 200 ft of concrete and the thief had to use a bunker buster to get it, the owner has a hand in the crime. Lock them up, bolt them down, accept responsibility if it's taken from you. If they could get it, it wasn't secure enough. Period. 6. Spree killing (which is the first issue we want to address ) is so rare that their isn't very much in common to draw any statistical conclusions about the cause. I do think the "boy, I will teach you for messing with me" syndrome coupled with the "You think Harris and Klebold were bad, watch this" one-upmanship might be driving what appears (a legal term) to be an upswing in spree killings. Then there are some people are just crazy that just do it. Always will be. 7. Other than the silly bolstering "I GOT A GUN!!!" (see #2) most people are totally harmless and safe with a gun. They are. They are careful, very careful. I've never been shot once by the gun people I am around. I have yet to shoot anyone or want to. 8. Lastly, I believe there is NO solution. Getting rid of guns won't do it. Getting rid of "assault rifles" won't do it. There is no gun that can be banned that will do it. We need to accept that this will happen and suffer through the terror and horror because some humans like to do horrible things for different reasons. We created the weapons - we have to live with the results. Be prepared to explain that your your family.

The above is the most sensable thing I have read in quite some time!
Maybe ever.

Well done!
I could actually get behind that, in total.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-14-2013).]

In regards to #4............

Very little of the conversation about guns and regulation was about the TRUE reason for the 2nd Amendment, that is until the Gun Control Lobby started with the rhetoric about "you can still hunt and target shoot with your single shot 22".

Who else would speak up unless it were the gun owners?

A war with the government is averted by the deterrent of a well armed populace.

Could we win? No.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure......

quote Originally posted by Khw: Do I think might makes right? No. However under natural law, that is the case. That is the reason governments are formed, so the same rules apply to all no matter their might.

Me: I'm gonna take over your house and make you wash my fiero for 4 hours a day. Is this legitimate?

You: No, because current government, but if you were to use might in order to create a new government, then yes.

Me: Do you believe in might makes right.

You: No but yes under natural law, which is why we have government, so that it can use might in order to make everyone do what it wants.

Well, I guess this conversation is over.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Do I think might makes right? No. However under natural law, that is the case. That is the reason governments are formed, so the same rules apply to all no matter their might.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Me: I'm gonna take over your house and make you wash my fiero for 4 hours a day. Is this legitimate? You: No, because current government, but if you were to use might in order to create a new government, then yes. Me: Do you believe in might makes right. You: No but yes under natural law, which is why we have government, so that it can use might in order to make everyone do what it wants. Well, I guess this conversation is over.

That's not what I said. I typed very clearly, "Do I think might makes right? No". I never said I beleived might makes right. I said under natural law, which is people living in nature without a government to govern them, you have natural law which is might makes right. It's that whole old saying "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The wolves have the might, so the sheep is what's for dinner. With the abscence of a governed society to protect the weaker the mighty will rule, nautural law. Hence Lockes philosphy on government which is the basis for the government we have, a represenitive republic. He even descibed a governing system with 3 branches to check and balance each other. The branches he describes are alot like what we have, although one branch, the executive branch if i remember correctly, was named something else in his system. Also some of the powers he associated with different branches were swapped around to other branches, but on the whole the system he laid out in his philosophy is what we have. However, that is only part of his philosophy he wrote of in the second tretisie. The first part of it is a indepth explination of people living in nature without a government. How things work in such an instance is basically, might makes right. Each person is the executer of natural law, and one can only execute what is within their power. If they are to weak to seek justice for an action against them then they are a victim of might makes right aren't they? Your questions are not apt because we are not in a state of nature we are in a governed society. Because of that we all fall under the laws the government enforces until that government is no longer. So while that government is still in effect, no you can't drive your car into my house and claim it and make me wash your car 4 times a week. There is no law allowing that. If you want a law allowing that, then you need to either get the government to enact one, reevolt and overthrow the government setting up a new one that allows it or go find some ungoverned land and create a government there that allows it or keep it under natural law and be the mightiest so you can do whatever you please. Until you attempt and succed at any of those, you are still subject tot he laws of the land you live in wghich it's government enforces. Like I said, it's not something easy to grasp, especially if your not going to take the time to read it and attempt to understand what you read while looking at the drawn conclusions in it objectively. Locke described many situations and the outcomes of them under natural law. Does that make his philosophy right? No because as I said you can easily find decenting opinions on the state of nature from other philosophers such as Hobbs who viewed it as complete anarchy. But, our founding fathers put great stock into Lockes philosophy which is why I'm trying to explain it. It's obvious by the system of governemnt they created and the natural rights of men they cited that they gave Lockes phiosophy great weight.

Edit: Wait, I'm reading some stuff to refresh my memory. I think I'm getting Hobbs philosophy on the state of nature mixed up with Lockes although not the government part. I think Locke was the one that beleived people living in the state of nature would treat each other as equals and could band together to punish any trangressors of the mutual respect of a person inherrant rights when violated if the victim couldn't punish the transgression on his own... Which is still might makes right as the might of the group is mightier than that of the transgressor, just Locke thinks the state of nature would be much more tranquil than Hobbs did.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-15-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: That's not what I said. I typed very clearly, "Do I think might makes right? No". I never said I beleived might makes right. I said under natural law, which is people living in nature without a government to govern them, you have natural law which is might makes right. It's that whole old saying "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The wolves have the might, so the sheep is what's for dinner. With the abscence of a governed society to protect the weaker the mighty will rule, nautural law. Hence Lockes philosphy on government which is the basis for the government we have, a represenitive republic.

I think that is a good explaination.

quote Originally posted by TK: I wrote nothing of the sort. Read. I have stated in several places what my overall position is but I will spell it out again so you can quote it directly as needed. "You" below isn't you personally but those that seem to miss my point. 1. I don't support anything other than a limitation of extreme-arms for people. I set the limit at around a Howitzer but have no problem with fully automatic weapons or pretend assault style rifles designed to allow someone to get into a fire-fight with a deer. You can't have an atomic or antimatter weapon. I will vote against you getting either. People created these weapons and will just create others if we take one type away. There is no end. We have to figure out why they decide to do a spree killing. 2. I believe gun owners have as much responsibility to help by toning down the rhetoric and unnecessary enthusiasm about guns. One thing I think we can do is to turn gun ownership from false bravado to quiet power. Coming from a gun background I am well aware of what I call the "pit bull/mountain lion owner" effect. We get this sense we are in control of extreme power and revel in knowing the damage we could do but since we are awesome people, we restrain that power. But boy if I have to .... 3. Gun owners can throttle back the "revolt against the government" hyperbolic hysteria. It's stupid. You're not going to throw out or take over the government - you're going to die and odds are you will have talked some other people into dying with you (more than likely for you.) 4. Parents need to think carefully about their children's state of mind and if THEY feel it's appropriate, prudent and justified, do everything they can to restrict their children's access to guns. The child may still get one but at least they tried. If they are on the line about this decision they should seek others advice. If they are even having these thoughts about their child THEY NEED TO DISCUSS IT WITH SOMEONE AND RESTRICT THE CHILD. Get the guns out of the house. Tell their friends to not let them near their guns. Just do something. 5. Unless a stolen gun was buried under 200 ft of concrete and the thief had to use a bunker buster to get it, the owner has a hand in the crime. Lock them up, bolt them down, accept responsibility if it's taken from you. If they could get it, it wasn't secure enough. Period. 6. Spree killing (which is the first issue we want to address ) is so rare that their isn't very much in common to draw any statistical conclusions about the cause. I do think the "boy, I will teach you for messing with me" syndrome coupled with the "You think Harris and Klebold were bad, watch this" one-upmanship might be driving what appears (a legal term) to be an upswing in spree killings. But then some people are just crazy. Always will be. I have to assume Thag Simmons had this same thought at one time too but now it can be done without having to actually face your victim. That's a true chicken. 7. Other than the silly bolstering "I GOT A GUN!!!" (see #2) most people are totally harmless and safe with a gun. They are. They are careful, very careful. I've never been shot once by the gun owners I am around. I have yet to shoot anyone or want to. 8. Lastly, I believe there is NO solution. Getting rid of guns won't do it. Getting rid of "assault rifles" won't do it. There is no gun that can be banned that will do it. We need to accept that this will happen and suffer through the terror and horror because some humans like to do horrible things for different reasons. We created the weapons - we have to live with the results. Be prepared to explain that your your family.

Pretty good post.

2#

Rhetoric, well not sure why we would tone down our opinions when the leftists like Obama are ramping things up and trying to steamroller over our right under the “doing something” guise which any relatively sane person will realize will do no good.

If you agree with the last part of that, which by your 8# clearly shows that you do then one MUST wonder what they are really trying to accomplish.

3#
I can see where you are coming from but I do not agree with hiding the reason we have the 2nd, and making it clear to those that don’t know, why it is there. I do not agree with your can’t win, or can’t so should do nothing stance. Basically, I have pointed this very thing out to you before but,,,,,, here we are.

5#
Sorry, I do not think that is reasonable at all, in fact ridiculous. I think gun owners should be careful when carrying and storing of course, but taking responsibility or being held responsible for another's criminal and or crazy act?, not. That is a dangerous slope I do no think you have thought this through, and why stop at guns.?

8#
TOTALLY AGREE and I have to wonder why you would write the rest, or even consider a compromise of rights for more do nothing laws.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: ... I have to wonder why you would write the rest ...

Because I can. While most like to complain and provide no quantifiable solutions I prefer to give some talking points so we can attempt to make things better.

Yes, I support restrictions. I continue to support not letting people have anything above a Howitzer. Holding people responsible for the security of their guns? Come on, step up here. You want power, manage it correctly. Can't stop a thief? Try harder. Want to brag that you got a new gun? Have at it but I want to tone it down (free speech.) Want to claim you are going to stop the evil government with your guns - we will chip in on the headstone. I promise. But don't let others talk you into it if they aren't going to be at your side. They have to get their own headstones.

Are those compromises so egregious you can't fathom trying?

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 01-16-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: That's not what I said. I typed very clearly, "Do I think might makes right? No". I never said I beleived might makes right. I said under natural law, which is people living in nature without a government to govern them, you have natural law which is might makes right. It's that whole old saying "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The wolves have the might, so the sheep is what's for dinner. With the abscence of a governed society to protect the weaker the mighty will rule, nautural law. Hence Lockes philosphy on government which is the basis for the government we have, a represenitive republic. He even descibed a governing system with 3 branches to check and balance each other. The branches he describes are alot like what we have, although one branch, the executive branch if i remember correctly, was named something else in his system. Also some of the powers he associated with different branches were swapped around to other branches, but on the whole the system he laid out in his philosophy is what we have. However, that is only part of his philosophy he wrote of in the second tretisie. The first part of it is a indepth explination of people living in nature without a government. How things work in such an instance is basically, might makes right. Each person is the executer of natural law, and one can only execute what is within their power. If they are to weak to seek justice for an action against them then they are a victim of might makes right aren't they? Your questions are not apt because we are not in a state of nature we are in a governed society. Because of that we all fall under the laws the government enforces until that government is no longer. So while that government is still in effect, no you can't drive your car into my house and claim it and make me wash your car 4 times a week. There is no law allowing that. If you want a law allowing that, then you need to either get the government to enact one, reevolt and overthrow the government setting up a new one that allows it or go find some ungoverned land and create a government there that allows it or keep it under natural law and be the mightiest so you can do whatever you please. Until you attempt and succed at any of those, you are still subject tot he laws of the land you live in wghich it's government enforces. Like I said, it's not something easy to grasp, especially if your not going to take the time to read it and attempt to understand what you read while looking at the drawn conclusions in it objectively. Locke described many situations and the outcomes of them under natural law. Does that make his philosophy right? No because as I said you can easily find decenting opinions on the state of nature from other philosophers such as Hobbs who viewed it as complete anarchy. But, our founding fathers put great stock into Lockes philosophy which is why I'm trying to explain it. It's obvious by the system of governemnt they created and the natural rights of men they cited that they gave Lockes phiosophy great weight. Edit: Wait, I'm reading some stuff to refresh my memory. I think I'm getting Hobbs philosophy on the state of nature mixed up with Lockes although not the government part. I think Locke was the one that beleived people living in the state of nature would treat each other as equals and could band together to punish any trangressors of the mutual respect of a person inherrant rights when violated if the victim couldn't punish the transgression on his own... Which is still might makes right as the might of the group is mightier than that of the transgressor, just Locke thinks the state of nature would be much more tranquil than Hobbs did.

Don't take it personal, but if you're comfortable saying that might is not right, but that might in the form of revolution is right, then either you're not being honest and/or we have no basis for a rational discussion.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Don't take it personal, but if you're comfortable saying that might is not right, but that might in the form of revolution is right, then either you're not being honest and/or we have no basis for a rational discussion.

Might in the form of revolution? Might doesn't equal the win. Look at the USSR when it fell, the people didn't have the might to overthrow the government, it took the military revolting against orders fron the government for them to win. How about our own overthrow of British rule? Do you think we were stronger than the British army? Logistics won that. If it wasn't for an ocean sperating us from them and the problems with moving a large enough military force to the US we'd probably still be under British rule. Your confusing what I'm saying. Your looking at things from the point of view of a governed society. Imagine if there was no government, where every person was responsible for the execution of punishment for a misjustice they feel was commited against them. If you are weak, how would you execute a puunishment for such a perceived misjustice? If you are mighty, would you not take advantage of that strength? In a governed society like ours, the weak and mighty are "treated" equally under the law, and are subject to the punishment enforced by the government, the perceived mightiest of all.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Imagine if there was no government, where every person was responsible for the execution of punishment for a misjustice they feel was commited against them. If you are weak, how would you execute a puunishment for such a perceived misjustice?

Just because you and I don't know the perfect solution, doesn't mean there isn't a better way.

Oh, I'm sure there is a better way. There is always room for improvement. The problem is wether you work within your current system to improve it or if it's become so corrupted that it needs to be tore down and remade like in the USSR.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Oh, I'm sure there is a better way. There is always room for improvement. The problem is wether you work within your current system to improve it or if it's become so corrupted that it needs to be tore down and remade like in the USSR.

I don't think we would want to remake it like the USSR.

quote Originally posted by TK: I don't think we would want to remake it like the USSR.

That's not what I said... "it needs to be tore down and remade like in the USSR" The USSRs government was tore down and remade. It was an example of how one government was replaced by new government.