Water guns banned, REAL guns, OK....

[catefrances]

Exactly. Should the general government be able to tell you where to worship? No. And no more than they can disarm the populace. Just because you dont like guns doesn't mean we should gut 2A, because I promise one thing, it wouldn't stop there.

not once have i ever said i dont like guns. what im weary of is a populace 'armed to the teeth'.


perhaps a referendum could be introduced when a real change to the bill of rights is desired. tho im not sure your government is set up that way. that way every eligible voter in the country could have their say about whether or not it is still applicable or if it needs to be amended. afterall isnt that what democracy is all about? or are you happy just to have the privilege of voting and call that democracy?

[brianlux]

my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.

i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.

It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!

Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.

Maybe we need to re-write some of the wording in the Constitution and update some of these amendments. It's a different world we live in today. I agree with the notion that having a gun should be a privilege, not a right and that gun ownership should be very difficult to obtain. It's just to easy for irresponsible people to own something that dangerous.

[hedonist]

I hear ya, unsung.

And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?

Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.

That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )

[catefrances]

my apologies, i was using the nomenclature for ease of discussion.

i see it as a privilege, if anything. much like driving. no one has the right to drive, but they have the opportunity to acquire their drivers license, this is how i see the 'right' to bear arms.

It has nothing to do with driving. Driving is a privilege, the 1st-10th Amendments are RIGHTS. It isn't the Bill of Privileges!

Fwiw, the ability to travel freely is also a right.

i think you missed my point. and i did say driving is a privilege so we agree on that. however that doesnt mean i cant see the 'right to bear arms' as a privilege also. if you can not see your rights as privileges then i suggest you go live in a country for a while, where rights such as yours so often 'taken for granted' purely cause theyre your rights and enshrined within the constitution, do not exist. so yes you do live in a privileged society. and yes the existence of the bill of rights is a privilege. and its a good one. i wasnt meaning it to be derogatory in anyway or to downplay your bill of rights.

[USARAY]

Your bias is showing....Again, hard to decipher exactly wtf you're saying,

yeah I know about the conventions in 04 what I meant was the cages are growing since occupy
and about to get bigger and better everyone's bias is showing including those who
aren't even citizens with rights given to them by the United Sates of America's Constitution
Bill of Rights.

[gimmesometruth27]

Yes. It's to protect the people from a tyrannical general (federal) government. It isn't there to provide privileges. Rights are not privileges.

i believe that one of the reasons was to protect from the british soldiers. remember we had the right to not quarter them in our homes?

[catefrances]

I hear ya, unsung.

And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?

Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.

That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )

i dont see having children as a right per se. i see it simply as biology. every animate thing on earth reproduces. we are able so we do. it isnt something you can really 'allow' you know what im saying? i do not believe it is something that should be infringed upon cause that just leads to some sort of huxleyian brave new world and who the fuck wants that? it simply is what it is and not really a good comparison imo.

[hedonist]

I hear ya, unsung.

And cate...I get where you're coming from too. I just can't dismiss the distinction between right and privilege though as I said before, both come with responsibility. What doesn't?

Having children - as many as one wants! - is a right. But sound judgment dictates that most people wouldn't / shouldn't ? exercise that right without taking stock of their ability to handle it and do right by that decision.

That's where I'm coming from...if that makes sense. (I'm still waking up and getting back into the workweek groove here )

i dont see having children as a right per se. i see it simply as biology. every animate thing on earth reproduces. we are able so we do. it isnt something you can really 'allow' you know what im saying? i do not believe it is something that should be infringed upon cause that just leads to some sort of huxleyian brave new world and who the fuck wants that? it simply is what it is and not really a good comparison imo.

I was talking more toward the responsibility angle, ie, hopefully using wisdom and forethought, and not just the "because I can" mentality, but fair enough. I gotcha.

[unsung]

i believe that one of the reasons was to protect from the british soldiers. remember we had the right to not quarter them in our homes?

The Third Amendment has that language. Our Founding Fathers were trying to create a society of the people, not another version of a British royal monarchy. They wrote these documents to prevent FUTURE general governments from becoming the same, that's why we have checks and balances, that's why a President is not supposed to attack another nation without Congress declaring war, etc.

I'm afraid that with the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, CISPA, Obamacare, the redundancy of state and federal agencies, the general government creeping into marriage, the overburdensome regulations on business, the bailing out of banks, the drone strikes on US citizens, the massive buildup of FEMA, the bailing out of private companies, the wrecklessness of the federal reserve, the out of control spending, out of control welfare, out of control inflation and devaluation of the dollar that now is the most important point in the last 100 years to have the RIGHT to defend ourselves.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

The Third Amendment has that language. Our Founding Fathers were trying to create a society of the people, not another version of a British royal monarchy. They wrote these documents to prevent FUTURE general governments from becoming the same, that's why we have checks and balances, that's why a President is not supposed to attack another nation without Congress declaring war, etc.

I'm afraid that with the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, CISPA, Obamacare, the redundancy of state and federal agencies, the general government creeping into marriage, the overburdensome regulations on business, the bailing out of banks, the drone strikes on US citizens, the massive buildup of FEMA, the bailing out of private companies, the wrecklessness of the federal reserve, the out of control spending, out of control welfare, out of control inflation and devaluation of the dollar that now is the most important point in the last 100 years to have the RIGHT to defend ourselves.

the need of the american people to defend themselves against their own government, honestly, in this day and age, sounds like a work of hollywood fiction.

so what is the reason that someone needs to pack heat walking down the street? is the government coming to get you when you are walking to the grocery store?

[Sea]

Too many violations of the Posting Guidelines in this thread. See #2
Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=91525

Also...
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.