[lucille]

These are beloved of lawyers everywhere because they get a lot done with little effort; the argument that if some small step is taken it will inevitably lead to a total downfall of a system of control and to total disaster, and the world will go to Hell in a handbasket.

Take for instance gun control; on one side you have these arguments that say that if weapons are allowed to the citizenry, we will become lawless posses that no one can control and so guns should be restricted.

Equally convincing are the arguments for the other side; which state that once weapons are restricted our freedom is gone, and we must at all costs prevent any encroachment on our rights, and by God we should be able to have any weapon we please in our homes.

Both are 'slippery slope' arguments and both are effective at mobilizing support but are not really good as argument; a little thought will evoke scenarios that no one would be happy with.

The middle road is not as appealling as the extremes, but many would agree that we should have rights to defend ourselves, but that some restriction on certain weapons is probably reasonable.

I know for myself that as careless and forgetful as some folks are that I have known, it is probably a good thing that it is exceedingly difficult for them to get their hands on a couple of vials of anthrax, for example; in my opinion it is a good thing that particular weapon is not widely available.

What do y'all think?

 

[RIKA]

"The middle road is not as appealling as the extremes, but many would agree that we should have rights to defend ourselves, but that some restriction on certain weapons is probably reasonable."

I find the entire argument specious. Cute lawyers terms mean nothing; they are just words uttered by paid mouthpieces. One of the worst terms is "Can't we compromise?".

I don't compromise when it comes to my rights but don't have anything really powerful to say about it.


"I know for myself that as careless and forgetful as some folks are that I have known, it is probably a good thing that it is exceedingly difficult for them to get their hands on a couple of vials of anthrax, for example; in my opinion it is a good thing that particular weapon is not widely available."

Our govt has given away so many vials of bio-chem substances as well as manufacturing techniques that it doesn't make much difference. The terrs already have them and will probably use them. I think that the citizens should have availability of any weapon that the Federal, State and local law enforcement has. At the same time there should be an automatic death penalty for those using them illegally. Look at how many thousands of weapons and equipment are stolen from our govt protectors each year and not recovered. What a joke.

RIKA

 

[Half elf]

Personal weapons IE Man Portable should not be subject to Federal oversight. The unorganized militia was always better armed than the military, until 1934, and I think that the founding fathers intended that to rermain true, but a hysteria caused by Prohibition of booze, quite similar to the panic caused by crack violence.

 

[Coyote]

"An armed society".

People will always be armed. You could take away every legal and illegal gun in either country (Canada or the U.S.) and people would still be armed; just differently. Knives, clubs, a wrench, a rock. It can all be considered a weapon.

The only difference would be less risk to LEOs; but they would still need guns for people with knives etc.

Its really kindof a pointless argument because there is no way to "disarm" a society. All it does is turn every gun into an illegal one; That sure as hell wont prevent any murders or attempted murders.

 

[KJUN]

Equally convincing are the arguments for the other side; which state that once weapons are restricted our freedom is gone, and we must at all costs prevent any encroachment on our rights, and by God we should be able to have any weapon we please in our homes.

Both are 'slippery slope' arguments and both are effective at mobilizing support but are not really good as argument; a little thought will evoke scenarios that no one would be happy with.

Wrong to such a high degree, I can't even write out that number. The protection of our rights is NOT a slippery slope. None of our rights should be given up. How much of the day do YOU want to be a slave? None, right? OK, how much of a slave do you want to be all day? None, right? Then saying ALL of our rights must be protected is the only way to prevent enslavement in the end. The only slippery sloape here is that once you start losing your rights, you'll lose them faster and faster. Protecting your rights isn't, shouldn't, and can't be any type of slippery sloape leading to anything bad.

Keeping anthrax isn't a "right." Having a fully automatic AR-15 like police carry IS a right (that has been taken away). Driving and hunting isn't a right. Being able to express myself on this board about the injustices of our current and past administrations IS a right. Healthcare and other socialist programs is NOT a right, my protection against search without due process is a right!

KJ

 

[T. Daves]

i have heard this said many, many times, when the constitution was written the mil. longarm was the musket. today if people were armed in the same way as the olden
days every legal arm carrying citizen would be toteing around m16s, m249s, and m60s.
in the forming of this country every man was required to a have some kind of firearm
now the antis. think the only people to carry firearms are the military, law inforcers,and their [the antis] bodyguards.

 

[RIKA]

Driving and hunting isn't a right.

KJ

Just how is driving and hunting not a right? If I remember correctly all rights not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved by the states. Driving (the right to transport one's self from one place to another) and hunting are human rights that have been exercised since history began. I don't care to give up any of my rights nor concede any right to be able to exercise another just to appease govt.

RIKA

 

[DaRkWoLf]

Lucille,

It is a misconception about not being able to attain certain materiels like anthrax.

ANYONE can have LESS than 500 milligrams of a controlled substance. That means I can order Ricin in a quantity of 499 miligrams or less, and if no more of it can be found at my residence, and no plans to use it for terrorism are discovered, it will be found in court as LEGAL. Thats part of the reason drugs from canada works in the US. Sub 500 mg quanitities keep users safe in the majority of cases.

I have EXACTLY 499 mgs of DU (depleted uranium, as in the armor penetrator AND controlled substance) in dads closet from his inventing days. Its perfectly legal as it is less than 500 mgs. It was weird, he was recently talking about it to me, and retelling his story; and all of a sudden this green tin with funky metal in it comes up. I didnt know he had any left for himself, then he told me about the sub 500 loophole.

Marry Jane is illegal as a narcotic AND a controlled substance, so such things as narcotics do not apply to this.

If anyone wants to argue it, Ill look up the laws statue by statue, and talk to dad about it (he did deal with the stuff. He worked in chem weapons plants before he owned his company that hardened DU for the military).

 

[RIKA]

Is DU dangerous to the reproductive system? Any other potential health hazards?

RIKA

 

[DaRkWoLf]

Contradictory to what is said on the news:

DU is NOT bad for you unless you eat it, or put a quantity of it in your drinking water. It does not cause burns unless you are rubbing it on an open cut/wound. It emits less radiation than a CRT (the tv tube, not flatscreen/lcd) Computer monitor.

So unless you literally force it into your body system, youll be fine. Dad tells me one must give it just slightly more precaution than lead, because on open wounds it leaves mild burns. And of course, its not a hunting round, it is not safe to eat what you shoot with it (the heavy metal property, like unjacketed lead, is bad) or come in contact with large amounts of bodilly fluids directly exposed to the DU.

 

[KJUN]

Just how is driving and hunting not a right? If I remember correctly all rights not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved by the states. Driving (the right to transport one's self from one place to another) and hunting are human rights that have been exercised since history began. I don't care to give up any of my rights nor concede any right to be able to exercise another just to appease govt.

RIKA

Driving and hunting are privileges and not rights. You are allowed to get a drivers license and a hunting license, but it is your right to freedom of speech. The difference is a large one, and I'm surprised at how few people understand and realize it.

KJ

 

[Rich Z]

i have heard this said many, many times, when the constitution was written the mil. longarm was the musket. today if people were armed in the same way as the olden
days every legal arm carrying citizen would be toteing around m16s, m249s, and m60s.
in the forming of this country every man was required to a have some kind of firearm
now the antis. think the only people to carry firearms are the military, law inforcers,and their [the antis] bodyguards.

Actually back in those days, anyone with the money to afford it could buy cannons and ships and outfit them as pirates if they so chose to do to. It would be only when they engaged in the act of piracy that they would be breaking the law, not having the tools necessary to engage in that activity.

The antis will use the arguments that just as it is illegal for someone to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, the first amendment has reasonable limitations, just as the second amendment should. But the problem with that analogy is that in comparing what they want to do with firearms possession, transfer, and manufacture in this country, that is the equivalent of removing your larynx before you enter that movie theater so you CAN'T yell "FIRE!" while you are in it. The difficulty with this, of course, is what if there REALLY IS a fire there?

 

[KJUN]

The difficulty with this, of course, is what if there REALLY IS a fire there?

You burn in that hell of Socialist making? IS this a trick question? LOL.

 

[Rich Z]

You burn in that hell of Socialist making? IS this a trick question? LOL.

Of course! What the socialists, er anti-gunners are telling us is that there is no way in hell that we would, or should, ever need to have the assault style weapons, .50 BMGs, full autos, Black Talons, etc., etc..... All I'm saying, by analogy, is "Sez who?" I would bet that all through history, people were told the same thing as they were disarmed and then led off to be slaughtered now that they were defenseless.

Think it can't happen again, and happen here? Sez who?

 

[Magnum88C]

The middle road is not as appealling as the extremes, but many would agree that we should have rights to defend ourselves, but that some restriction on certain weapons is probably reasonable.

See Lucille, unfortunately you just approved the foundation stone argument that props up all anti-rights groups' "slippery slope" arguments.
What are "reasonable restrictions" and who gets to say what they are?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No restrictions, "reasonable" or not. Period. Full stop. End of story. The owning of ANY type of arm BY THE PEOPLE is NOT to be infringed upon. See, the ACTIONS one performs with said arm, are what was to be illegal, not owning the arm itself. The fact that private citizens owned the most powerful weapons of the day gives light to the fact that our founding fathers saw that there was no such thing as a reasonable restriction. They wouldn't have made yelling "fire" in a theatre illegal either, but if you did it and someone got trampled to death, no doubt they'd support you being brought up on murder charges. See? you punish crime. The antis want to punish EVERYONE, preemtively. Notice they aren't giving up their Secret Service guards, their armed bodyguards, or THEIR PERSONAL WEAPONS, because they think THEY ARE SUPERIOR, they think THEY RUN THE COUNTRY, hypocrites. Fact is our founding fathers thought it better for the private citizen to OUTGUN the government, so another War of Independence would not be necessary. Public officials were to have NO MORE protection than a private citizen. And lastly, the government was made up of PUBLIC SERVANTS, not rulers. Fact is this country is set up for the PEOPLE to rule it, not the government, but people have gotten too lazy to bother getting involved, so they let the SERVANTS run the manor house.

I see no such restriction on owning only man portable arms. Hell, people owned FUNCTIONAL cannon up to the last century, hell some still do. Who the hell is anyone to say I can't own a self-propelled 8-inch gun? In fact I can. And this is how the ATF gets away with a lot of what would be considered infringments on our rights: They say our rights are NOT infringed because you can still obtain such weapons, you just have to jump through hoops and pay a tax (although some men with BALLS started a war over such back in the late 1700s).

RIKA is right, travelling and hunting are RIGHTS.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, even though hunting and travel by vehicle (they had horse drawn vehicles, which also have to be registered like a car if you want to drive them today, just ask the Amish, so, they are to be treated EXACTLY the same as a car) are not enumerated, the Ninth Amendment still protects them as RIGHTS. You'll note that no where in the Constitution does the state or federal government ever get RIGHTS, they get SOME powers (and unlike our current state of affaris, the states have more powers than the federal government, Constitutionally.).

 

[KJUN]

> you just have to jump through hoops and pay a tax (although some men with BALLS started a war over such back in the late 1700s).

Actually, taxes were a small part of it, BUT it was fought over a tax rate of less than 2%. How does that compare to todays rate of 60+% percent when all taxes (direct and indirect) are counted up?

> RIKA is right, travelling and hunting are RIGHTS.

I never said travelling, I said driving. Travelling, I believe, is a right because of the right to interstate commerce, etc. How you do it is not a right. I'm sorry, but you are as wrong saying this as an anti-gunner is of saying the 6 month wait isn't an infringement of your rights to own a gun. Sounds as silly, too, but the rest of your post is awesome. Good job, man.

There is no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of wildlife. Wildlife belongs to all of us, so there is as much as right to non-hunter to not have them killed as there is to hunter to have them killed - NONE! I don't believe that it is a privelege that can be controlled by the federal government (even if they use some stupid treaty to make it fit under federal jurisdiction), but it is a privelege that can be controlled by the state government.

> You'll note that no where in the Constitution does the state or federal government ever get RIGHTS, they get SOME powers.

The government bodies mention are not people, so they don't (and can't) have rights. The people in office are a different story, though. They do have the power to license, etc. PRIVILEGES, though. They just SHOULD use as light of a hand as is possible in excercising those privileges.

KJ

 

[lucille]

Magnum, perhaps you need to reread my post. I have approved nothing; I merely set out a subject for debate. I am enjoying this discussion, but set out to provoke thought, not to either attack or defend.
The only opinion that I attributed directly to myself was the one saying that I think it is a good idea that not everyone has anthrax, and I certainly think that is a reasonable enough opinion.

 

[tuna]

I always love the argument that the right to keep arms only applies to the muskets that were used when the Constitution was written: by that standard, the right to free press only applies to quill pens and direct speaking (no PA systems please).
I'm a simple kind of guy myself - look in the Bible and you will see 10 laws written by God (this is my belief, I'm not forcing my opinions on anyone here, but this is a pretty well known OLD book and available to all so it makes a pretty good analogy). The Israelites took those 10 laws from the book of Exodus and turned them into the entire book of Leviticus! Moral of the story - leave the lawyers out of it! What is written should not be open to interpretation; right of the people to keep and bear arms meand everyone is allowed to own and carry. Period.

 

[KJUN]

and I certainly think that is a reasonable enough opinion.

Anti-gunners say the same thing about their views, too. :dgrin: