Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:I've experienced it on Dakka. I got a ban for speaking my mind. Thank God the mods are not anti-gun or I'd get banned for speaking about guns.

That's not how the 1st Amendment works or what it says, and you know it.

Fateweaver wrote:
The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).

No, that's not what they're discussing at all. That entire video is a lie, an absolute, unmitigated lie.

The Resolution Discussed in the Video wrote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory,

Source

Frazzled wrote:Its a fundamental right. Period.

No, its a by-product of a civil war and no longer is needed.

Squig_herder wrote:
No, its a by-product of a civil war and no longer is needed.

Its still a fundamental right as rights are described in the Constitution, which is the only thing relevant to the conversation in the US.

dogma wrote:Its still a fundamental right

Definition of Fundamental Right

YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law

In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose

Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment. The constitution was designed to be able to be changed to keep up with the needs of the populous for a reason.

Especially when the best argument gun nuts can muster is that they are trying to use the law to control the spread of illegal weapons. And that its somehow a bad thing.

George Spiggott wrote:You were telling me how your guns make you safer, no? It doesn't matter how difficult guerilla wars are it matters how much safer you are because you have a gun.

Heh? I don't recall having said that guns make you safer, and I certainly haven't said so in the context of nation-wide anarchy.

I said the fact that the United States Army is the most powerful military force in the world hasn't stopped it from having a great deal of difficulty in response to occupying much smaller areas than the United States, in response to your assertion that no domestic rebellion could topple the United States under martial law.

Nobody ever mentions the Boer war when discussing guerilla wars (the Boers were armed as a populace), how will having a gun(s) keep you out of the 'internment' camps?

If we were looking at guerrilla warfare during the turn of the century being fought by the British Empire, and not guerrilla warfare in the modern era being fought by the United States, mentioning them would have made sense. There is no parallel at all here. The concentration camps of the second Boer war were useful because they punished civilians, not those taking up arms. To put American citizens in concentration camps would see the end of pretty much all support for the government crumble. The armed forces would have unprecedented desertion and defection, if not an outright Coup d'Etat. Don't forget that there are no lovely supply lines coming in from a transcontinental empire here; supplies come from the place they're supposed to be occupying, and the American economy would nosedive under such circumstances. Scorched earth tactics are burning the grain you and your enemy are fighting over.

If you or your group resist you're an identifiable target and your rifle will not stop them, there's no reason to assume they'll be any less determined than you they have more resources and more manpower (the Federal government will by default in a (former?) democracy be the largest group)

No it will not. The majority of the American population right now are not part of the Federal Government. The majority doesn't even support the Federal Government. If most of the population is stridently in lockstep with the government then the rebellion is a bust, and I have already acknowledged that every rebellion would not successfully topple the American government. That isn't being argued. What's being argued is that a significantly widespread one could, easily, topple it.

there are not only no rules but they make them up as they go along.

The rules are the ability of the government. The government cannot feed an army with a basket of loaves and fishes. The government would not have full (or even a great amount of the) support of the military in the event that the members of the military are firing on their own countrymen, and starving women and children to death. A soldier cannot be inside two houses at the same time. Political instability causes poverty. Poverty causes political instability. Modern communication and transportation mean nothing is isolated. The American military has been unsuccessful in the occupation of much smaller nations.

Ruthlessness doesn't change these facts. If Emperor Palpatine was president and congress was composed of 535 clones of Hitler it wouldn't change the abilities at their disposal.

Squig_herder wrote:

dogma wrote:Its still a fundamental right

Definition of Fundamental Right

YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law

In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal  [fuhn-duh-men-tl] Show IPA
Use fundamental in a Sentence
–adjective
1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3. being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.
4. Music. (of a chord) having its root as its lowest note.
–noun
5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.
6. Also called fundamental note, fundamental tone. Music.
a. the root of a chord.
b. the generator of a series of harmonics.
7. Physics. the component of lowest frequency in a composite wave.
Origin:
1400–50; late ME < ML fundāmentālis of, belonging to a foundation. See fundament, -al 1

Related forms:
fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅i⋅ty, fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ness, noun
fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ly, adverb

Synonyms:
1. indispensable, primary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamental

The english language is an awful, contrived thing, and a bad basis for an argument alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IntoTheRain wrote:Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment.

What?

Squig_herder wrote:In none of the natural law theories I have read

You answered your own question, you need to read more. Just becuase it isn't what you have read doesn't mean it hasn't been written. I haven't read Harry Potter but I know it exists.

Squig_herder wrote:

YourDictionary.com wrote: A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law

In none of the natural law theories I have read, is the right to bear arms, therefore the right to bear arms is a man made right only found in America and a by-product of a civil war, which has out lived its purpose

I take it you've never read any Hobbes, or Locke.

Anyway, natural law is societal construct that arises from the need to for individuals to adopt a set of basic assumptions upon which to found a moral system. This system will inevitably reflect the environment in which it is formed, and lead inexorably to a cultural bias from which emotive decisions can be made.

To put it another way: natural law itself is a man made construct, so rejecting anything on the basis of it being "man made" is absolutely preposterous.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

IntoTheRain wrote:Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment.

What?

18th and 21st Amendments?

Being allowed to drink alcohol was never a right. No article in the Bill of Rights declares the ability to drink alcohol a God-given right.

Drinking alcohol is a privilege (though I'm sure some feel it SHOULD be a right).

I can promise if the administration tries to stamp out the second amendment we'll see the end of the government. The military wouldn't stand for it (I'm willing to bet nobody in the military is pro gun ban) and who would protect the government from it's own military and citizens?

Not to mention when the US turns upon itself (and it would) any one of the terrorist countries would be on standby ready to wipe us off the globe as soon as the dust settled.

It might sound off the wall but trying to or stamping out the 2nd Amendment would see the end of our country as we know it.

IntoTheRain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

IntoTheRain wrote:Not really, we stamped out prohibition and we can (and should) do it with the second amendment.

What?

18th and 21st Amendments?

We stamped out the 21st? That makes no sense. Why would be get rid of the amendment that gets rid of the amendment. That would be just silly.

Just off the top of my head one difference between the 19th and the 2nd is that the 19th isn't in the Bill of Rights. The first 10 are the ones you really really screw with (you can try to clarify and such) if you want serious domestic problems.

Fateweaver wrote:(I'm willing to bet nobody in the military is pro gun ban)

A million dollars... right naow. I might win this one on a technicality, but you sure as hell just made me a rich man, my friend.

Alcohol kills more people each year than guns, and is just as "unnecessary".

I would say the comparison to the prohibition is insightful, although in a different manner.

#1 - This is not a democracy - THIS IS DAKKA!



#2 - STOP with the personal attacks and insults.

BY ALL MEANS, discuss WHATEVER you want.

BUT DO IT WITHOUT THE INTERPERSONAL DRAMA.

Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.

Fateweaver wrote:...a few nutjobs too scared of their own goddamn shadow...

Wait...who is this referring to again? NON-gun owners?

I'd support measures to penalize illegal guns in the U.S. and/or some sort of safety course that mut be taken to own a firearm (nothing that extreme, just something to try and keep guns out of the hands of kids).

I'd love to see Prohibition 2.0 (with tobacco thrown in).

A U.N. treaty to mess with illegal gun trade (and specifically states that it won't mess with the U.S.
s internal affairs), sounds good.

Fateweaver wrote:Derp, Derp. I read it. It mentioned in several places regulating handguns as well.

Changing a law (or in this case a guaranteed right) just to make a few nutjobs too scared of their own goddamn shadow happy is infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Hmm.......let me get this straight? You are for something that will make it apparently harder for CRIMINALS to bring guns into your country that will also affect law abiding citizens in the US (and it will).

What part of "Criminal" do you not understand? Criminals don't care how how or what gun laws go into effect. The fact that you said "criminals are bringing them into the country" and not "law abiding citizens are bringing them into the country" shows me that both the US and the Canadian border patrols aren't doing their jobs, not that US citizens owning guns is the problem.

You fail to realize, being in a country where guns are illegal or heavily regulated, is that it doesn't affect your country (or UK or Japan or China or Australia) for that matter because only the military or very very select few people with a knock out good reason can have guns.

Again, small arms (aka hand guns) were mentioned as targets of illegal trade. It doesn't take a global treaty denying the US citizens of it's right to own handguns to stop or slow down the illicit activity in the first place. It takes the Canadian government and the US and UK and Japanese and Australian governments getting off their goddamn laurels and doing their jobs.

I did read the article and small arms were mentioned. Small armes =/= rpg's and uzi's and ak47's. Small arms are semi-auto pistols and revolvers. Perhaps you should learn to read.

You do realize gun ownership in Canada is not actually that much lower in Canada then in the US? Yes we have a wide variety of restricted firearms in Canada, but come on.

Second, the treaty is specifically regarding the international sale of illicit (which means illegal) firearms. In order to make this work everyone on the playground needs to agree to the rules. That allows everyone who wants to play by the rules to play. There is literally no impact to legit gun owners in the United states because of the following:

Article III
Sovereignty

1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states.

2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law.

that means no one interferes in your nation's business.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
The article and video have nothing to do with RPG's and full autos isthatmycow. They are wanting the US to sign their treaty making it illegal for US citizens to own small arms, aka pistols and hunting rifles, NOT rpgs's (which to own legally you need to fill out a million forms and pay huge sums of money so beyond most peoples means anyway).

No, that's not what they're discussing at all. That entire video is a lie, an absolute, unmitigated lie.

The Resolution Discussed in the Video wrote:
Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms
and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on
private ownership, exclusively within their territory,

Source

It's kinda funny, but I've noticed all but Fateweaver have backed off now that the actual treaty text has posted.

Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.

You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.

Corvus wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.

You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.

I agree with 99.9% of your statement Corvus,everthing except the "things are working just fine" part,as IMO it's obvious that the goverment is leaning more and more into a micro managing/nanny state position.

Tyyr made a fantastic point earlier. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given in the First Amendment. Therefore, it is not the citizens' burden to argue why they need to keep the right; it is the burden of those who would take away to argue why it should be taken away.

Also, the argument that guns should be illegal to prevent crime is weak. If one REALLY want to obtain a gun illegally, one can. If you try to make impossible to obtain a firearm, you're only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who are willing to use a gun to break the law are willing to break the law to obtain one.

Right to bear arms is the Second...

Freedom of Speech and its compatriots religious worship and assembly is the First.

Owain wrote:Tyyr made a fantastic point earlier. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given in the First Amendment. Therefore, it is not the citizens' burden to argue why they need to keep the right; it is the burden of those who would take away to argue why it should be taken away.

Also, the argument that guns should be illegal to prevent crime is weak. If one REALLY want to obtain a gun illegally, one can. If you try to make impossible to obtain a firearm, you're only keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who are willing to use a gun to break the law are willing to break the law to obtain one.

Which has as much to do with the original post as the price of tea in China. The US agreeing to participate in the effort to stop the illicit international sale of firearms is the reality here. Nothing more. It's to make it a little bit more difficult for those illegal weapons to move across international borders that is all.

Where's Chain?

Kanluwen wrote:Where's Chain?

Spelling fixed, see above.

FITZZ wrote:

Corvus wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.

You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.

I agree with 99.9% of your statement Corvus,everthing except the "things are working just fine" part,as IMO it's obvious that the goverment is leaning more and more into a micro managing/nanny state position.

Well by "working just fine so far" I mean in general, in terms of the fact that the nation hasn't fallen apart or turned into some kind of dictatorship, which is more than most governments can claim.

efarrer wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Where's Chain?

Spelling fixed, see above.

Excellent. Just giving you a hard time though, because at first I was wondering what the hell the price of tea in Chains had to do with anything.

Corvus wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:Having worked my way through all the posts, I have to say it's interesting to see that it appears that a vast majority of the American posters have, a real distrust of government. Given that you've beena round for over 200 years and the sole purpose of creating the US was to have a country that was free of this type of dissent... you don't seem to of done a very good job. Even if you have the party of your choice in, you still basically don't trust them! You appear to want to be left alone and have to pay none or minimal taxes, with no real input from the Federal government. Just how does a country work that way? I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but you do appear to come across as not really knowing what you want out of a government.

You're actually pretty right on the mark here. Americans DON'T like to put too much trust in government. We like to be able to make our own choices on how to run our lives. We don't like interference and micromanagment from people we don't know and who more often than not become corrupted by politics. Keeping the federal govenment more or less out of people's day to day lives is one of the checks and balances set up to prevent the government from amassing too much power over the lives of its citizens.
One point where you're wrong however is about the purpose of creating the US to avoid such dissent. My friend, dissent is one of the fundamental ideas on which this nation was founded. If everyone just went along with whatever the government wanted, they would be free to do whatever they wanted. I'm not trying to say the government is evil, but too often they think they know what's best for us. It would be like if I was to come along and impose my opinions on you simply because I had more say in the way things were run. If you disagreed with my opinions, I'm sure you wouldn't like me doing that at all. That's how it is with us. We elect our politicians to represent us in the government, but sometimes the influence they have gets to them and they start trying to push through laws based on their personal idealogy. No one ever said our system was perfect, but it is the best one we have, and it has been working just fine so far.

Sorry it's still coming across as a somewhat twisted system. I think you're anti government for anti governments sake. It's funny, the biggest anti government supporters are the right wing voters in the States, however they let a President take you to war based on facts that were twisted to suit his agenda. The very thing that you rebel against happened.

I've been typing and retyping and I still can't really put into words how very odd you guys sound when talking about your government and the protecting of your freedoms. It reminds of the saying, "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you". You seem, as a nation, so scared from your history that you're always looking over your shoulder and keeping an eye on "the man". "The Man" who in fact is made up of your own population, so therefore would have the same history as you.