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.

Great gif. Thanks Obama!

Maybe they aren't going to armed, but just take 3D printers with them.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
WASPs descend on Washington for an angry march about their guns?

I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).

Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).

I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**

So much rage!

What's an armed gun?

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
[Race discrimination is an inalienable right, it is never legally restricted, same as the right to life over here. When you have two sets of rights and one is never restricted, and is also covered under international law, and is seen as more important by a reasonable person, then the other, which is always restricted, sometimes more heavily for some, then it stands to reason that the former is a natural right, while the latter is a legal right. You don't seem to quite understand that there is more in play here than your constitution.

Does the death penalty make the right to life "inalienable"?

You're making a very strange argument.

And no, there's not anything more in play than the Constitution.

No the death penalty does not make the right to life inalienable, hence why I made the distinction between the US and the UK on that matter.

There is more, the Declaration of Independence which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Plus, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"
Both of these documents cover equality and neither cover gun ownership, that is covered under the constitution as a legal right.

 dæl wrote:
No the death penalty does not make the right to life inalienable, hence why I made the distinction between the US and the UK on that matter.

So the death penalty - imposed on a convicted criminal - does not make the right to life inalienable, but the restriction of firearm ownership - imposed on a convicted criminal - does?

Interesting philosophy there.

So the death penalty - imposed on a convicted criminal - does not make the right to life inalienable, but the restriction of firearm ownership - imposed on a convicted criminal - does?

Interesting philosophy there.

Well obviously not, if the right to life was inalienable then the State would not be allowed to take life. I'm not sure what you mean about gun ownership. It is an alienable right as it is restricted.

 dæl wrote:
Well obviously not, if the right to life was inalienable then the State would not be allowed to take life.

So the right to life is no more inalienable than the right to bear arms.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Well obviously not, if the right to life was inalienable then the State would not be allowed to take life.

So the right to life is no more inalienable than the right to bear arms.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.

 dæl wrote:
Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.

By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.

What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?

 Valion wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
WASPs descend on Washington for an angry march about their guns?

I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).

Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).

I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**

So much rage!

What's an armed gun?

One with bullets in it.

see also: loaded.

And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???

My wording was a little confused, apologies. You have a right to be treated as equal before the law, that right is never legally restricted.

I thought thats what you meant but wasn't sure.
Unfortunately that right has been legally "alienated" in country after country, including this one and Britain as well.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Valion wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
WASPs descend on Washington for an angry march about their guns?

I find the white middle class of the US about as scary as a bowl of rice crispies (snap! crackle! pop!).

Half of those who show up will give up on the idea when they realize they don't get issued with shopping mall fat carts for the 'long and arduous' journey. Half of what's left after that will keep having to take breaks for their insulin shots and asthma . And half of what's left after that will write very angry letter to the Fascislammunist Overlord, screaming at him for his godless and unconstitutional lack of public amenities and burger stands on their march for LIBERTY(tm).

I also can't wait for the tears and rage from their banshee wives into news cameras over those that are stupid enough to march illegally through the streets with an armed gun and get put in the slammer with *gasp* criminals and nere'dowells.... and.... people of color! **back of hand to forehead**

So much rage!

What's an armed gun?

One with bullets in it.

see also: loaded.

And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.

That's a bit more then "slight".

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

One with bullets in it.

see also: loaded.

And no rage, just scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.

Oh, okay. Defiance. For some reason I didn't connect an angry screed on a wargaming message board with taking a stand, but there's still things about the Cornish I don't understand.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.

By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.

What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?

He didn't say it was Immoral, just less moral then the Civil Rights Movement.

 Goliath wrote:
He didn't say it was Immoral, just less moral then the Civil Rights Movement.

Sure, but based on the notion that equality is inherently more "inalienable" a right than the right to bear firearms. If he wants to make that argument, he's welcome to it, but attempting to use the US judicial system under the Constitution to prove it won't help him, as it disagrees.

Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Not in your country, no. I have not claimed that the right to bear arms is inalienable, quite the opposite. I have simply tried to show that equality is, and gun ownership isn't, so the civil rights movement were fighting a far more moral battle than the people marching, visibly armed, through Washington are.

By referencing the Declaration of Independence, oddly, where equality is never once mentioned.

"all men are created equal"

What's immoral about marching through Washington 'visibly armed,' out of curiosity?

Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.

Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Race discrimination is never legally restricted? Er...what???

My wording was a little confused, apologies. You have a right to be treated as equal before the law, that right is never legally restricted.

I thought thats what you meant but wasn't sure.
Unfortunately that right has been legally "alienated" in country after country, including this one and Britain as well.

I'm struggling to think of an example since we managed to include everyone, granted women or black people didn't use to be legally classed as people but since then we've not taken away anyone's right to equality, have we?

 dæl wrote:
"all men are created equal"

Yeah. If you think they were genuinely talking about non-whites, you ought to look up the 3/5 Compromise. And, as has been discussed, the Declaration holds exactly zero force of law in the US.

Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.

It very much carries the same weight.

And some politicians are trying to do just that, in fact. Feinstein's been at it for a while, and various state legislatures have made de facto attempts that have been, fortunately and correctly, struck down.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
"all men are created equal"

Yeah. If you think they were genuinely talking about non-whites, you ought to look up the 3/5 Compromise. And, as has been discussed, the Declaration holds exactly zero force of law in the US.

And once non-whites achieved the legal status of persons, they became included in all documentation. Just as women did.

Not immoral, just less moral. It's not a cause that carries as much weight. Firstly the right of equality is more important, as discussed. Secondly the civil rights movement were fighting to achieve equality, while this march is protesting a restriction which just adds to other restrictions. The government aren't taking people's guns away and taking away the right to bear arms.

It very much carries the same weight.

Well explain why then.

And some politicians are trying to do just that, in fact. Feinstein's been at it for a while, and various state legislatures have made de facto attempts that have been, fortunately and correctly, struck down.

Can you provide information on these attempts please.

 dæl wrote:
Well explain why then.

Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?

Can you provide information on these attempts please.

Sure.




It's much like anti-abortion opponents, in my opinion. They know that, for legal and political reasons, they'll never be able to get an outright ban of what they hate, so they do their best to incrementally introduce policies that lead to bans in all but name.

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Well explain why then.

Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?

So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.

Can you provide information on these attempts please.

Sure.

Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.

Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?

I like how other rights are brought up that are VERY important for maintaining respect of a person and not to be penalized for who they are. This is more specific to human rights than a "constitutional" right which is specific to the USA.

It is a shame such zeal to defend the right to bear arms is not applied to other rights that I would say is far more important than to have the improved capability to defend oneself from others or state.

What gets people so upset is that some firearm owners treat walking around with a gun like it is part of their clothing. It is an object worthy of respect (I think we can all agree on that) and should not be treated frivolously.

I think people should have guns if they want them.
I think they should be controlled like a toxic substance: useful but dangerous if improperly used (alcohol, solvents).
I think some basic training should be required like with cars or WHIMIS.
The uses of guns should be restricted in storage and use to control unsafe conditions people would be tempted to bring firearms into.
This "privilege" should be revoked if a citizen is proven to be irresponsible in the firearm use (just like with a car).

Failing all that a comedian said that "bullets kill people" and if we charged $3000 per bullet we would think a little harder before it's use.

 dæl wrote:

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Well explain why then.

Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?

So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.

Can you provide information on these attempts please.

Sure.

Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.

Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?

Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.

BAM! Godwined!

 dæl wrote:

 Valion wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Well explain why then.

Probably because inalienable rights like that to life and liberty are tied to the ability to defend oneself should things go south?

So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.

Can you provide information on these attempts please.

Sure.

Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.

Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?

We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?

A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.

 Frazzled wrote:


Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.

YEAH!

Or the Australians, RIGHT NOW!

Frazzled wrote:Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.

It was breached, but I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is a good example considering the majority of human rights law came post WW2, and was primarily motivated by never allowing such atrocities to happen again.

djones520 wrote:We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?

A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.

It's not an erosion of rights, your right to bear arms is unaffected, you still have that right. So what right has been taken away from you? You are getting into the realms of a slippery slope argument here.

Is this continued, minor reform on firearms actually as immoral to you as the way black people were treated before the Civil Rights Movement then?

 dæl wrote:
So I don't have a right to life or liberty because I don't own a gun? That's absolute nonsense. There is a thing known as a social contract which exists between a citizen and the State whereby you surrender some of your freedoms to the State in exchange for the protection of your rights.
You didn't explain how the protest against minor restrictions on firearm ownership is as moral a cause as the civil disobedience performed to gain equal rights.

You have the right regardless. What you lack is the ability to retain it should one of the various actors involved in the social contract choose to simply stop following the rules, as happens frequently.

And many of the proposed restrictions - and in New York's case, recently-enacted ones - are anything but minor.

Ok, I didn't see anything about taking peoples right to bear arms away, only certain arms, which is already the case. Can you buy thermonuclear weapons as an extreme example.

Now, has anyone actually tried to pass a bill making it illegal to own a firearm? Has anyone tried to take away the right to bear arms?

I'm sorry, I thought I already explained incrementalism.

I take it you're fine with the various abortion restrictions - such as partial birth, mandatory anti-abortion lectures prior to performing the procedure, the ridiculous, unnecessary, and invasive transvaginal ultrasound proposed in Virginia, etc. - since they do not actually outlaw abortions wholesale? They simply greatly limit them and make them much more difficult to obtain, but since you do not believe the right is threatened until it is actually gone, I imagine you would have no issue.

 dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ask the Jews in 1938 Germany about that social contract.

It was breached, but I'm not sure that Nazi Germany is a good example considering the majority of human rights law came post WW2, and was primarily motivated by never allowing such atrocities to happen again.

djones520 wrote:We'll start by making it so people of color can't ride in a certain part of the bus. They can still ride the bus, so there is nothing wrong right? Then we'll make it so they can't ride the bus, but we'll make sure they can still take a taxi. They can still get around, so it's still ok right?

A slow erosion of rights it's still a loss of rights.

It's not an erosion of rights, your right to bear arms is unaffected, you still have that right. So what right has been taken away from you? You are getting into the realms of a slippery slope argument here.

Is this continued, minor reform on firearms actually as immoral to you as the way black people were treated before the Civil Rights Movement then?

It's not an argument of morality. It's an argument of protections provided by the law of the land. It's easy to come up with justifications to erode those protections. Doesn't mean they are right.

 streamdragon wrote:
BAM! Godwined!

You can't have a gun thread without a nice juicy Godwin.

 Valion wrote:
You have the right regardless. What you lack is the ability to retain it should one of the various actors involved in the social contract choose to simply stop following the rules, as happens frequently.

I am protected by the State in the form of police and by the judiciary by providing deterrent against committing crime against me. It's no coincidence that should someone choose to not follow the rules here I am far more likely to survive, that is partly due to legislation regarding weaponry. The crux of the matter is that I feel safe from being murdered, and by the sounds of it, some of you guys really don't.

And many of the proposed restrictions - and in New York's case, recently-enacted ones - are anything but minor.

So what part of the New York SAFE Act involves the taking away of guns (except from the mentally ill)? It doesn't, it makes it require more effort to own a gun, but there is nothing about the ease of bearing arms in the Constitution to my knowledge.

I take it you're fine with the various abortion restrictions - such as partial birth, mandatory anti-abortion lectures prior to performing the procedure, the ridiculous, unnecessary, and invasive transvaginal ultrasound proposed in Virginia, etc. - since they do not actually outlaw abortions wholesale? They simply greatly limit them and make them much more difficult to obtain, but since you do not believe the right is threatened until it is actually gone, I imagine you would have no issue.

That is a very different issue. The restriction of availability of firearms is reasonable, sensible and implemented to reduce harm to society. If you wish to own a gun it should involve some effort, and some assessment that you are not a danger to society. That doesn't effect your right to bear arms unless you shouldn't be doing so for the sake of everyone else.