why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

What about the Bolsheviks?

Many of the groups you mention were or were oppressed by groups who took up arms against the state, became the ruling class, then oppressed the people. The only societies who ever defended the rights of it's individuals regardless of association were states with constitutional human rights. Incidentally that's the kind of state revolutionaries of today do not want to have.
You just can't stay out of the weeds to save your life. Impressive but misplaced pronouncements FTW. But I'll play along just for fun. So then, what you're saying is that the only system that has any chance of working properly is one with a constitution centered around protecting the rights of the citizenry from the inevitable oppressive government. Something like a Bill of Rights might suit, yes? So then, why are you so quick to tear up the 2nd Amendment, when you, yourself, claim that the Bill of Rights is the paper-thin wall defending us from tyranny? Sounds to me like you're a subversive element for the government, quietly chipping away at the very freedom you claim to protect. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
So then, what you're saying is that the only system that has any chance of working properly is one with a constitution centered around protecting the rights of the citizenry from the inevitable oppressive government. Something like a Bill of Rights might suit, yes? So then, why are you so quick to tear up the 2nd Amendment, when you, yourself, claim that the Bill of Rights is the paper-thin wall defending us from tyranny? Sounds to me like you're a subversive element for the government, quietly chipping away at the very freedom you claim to protect. ;)

Because the power of a such constitution isn't rooted in it's content, but it's recognition.
Rights rely on the recognition of most individuals within a population that their personal rights comes from supporting their neighbors rights. Challenging a right is thus challenging your own rights. Since the power comes from a collective insight that adapts to new ideas and discoveries, the constitution adapt over time. One such notion is that a war-zone is less free than no war-zone and that paranoia is a delusion.

Anyhow, it's due to the recognition in most individuals that a constitution with individualistic rights is to be preferred for their own sake, that a constitutional democracy lacks the problems a "democracy" have that do not have human rights in it's constitution.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Also, the trial of Geert Wilders, despite the fact he was acquitted, his comments were 'borderline' legal, which says enough as is.
I'm sure I'll regret asking this, but how is the trial of Wilders related to Denmark?
It can't be about the discussion freedom of speech as the trial shows that even Wilders who jumps on any bandwagon that gives him votes can say factual incorrect things without consequences.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
I'm sure I'll regret asking this, but how is the trial of Wilders related to Denmark?
It can't be about the discussion freedom of speech as the trial shows that even Wilders who jumps on any bandwagon that gives him votes can say factual incorrect things without consequences.

Brainfart, I meant to bring up the Jersild case. It's what I get for posting w/o coffee.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
Damn you, Pladio! Now I want to go fire up CS and get my ass handed to me. :p
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,299
Location
VA
a fresh way of reducing gun ownership and violence?

"All this taken together would add up to a marked reduction in the demand for firearms among private individuals, especially those least competent to use them safely. Those on the left who are presently pushing for stricter gun laws would therefore be doubly satisfied: first by better protection services (and the resulting lower crime rates), and second, by the overall decline in gun ownership. Meanwhile, traditional conservatives could still maintain a strict from-my-cold-dead-hands posture if they wished, without fear of being forcibly disarmed by the collectivist zeal of their neighbors. But they would no longer have either poor policing or the looming threat of state tyranny as a justification for doing so. "

read the full analysis here
http://mises.org/daily/6363/Anarchy-State-and-Gun-Ownership
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
An interesting article. I have a couple serious reservations about its efficacy, though.

First, it states that business will shoulder the costs. That's fine, except that a fair amount of crime occurs in residential areas with little-to-no commercial presence. The only way around that is some sort of "adopt a neighborhood" plan, and that will automatically result in preferential treatment for neighborhoods with wealth. Thus, the poor neighborhoods will go from "poor protection" to "no protection at all". The expected result of that would be the rise of "militia compounds", basically armed fortresses around the bedroom communities that can afford it. That's not leading to a free society, but rather a collection of fiefdoms. Not good.

Second, there's a big hole in the plan with respect to how these private law enforcement companies will tie into the judicial system. A major component of the basis of our freedoms is the consistency of due process (the cynical among us might question the practical reality of "consistency", but the philosophical ideal and legal structure are certainly in place). Private police will, by definition, serve the desires of their customers. I expect those desires will differ widely between the Hamptons and Compton. While that makes some sense to me, our judicial system cannot and will not support variations in "the law". The expected result of that would be localized courts, working a localized version of the law that matches the desires of the citizens and the procedures of the private police force. Essentially, fiefdoms yet again. That's not good for the country.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
I originally wrote a post on why I bought a "sporting rifle", but I don't think I want to enter this one. Looks like a nightmare posting/argument scenario waiting to unfold!

Let's just say I wanted to get mine before the anti-gun crowd gets their way and we cant have a pellet gun!
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...r&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Of course everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but maybe you should have vaguest idea of how something you are trying to legislate actually works?

I'm thinking we could pass a new governmental guideline. Republican Politicians aren't ever allowed to talk about rape and Democratic Politicians aren't ever allowed to talk about self defense. See, who says we can't come to a compromise?
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Found today in the SWTOR forums :

Studies show having a ladder inside your house is more dangerous than a loaded gun.Thats why I own 10 guns. In case some maniac trys to sneak in a ladder.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Danger is always about one or another inanimate object, isn't it?
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Yes, but you can always exaggerate things, too.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,910
Location
Old Europe
Found today in the SWTOR forums :

Studies show having a ladder inside your house is more dangerous than a loaded gun.Thats why I own 10 guns. In case some maniac trys to sneak in a ladder.

But are we talking about an assault ladder?
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Back
Top Bottom