By banning them from the general population.
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
would that include my dad?
Yep
One of the first things oppressive government regimes do is take away the guns of their citizens.
And one of the most successful things any democracy does, in terms of protecting citizens from gun violence, is heavily restrict the sorts of weapons that are introduced into the stream of commerce, along with supportive items like bump stocks, speed loaders, and large clips.
And those governments enjoy every right you can think of, except the right to own the sort of weapons that jeopardize the safety of your neighbor without rational justification.
If you want to agree, just say so.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
quip would take them away from my father, a veteran, who has been the very model of responsible gun ownership for over eighty years
or rather, he would "ban from the general population" my father, a veteran, who has been the very model of responsible gun ownership for over eighty years
if ever there was a demonstration for the need for the NRA, this is it
RE Democracy
Do citizens have the right to make, purchase, and use nuclear weapons?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Gun control itself is not indicative of despotism, HOWEVER, it is one (critical) step in the move to disarm the general public - which is a hallmark of tyrannical government.
Armenian Genocide Didn't Happen by Accident
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the soviets considered using nuclear explosive devices in mining, road construction, etc
so did we :noway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion
Of course not. And that's the basis of my noting, long ago in a thread far, far away, that there's no such thing as a right without some rational restriction. The rest is an argument over where the line of demarcation between what is reasonable and what isn't comes into play. And part of that is a cost/benefit analysis and a balancing among competing rights, interests, and neighbors.
So you have a right to speak as you please, but not in my living room. You have the right to associate, but not discriminate. And you have the right to bear arms, but not every arm.
So, in a government that is run by the people, where does it get it's authority to make, purchase, and use nuclear weapons?
I thought the government was given it's power by the people, was it not? So then if the people don't have the authority to do so, why does the government have that authority?
:blabla:
Has nothing to do with where I'm going with this argument.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Just curious...does it change anything if I say it negatively? In other words, do I have the right to disassociate?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
when the second amendment was written, there were no restrictions on what arms a citizen had the right to bear - and there were extant some very destructive weapons - the ultimate being the warship fully armed with cannon - a mechanism of war that would meet our modern definition of a WMD
and nary a word about restricting that in the 2nd amendment
fast forward to the current day, where Andrew Cuomo decided that if i'm caught with more than seven rounds in the clip in my Ruger 10/22, i'm to be fined and jailed
because think of the children
and nary a word about restricting that in the 2nd amendment
fast forward to the current day, where Andrew Cuomo decided that if i'm caught with more than seven rounds in the clip in my Ruger 10/22, i'm to be fined and jailed
because think of the children
From us. We can Amend the Constitution if we are sufficiently convicted. The institutions we empower make all sorts of decisions in our names. When and if they stray too far and if enough of us can agree on the point we can alter it.
For the same reason you can't dress your car like a police vehicle and start pulling people over but the actual police can.
Captain, this isn't just about you and what you want to think about. Now if you want me to treat your thoughts with respect and answer the questions you pose that way you're going to have to respond in kind.
Otherwise, start a blog.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Do citizens have the right to make, purchase, and use construction grade explosive devices?
we used to - i have a reprint of a late 1890's sears catalogue, in which you could order dynamite and fuses for stump removal - no permits required
Last edited:
Not if you understand that however you put it, you don't have the right to abrogate the rights of anyone else in your exercise.
From us who do not have the authority ourselves to make, purchase, and use them?
How is that logical? If we the people do not have the authority to make, purchase, or use nuclear weapons, then we also don't have the authority to GRANT such authority to someone else.
We don't have the authority to use them, let alone the authority to grant authority to use them.
Meaningless since we don't have the authority to use them ourselves.
Democracy (and it's cousin, Republic) says it gets its authority, it's rights, from the people, but if the people themselves don't have the right to do something, how can they grant someone else that same authority?
You see, Authority flows DOWNhill, not uphill.
It comes from GOD, to the Government, and THEN to the People, who have authority over their families, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch.
That's how authority works.
Democracy violates that, and gives power to the people that the people should not have, which results in people abusing that authority, which is why we got rid of the death penalty (for all intents and purposes), created a "safety net" that people don't bother getting off of if they fail, and tax the living daylights out of everyone else that's not themselves.
Anyways, my point is this:
If you don't have the authority to do something, you cannot grant that authority to someone else.
The government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy.
Everyone in such a government is subject to the law, even the king, because the law is good if one uses it lawfully.
Which is...?
You didn't actually answer the question...
:blabla:
Yes.
Blowing up a building is not inherently wrong (if you have permission from the one who owns the building).
Blowing up a building with people inside it, however, is. And if you have permission from the owner to blow it up with people inside, that makes them complicit in the crime.