Might I suggest you toss your 9mm pistol into the deep blue Pacific Ocean.rubato wrote:In the wingnut conservative movement the right to own guns was given by god right just before he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.
Yes, they are morons.
yrs,
rubato
I am proud to cite Jimmy Madison in support of my statement, since he actually crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and clearly saw state religion as an abhorrent infringement on the rights of all citizens, arguing persuasively that American liberty in fact means freedom from all state sponsorship or support of religion. Perhaps you might have heard of his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785):dgs49 wrote:How perverse of you to use the formulation,"...to be free of a state religion..." That is not what the First Amendment says on the subject, though today's "progressives" wish it were. The Amendment says that the Federal Government will not establish a state religion by law, and that the people can freely exercise their religion of choice, or no religion at all. It does NOT say that we (the People) have a right to be "free of a state religion," as though the lack of a formal state religion were in itself some sort of "freedom" right.
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
***
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
***
Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.
***
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
According to whom? Why?dgs49 wrote:Ownership of property - both real and personal - is a fundamental human right,
DaveOwnership of property - both real and personal - is a fundamental human right, which is protected by certain institutions of government. If government were not present to create a device to return property which is wrongfully taken (and to punish those who wrongfully take it), then the fundamental right to own property would be rather hollow.
So which store do I go to pick up my nuclear weapon/ICBM/supply of anthrax that I will employ to protect myself from harm by others? Because if you claim that I have no right to possess such property for my own protection, you admit that your much vaunted "right to bear arms" is nothing but an expression of an arbitrary line between weapons you have deemed legitimate to possess, and those which are not, and not any kind of fundamental right at all.dgs49 wrote:Ownership of property - both real and personal - is a fundamental human right, which is protected by certain institutions of government. If government were not present to create a device to return property which is wrongfully taken (and to punish those who wrongfully take it), then the fundamental right to own property would be rather hollow.
It is a fundamental human right to protect oneself from harm by others, and a properly functioning government will see to it that one who is protecting oneself is not prosecuted or punished for doing so. (How apropos, eh?).
Uh, in case you missed it, what is being debated is the proposal for a UN treaty that would enshrine the right to bear arms for everyone in the entire world. So how, exactly, does the fact that other governments don't have the same view become "not really relevant"? People who live in other countries should have no say in whether a US-style of gun proliferation should take place within their borders?The fact that OTHER GOVERNMENTS don't see things this way is not really relevant
Well, the government can take property by eminent domain, but it is not simply seized; there is a due process and fair compensation requirement. But you have hit on one aspect of the point I was making: what gives the government the right to take "your" land in the first place? (Hint: you don't actually have "ownership" of real property.) What is it that you think justifies "ownership" of real property as a "fundamental human right"? Did someone create that acreage of their own labor, that they might give/sell it to you?keld feldspar wrote:Dave
Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing but the Government takes land all the time, imminent domain.
dales wrote:Might I suggest you toss your 9mm pistol into the deep blue Pacific Ocean.rubato wrote:In the wingnut conservative movement the right to own guns was given by god right just before he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.
Yes, they are morons.
yrs,
rubato
Without the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, let me ask this:
Would you be able to procure this weapon?
No legally, I'm sure ot that.
No licence needed to own them, can carry with a single licence that is valid in all 50 states? Sounds good to me!rubato wrote:dales wrote:Might I suggest you toss your 9mm pistol into the deep blue Pacific Ocean.rubato wrote:In the wingnut conservative movement the right to own guns was given by god right just before he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden.
Yes, they are morons.
yrs,
rubato
Without the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, let me ask this:
Would you be able to procure this weapon?
No legally, I'm sure ot that.Everyone who owns a gun should have it registered and be financially responsible for any use of that gun which they ought to have reasonably prevented.We would all be better off if gun ownership was regulated like cars and dynamite are.
The shooting sports should pay their own way and stop being parasites on society.
yrs,
rubato
So the line between what is legal to possess and what is not is completely arbitrary, and not based on any sort of "fundamental right" at all.dgs49 wrote:I have not said that the government cannot prevent one from owning ANYTHING, merely that there should be a very high burden to overcome. You cannot possess controlled substances, biological weapons, or dangerously radioactive substances.
There is no reason why someone could not use a long gun to defend themselves, which can be legally owned in most countries you would classify as "civilized". Why doesn't your country allow possession of automatic weapons? Surely if I feel that my need to self-defence requires me to have the ability to pump 100 bullets into my target in less than a minute, that should be my right to decide, yes?As I have noted above there are good and valid reasons for owning firearms, including self defense.
If someone else takes your car due to your negligence, you as the owner become responsible for any injury/damage that results. Glad to see you feel that gun owners should be held to the same standard. Perhaps you could petition your legislators to make that into law, and careless (or complicit) gun owners would be more careful than they are now.And certainly, one is responsible for the damages one might inflict with a firearm, just as one is responsible for any damages inflicted by my pitbull or my car or the tree in my back yard.
When you can show that unlimited handgun ownership has lowered your homicide rate (and/or your crime rate in general) to the levels in most countries that restrict the ownership of handguns, then perhaps you might have something to say about whether the restrictions imposed in other countries are justified.There is no valid reason to restrict my ownership of guns. And I see no reason why a different principle should apply in other countries.
Anyone who has ever come in contact with you is grateful..
Uh, Newt did. The fact that he made that very point is the raison d'être of this entire thread.dgs49 wrote:Sean, nobody is suggesting that anyone outside the U.S. should adopt "U.S. gun laws" (whatever that means).
And many civilized societies other than yours have convincingly made the case to their respective populace that there is a compelling societal interest in banning handguns. And in not a single one of those countries could the charge be made that the purpose of introducing such a ban was to keep the citizenry defenseless.My point is that civilized societies recognize a very broad right for individual citizens to own personal property, and if the citizens are in control (as should be the case), then restriction of ownership of ANY personal property should be based on some compelling governmental interest, and not just keeping the citizenry defenseless.
And other countries have concluded that there is no rational, legal reason for a private citizen to own a handgun.Apparently the scooter person is too obtuse to recognize this concept, but the rational decision of whether government can restrict ownership of something includes an allowance for whether citizens can have a legitimate, rational reason for having the property in question. Anthrax spoors are a case in point. Harmfully radioactive materials. High-grade, commercial explosives. AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Hand grenades. A rational government could conclude that there is no rational, legal reason for a private citizen to own or carry such things, and they could be outlawed.
And here we have the classic Dave moving of the goalposts. Point something out to him of which he was previously unaware (that most countries do not have a complete ban on gun ownership, usually banning handguns only), point out that citizens of said countries could therefore use long guns for self-defense, if they believe it to be necessary, and suddenly the argument morphs into people needing handguns because they are more 'efficient' and 'effective', whatever that is supposed to mean (which means that they will mean whatever Dave wants them to mean, subject to change without notice).Prohibiting the possession of handguns, as I have said above, takes away a citizen's most efficient and effective means of personal self defense.
Come back and talk to us when your gun laws actually have the teeth to prevent such things. Because, as has been made abundently obvious over the course of many tragic incidents, you haven't managed to get a handle on this aspect very well at all (and yes, I am speaking of supposedly legal gun purchases, and not of weapons acquired through other means).Felons should not be permitted to own handguns. Persons who have legally been determined to be insane. Children. All perfectly rational.
Because, unlike hand grenades, they don't kill people as a result of impulsive and thoughtless behavior.dgs49 wrote:'... but the rational decision of whether government can restrict ownership of something includes an allowance for whether citizens can have a legitimate, rational reason for having the property in question. Anthrax spoors are a case in point. Harmfully radioactive materials. High-grade, commercial explosives. AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Hand grenades. A rational government could conclude that there is no rational, legal reason for a private citizen to own or carry such things, and they could be outlawed.
...
Law abiding citizens? No rational reason to prevent them from owning handguns.
... "
So this "fundamental right to own property" exists because some 18th Century farmers and merchants said so? Of course, if I were a rich white guy writing some new rules for how society is going to work, I'd want to protect my interests by making them "fundamental rights." Wouldn't you? What makes "ownership of property - both real and personal ... a fundamental human right," beyond your own say-so?dgs49 wrote:The fundamental right to own property, real and personal, is and always has been essential to the United States philosophy of governance. Any of you ever heard the principle that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Jesus. Does this not SCREAM the point that ownership of property is sacrosanct?
